Rank: New forum user 
|
Given the stated benefits of the Pfizer & Oxford/Astrazeneca covid vaccines, should all 'patient facing' healthcare workers be forced to have the vaccine given the claim that once vaccinated you are less likely to be a carrier or super spreader and any virus you may pass on is far less virlant that the current mutated version.
Ive already seen arguments which say that it will be an infrigement of human rights articles 8 & 9 and will likely be challenged as discriminatory 'religious, cultural beliefs etc'
As a Health & Safety Adviser my first thought is if there is a control method which will reduce the likelihood/severity of serious injury or death it should be employed if reasonably practicable.
Be interested in others thoughts.
Edited by user 29 January 2021 17:07:18(UTC)
| Reason: Typo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As I understand it (and I am certainly not a virologist) the vaccine prevents the virus from causing you becoming diseased. It does not necessarily prevent you from becoming a carrier and, in this context, it matters little which version of the virus you are dealing with. So the concept that once vaccinated you cannot pass the virus on to others in really not valid. So even when the majority of the population have been vaccinated this will not mean that we can instantly dispense with the other spread control measures.
Consider also that you can be colonised with the virus without this having to be in the body. If your hands are in contact with a contaminated object they may well become colonised. Unless you pass the virus to where it can enter your respiratory system infection is unlikely to occur. Of course, your contaminated hands can pass the virus on to other persons or objects. This is why effective hand decontamination (for most situations the alcohol sanitiser is the optimum) is such an important part of any SARS-Cov-2 management strategy.
Incidentally, test and trace only detects what is in the body and, as far as I am aware, there is no validated and practical test to detect what is on the body (or what it is wearing).
|
 2 users thanked chris.packham for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
This is a medical treatment for a public health issue NOT a control measure for a workplace risk. If it is such a great idea why are tetanus, mumps, measles, rubella, Hep B, TB not already mandated? Because to apply a treatment requires consent. Trouble is your post is part of the start of the muttering - the day after Holocaust memorial day. http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t130878-Contractual-vaccine-obligation
Edited by user 29 January 2021 17:38:17(UTC)
| Reason: added link to earlier post
|
10 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
This is a medical treatment for a public health issue NOT a control measure for a workplace risk. If it is such a great idea why are tetanus, mumps, measles, rubella, Hep B, TB not already mandated? Because to apply a treatment requires consent. Trouble is your post is part of the start of the muttering - the day after Holocaust memorial day. http://forum.iosh.co.uk/posts/t130878-Contractual-vaccine-obligation
Edited by user 29 January 2021 17:38:17(UTC)
| Reason: added link to earlier post
|
10 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
"Conclusions:
It is clear that mandatory medical treatment and vaccination are
explicitly prohibited by the Act. There is, however, potential for abuse
leading to infringement of civil liberties and human rights unless the
powers contained in the Coronavirus Act are exercised lawfully"
https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/coronavirus-legal-news-views/coronavirus-act-2020-does-it-permit-mandatory-vaccinations
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Vaccines reduce risks of getting a disease by working with your body’s natural defenses to build protection. When you get a vaccine, your immune system responds. It: Recognizes the invading germ, such as the virus or bacteria. Produces antibodies. Antibodies are proteins produced naturally by the immune system to fight disease. Remembers the disease and how to fight it. If you are then exposed to the germ in the future, your immune system can quickly destroy it before you become unwell.
The vaccine is therefore a safe and clever way to produce an immune response in the body, without causing illness. Our immune systems are designed to remember. Once exposed to one or more doses of a vaccine, we typically remain protected against a disease for years, decades or even a lifetime. This is what makes vaccines so effective. Rather than treating a disease after it occurs, vaccines prevent us in the first instance from getting sick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Yes..
Unfortunately, people react differently to vaccinations. Most have no side effect, others are mild and tolerable and some end up in hospital as their body reacts violently towards it. And since several persons vaccinated with the current crop of sars-cov-2 vaccines have passed-away from the disease *after* being vaccinated, it would be appropriate to consider the advice...that just because you have been vaccinated; it does not mean you cannot contract the disease. I also remember reading a NiH paper on a similar subject. That vaccinated people who were asymptomatic to the disease still had active virus within their nasal passages. Worth considering that it may be better to be cautious and keep-up the protection. (hint: vaccinated *3* times to protect against HepB, still got no antibodies against it)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: John Murray  Unfortunately, people react differently to vaccinations. Most have no side effect, others are mild and tolerable and some end up in hospital as their body reacts violently towards it.
My body probably learnt a wrong response from a childhood vaccination - before the vaccination I was fine with sticking plasters, soon after the vaccination I developed a violent alergic reaction to sticking plasters (big blisters).
Fortunately, I eventually lost that reaction - but it took about 30 years of inconvenience. Probably still better than contracting whatever it was a vaccination for, though.
Not that this is relevant to very much. I'm just putting off reading an insurance policy document...
|
1 user thanked achrn for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Actually, an allergic reaction to sticking plasters was once not that uncommon. It was generally due to one chemical that was used in the adhesive. Once the use of this chemical was avoided the allergic responses became far less common.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
No certainly not, it’s akin to coercion. I read yesterday in the Daily Fail that it can be imposed by Health and Safety Legislation which I would question. I’ve read the vaccine doesn’t stop you getting or passing on the virus so why would you exclude people from working? As someone who will not be getting this vax (I want to wait a few years, also have allergies) am I not allowed to earn a living?
Happy for the state to keep me though? Guess they may have too. Where are we heading with this vaccine apartheid? I see it now 2022, say no ethnic groups, foreigners, certain sexualities etc. public outcry no unvaccinated totally acceptable ? May as well make people wear yellow armbands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ok Lets start by looking at whet the HSE says about vaccinations as a way of controlling workplace hazards. Firstly, they require that a risk assessment as described under reg 6 of COSHH is carried out for the relevant work activity is carried out. Then controls are selected, applying the hierarchy of controls. PPE is often described as the bottom of the hierarchy, but vaccination is even lower down and is only applied after everything else has been done. HSE guidance goes on about vaccinations being offered(not mandated for) to employees at risk and the guidance note ”Pneumonia vaccination for employees exposed to welding and metal fume” says clearly that although this is a control that might be identified under a COSHH assessment. “The vaccine is optional for employees, they should not be pressurised into having it, or discriminated against if they choose not to.” Nowhere does it say that vaccination is compulsory. In the UK there is no tradition of compulsory vaccinations unlike the US or parts of Europe. Interestingly, it is those places that seem to be the source of most “anti vaccer” activity. If a Covid-19 vaccination was to be compulsory in the UK, it would require new legislation. This would probably have to take the form of an Act of Parliament , which would have to override any Human Rights concerns. Simply saying that a vaccination is compulsory is fairly pointless. You would need some national database of people who are vaccinated, and some sanctions might have to be imposed on people who refuse to vaccinate. What would they be: a fine. Imprisonment loss of civil liberties, told you cannot send your children to school or attend hospital etc. And what about those people who do not develop an immune; response should they also be controlled in someway way?
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Whilst I agree that nobody should be forced to take a vaccine, I don't agree with your closing statement. Sexuality, ethnicity, and place of birth are all things a person has no control over. This is why they are protected. People not having the vaccine due to medical reasons should also be placed in this group, you can't (for the most part) control your medical exemption. Not having the vaccine through personal choice, because you don't trust big pharma, or whatever other reason is a personal choice and as such should be held up for critique. BTW a recent study was showing 67% reduction in transmission of the virus by vaccinated people (although not including the S.African varient). So it is likely the vaccine will reduce spread.
|
1 user thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Whilst I agree that nobody should be forced to take a vaccine, I don't agree with your closing statement. Sexuality, ethnicity, and place of birth are all things a person has no control over. This is why they are protected. People not having the vaccine due to medical reasons should also be placed in this group, you can't (for the most part) control your medical exemption. Not having the vaccine through personal choice, because you don't trust big pharma, or whatever other reason is a personal choice and as such should be held up for critique. BTW a recent study was showing 67% reduction in transmission of the virus by vaccinated people (although not including the S.African varient). So it is likely the vaccine will reduce spread.
You agree nobody should be forced but you are happy to create an underclass in society ? Is that punishment ?
|
1 user thanked N Hancock for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Personally, I think that vaccination is very good idea and should be encouraged. My issue is how far do we go in making it mandatory. I do worry that the issue seems to unleash some people’s inner fascist, who wants to lockup anybody that refuses to cooperate with the System. Similarly some people have an inner anarchist who simply refuses to cooperate with ‘the Man’ even if, it benefits society as a whole. Usually we have rules to stop people doing things. H&S is one of the few areas in life where we (meaning society and the law) tell people to do something: work safely. It probably why ‘elf and safety’ gets a bad reputation as interfering busybodies. We don’t just tell people not to have accidents; we them how to avoid accidents. An example might be burglaries; most can be tracked back to poor household security. So if the police had to power to fine anybody who left their front door unlocked or a window open, there would be a significant drop in crime, but would we want a situation where self-righteous officers can turn up on your doorstep to harangue you about your lack of security. I don’t think that many people would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
It’s an RNA virus.
It is unstable and will mutate.
Todays vaccine will be irrelevant in a year or so.
Its major, benefit probably only major benefit, is that
it reduces the effects of the virus.
Long term, other vaccines will be needed.
You going to vaccinate against them all?
Welcome to an expensive venture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"It is unstable and will mutate." only if it is circulating in the community, and vaccination will stop that.
|
1 user thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Unlikely.
The vaccines have only been authorised for over-18s.
Much is unknown about efficacy in the older recipients. And come to that, in younger ones too.
In the newer variants the percentage vaccinated/immune-from-infection needed to achieve herd immunity is 80%ish.
And we have a reasonable amount refusing vaccination.
I can see this dragging along for a few years yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: John Murray Unlikely.
The vaccines have only been authorised for over-18s.
Much is unknown about efficacy in the older recipients. And come to that, in younger ones too.
In the newer variants the percentage vaccinated/immune-from-infection needed to achieve herd immunity is 80%ish.
And we have a reasonable amount refusing vaccination.
I can see this dragging along for a few years yet.
Herd immunity is the ultimate goal but surely reducing community transmission, with a large(ish) vaccine take up, to a minimum reduces the mutation frequency and allows local actions (test & trace etc) to be far more effective.
|
1 user thanked Holliday42333 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Those of us of a certain vintage will remember that it was not so long ago that you couldn't travel to many countries without a whole raft of vaccination certificates for such things as scarlet fever, small pox, polio, diptheria, the list goes on and on. So in the past we had a form of mandatory vaccination, either you had it or you didn't travel. Likewise I remember in the early part of my army career us being marched across to the medical centre and lined up bare armed and just inocculated, for who knows what. I have no idea if it was beneficial or not, but it did make us feel like we were protected. In terms of the current pandemic, I guess we are lucky that we have a vaccine and in general the population are happy to get marched along bare armed and inocculated. If nothing else it makes us feel like we are protected. That can only be a good thing. We do need to remember that a hundred years ago the world battled with "Spanish Flu" it took millions of lives on top of those that were lost in the first world war and it took three or four years to die out, and there is still no vaccine for it, we just became to a certain extent immune to it naturally. The cost on the people was huge and the suffering great. Would it have been lessened by a vaccine, we will never know. In deciding whether or not to have a vaccination against COVID we should think that we are lucky to have found a number of vaccines and that they appear to be effective. So will I be getting vaccinated when offered of course I will. As for it being mandatory I don't think so it should be down to everyones own choice.
|
1 user thanked Gerry Knowles for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky personal choice and as such should be held up for critique
Don't know about herd immunity but we are drifting in to dangerous territory with regards to the kind of herd mentallity normally associated with central committees and dictatorships
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky personal choice and as such should be held up for critique
Don't know about herd immunity but we are drifting in to dangerous territory with regards to the kind of herd mentallity normally associated with central committees and dictatorships
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Gerry Knowles I remember in the early part of my army career us being marched across to the medical centre and lined up bare armed and just inocculated, for who knows what. I have no idea if it was beneficial or not, but it did make us feel like we were protected.
Yes quite a few enquiries in to what the MoD did to service personnel over the decades. As far as we can tell there is still no definitive conclusion about Gulf War Syndrome - a cocktail of rushed "vaccines", the long term exposure to burning hydrocarbons from the scorched earth policy or just a series of unfortunate events.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Gerry Knowles I remember in the early part of my army career us being marched across to the medical centre and lined up bare armed and just inocculated, for who knows what. I have no idea if it was beneficial or not, but it did make us feel like we were protected.
Yes quite a few enquiries in to what the MoD did to service personnel over the decades. As far as we can tell there is still no definitive conclusion about Gulf War Syndrome - a cocktail of rushed "vaccines", the long term exposure to burning hydrocarbons from the scorched earth policy or just a series of unfortunate events.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think people are misconstruing "held up for critique" with something completely different. I am not advocating any form of exclusion from society. I am saying is that if you hold a point of view, it should be allowed for someone to challenge that point of view. It was only as a counterpoint to the view that we aren't allowed to criticise race, sexuality etc. but will be allowed to criticise anti-vaxers. They are two completely different things. Your race, sexuality, ethnicty, gender and sex are all things that you can't change. They are part of who you are. I fully expect people to critique my ethically vegan lifestyle. If you can't counter critique of your position, then you don't have a position. This is not a view that is counter to believing that vaccines should not be compulsory. People should be allowed to make poor/good choices as long as it doesn't limit my freedoms. But we should be allowed to mock those poor choices. Now, whether the freedom to not have a vaccine does impact the freedom of another person to live a healthy life is another debate and the reason that it may be legal to enforce vaccines if a country so chooses to do so. In this country we have decided that we can't force people to have a medical procedure against their will, even if that procedure will save their life (See Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions) and personally I believe that is the right decision. It is their body, let them do with it as they please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I do not agree with having an employer mandate a vaccination to work, particularly this virus. However I do think that mandatory vaccination will come in by stealth as organisations will require you to be vaccinated to attend events like Glastonbury or football for example. I also think that some countries will require vaccinations for entry. We are currently being challenged as to how we know whether our care staff have had a vaccination - OK if they have had it at work but those who are attending other clinics are a challenge and it could become an administrative nightmare. People have the right to refuse to disclose health information so how can we be confident that we will get all the correct details. In care we are currently completing risk assessments for those staff who have not been vaccinated and will look to consider who they care for, PPE to be worn etc as additional controls. My concern is that any requirement for vaccination will result in a criminal industry offering fake vaccination certificates so it is going to be difficult to ensure that we are checking 'real' certificates or not - it will become like checking forged bank notes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Travel for many people is a choice, going to countries which require certain vaccines is a choice, living a 'rich' life and working in my country of residence is not. If we are indeed free to choose if we receive the vaccine, there should be no consequences for those who don’t. Otherwise we are not free ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Roundtuit
And, of course, just because you have been vaccinated does not mean you have gained any immunity.
A good response to the flu vaccine is 60%.
MMR is 97/80/98%.
HepB....70% (unless you're me, in which case it is 0%)
This list could be very long...and then there are those that show a good antibody count, but which decline over time (normal), and those that decline over time to zilch (also normal!)
Maybe we should limit travel to those that show a good antibody count to the diseases inoculated against ;-)
|
1 user thanked John Murray for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Apparently, you are more likely to get a reaction to the vaccination if you have already had the virus, which of course you may or may not be aware of. That does raise the question of whether it would have been more useful to test people for antibodies rather than the virus. A decision could then be made as to whether it would be necessary, or advisable, for them to have the vaccination. From my personal experience, the percentage of people having reactions to the vaccine is probably higher than the government is trying to claim. Out of five members of my immediate family who have been vaccinated, four have had a reaction to it, two of whom have had the virus, and the remaining two who haven't (as far as they know), one had a reaction, one didn't (I was the lucky one who didn't). As for mandatory vaccination, it is an extremely thorny issue. I read that employers are starting to develop the mindset of 'no jab, no job'. Sections 7 and 8 of HASAWA could arguably be used to support this. I think it will probably become compulsory by stealth, as has been observed by others, as indeed it became for some foreign travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: biker1 I read that employers are starting to develop the mindset of 'no jab, no job'. Sections 7 and 8 of HASAWA could arguably be used to support this.
The CSCS card is an excellent example of why you should avoid mandatory pre-employment activity - how many prosecutions, forged cards etc. in just one industry sector .
You can already hear the criminals printers warming up.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: biker1 I read that employers are starting to develop the mindset of 'no jab, no job'. Sections 7 and 8 of HASAWA could arguably be used to support this.
The CSCS card is an excellent example of why you should avoid mandatory pre-employment activity - how many prosecutions, forged cards etc. in just one industry sector .
You can already hear the criminals printers warming up.
|
4 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
There also used to be a thriving black market in offshore survival certificates in places like Aberdeen. Whatever is done, there will always be the criminal fraternity lining up to take advantage and make some easy money. Of course, if sentences for those caught in such activities were considerably beefed up, it might act as a bit more of a deterrent than the current wishy washy system of community orders and suspended sentences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Latest from the BBC website.
.
.
"It may be legal for companies to insist on new staff being vaccinated as a condition of their employment, the justice secretary has said. However, Robert Buckland added it was unlikely bosses would be able to make existing workers have vaccines under their current contracts. Downing Street said it would be "discriminatory" to order people to be vaccinated to keep their job.".
.
.
Seems sensible to me,if only applied to 'cohorts' that have been vaccinated Edited by user 18 February 2021 18:14:16(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I may have missed it, but as yet, we are not sure what or how we are going to deal with the future after a jab. Will it be an annual or longer term top up jab, perhaps a prescription tablet? I can understand why some may want a mandatory jab for work but if we put that into a contract today, it may not be sufficient for even short term changes and requirements.
perhaps in the future, once the vaccination process has stabilised it may be a contract requirement, but it's too soon at the moment for that sort of enforcement or discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult I may have missed it, but as yet, we are not sure what or how we are going to deal with the future after a jab. Will it be an annual or longer term top up jab, perhaps a prescription tablet?
I think most people agree that the chances of eliminating Covid in the short term are nearly imposible. We have only achieved that with a small number of viruse which were very stable - showing little mutation.
I belive we are aiming to be able to treat Covid like Flu.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56050119
So there will be an annual booster for the most vulnerable. Obviously that will depend on how many deaths occur each year (glad its not me that has to decide what accetable is!) and the ability of the NHS to cope with hospital demand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
We need to understand is that the assertions about whether it is legally correct to force employees to have a covid vaccination is based on “legal advice”: that is a party which has something to gain from this has paid a group of lawyers to decide whether this is legal or not. What the lawyers think does not matter in the long run. All that counts is what the courts think. Uber hired lawyers and they had solid advice that their drivers were self employed and therefore not entitled to the benefits of employees. Today the Supreme Court rules that Uber’s lawyers were wrong and that they are employees- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56123668
|
2 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The only time recently I have seen a lawyer who was not a "nodding dog" were the original impeachment defence team for Trump - they would not entertain arguing an illegal election as their clients defence. All other times you pay your money and get the advice you seek - TB & WMD ring any bells?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The only time recently I have seen a lawyer who was not a "nodding dog" were the original impeachment defence team for Trump - they would not entertain arguing an illegal election as their clients defence. All other times you pay your money and get the advice you seek - TB & WMD ring any bells?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
I think that waiting until the trials have been concluded on people who are deliberately infected with Sars-CoV-2 would be in order.
Then it can progress onto the next stage, which will be looking at re-infecting those that have recovered from stage 1, then looking to see if they can still harbour active virus in their nose/throat, and spread it. This is already suspected.
You can also consider that very few vaccines are sterilizing vaccines. And that the long-term immunity prospects for the Sars-CoV-2 vaccine are generally considered to be poor.
So a record of having received a vaccine may be worth [only] the price of the paper it is written upon, maybe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Originally Posted by: AcornsConsult . I may have missed it, but as yet, we are not sure what or how we are going to deal with the future after a jab. Will it be an annual or longer term top up jab, perhaps a prescription tablet? I think most people agree that the chances of eliminating Covid in the short term are nearly imposible. We have only achieved that with a small number of viruse which were very stable - showing little mutation.
I belive we are aiming to be able to treat Covid like Flu.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56050119
So there will be an annual booster for the most vulnerable. Obviously that will depend on how many deaths occur each year (glad its not me that has to decide what accetable is!) and the ability of the NHS to cope with hospital demand. Quite agree. If it gets treated like flu, then that is optional as well! I admit I still do not understand the reasoing how or why they are suggesting that it could be a condition of employment to have been vaccinated. What a minefield!
If I've had the jab, could I then be permitted to avoid working with someone who hasn't - after all the jab only reduces the seriousness of covid rather than completely preventing it.
As an existing employee, could I get or expect a salary premium or bonus or even preferential promotion by having the jab compared to a decliner, after all it would seem I would be saving the company hassle and money compared to my non-jabbed colleague😃. I appreciate this is all starting to veer away from the usual H&S posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not really - the idiots that started this descent are the MPs who forget that everything the population is asked to do should be by "the consent of the people".
Covid has created a bit of a vacuum in law making but not to the extent they should rough ride over society. A certain Theresa May started this current stupidity bending to social media and pushing a law through parliament of "presumed" consent (this one for organ donation). She merely copied a certain John Major who decided not to ask the population if they would like to sign up to Maastricht (actually taking us in to the EU) back in 1992 - so no surprise this gentleman has been wholly adverse to accepting the 2016 BREXIT vote. There is a huge gulf between what would be nice, what is practicable and what is legal - when we use societal law against society at the behest of a monied/vocal minority we have lost democracy and entered the realms of dictatorship.
Those who support such dictators should be careful at some point in the future you will want support for your own ideals.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Not really - the idiots that started this descent are the MPs who forget that everything the population is asked to do should be by "the consent of the people".
Covid has created a bit of a vacuum in law making but not to the extent they should rough ride over society. A certain Theresa May started this current stupidity bending to social media and pushing a law through parliament of "presumed" consent (this one for organ donation). She merely copied a certain John Major who decided not to ask the population if they would like to sign up to Maastricht (actually taking us in to the EU) back in 1992 - so no surprise this gentleman has been wholly adverse to accepting the 2016 BREXIT vote. There is a huge gulf between what would be nice, what is practicable and what is legal - when we use societal law against society at the behest of a monied/vocal minority we have lost democracy and entered the realms of dictatorship.
Those who support such dictators should be careful at some point in the future you will want support for your own ideals.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Whilst I agree that nobody should be forced to take a vaccine, I don't agree with your closing statement. Sexuality, ethnicity, and place of birth are all things a person has no control over. This is why they are protected.
Your assumption is wrong.
Firstly ‘place of birth’ is not covered.
Secondly, Pregnancy, maternity, marriage, civil partnership, gender reassignment, religion are all protected yet we have control over these?
It’s bordering on absolute madness that some people think body autonomy should be taken away for something such as a vaccine which doesn’t stop the spread of a virus and that can lead to serious disability or death.
|
1 user thanked SLord80 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: biker1 Apparently, you are more likely to get a reaction to the vaccination if you have already had the virus, which of course you may or may not be aware of. That does raise the question of whether it would have been more useful to test people for antibodies rather than the virus. A decision could then be made as to whether it would be necessary, or advisable, for them to have the vaccination. From my personal experience, the percentage of people having reactions to the vaccine is probably higher than the government is trying to claim. Out of five members of my immediate family who have been vaccinated, four have had a reaction to it, two of whom have had the virus, and the remaining two who haven't (as far as they know), one had a reaction, one didn't (I was the lucky one who didn't).As for mandatory vaccination, it is an extremely thorny issue. I read that employers are starting to develop the mindset of 'no jab, no job'. Sections 7 and 8 of HASAWA could arguably be used to support this. I think it will probably become compulsory by stealth, as has been observed by others, as indeed it became for some foreign travel.
Which vaccines are currently compulsory for foreign travel? I’m just curious as I’ve had a quick search but struggling to find any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.