Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Nov 15, 2021 2:12 am

sheldrake wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:03 am
Keep up millenial. There are already reports from insiders being reported in the British Medical Journal saying that side-effects werent being monitoried properly.
I have read about that. It seems there were minor failings which are very unlikely to have any impact on the fundamental results of the investigation into whether the vaccine was safe and effective.
You always try and sound superior and sarcastic right before you make a f.cking idiot of yourself, have you noticed?
No. I think it's entirely in your imagination. If not, you'll have to be a lot more explicit as subtle reasoning seems beyond you.

User avatar
Opti
Dorkwood
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: On the beach

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Opti » Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:01 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:03 am
Keep up millenial. There are already reports from insiders being reported in the British Medical Journal saying that side-effects werent being monitoried properly. You always try and sound superior and sarcastic right before you make a f.cking idiot of yourself, have you noticed?
Do you mean
this?
Time for a big fat one.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by tom p » Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:27 pm

IvanV wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 5:56 pm
shpalman wrote:
Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:21 pm
"The sad thing is none of them wanted to leave, but not so much that they didn't want to get a couple of injections with the main long-term side effect of you not being dead"
It's a very good line. There are certain aged refuseniks I can imagine using it to. But it doesn't work if you are addressing it to someone who only ever had a really tiny risk of dying from the virus.

The reality for the individual is balancing:
- what is their risk of dying from the virus
- the unknowable long term side-effects of the vaccine*

If you are in that healthy youth category, where the virus is much less of a risk than the road system, then I'm not surprised some of them decide that the latter outweighs the former.

The value to society of this very low risk category taking the vaccine is to reduce transmission. But the virus now seems to be rampant in the double-vaccinated population. How much is it reducing transmission? Is it enough for us to go around insisting the very low risk groups be vaccinated? Maybe this vaccine insistance policy is an example of doing something that would have been sensible a while ago, but now unfortunately has actually ceased to be really very much help any more?

Maybe now so many vaccinated people get the virus anyway, actually it is the testing that is now more important again. That and being sensible about not turning up if they have any symptoms, recognising it takes a few days before a test picks it up.

*How knowable are the other long term side-effects that enough time has not passed to know about? Do we have sufficiently good models of other vaccines to other viruses to have some idea of what kind of long term side-effects are likely and their likely frequency? Or is it purely a case of wait and see?
I dunno about all care homes; but all the workers in my mum's one are overweight middle-aged to late middle-aged women (many apparently approaching retirement age or just had a hard life), but still having to work in low-paid jobs wiping old peoples' arses. Odds are that a lifetime of low-paid work has resulted in them not living in large airy houses free of mould and great air quality inside & out.
I suspect their risk level is not as low as that of healthy young people.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by tom p » Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:33 pm

jdc wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 5:40 pm
Are people disputing sheldrake's claim that the legal immunity for covid vaccines is something unusual or just wanting to argue over the use of the word "experimental"?

If it's the former... I think the govt normally indemnify vaccine mfrs and take on the risk themselves, e.g. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... d.pdf.html but with the not-yet authorised covid vaccines they used legislation* to grant mfrs immunity from civil liability (as long as the product wasn't actually defective) and I haven't seen anything that says we've withdrawn that protection.

So it looks to me like the legal immunity has something to do with the vaccine being granted an emergency exemption.

*The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 - see reg 345 for the new bit https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... lation/345 which gives immunity from civil liability: "if there is no holder of an authorisation for the product but the sale or supply of the product is authorised by the licensing authority on a temporary basis under regulation 174, the person responsible for placing the product on the market in the United Kingdom" and reg 174 is https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... lation/174 & https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ation/174A
For all practical purposes, for vaccine MAHs, there's no real difference between emergency authorisation and normal authorisation.
As you say, HMG will indemnify the manufacturer of a normally-authorised vaccine, which is why the JCVI exists, innit?

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Mon Nov 15, 2021 6:06 pm

Opti wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:01 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:03 am
Keep up millenial. There are already reports from insiders being reported in the British Medical Journal saying that side-effects werent being monitoried properly. You always try and sound superior and sarcastic right before you make a f.cking idiot of yourself, have you noticed?
Do you mean
this?
I'm very unconvinced by your smear blog.

User avatar
Trinucleus
Catbabel
Posts: 985
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Trinucleus » Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:43 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 6:06 pm
Opti wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:01 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:03 am
Keep up millenial. There are already reports from insiders being reported in the British Medical Journal saying that side-effects werent being monitoried properly. You always try and sound superior and sarcastic right before you make a f.cking idiot of yourself, have you noticed?
Do you mean
this?
I'm very unconvinced by your smear blog.
And I'm very unconvinced by your response. It's a very comprehensive unpicking of the BMJ article

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:56 pm

Trinucleus wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:43 pm


And I'm very unconvinced by your response. It's a very comprehensive unpicking of the BMJ article
The first rebuttal begins with a character attack on the journalist
The article was by investigative journalist turned anti-GMO muckraking crank..
and carries on in this vein. This is exactly what a smear campaign looks like. Sorry but it's emotive drivel.

Chris Preston
Snowbonk
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:05 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Chris Preston » Tue Nov 16, 2021 8:44 am

tom p wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:33 pm
jdc wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 5:40 pm
Are people disputing sheldrake's claim that the legal immunity for covid vaccines is something unusual or just wanting to argue over the use of the word "experimental"?

If it's the former... I think the govt normally indemnify vaccine mfrs and take on the risk themselves, e.g. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... d.pdf.html but with the not-yet authorised covid vaccines they used legislation* to grant mfrs immunity from civil liability (as long as the product wasn't actually defective) and I haven't seen anything that says we've withdrawn that protection.

So it looks to me like the legal immunity has something to do with the vaccine being granted an emergency exemption.

*The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 - see reg 345 for the new bit https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... lation/345 which gives immunity from civil liability: "if there is no holder of an authorisation for the product but the sale or supply of the product is authorised by the licensing authority on a temporary basis under regulation 174, the person responsible for placing the product on the market in the United Kingdom" and reg 174 is https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... lation/174 & https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/201 ... ation/174A
For all practical purposes, for vaccine MAHs, there's no real difference between emergency authorisation and normal authorisation.
As you say, HMG will indemnify the manufacturer of a normally-authorised vaccine, which is why the JCVI exists, innit?
Exactly. My reading of the various rules is that the indemnity is the same as given for other vaccines. The process was different because this was an emergency authorisation.
Here grows much rhubarb.

User avatar
TAFKAsoveda
Clardic Fug
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:15 pm

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by TAFKAsoveda » Tue Nov 16, 2021 2:39 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:56 pm
Trinucleus wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:43 pm


And I'm very unconvinced by your response. It's a very comprehensive unpicking of the BMJ article
The first rebuttal begins with a character attack on the journalist
The article was by investigative journalist turned anti-GMO muckraking crank..
and carries on in this vein. This is exactly what a smear campaign looks like. Sorry but it's emotive drivel.

Classic one of these:
Tell me you haven’t read the article without saying you haven’t read the article.

User avatar
Opti
Dorkwood
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: On the beach

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Opti » Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:10 pm

TAFKAsoveda wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 2:39 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:56 pm
Trinucleus wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 7:43 pm


And I'm very unconvinced by your response. It's a very comprehensive unpicking of the BMJ article
The first rebuttal begins with a character attack on the journalist
The article was by investigative journalist turned anti-GMO muckraking crank..
and carries on in this vein. This is exactly what a smear campaign looks like. Sorry but it's emotive drivel.

Classic one of these:
Tell me you haven’t read the article without saying you haven’t read the article.
It's quite a stretch to describe Thacker as anything but an anti-GMO muckraking crank. Orac has labelled him with complete accuracy.
Time for a big fat one.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:13 pm

Opti wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:10 pm

It's quite a stretch to describe Thacker as anything but an anti-GMO muckraking crank. Orac has labelled him with complete accuracy.
Do you accept this kind of ad-hominem as evidence the claims in the BMJ article are factually untrue?

User avatar
Opti
Dorkwood
Posts: 1473
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: On the beach

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Opti » Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:10 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:13 pm
Opti wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:10 pm

It's quite a stretch to describe Thacker as anything but an anti-GMO muckraking crank. Orac has labelled him with complete accuracy.
Do you accept this kind of ad-hominem as evidence the claims in the BMJ article are factually untrue?
No, of course not.
I read the article, clicked on the many links and reasoned that the claims made in the BMJ article were deceptively spun.
But you're a 'narrative' sort.
Time for a big fat one.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:18 pm

Opti wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 4:10 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:13 pm
Opti wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:10 pm

It's quite a stretch to describe Thacker as anything but an anti-GMO muckraking crank. Orac has labelled him with complete accuracy.
Do you accept this kind of ad-hominem as evidence the claims in the BMJ article are factually untrue?
No, of course not.
I read the article, clicked on the many links and reasoned that the claims made in the BMJ article were deceptively spun.
But you're a 'narrative' sort.
Interesting accusation. Which link(s) specifically convinced you that the specific claims made the BMJ article were not true?

Eta: I read the article primarily as a character assassination that references multiple unrelated stories such as the Wakefield MMR debacle.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:14 pm

Note, even the author of this article doesn't dispute a single one of the claims made in the BMJ article. The whole piece is dedicated to labelling Peter Doshi as an 'antivaxxer' as if this would cast a kind of magic spell that would render everything he published untrue. This is truly appalling smear journalism.

Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Millennie Al » Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:16 am

sheldrake wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:14 pm
Note, even the author of this article doesn't dispute a single one of the claims made in the BMJ article. The whole piece is dedicated to labelling Peter Doshi as an 'antivaxxer' as if this would cast a kind of magic spell that would render everything he published untrue. This is truly appalling smear journalism.
That's partly because even if every allegation was strictly true it wouldn't necessarily be of any significance, and partly because only one piece is dishonestly spinning a story which implies far more than the evidence.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:19 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:16 am


That's partly because even if every allegation was strictly true it wouldn't necessarily be of any significance, and partly because only one piece is dishonestly spinning a story which implies far more than the evidence.
The whistle-blowing pharma employee with years of experience thinks it's significant.
Can you explain precisely how the story implies more than the evidence? The hit piece doesn't do that

Chris Preston
Snowbonk
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:05 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Chris Preston » Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:11 am

sheldrake wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:14 pm
The whole piece is dedicated to labelling Peter Doshi as an 'antivaxxer' as if this would cast a kind of magic spell that would render everything he published untrue.
This is not correct. The last part of the article discusses Doshi's actions and activities, and frankly Doshi is an anti-vaxxer as well as being the senior editor of the news and views section of BMJ. The discussion of Doshi was trying to understand how the BMJ could commission an article from an American journalist well-known to write slanted and cherry-picked articles that frequently smear people Thacker takes a dislike to. Thacker has already written a piece for the BMJ claiming there was a conspiracy to hide SARS-COV-2 being leaked from a lab in Wuhan.

You have to ask if BMJ is interested in reporting medical information or in clicks.

There is a substantial part of the piece by Gorski that discusses the evidence in Thacker's article. Unfortunately there is too little detail to understand how much of an issue the problems were, but plenty of evidence that Thacker has overblown some points. For example the claim that patients were unblinded turns out to be only a possibility some patients may have been unblinded inadvertently.
Here grows much rhubarb.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:32 am

Chris Preston wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:11 am
sheldrake wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 10:14 pm
The whole piece is dedicated to labelling Peter Doshi as an 'antivaxxer' as if this would cast a kind of magic spell that would render everything he published untrue.
This is not correct. The last part of the article discusses Doshi's actions and activities, and frankly Doshi is an anti-vaxxer as well as being the senior editor of the news and views section of BMJ. The discussion of Doshi was trying to understand how the BMJ could commission an article from an American journalist well-known to write slanted and cherry-picked articles that frequently smear people Thacker takes a dislike to. Thacker has already written a piece for the BMJ claiming there was a conspiracy to hide SARS-COV-2 being leaked from a lab in Wuhan.

You have to ask if BMJ is interested in reporting medical information or in clicks.

There is a substantial part of the piece by Gorski that discusses the evidence in Thacker's article. Unfortunately there is too little detail to understand how much of an issue the problems were, but plenty of evidence that Thacker has overblown some points. For example the claim that patients were unblinded turns out to be only a possibility some patients may have been unblinded inadvertently.
There was a conspiracy trying to hide the Wuhan leak, in plain sight. Fauci was part of it and is panicked that the wuhan leak leads back to research he funded

Post Reply