onewheeldave

Another local Labour group has declared its opposition to the contract, the second to split- Two weeks ago, Gleadless Valley Labour Party passed an emergency resolution by a 30-0 vote calling for an immediate mediated settlement of the trees dispute. Here's Sheffield Momentums official statement. https://www.change.org/p/12097432/u/22325016?utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_campaign=242464&sfmc_tk=gy7fzUBgEyYXH1J3nTUehqipQ%2beOIfAy0vzwJZGa%2b78p7OQHD5qQipyd8cZnMz3F&j=242464&sfmc_sub=162272368&l=32_HTML&u=44241573&mid=7259882&jb=5

No, that's not the dilemma being discussed in those articles- those doctors are questioning the efficacy of the flu vaccine. Patient safety vs personal choice is only relevant in the context of the flu vaccine being efficacious.

Ad hominem No, I know you meant health workers. Just to be clear though, you're saying your call for mandatory vaccination applies to health workers directly involved in hands on clinical care, and, not to health workers who are not directly involved in hands on clinical care?

It's the pdf of an article in the British Medical Journal. http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6705

OK http://www.bmj.com/bmj/section-pdf/749788?path=/bmj/347/7933/Head_to_Head.full.pdf

There's one. Here's more- http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3414 "UK doctors re-examine case for mandatory vaccination" (British Medical Journal report on the motion put forward at a British Medical Association meeting last year calling on the BMA to look at the advantages and disadvantages of making childhood immunisation mandatory, proposed by Farah Jameel, a general practitioner in London) Many opposed the motion, saying- That makes a lot of sense Eleanor Draeger, deputy chair of the BMA’s consultants committee, supported the motion, telling the BMJ, after the meeting, that there were several options if mandatory vaccination should ever be introduced. It is very much being debated, and very much called for.

The qualified medical professional who wrote the article in the British Medical Journal is saying that he is disturbed by "bullying and doubletalk from vaccine authorities". As for me, I've been very clear that I totally oppose forced vaccination, and, that, like the 2 medical professionals I've recently quoted, am feeling increasingly disturbed that the day is approaching when healthworkers will have to choose between losing their job, or having to accept compulsory vaccination. That's OK isn't it- I am allowed to express my opposition to compulsory vaccinations and concerns that there are increasing calls for it's implementation? ---------- Post added 31-01-2018 at 22:23 ---------- It's interesting how the people who jump on purely anecdotal accounts presented as evidence by anti-vaccine posters, remain totally silent when anecdotal accounts are put forward by flu vaccine supporters ---------- Post added 31-01-2018 at 22:25 ---------- It's interesting how the people who jump on purely anecdotal accounts presented as evidence by anti-vaccine posters, remain totally silent when anecdotal accounts are put forward by flu vaccine supporters

Another BMJ (British medical journal) article here- http://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k15/rr "Official doubletalk hides serious problems with flu shot safety and effectiveness" by Allan S. Cunningham (Retired pediatrician) Again, extremely critical of the flu vaccine, particularly forcing people to take it, and, of lack of evidence for its efficacy and safety. He also mentions that he was once an advocate of the flu vaccine, but was disturbed by "bullying and doubletalk from vaccine authorities".

In general though, it's low. Vaccination uptake in England for 2013–2014 was only 54.8% for healthcare workers with direct patient contact. (http://bmjopenrespres.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000079?cpetoc=&utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=_BMJ_Open_Resp_Res_TrendMD-0#ref-5)

An interesting short article in the BMJ January 2016 issue that addresses some of the issues raised in this thread, particularly the question of why many health staff avoid the flu vaccine- [quote name= Jason A Wilson consultant anaesthetist and medical statistician Department of Anaesthesia, Imperial College NHS Trust, London W6 8RF, UK] Low uptake of the flu vaccine by healthcare staff might be a response to the aggressive pro-vaccine rhetoric they experience at work. Healthcare staff are sophisticated consumers who can spot aggressive advertising campaigns that overestimate benefit, underestimate harm, and are delivered with simplistic emotional manipulation. They will naturally question who benefits and can Google the facts. An internet search will find that effectiveness of the flu vaccine is only 10% in Australia this season and that, last year, vaccinated people aged over 65 in the UK were more likely to get influenza. The summary of product characteristics for the common influenza vaccine states that harms related to absenteeism occur in 1% to 10% of recipients, and the Cochrane review of staff vaccination last year found that it didn’t protect patients. More searching finds that high vaccination rates in healthcare staff result in better Care Quality Commission ratings and trigger increased trust income through payments from Commissioning for Quality and Innovation. Why is it surprising that some staff respond by digging in their heels?

Anyone currently claiming Housing benefit, tax credits and several other benefits will be worse off under UC, as currently, those benefits are not managed by the jobcentre, and claimants therefore cannot be subject to jobcentre sanctions. Once on UC, all those benefits will be lumped in to UC, and so claimants will be subject to jobcentre sanctions- if sanctioned, they will lose their housing benefit, tax credits etc. Those currently working and claiming housing benefit and/or tax credits due to low income, will, in addition to working their mimimum wage hours, then have to jump through numerous jobcentre hoops to keep those benefits. Those hoops could well include demands to attend jobcenter appointments during the hours they are supposed to be working (and being sanctioned if they fail to attend).

Because they are a football club, not environmental scientists?

No, herbal remedies definitely have physical effects- they contain active substances. Herbalism lies at the roots of modern pharmaceutical medicine. Flower remedies are more akin to homeopathy, which are diluted to the extent that there is no active ingredient contained (then, in the case of flower remedies, mixed 50/50 with brandy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bach_flower_remedies

Placebo is about context- eating sugar pills alone won't produce an effect, when given in the contexts that constitute placebo, they do have an effect. The exact reasons why placebo has an effect are not yet established- as cgksheff mentions, belief is likely a factor. I would suggest authority is likely to be another, as people do tend to believe in/have faith in authority figures (doctors, whether orthodox or otherwise).

So homeopathy is as effective as placebo, which is a 'strong effect'? Placebo treatment is not available (classed as medically unethical), but homeopathy treatment is available... and, in your words, is a 'strong effect'.

If you look at how humanity treats animals, then the majority of apparently peaceful people are complicit in abuse beyond imagination. 90 billion living beings a year are imprisoned, violated, have bits cut off them and then executed, in huge industrial processes, tucked very much away, out of sight and out of mind. Maybe if humans could treat other species with respect, then there would be a chance they'd treat other humans with respect too?

Buying up smaller firms is not the same as global corporations throwing money at new territory, enabling their cabs to charge artificially low fares (loss-leading) that are unsustainable long term, in order to kill off existing competition; at which point, they charge higher fares to recoup their loss. The key difference in the model is that, once the competition is dead, the customers lose out, because, from that point on, they have to pay fares considerably higher than the fares when there was competition.

Lucky you. I've often been unable to get one in rush hour and City cabs don't. 'Subsidising', I would say, is not the right word. I was talking about taxi's being allowed to use bus lanes, and gave several good justifications for that.

I use City taxis a lot, and, they are fine. I'm sure there's the odd driver who's below standard, but that applies to all firms, including Uber. In general I find the majority of City drivers to be communicative (if you want to converse), polite and helpful. The difference with Uber, as many have already mentioned, is that it's business model is to heavily subsidise ('loss leading') when trying to gain new territory, then, when the competition is killed off, the fares rise, and, people have to pay it, because there is then no alternative option.

On the subject of taxis using bus lanes. I'm hearing from a lot of drivers that many are now going home during rush hour, as it is not economically viable to work when the traffic is moving as slow as it does during those times. Taxi drivers get paid by the mile, so, clearly, if traffic is virtually at a standstill, their earnings can drop below the level necessary to cover their business expenses (fuel, radio, taxes, maintenance etc). So I'd say that is a good reason why taxis should be allowed to use bus lanes- it encourages them to continue working during rush hours. Additionally, a lot of disabled people use taxis- they will be severely affected if numbers diminish. And of course, a lot of hospital users, including large numbers of dialysis patients, use taxis- for those, it is critical that they aren't held up in static traffic.

These 2 seem to be contradictory.

Which is relevant how? Do subjects become immune from being sensitive with the passage of time? Is it OK to make fun of overweight people as they've 'been around since year dot'?

I don't think his post shows any lack of understanding- it's very focused and concise, especially this part- Why don't you address those points Makapaka? They clearly indicate that there are serious issues with this contract.

Once again, changes in a once-decent system that seem almost designed to exclude many autistic people

Interesting reading here- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/15/homelessness-report-working-families-stable-jobs-local-government-ombudsman (Families with stable jobs at risk of homelessness in England, report finds)