Flu jab and viral illness

[Annie Bynnol]

I am concerned that some on here might not appreciate the danger to your pocket of not having the correct vaccinations.

 

If the NHS or Home Office advice is to be immunised against diseases in a country that you travel through/to, then you must check your travel/business insurance if you choose not to be vaccinated.

 

Failing to have the correct vaccinations and in some cases certificates can invalidate your insurance if you fall ill.

An airline may also refuse to let you travel and an airport or another country may refuse you entry or transfer if you have earlier travelled through certain countries which required a vaccination for that other country.

 

It could thousands in cancelled flights and accommodation and cost ten of thousands to be treated to the standard you wish.

[Daven]

The people I have in mind are critical thinkers- they don't need to do more research on that, as it's well known that tetanus, typhoid, malaria are extremely bad things to get infected by

 

And like I said, they are many people who will happily get vaccinated against malaria, who will refuse the flu jab.

 

So, for for compulsory vaccinations, the research would be into those specific vaccinations, into the advisory organisation (including financial links and vested interests), plus, as you mention, for less well known diseases than the 3 you highlight, the consequences of infection.

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 13:55 ----------

 

I'm not a good example- I'm not a traveller. If I was facing travel to those regions I'd consider the issues then.

 

I can say though, I would be going beyond NHS advice, as I find a lot of NHS advice to be questionable (on other matters).

 

One example being the flu vaccine itself- the NHS advises it very strongly (to the point of putting actual pressure on some of it's employees), yet I have zero intention of getting a flu vaccine.

 

Yet again - the NHS does not 'put pressure' on employees to have the flu jab.

[onewheeldave]

Yet again - the NHS does not 'put pressure' on employees to have the flu jab.

 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2017/10/nhs-leaders-unveil-action-to-boost-flu-vaccination-and-manage-winter-pressures/

 

NHS England, Public Health England, the Department of Health and NHS Improvement have today unveiled measures to boost the uptake of flu vaccinations along with package of new contingency actions to respond to pressures on frontline services this winter. Intensified preparations include:

 

*Directing NHS trusts to ensure they make vaccines readily available to staff and record why those who choose to opt out of the programme do so

*Writing to doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers reminding them of their professional duty to protect patients by being vaccinated

.................

 

...............

Although last year saw record take up more than one in three NHS staff failed to do so, with just one in five being vaccinated in some trusts. This year, NHS trusts are being told to make the vaccine readily available to staff without the need to disrupt their work and record why anyone who decides to opt out chose to do so.

 

You don't see that as pressure. And that's OK.

 

Me, I see the recording of names of those who refuse, and the writing of letters 'reminding them of their duty...' as pressure.

 

So, I guess we disagree on that one.

[Cyclone]

One example being the flu vaccine itself- the NHS advises it very strongly (to the point of putting actual pressure on some of it's employees), yet I have zero intention of getting a flu vaccine.

 

You don't work for the NHS, or with sick people, nor are you in a high risk group for the flu... So don't have the jab and stop going on about it.

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 22:24 ----------

 

Yes,I believe their science on vaccines to be a sham.

 

To believe that by directly injecting a witches brew of known toxins in to the body and expect overall health benefits is beyond me.

 

Well, yes, given your fragile grasp on reality and rudimentary to basic understanding of science and medicine, I imagine that it is very much beyond you.

Unfortunately at some point though you've decided that if you can't understand something, you'll instead choose to believe a simpler, but wrong, explanation, which often flies directly in the face of, well, reality, evidence, critical thinking and basic common sense.

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 22:26 ----------

 

There are so many documentaries out there exposing Big Pharma and vac

Americans are the most medicated and vaccinated in the world by far - coincidence they are then the sickest?

 

Perhaps you could explain how Polio and Smallpox were eradicated if it wasn't the worldwide vaccination program?

[monkey104]

https://www.england.nhs.uk/2017/10/nhs-leaders-unveil-action-to-boost-flu-vaccination-and-manage-winter-pressures/

 

 

 

You don't see that as pressure. And that's OK.

 

Me, I see the recording of names of those who refuse, and the writing of letters 'reminding them of their duty...' as pressure.

 

So, I guess we disagree on that one.

 

Nowhere in that article does it state that names of those who refuse will be recorded, it just states that the reason for refusal should be given and as is usual within NHS the letter will be an ‘open’ letter for all staff to see.

[onewheeldave]

You don't work for the NHS, or with sick people, nor are you in a high risk group for the flu... So don't have the jab and stop going on about it.

It's relevant here, as it's an example of a vaccine that many do not have, despite them having a belief in the validity of the scientific efficacy of vaccines in general.

 

I feel it's important to ensure that people who criticize an aspect of vaccinations, or the systems around vaccinations, or, specific vaccinations, are not branded as automatically being anti-vaccine, or renting conspiracy theorists.

 

This is not as black and white as many pro-vaccine people present it as.

 

There are many of us who are not anti-vaccine per se, yet who are critical of the pharmaceutical industry vested interests, or who are against compulsory vaccinations (in some instances), or against the controlling nature of the administrating organisations (eg the refusal of the single measles vaccine to those who opposed their children being given the 'triple-jab).

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 23:16 ----------

 

Nowhere in that article does it state that names of those who refuse will be recorded, it just states that the reason for refusal should be given and as is usual within NHS the letter will be an ‘open’ letter for all staff to see.

 

That is true, it doesn't mention names. My mistake, thank you for pointing it out.

 

The letter though, open as it may be, is

 

'reminding them of their professional duty to protect patients by being vaccinated'

 

clearly implying that, should they not have the vaccine, they are failing in their professional duty, which, to me, is pressure.

 

Having said that, I do have personal experience of how controlling and bullying the NHS can be, so I'm maybe more sensitive to such things than those of you who haven't.

[Cyclone]

They should have it, they work with sick people, some patients will be immunocompromised, other patients may be flu vectors. The staff are the single most mobile, germ carrying units in the NHS. If they can be removed as a vector of infection, a) they don't contribute to a flu epidemic amongst people who are already ill or injured, b) they don't take time off work at a busy time leaving the NHS even more short staffed.

[onewheeldave]

They should have it, they work with sick people, some patients will be immunocompromised, other patients may be flu vectors. The staff are the single most mobile, germ carrying units in the NHS. If they can be removed as a vector of infection, a) they don't contribute to a flu epidemic amongst people who are already ill or injured, b) they don't take time off work at a busy time leaving the NHS even more short staffed.

 

Do you think they should be pressured to have it? For example, by making having the flu vaccine a condition of their continuing employment?

[Cyclone]

No, and that hasn't happened.

I think that they should be advised to have it, and they should understand why.

The NHS should monitor the uptake and try to understand the reasons why people decline, which it's doing.

[barleycorn]

It's relevant here, as it's an example of a vaccine that many do not have, despite them having a belief in the validity of the scientific efficacy of vaccines in general.

 

I feel it's important to ensure that people who criticize an aspect of vaccinations, or the systems around vaccinations, or, specific vaccinations, are not branded as automatically being anti-vaccine, or renting conspiracy theorists.

 

This is not as black and white as many pro-vaccine people present it as.

 

There are many of us who are not anti-vaccine per se, yet who are critical of the pharmaceutical industry vested interests, or who are against compulsory vaccinations (in some instances), or against the controlling nature of the administrating organisations (eg the refusal of the single measles vaccine to those who opposed their children being given the 'triple-jab).

 

---------- Post added 28-11-2017 at 23:16 ----------

 

 

That is true, it doesn't mention names. My mistake, thank you for pointing it out.

 

The letter though, open as it may be, is

 

 

 

clearly implying that, should they not have the vaccine, they are failing in their professional duty, which, to me, is pressure.

 

Having said that, I do have personal experience of how controlling and bullying the NHS can be, so I'm maybe more sensitive to such things than those of you who haven't.

If people wanted the single jab then they could get it.