No jab no job

The thread is titled No Jab No Job. In other words, No Jab No Wage.

From yesterday’s Guardian:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/18/nhs-covid-health-service-patient-research

Covid-19 has exposed the need to address NHS capacity and resilience. In normal times, flu puts huge pressure on the health service during winter months. Routine care suffers, operations are cancelled and NHS staff struggle with the backlog over the summer. This backlog will be far worse after Covid. Any doubt that we need more capacity in the NHS and social care has evaporated. The question is what kind of capacity, and where?

The ONS is reporting a 75% take up of the flu vaccine (up from 72.4% lat year).

www.gov.uk/government/news/flu-vaccine-uptake-among-people-aged-65-on-track-to-be-highest-on-record

In other words, 25% of elderly people who could have the flu vaccine don't.

What would be the response to No Jab No Pension?

StatenIsland, that pension demand might be suggested when the ‘no jab, no job’ is applied to people already in a job.
Since most state pensions have been paid for twice-through wages and tax on pension, that would be like stealing people’s savings.
I do wonder how many of that 25% are elderly people who haven’t been offered or been able to take up a jab, like some mentioned here on GN and other media.

I would defend to the death everyiindividuals right to decide whether they have the COVID vaccination or any other or not.

However, some actions or inactions have consequences. I would think it unreasonable to make a sweeping and universal decree no jab, no job, but I do consider it reasonable to say to those who have not had the jab that you cannot work with highly vulnerable people, those in care for any reason or receiving care at home, and anyone in a patient contact job in the NHS and private medical services.

I daresay this has already been said but here goes. We know the vaccine cannot be compulsory but we are coming up for a year of deaths, lockdowns, businesses ruined, jobs lost, education in tatters and mental health, domestic violence and child abuse on the rise. All these can be laid at the door of Covid-19. It clearly isn't going to vanish of its own accord so we must learn to live with it. Thanks must go to the splendid scientists who have discovered vaccines that will allow us to do that because we cannot continue to live as we have for much longer. The minority of people refusing the vaccination can't expect the same freedom as those who have received it. Post vaccinations, Covid-19 will still be here and we may still have to observe distancing and wearing masks. On a personal level when I can return to my many groups and enjoy theatre trips again I hope I am sitting by someone who is also vaccinated. I agree with no job, no jab and I hope they extend that to packed venues such as sports stadiums, theatres, cinemas and festivals.

I found this interesting, written by an employment lawyer. It looks as though there would have to be significant changes to law, taking into account the Human Rights Act, before this could be enacted. He also raises the issue of proportionality of risk. I think employers will need to be very careful not to lay themselves wide open to legal challenges and potentially very expensive claims.

GrannyRose15

M0nica

Grannyrose15 Could you quantify your statement Vaccination is totally unnecessary for large swathes of the population.?

A few links to reputable peer reviewed research would be helpful.

Oh come on! How many times do you have to be told that the virus is only dangerous to the old and sick. The average age of death is over 80 FGS.

Vaccinating vast numbers of people for whom it causes only mild symptoms is UNETHICAL.

It is this hysteria that is causing more damage than the actual disease.

In the week ending 5 February 2021, there were 7,320 deaths with Covid-19 on the death certificate in England and Wales. The total number of deaths from all causes registered during the week was 17,192. The average number of deaths in the corresponding week from 2015-2019 was 11,612. The excess in 2020 was 5,580 and it's reasonable to assume that Covid-19 was responsible for most of them (if not all).

Of the Covid-19 deaths, 2,962 were in the 15-79 age group.

Covid-19 doesn't just kill people over 80.

Furthermore, the there would have been more deaths if people weren't taking precautions.

Covid-19 affects people of all ages. Admittedly, younger people tend to be less severely affected, but not all. Approximately 1 in 7 will develop Long Covid, which could be life changing, and younger people can infect more vulnerable people.

Everybody needs to be vaccinated to protect the whole population and it isn't unethical to aim to do so. The hysterical rantings from Covid deniers are causing damage by leading to lack of decisive action by our people-pleasing leaders and justifying people to break the rules. If the country had gone in harder from the start, we wouldn't have had so much damage to jobs, education and people's lives.

I'm not sure I made it clear.

The 2,962 deaths in the 15-79 age group were in one week.

No jab no job and no jab no travel seems logical to me. I wouldn’t want to spend 10 hours on a plane with unvaccinated fellow passengers or crew.
What about restaurants, theatres and the like?
I could not get worked up if a gardener was unvaccinated but what about a hairdresser?
Would I want my grandchildren sitting next to a child in class who was unvaccinated?
It does make you think.

Smokers were kicked out of the work place, passive smokers now less at risk now thanks to that.
Same should apply to workplace non vaccination workers.
You can see this as a court case in the future, Man slaughter?

It will be late summer or autumn before vaccination will have been offered to all ages. By then, there should be a clearer idea about whether vaccination reduces transmission.

Grannyrose15 you may want to read this, it refers to the number of deaths under the age of 60 due to COVID for England and Wales. It isn’t just killing older people.

fullfact.org/online/covid-death-rate-under-60/

Smokers were not kicked out of the work place they still had a job. I think it will be very interesting legally. If you insist a care worker has a jab or lose their job and yet they are expected to work with residents who refuse a vaccination.

Smokers were not kicked out. Companies simply introduced 'no smoking' policies from a specified date and if you smoked in the office after that, you were out.

There used to be little groups of people clustering outside the office in the rain, all smoking and adverising their addiction to tobacco to all and sundry.

There still is.

M0nica

I would defend to the death everyiindividuals right to decide whether they have the COVID vaccination or any other or not.

However, some actions or inactions have consequences. I would think it unreasonable to make a sweeping and universal decree no jab, no job, but I do consider it reasonable to say to those who have not had the jab that you cannot work with highly vulnerable people, those in care for any reason or receiving care at home, and anyone in a patient contact job in the NHS and private medical services.

Unfortunately the second paragraph of this post contradicts the first paragraph.

I too would defend someone's right to choose not to have the jab. Absolutely, not conditionally.

Casdon

Grannyrose15 you may want to read this, it refers to the number of deaths under the age of 60 due to COVID for England and Wales. It isn’t just killing older people.

fullfact.org/online/covid-death-rate-under-60/

This article is totally irrelevant as I have NEVER made any of the claims that it is refuting.

You have Grannyrose15, this is a quote from you in the posts above:
‘Oh come on! How many times do you have to be told that the virus is only dangerous to the old and sick. The average age of death is over 80 FGS.’
I was providing the facts on how many people had died in other age groups, which is not insignificant numbers.

What facts?

The article is entitled "Covid-19 survival rate is not 99.991% for under 60s" It then goes on to explain why this figure has been wrongly calculated.

As I have NEVER quoted a figure of 99.991% or any figure for that matter how is it relevant to tell me this figure is wrong?

I believe some people in care homes pay handsomely for the privilege. Maybe they have a 'right' of self preservation by not wishing to be assisted by helpers who have not been vaccinated?

Perhaps they also have the right to see their families, to have their hands held when they are ill, and not to die alone.

Sadly, all these have been denied them because we have to keep them alive at all costs. Do you know how long people spend in a care home on average? The answer used to be two years. Whatever it is now, a year without contact is a large proportion of the time a person will spend there.

I don't think anyone would consider it a privilege to be in a care home at the moment, whatever they pay for it.

GrannyRose15

What facts?

The article is entitled "Covid-19 survival rate is not 99.991% for under 60s" It then goes on to explain why this figure has been wrongly calculated.

As I have NEVER quoted a figure of 99.991% or any figure for that matter how is it relevant to tell me this figure is wrong?

The black and white facts.

It is rare for me to be undecided about major issues - but the idea compulsory vaccinations did find me not quite sure.

I do not like the idea of people being forced, against their wills to have such things - at the same time I know that I have, for some years, put forward the idea that children entering any public education establishment (nursery/primary school) should be required to show proof of the complete childhood vaccinations (as they have done for a long time in USA).

Thing the argument that finally convinced me was when someone stated that when we get on a bus or in a taxi, we do so in the knowledge that our driver has a proper licence to drive those vehicles. So, I have finally decided that YES, jobs which bring people in contact with the public in any way should ensure that their employees are vaccinated.

Fran but I still ask what about the rights of the provider of the service to only provide the service to vaccinated people?

GrannyRose15. There is no contradiction in my post. If someone in a job should have a jab and chooses not to, I would not say they should be sacked, although ideally they should be moved to work that requires less patient interaction, but if an employer is recruiting staff, it is quite reasonable for them to insist that applicants should have had the vaccineation.

The same thing with current residents, no-one already in care should be forced to have the vaccine if they choose not to, but it is quite reasonable to insist that vaccination is necessary for new residents.

A policy like this, does pose some risk to begin with but as residents die and staff leave, within a year or so the problem will be minimal.

And what will happen to those vulnerable people who are refused a care home place. Sorry but that just sounds horrific to me.