Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
User avatar
headshot
Dorkwood
Posts: 1413
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:40 am

Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by headshot » Wed Nov 10, 2021 11:03 am

This policy kicks in tomorrow (11th Nov) and there are LOTS of care workers who will not be able to continue to work.

I listened to The World at One yesterday and there was a care work who had left her profession because she refused to get the vaccination. She was distraught, couldn't believe she was being forced out of work against her will. She refuses to get the vaccine until she knows more about the lot term health affects of it.

She worked in care homes all of last year and lost a lot of people she worked with in her care.

I actually shouted at the radio.

What the f.ck is going on? Why are so many people who work in care still unvaccinated?

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8241
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by shpalman » 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"

Guardian live blog link
Gillett said her staff “firmly stated” in every resignation letter that they did not want to stop working.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8241
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by shpalman » Wed Nov 10, 2021 3:58 pm

Edit: posted here instead
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by IvanV » 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?

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by lpm » Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:16 pm

That is waffle about "society". But we're only taking about a very narrow subset.

Vaccinated over 80s are dying. So people who care for them need to be vaccinated, even if it only partially prevents transmission to those over 80s. Partial still translates to a lot of lives saved.

It's all about protecting high risk groups so you've gone astray talking about the low risk categories.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

User avatar
discovolante
Stummy Beige
Posts: 4084
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by discovolante » Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:22 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?
Aside from lpm's response, you are ignoring the risk of long covid. Even a vaccine that was 50% effective at preventing infection would reduce the risk of long covid. I don't think it's yet clear how effective the vaccine is at reducing the risk of long covid if you contract it, but it's still a not insignificant factor.
To defy the laws of tradition is a crusade only of the brave.

Herainestold
After Pie
Posts: 2029
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Herainestold » Fri Nov 12, 2021 9:28 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?
Vaccine is very effective against transmission for about three months. After that, not so much.
After six months vaccine is still very effective against severe disease.

If you are recommending vaccine to control transmission, take into account that it is really only effective for a short period of time.
To reduce community transmission the best tool at our disposal is lockdown.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by IvanV » Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:11 pm

lpm wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:16 pm
That is waffle about "society". But we're only taking about a very narrow subset.
...
It's all about protecting high risk groups so you've gone astray talking about the low risk categories.
You are generally very wise lpm. But on this occasion I don't recognise what you are saying in these two phrases as relevant to the points I was trying to make. So I must have written it badly. Let me try again, and I won't use the word "society".

A substantial proportion of careworkers will be in very low risk categories. A lot of them are young healthy people. That is there is among them people whose position to refuse the vaccination is not like dogmatic anti-vaxxers, it is actually a rational position. They are taking the unknown risk of long-term side-effects, for very low benefit to themselves, as they see it, reducing a risk of death when they had almost no risk of death anyway. As discovolante mentions, there are probably additional benefits of long Covid reduction. But these are hard to quantify, and maybe they are small. Maybe hearing about those benefits some people will now be persuaded that there is a net benefit to them of the vaccine, but probably not very many.

Yes, the whole purpose is to protect high risk groups. So this vaccination is not for the benefit of the person who is taking the risk of being injected. Normally we persuade people to take vaccinations when it is in fact overwhelmingly in their own interest to do so. Of course we try so hard to persuade them because there is a wider benefit to the broader population in doing so. So, for example, medical professionals take a Hep B vaccine most of us don't take. A major benefit is trying to prevent Hep B transmission in hospitals, etc. But it is also of substantial benefit to the medical professionals to have the vaccine, as they are placing themselves at higher risk. (Hope I've got that right.) But in this case, they are being asked to take a vaccine they perceive little benefit from, and see that the benefit incurs mainly to the people they look after. People they are very badly paid to look after. It is easy to see why there is substantial number who are unhappy about it.

I was also querying whether the benefit to the people they look after is even very large any more. About 8 months ago it looked like vaccinated people rarely got Covid. So the benefit to carehome residents of being looked after by vaccinated workers at that stage was large - it would have a major effect on reducing Covid transmission in those locations. Now it seems like vaccinated people are getting Covid all over the place, like they have barely been vaccinated. Yes, it is saving their lives in many cases. But that is not the reason why we are asking low risk group carehome workers to be vaccinated, because that was barely ever going to happen to them.

We are making that old policy mistake of doing something to annoy a lot of people at the wrong time. There was a time when the annoyance was linked to larger benefits, albeit not benefits to the careworker themselves. Doubtless some of them would still have complained. But we could all see that it provided a large benefit to their work environment, and it would probably have been easier to get it accepted, no vaccine, no work in high risk environment. Now it has much less clear value in reducing risk in their work place. Now they can see the virus is rampant among the vaccinated. So they take the vaccine, but it's not going to make very much difference to virus transmission, at least not for very long. So now it looks like a much weaker argument to insist on it.
Last edited by IvanV on Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by IvanV » Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:11 pm

...Duplicate

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by lpm » Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:31 pm

About 150 people are dying a day.

It's approx 75 unvaccinated and 75 vaccinated.

Of the 75 vaccinated, a high proportion will be over 80s getting care. Another large part will be vulnerable people on hospital or needing care. Younger than 80 and non ill people simply don't die often when vaccinated.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if 40 vaxxed people a day are dying while being in the receiving care / receiving health treatment categories.

That's the prize we are playing for. It's a significant amount of deaths. An unvaccinated care worker simply can't be allowed to get close to vaccinated old people.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:14 am

How many lives do you think will be lost by care home and hospital understaffing when you've fired all the people who don't want to take experimental medications the manufacturer won't accept legal liability for?

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by bob sterman » Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:33 am

sheldrake wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:14 am
How many lives do you think will be lost by care home and hospital understaffing when you've fired all the people who don't want to take experimental medications the manufacturer won't accept legal liability for? a vaccine that has been approved for use in the UK by the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
FTFY

There are legitimate debates to be had about the wisdom and morality of the mandatory vaccination policy for care workers.

But we really don't need these old tropes.

With more than 100 million does administered already in the UK - it's a lot less "experimental" now than many other vaccines in use.

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:37 am

bob sterman wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:33 am
a vaccine that has been approved for use in the UK by the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Not unless there's been some significant change since I made this post in October viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2639&p=100786

Vaccine manufacturers are still exempt from normal legal responsibility for damage caused by their products on the basis of an emergency authorisation.

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Millennie Al » Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:06 am

sheldrake wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:37 am
bob sterman wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:33 am
a vaccine that has been approved for use in the UK by the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Not unless there's been some significant change since I made this post in October viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2639&p=100786

Vaccine manufacturers are still exempt from normal legal responsibility for damage caused by their products on the basis of an emergency authorisation.
It was explained to you at the time that legal liability is a problem due to anti-vax people, sentiments, and lawsuits. It has nothing to do with how experimental the vaccine is. And after the vast number of people vaccinated with the vaccines to prevent Covid, no reasonable person could claim they were in any way experimental. It would be the same as claiming that income tax is a temporary tax

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Millennie Al » Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:13 am

I suspect that, unless there are other effects caused by a lack of care workers, the vaccine mandate will improve the health of the people being cared for. This is not due to any medical effect, but due to the fact that a care worker who is faced with the prospect of losing their job unles they are vaccinated has a strong rational reason to get vaccinated as the risk due to being vaccinated is hypothetical and must be quite small, while the risk from refusing is large and immediate, so those who lose their jobs are likely to be poor at weighing consequences, which may also apply to how they weigh consequences for the people they care for.

Of course, that's not appropriate grounds for requiring vaccination. I'm not convinced that there are studies with good evidence for the reduction in transmission (ayone know of any randomised trials?).

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8241
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by shpalman » Sat Nov 13, 2021 9:40 am

IvanV wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:11 pm
lpm wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 6:16 pm
That is waffle about "society". But we're only taking about a very narrow subset.
...
It's all about protecting high risk groups so you've gone astray talking about the low risk categories.
You are generally very wise lpm. But on this occasion I don't recognise what you are saying in these two phrases as relevant to the points I was trying to make. So I must have written it badly. Let me try again, and I won't use the word "society".

A substantial proportion of careworkers will be in very low risk categories. A lot of them are young healthy people. That is there is among them people whose position to refuse the vaccination is not like dogmatic anti-vaxxers, it is actually a rational position. They are taking the unknown risk of long-term side-effects, for very low benefit to themselves, as they see it, reducing a risk of death when they had almost no risk of death anyway. As discovolante mentions, there are probably additional benefits of long Covid reduction. But these are hard to quantify, and maybe they are small. Maybe hearing about those benefits some people will now be persuaded that there is a net benefit to them of the vaccine, but probably not very many.
There's obviously an intuitive difference between accepting a very small but "certain" risk from something you deliberately choose to do, and thinking you can avoid an "uncertain" risk by being lucky enough to not have something happen to you. But it's bollocks, coming from human intuition failure when risks are very low but numbers are large and the outlier cases get on the news.

However, this sort of calculation was carried out when the UK decided not to give the AstraZeneca vaccine to young people; the risk of a serious side-effect from the vaccine became comparable to the risk of catching and then having a serious problem with covid as you went down into the lower age groups. But that was the risk of catching and then... in a low-prevalence situation. Prevalence is higher now; we can probably assume that the covids are going to get to more or less all of us sooner or later, if they haven't already.

We don't know about the long-term effects of the vaccine but then we can't talk about the long-term effects of covid either because neither has been around that long. In the time frame we have available we certainly know that long covid is a thing, whereas vaccine side effects have so far been acute if at all.
IvanV wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:11 pm
Yes, the whole purpose is to protect high risk groups. So this vaccination is not for the benefit of the person who is taking the risk of being injected. Normally we persuade people to take vaccinations when it is in fact overwhelmingly in their own interest to do so. Of course we try so hard to persuade them because there is a wider benefit to the broader population in doing so. So, for example, medical professionals take a Hep B vaccine most of us don't take. A major benefit is trying to prevent Hep B transmission in hospitals, etc. But it is also of substantial benefit to the medical professionals to have the vaccine, as they are placing themselves at higher risk. (Hope I've got that right.) But in this case, they are being asked to take a vaccine they perceive little benefit from, and see that the benefit incurs mainly to the people they look after. People they are very badly paid to look after. It is easy to see why there is substantial number who are unhappy about it.
People whose job it is to care about other people fail to care about other people...
IvanV wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:11 pm
I was also querying whether the benefit to the people they look after is even very large any more. About 8 months ago it looked like vaccinated people rarely got Covid. So the benefit to carehome residents of being looked after by vaccinated workers at that stage was large - it would have a major effect on reducing Covid transmission in those locations. Now it seems like vaccinated people are getting Covid all over the place, like they have barely been vaccinated.
Do you mean that the vaccine is wearing off, that the covids are mainly amongst the vaccinated because most people are vaccinated, or that there's that strange result which suggests that the infection rate in the young-to-middle-aged is the same if not slightly worse in the vaccinated except we're not sure because nobody knows the actual population of England? (And/or that the vaccination doesn't make much difference to transmission if you spend a long time indoors with each other.)

(Or just generally that the vaccine probably never had much of an effect on mild/asymptomatic illness and transmission.)
IvanV wrote:
Fri Nov 12, 2021 11:11 pm
Yes, it is saving their lives in many cases. But that is not the reason why we are asking low risk group carehome workers to be vaccinated, because that was barely ever going to happen to them.

We are making that old policy mistake of doing something to annoy a lot of people at the wrong time. There was a time when the annoyance was linked to larger benefits, albeit not benefits to the careworker themselves. Doubtless some of them would still have complained. But we could all see that it provided a large benefit to their work environment, and it would probably have been easier to get it accepted, no vaccine, no work in high risk environment. Now it has much less clear value in reducing risk in their work place. Now they can see the virus is rampant among the vaccinated. So they take the vaccine, but it's not going to make very much difference to virus transmission, at least not for very long. So now it looks like a much weaker argument to insist on it.
Remember when agency staff were spreading Covid-19 between care homes? Are there still being outbreaks in care homes?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:43 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:06 am
sheldrake wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:37 am
bob sterman wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:33 am
a vaccine that has been approved for use in the UK by the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Not unless there's been some significant change since I made this post in October viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2639&p=100786

Vaccine manufacturers are still exempt from normal legal responsibility for damage caused by their products on the basis of an emergency authorisation.
It was explained to you at the time that legal liability is a problem due to anti-vax people, sentiments, and lawsuits. It has nothing to do with how experimental the vaccine is. And after the vast number of people vaccinated with the vaccines to prevent Covid, no reasonable person could claim they were in any way experimental. It would be the same as claiming that income tax is a temporary tax
Yes, it absolutely has to do with the vaccine being granted an emergency exemption. Read the links.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by jdc » 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

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Sun Nov 14, 2021 1:33 am

Reports of data integrity problems in Pfizer stage 3 trial, including ignoring reports of side-effects

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Nov 14, 2021 1:42 am

sheldrake wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 10:43 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:06 am
It was explained to you at the time that legal liability is a problem due to anti-vax people, sentiments, and lawsuits. It has nothing to do with how experimental the vaccine is. And after the vast number of people vaccinated with the vaccines to prevent Covid, no reasonable person could claim they were in any way experimental. It would be the same as claiming that income tax is a temporary tax
Yes, it absolutely has to do with the vaccine being granted an emergency exemption. Read the links.
You said:
sheldrake wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:14 am
people who don't want to take experimental medications the manufacturer won't accept legal liability for?
I know the words "experimental" and "emergency" start with the same letter, but you need to read all the letters to understand a word. There is no longer any reasonable sense in which the vaccines are experimental. The vaccines approved in the UK have gone through sufficient testing that referring to them as "experimental" is a form of misinformation. Whether a product has an exemption or not is a purely bureaucratic and political matter which is of no relevence to anyone getting it unless they want to falsely claim lots of money for some bogus side-effect.

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » 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?

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:24 am

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
You obviously didnt read the links I posted including the interview with the lawyer.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by jdc » Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:27 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:24 am
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
You obviously didnt read the links I posted including the interview with the lawyer.
Reuters, the AZ authorisations, and Full Fact? What makes you think I didn't?

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

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by sheldrake » Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:34 pm

jdc wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:27 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 2:24 am
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
You obviously didnt read the links I posted including the interview with the lawyer.
Reuters, the AZ authorisations, and Full Fact? What makes you think I didn't?
You would have seen discussion of whats unusual here and on what legal basis the vaccines are available by a specialist lawyer.

User avatar
jdc
Hilda Ogden
Posts: 1925
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:31 pm
Location: Your Mum

Re: Mandatory Vaccinations for Care Workers

Post by jdc » Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:37 pm

And?

Post Reply