How should we deal with the groups who refuse to have the vaccine?

There was an interesting discussion on the radio this morning surrounding whether it would be legal for employers to insist on their employees being vaccinated.

Apparently, it is a grey area of the law. It might be possible, for example, for care home owners/managers to refuse to employ unvaccinated staff.

It will be interesting to see whether that ever comes about and how the first court case goes.

Blinko I read all the concerns and yet the Oxford AZ was and is still my first choice and I’m very grateful I received the first dose. Perhaps some of our professionals on here could elaborate.

SA variant apart, I'm concerned that the Oxford AZ vaccine does not appear to have been tested on a significant cohort of older people. We are assured that it is safe, but exactly how effective is it? In that respect, surely we are all part of the ongoing experiment?

FarNorth

I believe the vaccine scientists have done their best and, obviously, the medical staff giving the vaccine are doing their best.
I won't be at all surprised, tho, if side effects or long term ill effects of the vaccine start to show up.
We are all part of a massive experiment, imo, but there's nothing else for it.

Farnorth it's rather counterproductive to have a post like this in a thread about people refusing the vaccine.

We've had 11 million people vaccinated in this country already and no sign of any unexpected side effects.

If I was one of the scientists whom you so patronisingly refer to as "doing their best" I'd be quite angry that you are calling one of the most amazing health breakthroughs of all time an experiment.

I believe the vaccine scientists have done their best and, obviously, the medical staff giving the vaccine are doing their best.
I won't be at all surprised, tho, if side effects or long term ill effects of the vaccine start to show up.
We are all part of a massive experiment, imo, but there's nothing else for it.

Actually, there have been several major medical scandals over the years and it's not surprising that there is caution and mistrust within society.

One of the major scandals was that of the imported, contaminated blood plasma from the US which gave thousands of people Hepatitis C or HIV. It took years for the scandal to be admitted to.

Another was the use of pelvic mesh for women suffering from stress incontinence or prolapse, which left very significant numbers of women in severe and permanent pain.

It is inevitable that sometimes mistakes or mis-judgments are made. I think what concerns many people is that efforts often appear to be made to deny there is a problem - even when they know there is - or refuse to compensate people whose lives have been damaged. This is how a lack of trust develops.

It’s possibly a matter of trust. The NHS through it’s 70 year history is largely trusted to do the best by it’s patients. Maybe many of our BAME citizens have not yet developed that same level of trust. And given the thalidomide scandal I’m not surprised young women hoping to conceive are wary!

Yes indeed. I have always had the flu jab from when I was first offered it. Those who refuse it are also putting others at risk.

Varian do you think that about the 'flu jab?
Some people die of 'flu.

Those who refuse a covid vaccine are endangering themselves and everyone else they might come in to contact with.

That is analagouus to the drink drivers, not the seatbelt refusers,.

These people could be responsible for the deaths of others.

We should ask them - "if you infected someone who died, how could you live with yourself?"

Petera

growstuff

Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but you can't put people who drink and drive and those who won't wear seat belts or crash helmets in the same group.

People who drink and drive cause harm to many other people, whereas those who won't wear seat belts/crash helmets don't.

At the moment, I wouldn't put people who refuse to be vaccinated in the drink/drive group. On current evidence, they're putting themselves at risk more than anybody else.

No that is not exactly what I meant. I was comparing people who will not be vaccinated (assuming that, as seems to be coming apparent, vaccination inhibits transmission) with people who drink and drive – they are putting others at risk.

The, perhaps muddying, comment about crash helmets was to illustrate the fact that we are mostly happy with putting legislation in place where the only thing we are protecting is the person themselves.

Thanks for the explanation. It's an interesting issue.

I remember well the fuss about getting people to wear seat belts. My mother refused, but I wouldn't have her as a passenger in my car if she didn't wear it - she still tried to "pretend" she'd fastened it. Until she died, she always used to huff and puff about wearing it.

I would have felt so guilty if I'd ever had an accident while driving and she'd been injured. I don't know what she did when she drove on her own. She refused to give up driving even when her eyesight was seriously impaired and she couldn't move her neck. She just lied on the declaration for DVLA. Eventually we had to take her keys away and get rid of her car. I don't think she ever forgave us.

nightowl

Forcing people to have any form of medical treatment against their will is very different from forcing people to wear seat belts etc. There are stringent legal safeguards against this, for example for those who are detained under the Mental Health Act or those deemed to lack mental capacity.

Be very, very careful before advocating such a step, it would be a very slippery slope indeed.

I agree. It's frustrating, but would be a very slippery slope and I don't think it's even being considered (except in the minds of some conspiracy conspiracists).

Nanof3

I am having the jab tomorrow and I am worried about the length of the needle, I hate injections despite having to 'stab' myself every week but that is with a pen type not a syringe and I always find anything to do with injections incredibly painful. I think I will take paracetamol before I go as I do when visiting the Dentist and hope I do not give in to nerves.

I have had mine this morning needle very small didn't feel a thing .I had az one due to having allergies .

We have a slightly different problem with regards to the vaccine. A family member is a COVID denier; calls it a ‘plandemic’, believes unspecified cabals are duping people for nefarious gains, that this cabal is choosing who lives and dies etc.

No problem - except this person cares for their elderly mum and is the gatekeeper for her.

The situation is ongoing, but the GP and nursing team have been amazing in how they’re dealing with it. As liaison person on behalf of the family they’ve kept me informed of every decision and we’ve planned together how to approach my relative to try to move things forward, whilst being aware that their more bizarre beliefs (there are many) may stem from mental health issues.

Forcing people to have any form of medical treatment against their will is very different from forcing people to wear seat belts etc. There are stringent legal safeguards against this, for example for those who are detained under the Mental Health Act or those deemed to lack mental capacity.

Be very, very careful before advocating such a step, it would be a very slippery slope indeed.

growstuff

Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but you can't put people who drink and drive and those who won't wear seat belts or crash helmets in the same group.

People who drink and drive cause harm to many other people, whereas those who won't wear seat belts/crash helmets don't.

At the moment, I wouldn't put people who refuse to be vaccinated in the drink/drive group. On current evidence, they're putting themselves at risk more than anybody else.

No that is not exactly what I meant. I was comparing people who will not be vaccinated (assuming that, as seems to be coming apparent, vaccination inhibits transmission) with people who drink and drive – they are putting others at risk.

The, perhaps muddying, comment about crash helmets was to illustrate the fact that we are mostly happy with putting legislation in place where the only thing we are protecting is the person themselves.

rubysong

How about if people refuse the vaccine with no good reason then catch covid and are in hospital, they should have to pay for their treatment?

NO.....no. and NO again!! Absolutely NO!!!

Would you also bring that rule in for anyone sustaining a broken bone or injury when playing sport? - they have 'chosen' to do that. And for those who seek medical assistance following too much alcohol?

Where do you stop - those who need medication for Type 2 diabetes due to their life style and diet? Those requiring expensive heart ops due to being obese and not taking enough exercise??

And what about those who need hospitalisation for 'flu and have not had annual flu jabs?

Do wish people would stop and think of what they are asking to happen.

Maybe I've misunderstood your point, but you can't put people who drink and drive and those who won't wear seat belts or crash helmets in the same group.

People who drink and drive cause harm to many other people, whereas those who won't wear seat belts/crash helmets don't.

At the moment, I wouldn't put people who refuse to be vaccinated in the drink/drive group. On current evidence, they're putting themselves at risk more than anybody else.

Blossoming

Perhaps you’d like them sending to a nice penal colony? Obviously that isn’t a serious suggestion, but I don’t like the inference that something should be “done” with them. Education and information is the only way, you can’t force people to have a vaccine against their will.

I think, largely, I agree with that and even if I didn’t we have to recognise that there’s is a political problem.

However, how do I respond to someone who drinks then drives? They mostly put themselves at risk and there is a small risk that their behaviour will affect a few other people. Or even more directly, seatbelts and crash helmets – we force people to wear them for what is almost entirely their own good.

A wee bit of optimism...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55941234

Sorry if this derails the thread but I couldn't find anywhere else relevant to post it.

In Bedford the Gurdwara in Queens Park was one of the first places to start vaccinating in the town and the Dr who spoke on the news said it was important to open building like that to encourage an uptake amongst BAME groups but then they had a supply issue hopefully it is up and running again now. I will link as apart from anything else it's a magnificent building

www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/government-supply-issues-force-queens-park-vaccine-hub-to-temporarily-close-next-week/

The CEO of the Royal Statistical Society has criticised Tory MPs who are spreading lies and disinformation about covid and about the NHS

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/04/take-action-on-mps-supporting-covid-conspiracy-figures-pm-told

That's a very interesting article.

growstuff

The biggest worry is how few BAME people are turning up to be vaccinated. Maybe communities know best how to encourage people they know to be vaccinated:

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/04/inspiring-confidence-liverpool-gps-tackle-the-vaccine-race-gap

Hard to blame them with all the poor medical decisions made in the past on BAME people.

Despite what one poster said earlier on in this thread, the medical system is in fact systematically racist. The people themselves more than likely are not. But the system is

The biggest worry is how few BAME people are turning up to be vaccinated. Maybe communities know best how to encourage people they know to be vaccinated:

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/04/inspiring-confidence-liverpool-gps-tackle-the-vaccine-race-gap