Well I never who would have thought not... I know "kin Keyboard warriors" that's who, in the timed honored tradition give yourselves a pat on the back and just hope its not you and yours stuck in the back of an ambulance.
NHS England has released its figures for October, which show that more than 30% of people admitted to hospital from A&E had to wait over four hours for a bed or for treatment.
Well I never who would have thought not... I know "kin Keyboard warriors" that's who, in the timed honored tradition give yourselves a pat on the back and just hope its not you and yours stuck in the back of an ambulance.
NHS England has released its figures for October, which show that more than 30% of people admitted to hospital from A&E had to wait over four hours for a bed or for treatment.
Understanding the trajectory, duration, and determinants of antibody responses after SARS-CoV-2 infection can inform subsequent protection and risk of reinfection, however large-scale representative studies are limited. Here we estimated antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population using representative data from 7,256 United Kingdom COVID-19 infection survey participants who had positive swab SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from 26-April-2020 to 14-June-2021.
A latent class model classified 24% of participants as ‘non-responders’ not developing anti-spike antibodies, who were older, had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values during infection (i.e. lower viral burden), and less frequently reported any symptoms. Among those who seroconverted, using Bayesian linear mixed models, the estimated anti-spike IgG peak level was 7.3-fold higher than the level previously associated with 50% protection against reinfection, with higher peak levels in older participants and those of non-white ethnicity.
The estimated anti-spike IgG half-life was 184 days, being longer in females and those of white ethnicity. We estimated antibody levels associated with protection against reinfection likely last 1.5-2 years on average, with levels associated with protection from severe infection present for several years. These estimates could inform planning for vaccination booster strategies.
In the case you detail above about a cancer patient I’d understand and support someone who decided to go the palliative route, I’d even go further and advocate that people should be able to plan for assisted suicide under controlled conditions - some end of life care can be pretty unpleasant unfortunately and I’d prefer people had the option to minimize it.
However if that same cancer patient decided to undergo treatment, even if there was relatively low odds of it succeeding, I’d feel they deserve a care team that were doing their best to ensure its success and reducing their chances of contracting a potentially deadly disease to immune suppressed people that would derail it. At the very least they too should have full knowledge of the risk and be able to consent as to who is treating them.
I' m not sure i agree mate, i get the conapt does the systemic impact trump the right to consent and bodily integrity - that's essentially the debate. Consent for me is paramount, i dont disagree that its for the greater good in this instance, but it sets a precedent. Why not go the whole way and force everyone in society to have a vaccine. Why not force everyone to do it every year with flu.
I know i give a simple example, but i think we both know some situations are stickier and often come down to informed consent, for me the principal must remain absolute and enshrined in a human right. To look at it another way say your/my last scenario, if a patient want to be actively treated with little hope and likely negative outcomes, say a doctor says no, its in the greater good that you dont waste hospital or health service funds on 6-10k per round of keomo therapy, or take up an active treatment spot for someone who needs it. hey are different concepts at play with the same principals at play.
In the case you detail above about a cancer patient I’d understand and support someone who decided to go the palliative route, I’d even go further and advocate that people should be able to plan for assisted suicide under controlled conditions - some end of life care can be pretty unpleasant unfortunately and I’d prefer people had the option to minimize it.
However if that same cancer patient decided to undergo treatment, even if there was relatively low odds of it succeeding, I’d feel they deserve a care team that were doing their best to ensure its success and reducing their chances of contracting a potentially deadly disease to immune suppressed people that would derail it. At the very least they too should have full knowledge of the risk and be able to consent as to who is treating them.
By all means these past 18 months there has had to have been a collective mentality. We have all had to do our part , to some extent keep doing our part in relation to covid.
But whatever the issue is, sometimes you have to stop thinking of others and think of only yourself. If you take that independent thought away from people, it's akin to exactly what conspiracy theorists are saying about many things about the vaccine itself.
I' m not sure i agree mate, i get the conapt does the systemic impact trump the right to consent and bodily integrity - that's essentially the debate. Consent for me is paramount, i dont disagree that its for the greater good in this instance, but it sets a precedent. Why not go the whole way and force everyone in society to have a vaccine. Why not force everyone to do it every year with flu.
I know i give a simple example, but i think we both know some situations are stickier and often come down to informed consent, for me the principal must remain absolute and enshrined in a human right. To look at it another way say your/my last scenario, if a patient want to be actively treated with little hope and likely negative outcomes, say a doctor says no, its in the greater good that you dont waste hospital or health service funds on 6-10k per round of keomo therapy, or take up an active treatment spot for someone who needs it. hey are different concepts at play with the same principals at play.
Scope I agree is important, both on what vaccines are required and who the requirement applies to.
However here in the US some jobs do already require vaccines against infectious diseases (flu, measles, Hep B) as a condition of employment and have for years without it creating a slippery slope that everyone in all walks of life are being forced to be vaccinated against their will so I don’t share what I’m sensing is a concern that a similar requirement for Covid could spiral out of control.
Job requirements are not unusual in other aspects - need to have a driving license or a professional accreditation for instance or to wear certain clothing and to be sober when working. I just see the vaccinations in the same vein, albeit more intrusive - if you don’t want to meet the standards then there are other career opportunities available,
In the example we have been discussing I think the chemo staff should have the choice on whether to take a tetanus vaccine - tetanus is not transmitted from person to person so that choice only impacts themselves. They should also have the choice as to whether to take the covid vaccine but, unlike tetanus, that does have impacts on others. So I also think their employer should have the choice as to whether that decision meant they could decide to no longer employ them. If they still decided to then I feel the chemo patient should also have the choice as to whether or not they were treated by a someone who statistically is more of a risk to them. The patient‘s bodily autonomy for me trumps the healthcare worker’s autonomy as they have less flexibility in their situation and are more vulnerable.
I am no longer familiar with what authorizations are required for surgery/therapy in Europe but here in the US if that cancer patient’s doctor said no to treatment then it unlikely it would go ahead as the health insurer wouldn’t pay for it so would be an astronomical out of pocket cost for the patient they would not be able to afford. Liver transplant operations are routinely denied to alcoholics who cannot demonstrate their sobriety as they would be taking up limited resources. However sorry I’m a bit confused as to how that relates to mandates.
By all means these past 18 months there has had to have been a collective mentality. We have all had to do our part , to some extent keep doing our part in relation to covid.
But whatever the issue is, sometimes you have to stop thinking of others and think of only yourself. If you take that independent thought away from people, it's akin to exactly what conspiracy theorists are saying about many things about the vaccine itself.
Positive news. It seems like the plan to allow mixing in the summer months to reduce the winter impact has worked to a degree. The booster numbers need to continue to improve, if the third doses happen for majority of over 50s the country might be able to reach the spring without additional restrictions.
There was an argument I seen which had a point , coming from America.
The idea that heroes (let's be honest the healthcare front line staff have been) worked tirelessly on the front line right when the pandemic hit, suddenly being forced vaccination or be sacked.
The reality is, forcing people to take the vaccine is forcing people to take the risk of the side effects that do exist. Some serious ones, no matter how rare they are.
The likes of you and me and millions upon millions of others have taken that risk but one argument should be considered that people should have the choice. To force anything with side effects onto people is a moral grey area, sure they can not spread the virus as a result but it's taking on risk for themselves.
It's not a one way conversation, whatever you may think, people should have a choice. Especially when these same people were heroes for so long without a vaccination in them. They still saved lives without it.
None of this is my personal opinion , simply offering an alternative viewpoint on the subject.
There was an argument I seen which had a point , coming from America.
The idea that heroes (let's be honest the healthcare front line staff have been) worked tirelessly on the front line right when the pandemic hit, suddenly being forced vaccination or be sacked.
The reality is, forcing people to take the vaccine is forcing people to take the risk of the side effects that do exist. Some serious ones, no matter how rare they are.
The likes of you and me and millions upon millions of others have taken that risk but one argument should be considered that people should have the choice. To force anything with side effects onto people is a moral grey area, sure they can not spread the virus as a result but it's taking on risk for themselves.
It's not a one way conversation, whatever you may think, people should have a choice. Especially when these same people were heroes for so long without a vaccination in them. They still saved lives without it.
None of this is my personal opinion , simply offering an alternative viewpoint on the subject.
Find out more about the shows on Sky HISTORY's TV channel, with plenty to read and watch on your favourite historical topics.
www.history.com
And in a famous Supreme court case the decision was r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.
It boils down to what you mean by "people should have a choice" and whether those choices should be consequence free if they adversely impact others, especially under their care. Healthcare workers clearly saved lives when they worked without a vaccine and I'm deeply grateful that they did and risked their own health to do so. Should that gratitude extend to exercising their vaccine choice that will now increase the risk of death to their patients?
Different states are going different routes, some like mine are mandating vaccines for healthcare workers. others like Florida and Texas are adamantly opposed (despite often having vaccine mandates for flu). Personally I'd happy with the decision my state has made.
However here in the US some jobs do already require vaccines against infectious diseases (flu, measles, Hep B) as a condition of employment and have for years without it creating a slippery slope that everyone in all walks of life are being forced to be vaccinated against their will so I don’t share what I’m sensing is a concern that a similar requirement for Covid could spiral out of control.
Job requirements are not unusual in other aspects - need to have a driving license or a professional accreditation for instance or to wear certain clothing and to be sober when working. I just see the vaccinations in the same vein, albeit more intrusive - if you don’t want to meet the standards then there are other career opportunities available,
In the example we have been discussing I think the chemo staff should have the choice on whether to take a tetanus vaccine - tetanus is not transmitted from person to person so that choice only impacts themselves. They should also have the choice as to whether to take the covid vaccine but, unlike tetanus, that does have impacts on others. So I also think their employer should have the choice as to whether that decision meant they could decide to no longer employ them. If they still decided to then I feel the chemo patient should also have the choice as to whether or not they were treated by a someone who statistically is more of a risk to them. The patient‘s bodily autonomy for me trumps the healthcare worker’s autonomy as they have less flexibility in their situation and are more vulnerable.
I am no longer familiar with what authorizations are required for surgery/therapy in Europe but here in the US if that cancer patient’s doctor said no to treatment then it unlikely it would go ahead as the health insurer wouldn’t pay for it so would be an astronomical out of pocket cost for the patient they would not be able to afford. Liver transplant operations are routinely denied to alcoholics who cannot demonstrate their sobriety as they would be taking up limited resources. However sorry I’m a bit confused as to how that relates to mandates.
I veer more to the consent piece myself, as you know id be strongly pro vax, however i do think those who are anti vax have a right to consent, if they want it fine if they don't, they shouldn't be forced. I think comparisons to basic arbitrary requirements for jobs and consent in regard to injecting something to your body are two very different ends of personal choice spectrum. But getting back to consent, any health care professional is trained to seek informed consent from those they are treating as a basic in terms of ethical good practice, that is totally at odds to a mandatory vaccine mandate in terms of institutions demanding a change to someone bodily autonomy to something they clearly are deciding after weighing a decision is not right for them, infact the practice healthcare institutions demand from health care professionals they are contradicting with this mandate. The stick of course is you loose your job. I just cant get on board with it mate, ethically i think its just not right. But i accept we all have different opinions. As i say why diversify, if you are going to mandate, why not force everyone in society to get the vaccine, similar to flu etc. Do we round up children in school who parents are hesitant and force them to get it for the greater good and protect other school children.... Again my main concern is precedent, once there is pathway for an ethical principal can be broke, it can be broke again and again. Essentially having a for some members of society - health care professionals and not for others, that's not a fair application of fundamental human rights.
I suppose the example and the fact you need to weigh, apply and vary approach shows the complexity and scope of the whole consent/coercion approach and how deep down the rabbit hole you ca go if precedents are broke on the ethical concept.
news.sky.com
www.bbc.co.uk
