Flu jab and viral illness

[MAC33]

50 health workers fired for not taking the flu vaccine

 

 

https://www.sott.net/article/368932-Fifty-workers-fired-from-healthcare-system-for-refusing-flu-shot

[monkey104]

50 health workers fired for not taking the flu vaccine

 

 

https://www.sott.net/article/368932-Fifty-workers-fired-from-healthcare-system-for-refusing-flu-shot

 

What does that have to do with the UK?

You really have to come of that sott.net

[Lex Luthor]

No one is 'forced or pressured to comply'. T his isn't Nazi Germany in the 30's and 40's

 

Mmmm. It didn't feel far off when I enquired about having single vaccines for my child, and then, when it came to booster time, the NHS refused my request to test my child to see if he still had enough immunity without having a booster.

 

I also remember clearly on Surestart documentation around the time, that the money promised to parents, would only be given on condition that the parents had their children vaccinated! I would say that's 'forcing or pressuring to comply'.

 

Anyway, back to this year's flu jab - felt ill for about four weeks after, my mum exactly the same - like a mild flu, not pleasant.

 

Wasn't too pleased to hear the Dr on daytime TV, saying figures for last year's flu vaccine showed it only protected 20% of recipients against the flu.

Edited November 25, 2017 by Lex Luthor

[MAC33]

Welcome to 1984......

 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/they-didn-t-get-vaccinated-now-they-re-out-jobs-n823446

[petemcewan]

Mac33,

 

You might find Fred Hoyle's ideas interesting as to the vectors for influenza

epidemics .

[monkey104]

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

Edited November 25, 2017 by monkey104

[petemcewan]

Lex Luthor,

 

That 20% you mention.That figure is a bit shocking. It's the kind of number that anti-vaccinators use to attack the efficacy of vaccination. I suppose 20% is better than 0 %.

One of the possible reasons for such a low figure is the following .The vaccine fails when manufacturers- working months ahead of flu season- incorrectly guess which strains will end up spreading. In my opinion, I still think it's worth having the jab. Not that I think you are suggesting one shouldn't.

Edited November 26, 2017 by petemcewan

[onewheeldave]

What does that have to do with the UK?

It shows that some Health authorities in the US are now sacking employees for refusing to have the flu jab.

 

It sets a precedent.

 

It means that Health authorities over here who share the same view that it's fine to force employees to have a flu jab (by sacking those who don't), will be more likely to push for it.

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 18:13 ----------

 

From the BMJ (British Medical Journal)

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4146

 

'last years Flu jab ineffective for over 65 year olds'

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 18:19 ----------

 

Also from the BMJ

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4766

 

"NHS staff who refuse flu vaccine this winter will have to give reasons"

 

Increasing the pressure for staff to comply.

 

This will very likely be a slippery slope to the requirement for all NHS to have the jab, then, using the same reasoning, there will be pressure for everyone to have it, with those resisting being accused of being selfish by not contributing to 'herd immunity'.

 

As this progresses, those who refuse will be, if employed, sacked, and those are are unemployed, will lose benefits.

 

That is where things are headed.

Edited November 26, 2017 by onewheeldave

[MAC33]

During the drug trials for the Fluzone flu vaccine, 23 seniors out of 3,833 died after receiving the shot, according to the drug's package insert, reported by Health Impact News. Another 226 experienced "serious adverse effects." The manufacturer denies any connection.

 

 

 

https://www.sott.net/article/369136-Flu-vaccines-are-killing-senior-citizens-study-warns

[SnailyBoy]

It shows that some Health authorities in the US are now sacking employees for refusing to have the flu jab.

 

It sets a precedent.

 

It means that Health authorities over here who share the same view that it's fine to force employees to have a flu jab (by sacking those who don't), will be more likely to push for it.

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 18:13 ----------

 

From the BMJ (British Medical Journal)

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4146

 

'last years Flu jab ineffective for over 65 year olds'

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2017 at 18:19 ----------

 

Also from the BMJ

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4766

 

"NHS staff who refuse flu vaccine this winter will have to give reasons"

 

Increasing the pressure for staff to comply.

 

This will very likely be a slippery slope to the requirement for all NHS to have the jab, then, using the same reasoning, there will be pressure for everyone to have it, with those resisting being accused of being selfish by not contributing to 'herd immunity'.

 

As this progresses, those who refuse will be, if employed, sacked, and those are are unemployed, will lose benefits.

 

That is where things are headed.

 

It's good that you've mentioned a slippery slope, because that's the fallacy you've demonstrated.