Whos going to replace all the unvaccinated NHS staff?

Original post by Megacent

Nice victim blaming. They aren't throwing away their career, they would be quite happy to stay in their job. They are being forced out of their job due to medical apartheid.

The government would never announce a policy to sack all Muslims in the NHS unless they renounced their faith, but somehow that same discrimination against the unvaccinated is seen as ok.

Did you just compare being anti-vax to a religion?

Reply 22

Original post by Starship Trooper

Because nobody is getting heart attacks, dropping dead, suffering side effects or getting the thing it's meant to be protecting against from other vaccinations.

Better go correct these folks huh
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13323922/

And that was only searching bing about the BCG vax

Reply 23

Original post by Starship Trooper

Because nobody is getting heart attacks, dropping dead, suffering side effects or getting the thing it's meant to be protecting against from other vaccinations.

Look up yellow fever vaccine
That beast got some bad ass side effects

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/11/top-cancer-scientist-prof-martin-gore-dies-after-rare-reaction-to-yellow-fever-vaccination

Reply 24

Original post by Megacent

Nice victim blaming. They aren't throwing away their career, they would be quite happy to stay in their job. They are being forced out of their job due to medical apartheid.

The government would never announce a policy to sack all Muslims in the NHS unless they renounced their faith, but somehow that same discrimination against the unvaccinated is seen as ok.

Mostly the government thinks people don't catch Islam from a moslem they interact with in a care setting.

Reply 25

Original post by Quady

Mostly the government thinks people don't catch Islam from a moslem they interact with in a care setting.

And if you're vaccinated, the unvaccinated don't pose a risk to you because you are protected from severe illness and death.

Can't believe in the 21st century people are condoning apartheid. Thought we decided this type of thing was wrong after Rosa Parks and James Meredith.

Reply 26

username5839543

Original post by Megacent

And if you're vaccinated, the unvaccinated don't pose a risk to you because you are protected from severe illness and death.

Can't believe in the 21st century people are condoning apartheid. Thought we decided this type of thing was wrong after Rosa Parks and James Meredith.

Black people cannot scrub the melanin from their skin, what an insulting comparison. There is an argument to made against vaccine passports, but this is not that.

Being vaccinated (a) reduces the spread of covid and (b) reduces the strain that COVID places on our infrastructure. If all of the ICU beds are full with people who critically unwell with covid, where are you going to send, for the sake of this argument the vaccinated car crash victim who needs that level of care? We don’t live in bubbles.

Reply 27

Original post by Megacent

And if you're vaccinated, the unvaccinated don't pose a risk to you because you are protected from severe illness and death.

Can't believe in the 21st century people are condoning apartheid. Thought we decided this type of thing was wrong after Rosa Parks and James Meredith.

OK...? Tell HMG....

We already had apartheid in heathcare. You can only be a doctor in the UK if the GMC let's you. The GMC won't recognise me so I can't legally practise medicine in the UK.

Reply 28

Joinedup

Original post by Quady

OK...? Tell HMG....

We already had apartheid in heathcare. You can only be a doctor in the UK if the GMC let's you. The GMC won't recognise me so I can't legally practise medicine in the UK.

There's an amazing list of things that preclude you from being a blood donor in the UK.
Since any sort of selection is apparently classed as apartheid by the local hysterics where's the outrage about this?

Interesting historical note... Quite a few tories didn't think actual Aparthied was really all that bad while it was still in place.

Reply 29

Original post by Joinedup

There's an amazing list of things that preclude you from being a blood donor in the UK.
Since any sort of selection is apparently classed as apartheid by the local hysterics where's the outrage about this?

Interesting historical note... Quite a few tories didn't think actual Aparthied was really all that bad while it was still in place.

Interesting historical note.... Labour governments did naff all about it, eg McMillian abstaining on resolution 181.

(edited 2 years ago)

Reply 30

Original post by Cancelled Alice

Black people cannot scrub the melanin from their skin, what an insulting comparison. There is an argument to made against vaccine passports, but this is not that.

Being vaccinated (a) reduces the spread of covid and (b) reduces the strain that COVID places on our infrastructure. If all of the ICU beds are full with people who critically unwell with covid, where are you going to send, for the sake of this argument the vaccinated car crash victim who needs that level of care? We don’t live in bubbles.

Fair enough, what if we change the comparison to something that people can change. Would you be ok with the NHS threatening to sack sacking all Muslim staff unless they renounce their faith?

Reply 31

caravaggio2

17

BAME people are disproportionately refusniks for the jabs. It will be interesting seeing how the government ministers cope with accusations of race bias when the P45s start landing on the doorsteps.😲

Reply 32

harrysbar

21

Original post by caravaggio2

BAME people are disproportionately refusniks for the jabs. It will be interesting seeing how the government ministers cope with accusations of race bias when the P45s start landing on the doorsteps.😲

I assume they will use the common sense argument that they are not deliberately targeting BAME people and their bias is only against non vaccinated people and only exists for scientific/medical reasons

Reply 33

anarchism101

17

Original post by Megacent

Fair enough, what if we change the comparison to something that people can change. Would you be ok with the NHS threatening to sack sacking all Muslim staff unless they renounce their faith?

i) Religion is a protected personal characteristic under the Equality Act, vaccination status is not.
ii) Being Muslim does not, in and of itself, significantly impede your ability to do your job in the NHS (aspects of it may do in rare specific positions, and if so, in those situations it is indeed legitimate to fire them), being wilfully unvaccinated does.

Reply 34

Original post by anarchism101

i) Religion is a protected personal characteristic under the Equality Act, vaccination status is not.
ii) Being Muslim does not, in and of itself, significantly impede your ability to do your job in the NHS (aspects of it may do in rare specific positions, and if so, in those situations it is indeed legitimate to fire them), being wilfully unvaccinated does.

i) Considering the sheer amount of hatred and discrimination we are facing right now, I would argue that vaccination status should become a protected characteristic
ii) If being unvaccinated impedes their ability to do their job, why are they being kept on until April?

Let's be absolutely clear about this. My decision to be unvaccinated does not affect you at all. It's none of your business. If you've got the jab then you're protected against severe illness and death, so the only person whose health I might be risking by not getting the jab is my own. So it should be my choice, and there should be no coercion or discrimination against the unvaccinated.

Workplaces wouldn't dream of sacking all black people, or sacking all Muslims. So why is it ok to sack the unvaccinated? We don't pose a risk to anyone, if you've got your jab then you're safe. So why should we be denied equal civil rights?

Reply 35

anarchism101

17

Original post by Megacent

i) Considering the sheer amount of hatred and discrimination we are facing right now, I would argue that vaccination status should become a protected characteristic

Protected characteristics are personal qualities which either people lack personal choice in, or where the choice forms a crucial part of their personal identity and where any insisted change would be unreasonable and insincere (i.e. people being required to change their religion or national identity for a job would not actually change what they actually sincerely believe or feel, just what they claim to for professional purposes). Additionally, when there is an element of choice involved, a thing being a protected category represents the state taking a neutral position.

Unless you can prove a specific personal medical condition renders vaccination a serious risk to your health, it is perfectly reasonable to request that you be vaccinated, claiming being unvaccinated is a core part of your personal identity akin to a religion would be absurd, and the state does not and should not take a neutral position on vaccination status - it is better for people to be vaccinated.

ii) If being unvaccinated impedes their ability to do their job, why are they being kept on until April?

To give them a reasonable amount of time to get vaccinated, plus likely other reasons of bureaucratic inertia.

Let's be absolutely clear about this. My decision to be unvaccinated does not affect you at all. It's none of your business. If you've got the jab then you're protected against severe illness and death, so the only person whose health I might be risking by not getting the jab is my own.

No, you are increasing the risk to others, by making it easier for the virus to spread, and are increasing the chance of severe illness and death accordingly (even if that chance will still be relatively low for a fully vaccinated person). And if you're an NHS worker interacting with patients with weaker health than the general population, the risk is further increased. And that increased risk is caused entirely by your making an unreasonable choice.

So it should be my choice, and there should be no coercion or discrimination against the unvaccinated.

Lots of things are your choice, but that doesn't create a right for all choices to be considered equally valid, or to be treated just the same regardless of choice. You have the legal right to choose to cover your hands in arsenic and never wash them, but the government can still take a position that it is better for you to wash your hands, and it would perfectly acceptable for employers, businesses and services, whether public or private, to say they won't employ or serve you if you don't wash your hands, because otherwise you are unreasonably causing an increased health risk to others.

Workplaces wouldn't dream of sacking all black people, or sacking all Muslims. So why is it ok to sack the unvaccinated? We don't pose a risk to anyone, if you've got your jab then you're safe. So why should we be denied equal civil rights?

Few of them are likely to need replaced: experience from America suggests that the vast majority will become vaccinated. Though I suspect the reason the government is delaying this move until April is because they're not quite sure how it'll play out here and don't want to risk even a small number of staff leaving the health service during its busiest period. If it transpires that mandatory vaccinations will lead to quite a large exodus of staff then I suspect the government will backtrack in some way.

Reply 37