Vaccines are being made mandatory for healthcare workers in England next week, and thankfully the government don't look like they'll back down on this one. About 5% of NHS staff are currently...
Vaccines are being made mandatory for healthcare workers in England next week, and thankfully the government don't look like they'll back down on this one. About 5% of NHS staff are currently unvaccinated, and the article has comments from a few.
All suggest they wouldn't benefit from the vaccine, but frustratingly most don't go deeper into their refusal; if they just saw it as neutrally unnecessary, they'd just be getting it for the sake of their job. One at least says "There have been lots of adverse effects linked to the vaccine" - which is obviously wrong for any reasonable definition of "lots" - and several express their anger at not being given a choice, despite the fact that they need to comply with any number of other infection control measures as part of their jobs.
I'm frustrated to see the head of the Royal College of Nursing suggesting the deadline should be pushed back. I don't see why she is choosing to make allowances for nurses who by definition do not understand or trust the very medical science that underpins their profession and their duty of patient care. If ever there were a time to take a hard line, this would be it - surely she shouldn't want those people harming the reputation of their profession.
The fact that even 5% of NHS workers are taking this kind of risk is extremely concerning to me, but the silver lining seems to be that this measure is effectively identifying and ejecting workers who are a danger to patient safety. It will be interesting to see what the final numbers are when push comes to shove.
My struggle is this: that's a reasonable argument against the mandate as it exists (although the logical conclusion there seems to be "add a booster requirement" rather than "scrap the mandate"),...
My struggle is this: that's a reasonable argument against the mandate as it exists (although the logical conclusion there seems to be "add a booster requirement" rather than "scrap the mandate"), but not an argument against vaccination in general (because, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't one). I know you aren't arguing against vaccination itself, but the people in the article are.
For me, given their unique position of medical trust and responsibility, I believe the onus is on them to at least justify their refusal. I am absolutely choosing to use vaccine refusal here as a proxy for their general medical competence, and I don't think I'm unjustified in doing so, although I fully accept I might be letting my emotions cloud my conclusions a bit here. The irony is that in another situation I might be the one worrying about the civil liberties implications of using medical information in this way. Again, though, that's not the argument I'm hearing from those who refuse - the argument I'm hearing is that they don't want the vaccine, and the fact they are saying that is what concerns me.
Vaccines are being made mandatory for healthcare workers in England next week, and thankfully the government don't look like they'll back down on this one. About 5% of NHS staff are currently unvaccinated, and the article has comments from a few.
All suggest they wouldn't benefit from the vaccine, but frustratingly most don't go deeper into their refusal; if they just saw it as neutrally unnecessary, they'd just be getting it for the sake of their job. One at least says "There have been lots of adverse effects linked to the vaccine" - which is obviously wrong for any reasonable definition of "lots" - and several express their anger at not being given a choice, despite the fact that they need to comply with any number of other infection control measures as part of their jobs.
I'm frustrated to see the head of the Royal College of Nursing suggesting the deadline should be pushed back. I don't see why she is choosing to make allowances for nurses who by definition do not understand or trust the very medical science that underpins their profession and their duty of patient care. If ever there were a time to take a hard line, this would be it - surely she shouldn't want those people harming the reputation of their profession.
The fact that even 5% of NHS workers are taking this kind of risk is extremely concerning to me, but the silver lining seems to be that this measure is effectively identifying and ejecting workers who are a danger to patient safety. It will be interesting to see what the final numbers are when push comes to shove.
My struggle is this: that's a reasonable argument against the mandate as it exists (although the logical conclusion there seems to be "add a booster requirement" rather than "scrap the mandate"), but not an argument against vaccination in general (because, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't one). I know you aren't arguing against vaccination itself, but the people in the article are.
For me, given their unique position of medical trust and responsibility, I believe the onus is on them to at least justify their refusal. I am absolutely choosing to use vaccine refusal here as a proxy for their general medical competence, and I don't think I'm unjustified in doing so, although I fully accept I might be letting my emotions cloud my conclusions a bit here. The irony is that in another situation I might be the one worrying about the civil liberties implications of using medical information in this way. Again, though, that's not the argument I'm hearing from those who refuse - the argument I'm hearing is that they don't want the vaccine, and the fact they are saying that is what concerns me.