Compulsory Vaccinations & Employment

[Horizon22]

I noted this on the BBC earlier today:

Bloomsbury staff must be vaccinated before office return

The Harry Potter publisher will require all staff to be vaccinated before they return to offices.

www.bbc.co.uk

What do people think of this for employers? On one hand a company can dictate terms, but on the other isn't this somewhat against human rights and freedom of choice?

 

[Wuffle]

So your employer says you must be jabbed, what happens if you have a reaction ?

 

[Red Onion]

So your employer says you must be jabbed, what happens if you have a reaction ?

It‘s a genuine worry of mine given I’m in that boat.

I can see this being open to legal challenge. It’s a very dangerous route to go down.

 

[MikeWM]

That story is mixing up a number of things, in the usual BBC way - they are requiring people who *return to the office* to have been vaccinated. While that is problematic in many respects, if they continue to allow staff to work from home as an alternative, then I'm not sure how much of a legal issue that is. (The people in charge of the company sound awfully annoying, too - 'The simple fact is that this virus is still extremely dangerous', 'The failure of the government to lockdown earlier is now blamed for thousands of unnecessary deaths and we know we did the right thing', etc.)

The ground is far shakier for them if they try to go down the route of what would effectively be constructive dismissal of people who aren't vaccinated (eg. by *requiring* everyone to return to the office, but only allowing doing so for vaccinated employees). Note that even the awful guy in charge of Pimlico Plumbers hasn't tried to do that (he's making vaccination a requirement for *new* employees, not existing).

It is appalling that we even have to discuss this however. How far we've fallen, in such a short time.

 

[Eyersey468]

I think once employers or anyone else starts insisting on vaccination it's a dangerous road to go down.

 

[TPO]

I was against mandatory vaccination until I heard an NHS worker on the radio the other day bleating on about the need for continued restrictions.

It's really simple NHS workers. If you lot lobby to mandate the population being restricted until a "zero COVID" situation is reached, then don't be too surprised if the general population come around to the view that NHS workers MUST be vacinated (unless there's a proper medical reason not to be of course) so we can reach that mythical safety level ASAP. Can't have it both ways.

Obviously I am generalising, but I think that's valid as I don't hear any NHS workers arguing against continuation of restrictions.....

TPO

 

[GB]

I have no issue with the vaccine personally...but its a dangerous and slippery slope for employers to start dictating medical treatments of employees.

 

[duncanp]

I was against mandatory vaccination until I heard an NHS worker on the radio the other day bleating on about the need for continued restrictions.

It's really simple NHS workers. If you lot lobby to mandate the population being restricted until a "zero COVID" situation is reached, then don't be too surprised if the general population come around to the view that NHS workers MUST be vacinated (unless there's a proper medical reason not to be of course) so we can reach that mythical safety level ASAP. Can't have it both ways.

Obviously I am generalising, but I think that's valid as I don't hear any NHS workers arguing against continuation of restrictions.....

TPO

I agree with this.

Everyone has had their lives turned upside down since March last year, and one of the main reasons for doing so was to "protect the NHS".

NHS workers, of all people, should be aware of the effects of COVID, and that vaccination has been shown to be highly effective in reducing tranmission, hospitalisation, serious illness and death to manageable levels.

Therefore I think that, whilst there shouldn't be mandatory vaccination for NHS workers, an NHS worker should have a very good reason for refusing the vaccine, such as a genuine medical issue or allergy. Saying "I don't want the vaccine" or "I can't be bothered" or "The vaccine is experimental (it isn't)" is just not good enough.

If the restrictions aren't eased or abolished completely, it will destroy what is left of the economy (and I think the economic effects of COVID have been swept under the carpet for far too long), which will affect our ability to pay for the NHS in future.

 

[MikeWM]

NHS workers, of all people, should be aware of the effects of COVID

Of course by this point by working in the NHS they will also be more aware than most of us of the health issues/side-effects caused by the vaccines. Depending on what they are seeing, that may be factoring into their decision.

Therefore I think that, whilst there shouldn't be mandatory vaccination for NHS workers, an NHS worker should have a very good reason for refusing the vaccine, such as a genuine medical issue or allergy.

Who is going to determine what constitutes a ‘good reason’? For example, probably most people here have no qualms about the fact that cell cultures that ultimately originate from aborted foetuses have been used in testing all of the vaccines, and are directly used in the production of some (eg. AstraZeneca) - but a minority of people have a very strong moral belief that this makes it totally wrong to take such a vaccine. That’s a very good reason indeed for those who genuinely hold such a belief - should that be allowed as a reason?

"The vaccine is experimental (it isn't)"

But at this point that is exactly what it is. None of the vaccines have completed stage 3 clinical trials - and none will for some time - and hence are only approved for ‘emergency’ use.

If the restrictions aren't eased or abolished completely, it will destroy what is left of the economy (and I think the economic effects of COVID have been swept under the carpet for far too long), which will affect our ability to pay for the NHS in future.

Totally agree, but mandating vaccinations isn’t a solution to that.

 

[The Ham]

Requiring vaccines is, for the majority of people, a step too far.

I suspect that ultimately there'll be a outcome which is permitted; probably something along the lines of:

"We will request to see confirmation of your Covid vaccine, or other vaccinations which may be relevant, which you have the right to refuse. Those who refuse or are unable to provide such evidence will be required to undertake [insert frequency] testing to show that they are not at risk.

"In addition, all staff will be required to be subject to random Covid testing, to which they are unable to reject.

"Any staff required to self isolate due to a confirmed case will be able to work from home, with suitable equipment proved. Where that's not suitable they will be entitled to full sick pay, where evidence (such as a positive test result or documentation showing their requirement to self isolate)."

That would enable those without the vaccine to carry on working, in reality the requirements for ongoing testing would limit the numbers willing to not have the vaccine.

Of course by this point by working in the NHS they will also be more aware than most of us of the health issues/side-effects caused by the vaccines. Depending on what they are seeing, that may be factoring into their decision.



Who is going to determine what constitutes a ‘good reason’? For example, probably most people here have no qualms about the fact that cell cultures that ultimately originate from aborted foetuses have been used in testing all of the vaccines, and are directly used in the production of some (eg. AstraZeneca) - but a minority of people have a very strong moral belief that this makes it totally wrong to take such a vaccine. That’s a very good reason indeed for those who genuinely hold such a belief - should that be allowed as a reason?



But at this point that is exactly what it is. None of the vaccines have completed stage 3 clinical trials - and none will for some time - and hence are only approved for ‘emergency’ use.



Totally agree, but mandating vaccinations isn’t a solution to that.

If stage 3 had been completed but with (say) 20,000 people, how is that likely to be better than 20 million people having been given it under emergency use?

Yes there's a risk of long term impacts, however unless a medication was developed several decades ago then most people taking it would not have data showing the long term implications until they die.

Anyway, whilst the vaccine with the Covid-19 genetic material used has only been in existence for a short time the "base vaccine" has been around for a few more years. For instance Biontech had been using it a base for developing cancer vaccines for some time.

 

[Snow1964]

I have no issue with the vaccine personally...but its a dangerous and slippery slope for employers to start dictating medical treatments of employees.

But many already do, everything from being assessed for heart attack risk, to requiring eyesight tests

Fundamentally, what’s the difference between saying a person with colourblindness (that can’t read signals) might cause harm to others, from saying someone not vaccinated from coronavirus might cause harm to others

 

[Watershed]

But many already do, everything from being assessed for heart attack risk, to requiring eyesight tests

Fundamentally, what’s the difference between saying a person with colourblindness (that can’t read signals) might cause harm to others, from saying someone not vaccinated from coronavirus might cause harm to others

There's nothing you can do about colour blindness AFAIK. So whilst it is discrimination, it will be lawful because the risk is simply unacceptably high if you were to employ someone with the condition as a driver, and there is no way to reasonably mitigate it.

By contrast, the vast majority of the adult population are now partially or fully vaccinated. That already means the risk is vastly reduced across the workforce, so if the concern is regarding the health of other workers, that is largely mitigated.

Another point, albeit one that the Courts would probably not see as relevant, is that the vaccine is still in emergency approval and it is morally questionable to effectively force people to take a vaccine that is not yet fully approved.

 

[Yew]

Requiring vaccines is, for the majority of people, a step too far.

I suspect that ultimately there'll be a outcome which is permitted; probably something along the lines of:

"We will request to see confirmation of your Covid vaccine, or other vaccinations which may be relevant, which you have the right to refuse. Those who refuse or are unable to provide such evidence will be required to undertake [insert frequency] testing to show that they are not at risk.

"In addition, all staff will be required to be subject to random Covid testing, to which they are unable to reject.

"Any staff required to self isolate due to a confirmed case will be able to work from home, with suitable equipment proved. Where that's not suitable they will be entitled to full sick pay, where evidence (such as a positive test result or documentation showing their requirement to self isolate)."

That would enable those without the vaccine to carry on working, in reality the requirements for ongoing testing would limit the numbers willing to not have the vaccine.



If stage 3 had been completed but with (say) 20,000 people, how is that likely to be better than 20 million people having been given it under emergency use?

Yes there's a risk of long term impacts, however unless a medication was developed several decades ago then most people taking it would not have data showing the long term implications until they die.

Anyway, whilst the vaccine with the Covid-19 genetic material used has only been in existence for a short time the "base vaccine" has been around for a few more years. For instance Biontech had been using it a base for developing cancer vaccines for some time.

Vaccine or negative tests is unreasonable, that's still putting people at risk of being disadvantaged if the test comes back positive. We're approaching the point of endemic equilibrium, the pandemic will soon be effectively over; and as a society we need to stop obsessing over a single mild respiratory virus, stop testing, and stop self isolating.

 

[GB]

But many already do, everything from being assessed for heart attack risk, to requiring eyesight tests

Fundamentally, what’s the difference between saying a person with colourblindness (that can’t read signals) might cause harm to others, from saying someone not vaccinated from coronavirus might cause harm to others

I wouldn't call assessments and tests medical treatments.

 

[Yew]

If you are colour-blind, you cannot see signals, ever. If you are unvaccinated, you might catch a mild respiratory virus that might require a few days in bed.

 

[Jonny]

But many already do, everything from being assessed for heart attack risk, to requiring eyesight tests

Fundamentally, what’s the difference between saying a person with colourblindness (that can’t read signals) might cause harm to others, from saying someone not vaccinated from coronavirus might cause harm to others

Which is comparing two very different situations, and making out that they are the same when they are not. Train driving has a genuine occupational requirement due to the way the railway is set up (stemming from steel wheels on steel rails and very high kinetic energies requiring signalling) whereas someone who works in an office (generally, and particularly in something like publishing) does not have to worry about such things.

If you are colour-blind, you cannot see signals, ever. If you are unvaccinated, you might catch a mild respiratory virus that might require a few days in bed.

Exactly - any requirement should be justified on an occupation-by-occupation basis and there should be proof positive of risk before anything is done. Frankly, "company policy" is highly unlikely to be good enough, particularly if a company is operating across borders. If there is no provable risk then there is no justification for requiring what is an unnecessary medical treatment.

I do not see how a publishing house (such as the top of the thread) can possibly justify such a requirement. The virus is not "dangerous" in a general office environment, especially since those who are at risk have had at least a very good opportunity to receive a full course of the vaccine (and the vast majority of them have done so). It is completely over the top to require it for most people. Frankly, it is a vaccebo (vaccine-placebo) for most people, should they want it.

 

[The Ham]

Vaccine or negative tests is unreasonable, that's still putting people at risk of being disadvantaged if the test comes back positive. We're approaching the point of endemic equilibrium, the pandemic will soon be effectively over; and as a society we need to stop obsessing over a single mild respiratory virus, stop testing, and stop self isolating.

Looking at the numbers in hospital in the 3rd of May there were 1,300 people in hospital this had been falling down to a low of around 900 between 20th May to the end of May with limited change (not passing 1,000) until 7th June.

Over then next 10 days it's gone up by 30% back to 1,300.

Whilst, once we are fully vaccinated, it could well be the case that we can relax all restrictions. However that would depend in part on how many have the vaccine.

If enough don't have the vaccine then whilst the peaks in hospitalisations will be manageable there's still going to be the risk that there would be more deaths than needed.

Whilst vaccine take-up has generally been high, it's likely that there could be areas/groups where there could be pockets where another wave could cause significant harm.

Whilst it's true that many have limited impact while they are ill that doesn't mean that is the case for everyone, nor does it cause some to have longer term issues.

Also if you read what I said there would need to be the other side of the coin, so yes encouragement to be vaccinated otherwise testing, however also provision for full paid sick leave/the ability if testing (including the random testing of those with the vaccine) showed a case.

Over time such requirements (such as the testing) would likely be overlooked until there was a local hotspot.

 

[Yew]

Looking at the numbers in hospital in the 3rd of May there were 1,300 people in hospital this had been falling down to a low of around 900 between 20th May to the end of May with limited change (not passing 1,000) until 7th June.

Over then next 10 days it's gone up by 30% back to 1,300.

Whilst, once we are fully vaccinated, it could well be the case that we can relax all restrictions. However that would depend in part on how many have the vaccine.

If enough don't have the vaccine then whilst the peaks in hospitalisations will be manageable there's still going to be the risk that there would be more deaths than needed.

Whilst vaccine take-up has generally been high, it's likely that there could be areas/groups where there could be pockets where another wave could cause significant harm.

Whilst it's true that many have limited impact while they are ill that doesn't mean that is the case for everyone, nor does it cause some to have longer term issues.

Also if you read what I said there would need to be the other side of the coin, so yes encouragement to be vaccinated otherwise testing, however also provision for full paid sick leave/the ability if testing (including the random testing of those with the vaccine) showed a case.

Over time such requirements (such as the testing) would likely be overlooked until there was a local hotspot.

That ignores the immortality of mandated isolation when the majority of people are vaccinated, and the NHS is not under pressure.

 

[MikeWM]

If stage 3 had been completed but with (say) 20,000 people, how is that likely to be better than 20 million people having been given it under emergency use?

Because there is a time factor in play here which can't be abridged or shortened. One of the main points of stage 3 is to try to pick up effects that can't be picked up in the earlier stages, before the medicine is released to the general public.

Let's say for example that a medicine has a serious impact on fertility in 10% of those who take it. That's not going to be picked up in the stage 1 or stage 2 trials because they are too short and on too few people. But with tens of thousands of people, over 2-3 years, there's at least a chance that will be noticed and further investigated.

Note that - as far as I can determine from the figures I can find - about 30-40% of stage 3 trials 'fail'. About 50% of those failures are due to (lack of) efficacy, and about 30% are due to safety issues.

That doesn't mean that everything is picked up at stage 3 either - eg. look at Vioxx, which caused (at a conservative estimate) 100,000 heart attacks and many thousands of deaths - but at least if you do pick something up at stage 3 you have caused less damage.

Also, in this case, it appears that the stage 3 trials for the Covid vaccines have been 'spiked' because the people in the 'placebo' arm of the trial have been offered the vaccine too ('as it would be unethical to leave them unvaccinated for some years'). So I don't see how the stage 3 trials can ever properly complete in this case.

All that said, I still think these vaccines should be made available *to those who want it*, assuming they are fully aware that the risk profile is not yet fully known. But when we're talking about mandating it - well, mandating any medical treatment on a healthy individual is *always* wrong, but in particular doing so right now, before we're had any real chance to see the potential for medium- or long-term side effects, is so wrong that I don't think I have sufficient words to describe quite how wrong I think it is. Utterly, utterly unacceptable.

Yes there's a risk of long term impacts, however unless a medication was developed several decades ago then most people taking it would not have data showing the long term implications until they die.

Well yes, but an impact that affects your life today, or in a year's time, is going to be viewed as something rather more significant than something that may have an impact 40 or 50 years from now.

Anyway, whilst the vaccine with the Covid-19 genetic material used has only been in existence for a short time the "base vaccine" has been around for a few more years. For instance Biontech had been using it a base for developing cancer vaccines for some time.

True, but it hasn't been widely used so far, and even if it had, the fact that one mRNA vaccine worked well and was safe doesn't necessarily mean that others will be.

Also, for obvious reasons, we accept a lower bar of accepting side-effects with treatments on sick people (who have a disease that needs treating to improve/save their life) than we do with healthy people (who do not).

 

[jumble]

But many already do, everything from being assessed for heart attack risk, to requiring eyesight tests

Fundamentally, what’s the difference between saying a person with colourblindness (that can’t read signals) might cause harm to others, from saying someone not vaccinated from coronavirus might cause harm to others

Can you really not see the difference between a passive test and mandatory medical treatment ?

I am awaiting with interest the results of the first employment tribunal where an employee with more than 2 years of service is dismissed for refusing the vaccine.

Supposing that your Father died of a blood clot shortly after having a vaccine would you be keen on being made to have it?

 

[notlob.divad]

If you are colour-blind, you cannot see signals, ever.

A very very wrong, discriminatory assumption.

There's nothing you can do about colour blindness AFAIK. So whilst it is discrimination, it will be lawful because the risk is simply unacceptably high if you were to employ someone with the condition as a driver, and there is no way to reasonably mitigate it.

You can do things about 'colour-blindness'* colour correction glasses for one, however most people who have some form of deficiency don't bother as it does not effect enough to make it worthwhile.

* Colour blindness is itself a discriminatory term as it implies everyone with colour defficiency can see no colour at all.

 

[Yew]

A very very wrong, discriminatory assumption.

Give it a rest, you knew exactly what I meant, it’s permanent and always there. Rather than “maybe” getting a mild respiratory illness.

 

[notlob.divad]

Give it a rest, you knew exactly what I meant, it’s permanent and always there. Rather than “maybe” getting a mild respiratory illness.

What do you mean give it a rest? It is the first comment I have made on this thread for months.

Your comment says I cannot see signals, you have pre-judged from the name of the condition what I am and am not able to see. That is discriminatory.

I will quote back to you a comment you made above.

Vaccine or negative tests is unreasonable, that's still putting people at risk of being disadvantaged if the test comes back positive.

Very similar disadvantages people have if other tests come back positive.

Because (having it) gives me some understanding of the nuance of the syndrome, I would be far happier having someone who has 'failed' a colour-blindness test doing my house electrics or flying an aircraft I was in, than have a shop assistant or ticket inspector who has tested positive for Covid-19.

However the rules of employment dictate that people who fail a colour 'blindness' test cannot be employeed in certain roles because it keeps the masses happy, that nothing bad is going to happen to them because someone "cannot see the signals" or "cannot tell the wires apart". Which is very much the same as keeping the masses happy that they/their loved ones are not going to catch Covid from people who are employed to look after them.

 

[Snow1964]

Can you really not see the difference between a passive test and mandatory medical treatment ?

I am awaiting with interest the results of the first employment tribunal where an employee with more than 2 years of service is dismissed for refusing the vaccine.

Supposing that your Father died of a blood clot shortly after having a vaccine would you be keen on being made to have it?

I‘m not totally sure what you mean by a passive test, my understanding is tests are for a reason, and if can’t reach a minimum standard then not deemed safe to do certain tasks without either some form of assistance (eg spectacles, walking stick, pacemaker or whatever).

Of course, whole aim of tests is assist identifying medical status that can lead to possible harm to others. Obviously having some sort of blackout etc and crashing a train is likely to result in harm to others, as is passing on a contagious diesease, even if the harm, illness, or potential death happens in different way.

So my logic is the principle of having to be checked/tested and potentially paused from an active role until medically sorted is the same. It’s just the detail that differs.

 

[Yew]

A very very wrong, discriminatory assumption.

No, an entirely correct one, someone with the appropriate form of colour blindness (a caveat that I had taken as read, as this thread is not a thread about different types of colur blindness) is going to have difficultly discerning signals compared to someone without such difficulties. It is not a transient phenomenon that might suddenly appear and disappear for a few days

* Colour blindness is itself a discriminatory term as it implies everyone with colour defficiency can see no colour at all.

So discriminatory that the NHS use it on their website to describe the condition, though for those reading, it's fair to raise this distinction.

What do you mean give it a rest? It is the first comment I have made on this thread for months.

You were being needlessly antagonistic about semantics only partially relevant to the debate

Your comment says I cannot see signals, you have pre-judged from the name of the condition what I am and am not able to see. That is discriminatory.

That is a fabrication, as I did not make any comment about you personally.

Because (having it) gives me some understanding of the nuance of the syndrome, I would be far happier having someone who has 'failed' a colour-blindness test doing my house electrics or flying an aircraft I was in, than have a shop assistant or ticket inspector who has tested positive for Covid-19.

If they have a kind that does not effect their work, then perhaps. However if such a hypothetical person with red/green colour-blindness were driving your train; I fear that there aren't effective vaccines for Railway Accidents. Overall, I feel that your assumptions dramatically overestimate the transmision and lethality of Covid, especially now there are a whole host of effective vaccines for the vulnerable.

However the rules of employment dictate that people who fail a colour 'blindness' test cannot be employeed in certain roles because it keeps the masses happy, that nothing bad is going to happen to them because someone "cannot see the signals" or "cannot tell the wires apart". Which is very much the same as keeping the masses happy that they/their loved ones are not going to catch Covid from people who are employed to look after them.

So you agree that such discrimination is unfair yet a railway accident can kill hundreds of people in seconds. Whereas an unvaccinated guard might get a virus that he might get even if he were vaccinated, that might have a higher rate of transmission without a vaccine (since long term sterilising immunity has not been empirically shown yet) , and might transmit it to another person, who will most likely get a cough for a few days. Surely if discrimination is unacceptable to you for something more serious, in a very niche career; then it should also be such for a mild respiratory illness in a massive host of jobs.

 

[The Ham]

That ignores the immortality of mandated isolation when the majority of people are vaccinated, and the NHS is not under pressure.

The suggestion is mandated isolation on a positive test result, which is very different to the current situation where someone's phone who may have been near someone else's phone where that someone else then has a positive test result. (Which is why there's been promising news today on those who have had both vaccines may not have to do that, although details are still being worked on).

 

[Freightmaster]

The suggestion is mandated isolation on a positive test result, which is very different to the current situation where someone's phone who may have been near someone else's phone where that someone else then has a positive test result. (Which is why there's been promising news today on those who have had both vaccines may not have to do that, although details are still being worked on).

For clarification, if you are 'pinged' by the NHS app, there is absolutely *no* legal requirement to isolate or take a test
yourself (although you are obviously free to do so if you wish) you only have to isolate if you are contacted directly by
a track and trace agent. I'm surprised more people don't know this...




MARK

 

[NorthKent1989]

If Covid was on the scale of Ebola then I would back mandatory vaccines.

But Covid is a virus we have to live with now, it’ll be seasonal like the flu, it’s getting beyond a joke now, nobody should be forced to get a vaccine if they don’t want it

 

[MikeWM]

If Covid was on the scale of Ebola then I would back mandatory vaccines.

But Covid is a virus we have to live with now, it’ll be seasonal like the flu, it’s getting beyond a joke now, nobody should be forced to get a vaccine if they don’t want it

Of course, if Covid was anything remotely close to Ebola in seriousness, then you wouldn't need to make vaccines mandatory anyway - 99.99% of people, myself included, would be elbowing people out of the way to be first in the queue to get one. The risk-benefit analysis would be entirely different from now.

The same argument applies to all the lockdown laws.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Of course, if Covid was anything remotely close to Ebola in seriousness, then you wouldn't need to make vaccines mandatory anyway - 99.99% of people, myself included, would be elbowing people out of the way to be first in the queue to get one. The risk-benefit analysis would be entirely different from now.

The same argument applies to all the lockdown laws.

Exactly, there is literally no excuse in opening up fully now, cases are cases but life goes on