NO JAB NO JOB

[otolith]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

otolith said:

g4ry13 said:

otolith said:

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

If you're in the market for people who aren't able to think critically then you're correct.

There are a number of reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Critical thinking ability is not one of them.

So when you're in the market to hire an expert on infectious respiratory diseases with strong critical thinking abilities it's out with Drs Mike Yeadon, Sucharit Bakhdee and John Iaonnidis and welcome aboard Gary Linnekar

Or I could hire, you know, someone who isn't seen as wrong by the vast majority of people in the field?

How wrong does Yeadon need to be proven to be before you stop sucking his Kool-Aid, by the way?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

otolith said:

Or I could hire, you know, someone who isn't seen as wrong by the vast majority of people in the field?

How wrong does Yeadon need to be proven to be before you stop sucking his Kool-Aid, by the way?

So you'll just go with what seems like the general view at the time and hope they turn out to be a great critical thinker too?

[CraigyMc]

purplepenguin said:

CraigyMc said:

Lily the Pink said:

otolith said:

g4ry13 said:

otolith said:

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

If you're in the market for people who aren't able to think critically then you're correct.

There are a number of reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Critical thinking ability is not one of them.

Come off it - you're being disingenuous (at best). What you really mean is that you only want to employ people who think the same as you. A recipe for mediocrity rather than success, but understandable - particularly amongst those who lack critical thinking ability.

Would you employ someone who was quite open about utter, steadfast belief in voodoo?

There's alternative thinking, then there's dissociated with reality. It's really up to the employer to decide where the line they are willing to draw is.

Similar to employing someone who believes in God. If they can do the job, then why not employ them?

Discrimination law might have some input to the employers decision

To be clear, that's about whether or not they can ordinarily perform the job, or if their beliefs would hamper them in performing.
In the context of this thread it may be:

• so anti-vax that they'd intentionally inject saline instead of vaccine, or point-blank refuse to vaccinate people
• doesn't want to vaccinate themselves, but will happily inject others who want it, however their rejection of vaccination puts their patients at risk

The former would not be protected by discrimination law because it's a direct requirement of the job.
The latter would be.
Having said all that, if you were looking for a new employee and this subject came up (because you brought it up), you'd be entirely able to not elect to hire either of those people. There are of course, ways to achieve any selection you want. It's rare for anyone to have to explain why a hiring decision was made or not, outside of a court case.

[Taylor James]

CraigyMc said:

purplepenguin said:

CraigyMc said:

Lily the Pink said:

otolith said:

g4ry13 said:

otolith said:

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

If you're in the market for people who aren't able to think critically then you're correct.

There are a number of reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Critical thinking ability is not one of them.

Come off it - you're being disingenuous (at best). What you really mean is that you only want to employ people who think the same as you. A recipe for mediocrity rather than success, but understandable - particularly amongst those who lack critical thinking ability.

Would you employ someone who was quite open about utter, steadfast belief in voodoo?

There's alternative thinking, then there's dissociated with reality. It's really up to the employer to decide where the line they are willing to draw is.

Similar to employing someone who believes in God. If they can do the job, then why not employ them?

Discrimination law might have some input to the employers decision

To be clear, that's about whether or not they can ordinarily perform the job, or if their beliefs would hamper them in performing.
In the context of this thread it may be:

• so anti-vax that they'd intentionally inject saline instead of vaccine, or point-blank refuse to vaccinate people
• doesn't want to vaccinate themselves, but will happily inject others who want it, however their rejection of vaccination puts their patients at risk

The former would not be protected by discrimination law because it's a direct requirement of the job.
The latter would be.
Having said all that, if you were looking for a new employee and this subject came up (because you brought it up), you'd be entirely able to not elect to hire either of those people. There are of course, ways to achieve any selection you want. It's rare for anyone to have to explain why a hiring decision was made or not, outside of a court case.

Please don't stop. I haven't laughed so much in ages.

[CraigyMc]

Taylor James said:

Please don't stop. I haven't laughed so much in ages.

Glad to be of service

[Gadgetmac]

CraigyMc said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Gadgetmac said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Also 323 reported deaths compared to 10 with the flu vaccine on 10m.

Are you still spreading this absolute garbage? Jeez.

Ok - so why does it mention the deaths on here then

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

Explained in section 4 of https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

gov.uk said:

4. Conclusion
At the time of this report, more than 114,000 people in the UK have died within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus. Rates of infection and hospitalisation with COVID-19 remain high.

Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19. A national immunisation campaign has been underway since early December 2020.

In clinical trials, the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford University/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated very high levels of protection against symptomatic infection. We expect data to be available soon on the impact of the vaccination campaign in reducing infections and illness with COVID-19 in the UK.

All vaccines and medicines have some side effects. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the expected benefits in preventing illness.

Following widespread use of these vaccines across the UK, the vast majority of suspected adverse reaction reports so far confirm the safety profile seen in clinical trials. Most reports relate to injection site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as a ‘flu-like’ illness, headache, chills, fatigue, nausea, fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat. Generally, these reactions are not associated with more serious illness and likely reflect an expected, normal immune response to the vaccines.

Following very substantial exposure across the UK population, no other new safety concerns have been identified from reports received to date, and for the cases of other medical conditions reported in temporal association with vaccination, the available evidence does not currently suggest that the vaccine caused the event.

The overall safety experience with both vaccines is so far as expected from the clinical trials. The expected benefits of the vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and serious complications associated with COVID-19 far outweigh any currently known side effects. As with all vaccines and medicines, the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is a continuously monitored and benefits and possible risks remain under review.

We take every report of a suspected ADR seriously and encourage everyone to report through the Yellow Card scheme.

He's been told this before...he'll post it again in a week or two...It's pitiful.

[CraigyMc]

Gadgetmac said:

CraigyMc said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Gadgetmac said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

Also 323 reported deaths compared to 10 with the flu vaccine on 10m.

Are you still spreading this absolute garbage? Jeez.

Ok - so why does it mention the deaths on here then

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

Explained in section 4 of https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronav...

gov.uk said:

4. Conclusion
At the time of this report, more than 114,000 people in the UK have died within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus. Rates of infection and hospitalisation with COVID-19 remain high.

Vaccination is the single most effective way to reduce deaths and severe illness from COVID-19. A national immunisation campaign has been underway since early December 2020.

In clinical trials, the Pfizer/BioNTech and Oxford University/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated very high levels of protection against symptomatic infection. We expect data to be available soon on the impact of the vaccination campaign in reducing infections and illness with COVID-19 in the UK.

All vaccines and medicines have some side effects. These side effects need to be continuously balanced against the expected benefits in preventing illness.

Following widespread use of these vaccines across the UK, the vast majority of suspected adverse reaction reports so far confirm the safety profile seen in clinical trials. Most reports relate to injection site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as a ‘flu-like’ illness, headache, chills, fatigue, nausea, fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat. Generally, these reactions are not associated with more serious illness and likely reflect an expected, normal immune response to the vaccines.

Following very substantial exposure across the UK population, no other new safety concerns have been identified from reports received to date, and for the cases of other medical conditions reported in temporal association with vaccination, the available evidence does not currently suggest that the vaccine caused the event.

The overall safety experience with both vaccines is so far as expected from the clinical trials. The expected benefits of the vaccines in preventing COVID-19 and serious complications associated with COVID-19 far outweigh any currently known side effects. As with all vaccines and medicines, the safety of COVID-19 vaccines is a continuously monitored and benefits and possible risks remain under review.

We take every report of a suspected ADR seriously and encourage everyone to report through the Yellow Card scheme.

He's been told this before...he'll post it again in a week or two...It's pitiful.

I'm aware. I've told him before too. I'll keep doing it as long as he keeps bringing it up.

[voyds9]

Welshbeef said:

Greece has already stated to enter their country a vaccine passport/certificate will be needed. A few weeks ago Spain voiced it too.

As such if you want to travel overseas passport vaccine will be needed. If you don’t want to travel then maybe your ok with staying in the U.K.

I wonder how this will impact people with medical conditions who cannot have the vaccine

Last time I checked about 20% of the country said they would refuse the vaccine.
Assuming an even spread (although I guess it will be higher for cheaper destinations)
Would these countries refuse 20% of their holiday makers on a long term basis

I can see them refusing none vaccinated this year and next year but if they lose 20% of their holidaymakers I can see it being forgotten quickly

[Alucidnation]

voyds9 said:

Welshbeef said:

Greece has already stated to enter their country a vaccine passport/certificate will be needed. A few weeks ago Spain voiced it too.

As such if you want to travel overseas passport vaccine will be needed. If you don’t want to travel then maybe your ok with staying in the U.K.

I wonder how this will impact people with medical conditions who cannot have the vaccine

Would these countries refuse 20% of their holiday makers on a long term basis

I can see them refusing none vaccinated this year and next year but if they lose 20% of their holidaymakers I can see it being forgotten quickly

Losing 20% is better than 100% if they have to shut down again.

[CraigyMc]

voyds9 said:

Last time I checked about 20% of the country said they would refuse the vaccine.
Assuming an even spread (although I guess it will be higher for cheaper destinations)
Would these countries refuse 20% of their holiday makers on a long term basis

I can see them refusing none vaccinated this year and next year but if they lose 20% of their holidaymakers I can see it being forgotten quickly

According to https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01056-1...

From a sample of 8000 people (4000 each country), dated 7-14th September 2020:
UK

• 54.1% yes
• 31.9% unsure lean yes
• 8.0% unsure lean no
• 6.0% definite no.

USA

• 42.5% yes
• 30.0% unsure lean yes
• 12.4% unsure lean no
• 15.0% definite no

[anonymous-user]

CraigyMc said:

purplepenguin said:

CraigyMc said:

Lily the Pink said:

otolith said:

g4ry13 said:

otolith said:

If I found I'd employed the sort of person who would refuse the jab, I'd have to question my recruitment policy in general.

If you're in the market for people who aren't able to think critically then you're correct.

There are a number of reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Critical thinking ability is not one of them.

Come off it - you're being disingenuous (at best). What you really mean is that you only want to employ people who think the same as you. A recipe for mediocrity rather than success, but understandable - particularly amongst those who lack critical thinking ability.

Would you employ someone who was quite open about utter, steadfast belief in voodoo?

There's alternative thinking, then there's dissociated with reality. It's really up to the employer to decide where the line they are willing to draw is.

Similar to employing someone who believes in God. If they can do the job, then why not employ them?

Discrimination law might have some input to the employers decision

To be clear, that's about whether or not they can ordinarily perform the job, or if their beliefs would hamper them in performing.
In the context of this thread it may be:

• so anti-vax that they'd intentionally inject saline instead of vaccine, or point-blank refuse to vaccinate people
• doesn't want to vaccinate themselves, but will happily inject others who want it, however their rejection of vaccination puts their patients at risk

The former would not be protected by discrimination law because it's a direct requirement of the job.
The latter would be.
Having said all that, if you were looking for a new employee and this subject came up (because you brought it up), you'd be entirely able to not elect to hire either of those people. There are of course, ways to achieve any selection you want. It's rare for anyone to have to explain why a hiring decision was made or not, outside of a court case.

Given the magnitude of the vaccination rollout, the percentage of prospective employees who can’t/won’t have the vaccine, I would think there may well be some court rulings in the future.

Would you be “allowed” to bring up the subject given that it’s possibly confidential medical information?

I’m talking about general employment rather than your specific medical examples

[CraigyMc]

purplepenguin said:

Would you be “allowed” to bring up the subject given that it’s possibly confidential medical information?

I’m talking about general employment rather than your specific medical examples

Sure. You wouldn't ask "have you been vaccinated?" unless you had a sensible reason to, such as being plonked in the middle of a group of 1000 colleagues in an open plan office.

There are places where since early last year you've had to fill in an attestation to the effect that you've had no recent covid symptoms before they'll let you into the building.

If you were interviewing, you might ask "what do you think of vaccinations?". General good practise in interviews is to ask questions that get the candidate telling a story from their perspective rather than things with boolean answers.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

otolith said:

Nope.

I don't want people who have a tendency to assume knowledge about things they are ignorant of.
I don't want people who think that believing a random YouTuber over the body of scientific opinion is "critical thinking".
I don't want people who think that their contrarianism is proof of their superiority.
I don't want people who prefer their feelings to evidence.
I don't want people who are innumerate or just a bit thick.
I don't want people who have no social conscience.

That doesn't leave many antivax people.

Yet you loftily dismiss some highly qualified and experienced experts in the field who have made some very strong arguments against our current approach.

Would you hire yourself?

[otolith]

JuanCarlosFandango said:

otolith said:

Nope.

I don't want people who have a tendency to assume knowledge about things they are ignorant of.
I don't want people who think that believing a random YouTuber over the body of scientific opinion is "critical thinking".
I don't want people who think that their contrarianism is proof of their superiority.
I don't want people who prefer their feelings to evidence.
I don't want people who are innumerate or just a bit thick.
I don't want people who have no social conscience.

That doesn't leave many antivax people.

Yet you loftily dismiss some highly qualified and experienced experts in the field who have made some very strong arguments against our current approach.

Would you hire yourself?

If I had believed Yeadon I would be feeling a bit foolish by now.

[Lily the Pink]

voyds9 said:

Last time I checked about 20% of the country said they would refuse the vaccine.
Assuming an even spread (although I guess it will be higher for cheaper destinations)
Would these countries refuse 20% of their holiday makers on a long term basis

I can see them refusing none vaccinated this year and next year but if they lose 20% of their holidaymakers I can see it being forgotten quickly

I don't think that will stand up to statistical scrutiny. The majority of those who are currently refusing the vaccine are from BAME and poor white communities. My understanding is that BAME people tend not to holiday in the same places as the general populace; instead a large proportion of them - if they take a foreign holiday at all - return to their homeland. The poor white community will likely either not holiday abroad at all or go for the very cheapest option. I think your assumption is wrong - but I don't know to what extent that invalidates your conclusion.

[b0rk]

purplepenguin said:

That’s possible I suppose. The lawyers will have a field day.

Not sure if the health and safety at work act covers vaccinations that are not specifically required for a certain role (hep B)

If you extend the thinking then everyone should have the flu vaccine to “protect” their employees - where do you draw the line?

The obligations on a employer to protect employees from exposure to COVID are very ill defined as it stands. Flu isn't RIDDOR reportable under any circumstance for example so the cases where workplace flu has occurred wouldn't be a failure to protect.

The HSE is guidance is that a COVID case due to occupational exposure is reportable unless it involves a patient, a member of the public, a care home resident or a service user and you do not reasonably suspect the exposure was in the workplace. In theory having a covid secure workplace if the employees comply with the rules and management do everything reasonably possible to ensure compliance is enough to avoid reportablity.

The future problem is assuming vaccination is demonstrated to reduce transmission does exposure to unvaccinated employees thus represent a failure of a reasonable control measure? This one for the no win, no fee lawyers to test though the courts. Just like there already are potential test cases around workplace exposure where covid secure policies are alleged to not been applied or followed in practice.

Moreover the question of public to public infection in a public place is complex and will I suspect depend on if vaccination becomes an acceptable risk control vs distancing & masks. Again one I'd expect the no-win, no-fee crew to have a pop at.

Ultimately I think government are going to have to publish legal guidance on this, does preventing access become discriminatory if the person is unable to be vaccinated even if they should wish to be?

[JuanCarlosFandango]

otolith said:

If I had believed Yeadon I would be feeling a bit foolish by now.

Quite a telling turn of phrase. It isn't about choosing who to "believe." He is a very well credentialed expert in respiratory diseases. I'd have thought a PhD and stint as Chief Scientific Officer for Pfizer Allergy and Respiratory Research would imply at least some capacity for critical thinking too. Bhakdi, Iaonnidis and others with serious credentials in the field have also raised similar concerns about our handling of all this.

With what? A vested interest in saying don't panic? A ln over-riding ideological commitment to hesitation?

You may prefer to "believe" Chris Whitty or Tedros Adhanom if you like. Or even Matt Hancock.

I think a more rational, critical approach than cheering for your favourite epidemiologist as though they were a football team would be to recognise that this is an incredibly complex and evolving situation with a response necessarily formulated quickly and with very imperfect information. Quite simply nobody on the planet has dealt with this successfully or even badly before, and very likely nobody will get it completely right this time.

Everything I have ever read, heard or experienced about operating in such circumstances points towards removing as much emotion and pants-on-fire urgency from the decision making process as possible, hearing a broad range of qualified input and keeping a careful eye on the other important things which will be damaged or neglected by throwing everything at an emerging crisis.

[scottyp123]

So dimwitty says no jab no job.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9289087/C...

Minimum wage for working in sthole hospitals, getting assaulted from mental patients and cleaning st off the floor. He must have come to the conclusion that there are way too many front line workers at the minute and they need to get rid of a good proportion of them.

[98elise]

There were a couple of care home owners/managers on GMB this morning. One was saying all new employees must be vaccinated, and current employees who won't get vaccinated have been put on 2 month's notice (ie no jab, no job).

I think he said he employed 17,000 people.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

Well with only 57% of doctors choosing to get vaccinated according to that Mail article the NHS is going to get a lot more overwhelmed when they introduce this policy.