back to article Unvaccinated and working at Apple? Prepare for COVID-19 testing 'every time' you step in the office

Apple will require unvaccinated workers to get tested for COVID-19 every time they come into the office for work, starting from November 1. Employees have been told to declare whether they’ve been vaccinated or not by October 24, Bloomberg reported this week. Staff who choose not to disclose their vaccination status will be …

  1. MrTuK

    I do get why they want people vaccinated but its BS to force people. They don't do it for FLU any other viruses and although I have been vaccinated twice and also had COVID after my 2nd jab and would recommend anyone above 30 to get vaccinated, I still would never want to force anyone. But saying that I think everyone should wear a mask iif n close proximity to other people in doors. This risk is higher to non-vaccinated people so its their crazy choice to not have the vaccine but its still their free choice.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Send them into exile...

      We should designate a portion of the planet where anti-vaxxers can be exiled and left to take their chances. Oh wait, it's called America.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Send them into exile...

        Tarring 332,000,000ish people with a single brush.

        That sure made your life easier, eh?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Send them into exile...

          Jake defending anti vaxers.

          Not a high point for you is it pal.

          1. jmch Silver badge

            Re: Send them into exile...

            He's not defending anti-vaxxers... he's pointing out that actually, about 200 million people in the US are vaccinated and the previous comment was therefore bollocks.

            https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Send them into exile...

          > Tarring 332,000,000ish people with a single brush.

          Is that being put forward as a 'cure'? Surely it would take ages to do everyone with a single brush. ;-)

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: Send them into exile...

            "Is that being put forward as a 'cure'?"

            Don't be silly. Everyone[0] knows that topicals don't work on viruses.

            [0] Except some followers of Republican ex-Presidents, apparently.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      They're not forcing anyone. They're pointing out that if they choose not to get vaccinated, they are welcome to choose a new employer at the same time.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        You're being disingenuous.

        When all employers require the jab, it is de facto mandatory and therefore forced. This has already happened in Italy and every Western country is slowly but surely following suit.

        1. jake Silver badge

          "When all employers require the jab"

          Not all do. Nor do all jobs require interacting with other people.

        2. Filippo Silver badge

          "This has already happened in Italy"

          Nope. Not sure what's your source, but there's lot of hyperbole and flat-out lies floating around.

          Over here it is actually illegal for employers to demand to know employees' vaccination status; they can only know whether they have a valid Green Pass, which can be obtained without being vaccinated (e.g. with a recent test, or by being exempt due to some medical condition).

          Lots of anti-vaxxers are going to work getting tested every couple of days. It's expensive and annoying, but doable if you're really hell-bent on not being vaccinated. It is true that you don't get to both not be vaccinated and not encounter any resistance at all. I don't see a problem with that.

          1. Adelio

            personally i would not wish to visit any establishment where people are NOT vaccinated. THEY put other people (inclusing me) at risk.

            If they do not want to be vaccinated stay at home or ALWAYS wear a mask.

            1. DevOpsTimothyC

              people are NOT vaccinated. THEY put other people (inclusing me) at risk.

              That part has puzzled me but I see that response / attitude quite a bit. When I'm double (soon to be triple?) vaxxed how are non-vaxxed people putting me at direct risk by being in their presence?

              In a wider stance, Yes un-vaxxed people provide a better pool for the virus to grow and mutate, but from the information I've seen the reason it looks like we'll all need to get regular top-up's is because of mutations.

              In my mind having been vaxxed you're mostly "safe" around anyone (vaxxed or not) against the current strains, and you have mild resistance to new strains with unvaxxed people who haven't previously had COVID-19 being the highest risk group, people who have been vaxxed or have had COVID-19 some time ago being a relatively medium risk and the lowest risk coming from those who have had COVID-19 in the last 1-3 month time frame. From what I've seen the doctors are saying that natural immunity having had COVID-19 is better than vaccination.

              1. Blank Reg

                vaccinations don't work 100% of the time. some fully vaccinated people will still contract the virus and some will even die. And while even vaccinated people can spread the delta variant, the unvaccinated are the ones most responsible for the continued spread. And the more it spreads the greater the chances of new even more contagious and deadly variants

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                That part has puzzled me but I see that response / attitude quite a bit. When I'm double (soon to be triple?) vaxxed how are non-vaxxed people putting me at direct risk by being in their presence?

                Two aspects:

                1 - risk to you. Vaccination does not prevent you from getting infected, it reduces the impact on you to at most a few annoying days, also because your body will be able to fight the virus the moment it shows up and thus lessens the time you could be contagious. The only issue there is a possible breakthrough event, chances of which increase with more variants.

                2 - risk to others. As per above, it means you can still get infected and thus can still temporarily become a carrier - in other words, a risk to others. To the vaccinated, mostly meh as above, to the unvax you're more of a risk during that time.

              3. Bill Michaelson

                Priority

                Eliminating the breeding pool for mutation, before the mutation that is resistant to current vax appears should be everyone's goal. That means all mitigations, from masks to vax to ventilation must be deployed as widely as possible, as soon as possible and as persistently as possible. The firefighters don't leave the seen while it is still smoking. They suffocate the embers. Speculation about the spectrum of risk factors has been used too many times to rationalize atrocious public policy decisions. An especially egregious example: "Kids don't get very sick from COVID so open schools." Every risk factor that is reduced multiplies into the risk product and the time factor brings exponents into play.

                Public health. Your health IS my health. There is no space for individualism here. You want extreme freedom? Go live in the woods and stay there. Alone.

                1. anothercynic Silver badge

                  Re: Priority

                  Amen, well said.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Priority

                  Or Is by encouraging mutation. Every virus Is ultimately aims to achieve symbiosis with its hosts evenually over a series of mutations.

                  When the virus achieves symbiosis then It becomes Is part of Interrelated species and mergers of geneticsthat form the biome and feature sets of the human body and continue human development.

                  That ongoing process is responsible, For the majority of what it is to be human.

                  And for the existence of all life.

                  But that's OK let's just stop everything that was the foundation for life. It's OK we have strong feelings and those will surely Reshape the universe to match our preferences.

                3. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Priority

                  Go live in the woods and stay there. Alone.

                  And if you're stuck for anything to do there, maybe finally find the answer to the bear defecation question.

                  :)

                  1. jake Silver badge

                    Re: Priority

                    For the record, after having to bathe the Smooth Collie after rolling in same last weekend, it would appear that at least one bear did, indeed, shit in the woods.

                    After that momentous scientific breakthrough, we now return you to the usual ElReg commentardary.

                    1. David 132 Silver badge
                      Happy

                      Re: Priority

                      it would appear that at least one bear did, indeed, shit in the woods.

                      It might have been the Pope?

                      Unless I’m getting my clichéd aphorisms mixed up, of course.

                      1. Evil Scot

                        Re: Priority

                        Depends.

                        Did he stop shaving?

                4. Fins Analyst

                  Re: Priority

                  Covid zero is a fantasy.

                  This is not smallpox - there are animal reservoirs.

                  Whether people choose vaccine immunity or natural immunity is their choice - but it will end up being one or the other.

                  As an aside, why are booster still using the original strain and not Delta as a basis?

                  1. Roland6 Silver badge

                    Re: Priority

                    >As an aside, why are booster still using the original strain and not Delta as a basis?

                    That's because Pfizer and Moderna have been shown to be highly effective at blocking the Delta variant and currently they are the ones that have been approved, that show such a high efficacy.

                    There is another vaccine currently under going trials and approval that is 'reprogrammable'. This is seen as a gamechanger as only the 'reprogrammed' payload will need to go through a much shorter approvals process resulting in the more responsive production of vaccines better targeted at mutations currently in the wild.

              4. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                >> From what I've seen the doctors are saying that natural immunity having had COVID-19 is better than vaccination.

                You mean like this?

                https://www.forbes.com/sites/victoriaforster/2021/09/23/people-end-up-in-icu-after-attending-covid-party/

                Whatever facebook doctor you listen to, don't.

                1. Roland6 Silver badge

                  >You mean like this?

                  One step at a time...

                  Yes, in general having natural immunity is better than vaccinated immunity. However, there are two big problems. Firstly the gaining of natural immunity, which as the article you link to shows is not without considerable risk to the individual, and secondly the duration of any such immunity.

                  From what I have read, an individual's level of natural immunity is directly related to the degree to which they have CoViD - get a bad dose and you could be looking at 6 months of natural immunity, get a mild dose and that could be 4 weeks. At least with the vaccinated immunity, there seems to be some consistency and a much slower decline in immunity.

            2. Zolko Silver badge
              Pint

              where does it end ?

              personally i would not wish to visit any establishment where people are NOT vaccinated.

              ha, double vaccinated, how foolish ! I'm 4-times vaccinated and I don't want to meet people who are less than 3-times vaccinated. How irresponsible for people to only take 2 doses, these anti-tripple-vaxxers are a danger for humanity and should be deported to some remote place.

              </sarcasm> although I'm afraid you might really mean it. Which would be stupid of course, because either your vaccine is effective and then you don't have anything to fear, or it's not and then on what ground would you want other people to take an ineffective product.

              1. BloggsyMaloan

                Re: where does it end ?

                "either your vaccine is effective and then you don't have anything to fear, or it's not and then on what ground would you want other people to take an ineffective product"

                A gross misunderstanding of vaccines (and most risk-related science). They are measured to have a certain percentage effectiveness.

                Would you say either seat-belts are effective and then you don't have anything to fear, or they're not and then on what ground would you want people to wear an ineffective product"?

                Ingest some knowledge and understanding before spouting ignorant rubbish.

                (Hope I didn't put that too strongly...)

              2. mevets

                Re: where does it end ?

                I feel the same way about seat belts. When I have mine on, I barely touch the brakes at all. I am not worried about hitting something; I will be perfectly safe. If not, what is the point in having a seat belt?

                1. Roland6 Silver badge

                  Re: where does it end ?

                  That is a problem with many safety measures. Many drove like idiots before seatbelts became compulsory in part because they didn't know or care about the risks. Others in now having a safer driving experience create new risks by driving in ways they either expect others to void them or in which the safety devices will work without fail....

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: where does it end ?

                Sorry you're only giving me £9,000 for free, but I only accept £10,000.

                £9,000 is a defective amount. When you get to £10000, I'll think about your offer.

                In the mean time, I prefer to fill my empty wallets with whatever scrap I find in the air and on the ground. Masks get in the way of that.

                And yes you will smell my stink because I can't afford a shower or toilet paper, and it is my right.

                Individual freedom is the right to fart anywhere and anytime.

                But do remember I expect you to pay taxes and insurance premiums, so that the hospital bed is there to treat me for the skin fleas I chose.

                Heart attack patient? Not my problem - right to fart is important.

                </sarcasm>

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: where does it end ?

                  Then what value could there possibly be to human life if the individual only exists to be burnt for the sake of ideals?

                  Why would anyone want to join a group of people who scapegoated them for what amounts to Is a regular periodic expression of natural dynamics.

                  Plagues come around about every 100 years,give or take.

                  Just like in every other animal they have a they have a beneficial part to play in the longer skill dynamic.

                  It's these kind of conflicts that make me think that maybe mankind has grown too stupid to make it many more generations.

                  Stop blaming each other, Acknowledge the beneficial aspects of death and how it prevents all life from ending,

                  can we all just get back to all being our own experiments, laughing at our own struggles with good sportsmanship,

                  before we nuke each other just to get some peace?

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: where does it end ?

                    "what value could there possibly be to human life if the individual only exists to be burnt for the sake of ideals"

                    "for what amounts to Is a regular periodic expression of natural dynamics."

                    Huh???

                    So you say it's OK to kill individual humans for the "ideal" of letting nature take its course, but not ok if the individual human has to do follow the "ideal" of saving as many lives?

                    And no "ideals" of protection of way of life - terrorism, robberies, rapes, murders all have to permitted, by your logic. I mean nature expressing itself? Vive la individuale!!

                    "before we nuke each other just to get some peace?"

                    Woah come again now?? You just seem to think if an individual wants to nuke the planet, it should allowed?

                    We should let "nature" in a virus run its course unimpeded and if it kills people that is a-OK, but nukes are a no-no?

                    So what a creature of nature called Coronavirus does, making lung cell nukes, is "natural" and to be accepted, without intervention, but what another creature of nature called Homo Sapiens does, making nuclear nukes, is not to be accepted and that killing is not desirable?

                    "make me think that maybe mankind has grown too stupid to make it many more generations"

                    I don't know about mankind growing too stupid, but something stupid is going on here for sure.

                    "Acknowledge the beneficial aspects of death"

                    If you have ever been to a doctor in your life, you're a hypocrite.

            3. herman

              Risk reduction

              You are at risk? So go get vaccinated, then you won’t be at risk.

            4. Steve Button Silver badge

              "personally i would not wish to visit any establishment where people are NOT vaccinated."

              then don't. That's your choice.

              1. MarkTriumphant

                Assuming, of course, that you know whether they are vaccinated.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I am failing to see why this is a bad thing?

        4. Bill Michaelson

          Not disingenuous

          It might come to "forced" but the distinction is not interesting. We understand the distinction between compulsion and coercion. Had it not been for all the demagoguery and political manipulation surrounding a public health problem, we might have achieved a high enough vaccination rate such that no coercion is necessary.

          But it hasn't played out that way, the threat to all persists, and if it continues, compulsion could become the only rational solution for eliminating the threat.

          Polluters are compelled to stop polluting which put all of our lives and health at risk. Unvaccinated people, as a group, are statistically guaranteed to be polluters and thus, killers - just as drinkers who drive, as a group, are statistically guaranteed to be road hazards. Thus we prohibit drunk driving. If we prohibit vaccination refusal the logic will be just as sound.

          You might hate rules or government generally, and nobody likes to be told what they must do. But that is the occasional price of having a civilization.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Not disingenuous

            That's the price of maintaining an existing civilization.

            However if you don't play favorites With form of civilization, And instead value civilizations Is as expressions of cooperative creative variety, In the experiment to explore all the potential shared Imaginations humans can cooperatively Maintain,

            Then civilization becomes an inexhaustible, Infinitely renewable resource so long as there are humans alive to Creatively and compulsively reinvent it. Regular Turnover becomes essential to purpose.

        5. Clunking Fist

          The Nordics aren't. At least I am lead to believe they aren't.

      2. jmch Silver badge

        "if they choose not to get vaccinated, they are welcome to choose a new employer at the same time."

        That is pretty much forcing

        1. Zolko Silver badge

          anti-science

          if they choose not to get vaccinated...

          That is pretty much forcing

          the problem is not only that, but the insidious inversion of proof, which is the very definition of non-science. People choose to get vaccinated, the default behavior is not to let anyone inject into your body any new product just because it's there. It's as ridiculous as saying that people choose not to buy an Apple product.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Threatening a person's livelihood is akin to threatening to killing them.

        At least in the US situationally from a fearful intimidation and fallout standpoint,, even if not legaly recognized.

        The US does not have competent safety nets To Express loyalty to its citizens.

        So its forced through coercion,

        But the law represents absent proper accountability.

    3. Howard Sway Silver badge

      I presume your employer insists on you wearing clothes at work. Are you insisting that it should still be your free choice not to if you're anti-clothes? There are many other freedoms that you have outside work, that you specifically don't have in the office, e.g. juggling chainsaws. Just saying "freedom" isn't the automatic argument winner many people think it is. It's a bit more complicated than that.

      1. SundogUK Silver badge

        Wearing clothes is never going to kill me.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Well my cousin met someone down the pub who tripped over his shoelaces and got run over by a tram - so clearly wearing clothes can kill you. And the vaccine is never going to kill you - but Covid could quite easily.

          1. Steve Button Silver badge

            "And the vaccine is never going to kill you"

            That right there is misinformation (but the kind you probably can get away with saying?). It has killed several people. It's very very unlikely to kill you, but saying never is just plain wrong.

            Here's one high profile...

            https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/aug/26/bbc-presenter-lisa-shaw-died-of-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-complications-coroner-finds

            Of course Covid is MORE LIKELY to kill you.

            1. Blank Reg

              Covid is not just more likely to kill you, it's orders of magnitude more likely to kill you. And if you are unfortunate enough to have serious side effects from the vaccine then it's likely that you wouldn't have done well with covid either.

              1. Steve Button Silver badge

                I agree on the first point, the jab is really really very unlikely to kill you.

                However, it does seem the few that suffer heart or other problems were otherwise healthy and we don't really understand why it happens. There's some theories about injections going into a vein instead of muscle, and some doctors are recommending aspiration (pull the plunger back, and if you get blood throw away and start again.) Perhaps by jabbing so many people we'll learn more about how to avoid these side effects, which can only be a good thing, right? But saying they probably would not have done well with Covid is a bit of a leap.

                1. Blank Reg

                  The heart inflamation and clotting that can happen from the vaccine are both far more likely to occur if you contract Covid

                  1. David Nash Silver badge
                    Megaphone

                    This needs to be said much louder because people don't hear it.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  >> But saying they probably would not have done well with Covid is a bit of a leap.

                  This is a pedantic argument - it has no meaning in practice. On any probabilistic model, dying from COVID or having permanent injury from Covid is indeed very significantly far more likely.

      2. codejunky Silver badge

        @Howard Sway

        "I presume your employer insists on you wearing clothes at work."

        The employer does not get to dictate what I must eat or drink (put in my body).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Howard Sway

          Well they will tell you what you can't eat or drink - they probably don't want you turning up at work drunk, and if you chose to not drink anything all day and collapsed at your desk from dehydration, they would probably insist that you sort out your physical and mental health before you came back in.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: @Howard Sway

            @AC

            "Well they will tell you what you can't eat or drink"

            That would be the opposite of what I said. They can refuse you if you are impaired from your duties but they cannot dictate what you must put in your body.

            1. mevets

              Re: @Howard Sway

              Urine tests for drug screening.

              1. codejunky Silver badge

                Re: @Howard Sway

                @mevets

                "Urine tests for drug screening."

                I am not aware of them putting anything into your body for that

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @Howard Sway

                  That's the best bit though: habitual narcotics users moaning about the need to get vaccinated. "I'm not putting that in my body!" as they snort a line of Drano. Or imbibe a shot of MMS "cure" bought illegally over the internet.

              2. Falmari Silver badge
                Devil

                Re: @Howard Sway

                @mevets "Urine tests for drug screening."

                Seriously mevets, or are you just taking the piss?

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Howard Sway

              >> They can refuse you if you are impaired from your duties but they cannot dictate what you must put in your body.

              That simply because your definition of "impaired" is self affirming.

              Why should your employer not refuse you if they consider you impaired due to being a infection risk?

              If you had tuberculosis or ebola, are they supposed to let you in, because you don't want to take medication?

              Individual freedoms end when they affect others.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Howard Sway

          "The employer does not get to dictate what I must eat or drink (put in my body)."

          You've not worked in Silicon Valley or Austin then. Where the unhealthy options have been removed from the canteens and the sodas replaced with water. Sure, you can go eat out. But the nudge is towards a healthier diet.

          1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

            Re: @Howard Sway

            Bring you own sandwich in and stop moaning.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: @Howard Sway

              Boy, the Brits think everything is a moan these days. What's to moan about free drinks and free or subsidized food?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @Howard Sway

                It's free, it;s a discount.

                When you complain about something that you get for nothing, and which you can happily solve yourself, it's a moan.

                In my canteen there's only truffle oil, and unlimited Beluga caviar is a whole extra penny!!

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @Howard Sway

                  Who complained? Just pointing out to the other commentard that putting measures in place to nudge worker behaviour has been going on for years. Row-upon-row of free EV charger points in Silicon valley office parking lots is yet another example.

            2. Roland6 Silver badge
              Pint

              Re: @Howard Sway

              >Bring you own sandwich in and stop moaning.

              Well, with all those Working from/at Home there are going to be some spare desks - plenty of room (and power) for an "under-the-desk" hydroponic cultivation system...

              Icon: I understand, (from my student days), that broom cupboards often have an atmosphere conducive to beer brewing...

              Who would have thought workers left to their own devices could find exciting new uses for all the HQ office space... :)

    4. DS999 Silver badge

      They aren't forcing anyone - they can test instead

      It isn't even the nasty test with the Q-tip shoved up your nose halfway into your brain, it is a simple spit test these days. So there is zero room to complain when the test is so simple, except for people who want to complain based on politics.

      1. Steve Button Silver badge

        Re: They aren't forcing anyone - they can test instead

        well that's a blessed relief!! Hope we got those over here, because right now you still need to shove a swab up your nose and it's not pleasant.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: They aren't forcing anyone - they can test instead

          Indeed. As far as I have been able to work out from how it feels (and as I travel a lot I have had plenty of sampling), they actually take samples of the inside of your skull. I'm pretty sure I'm developing a bald spot because they keep scraping away the follikel nutrients with their test.

          :)

      2. mevets

        Re: They aren't forcing anyone - they can test instead

        Zero room to complain. Yeah, that has stopped hoards of aggressively confused wankers carrying signs and yelling at hospital staff.

    5. Filippo Silver badge

      The flu is a full order of magnitude less lethal than COVID; also, flu vaccines are far less effective than COVID vaccines. Other viruses are more lethal, but far less contagious.

      I don't know about other countries, but over here we've had mandatory vaccinations for some dangerous viruses for decades, and it's never been seen as a problem except for a few fringe groups.

      In fact, the very same political party that is now most vocally on the side of the anti-vaxxers, was strongly endorsing mandatory vaccination during a brief measles outbreak several years ago. Make of that what you wish.

      1. W.S.Gosset

        > flu vaccines are far less effective than COVID vaccines

        Only for about 4mths.

        Flu vaccines tend to come in around 50% effective vs Infection. Pfizer wanes/decays to that level in about 4mths. Previously-infected people apparently also have their protection wane, reaching 50% around 16mths after first infection.

        1. DS999 Silver badge

          Effectiveness depends on how virulent the thing you're trying to vaccinate against is. Pfizer/Moderna would have been a lot better if we still had the original variant, but delta causes infected people to shed up to 1000x as much virus as the original strain isolated in Wuhan so it stands to reason vaccines have their work cut out for them.

          The flu vaccine may similarly become less potent over time, we just haven't been presented with the data like we have for covid vaccines. But that's most irrelevant as the flu season is less than six months long, so if it did weaken after 4-6 months like covid vaccines that's fine as it has done its job for that year.

          If the flu spread as readily as the delta variant of covid, the vaccines we have for it would might end up so ineffective as to hardly be worth the bother.

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          >Pfizer wanes/decays to that level in about 4mths. Previously-infected people apparently also have their protection wane, reaching 50% around 16mths after first infection.

          Been watching too many second rate anti-vax YouTube videos.

          https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/feature/everything-you-need-to-know-about-covid-19-vaccines

      2. DevOpsTimothyC

        The anti-vax statements that I've heard have all focused on either "There have been deaths directly linked to being jabbed" or "Don't know the long term consequences of getting jabbed. There have been plenty of other vaccines in the past which have been withdrawn after 5 to 10 years when some quite serious side effects have turned up" I think they are referring to ones form the 1960's and 1970's.

        There's also "Why are they considered unsafe for people 16 or younger in most countries, but fine for adults?", and I've even heard "Why do the people making the vaccines not have to have the vaccines". I think that last one is starting to get into the same 'perhaps they should be locked up in a nice padded room' territory as "But they might be putting chips or who knows what else into the vaccines"

        1. BrownishMonstr

          Don't know the long term consequences of getting jabbed

          This is a sane argument and is one I personally express too, as have a few of my colleagues. Learning how talcum powder may have caused cancer, and hearing about the side effects of other products decades later means that there very well could be side-effects of the vaccine. Side effects we won't find out until later life.

          But it's either a known risk of death now, or an unknown risk of side-effects in the future. We can only see what happens, but I really hope there's none.

        2. mevets

          Don't pretend the lack of information is nefarious.

          "Why are they considered unsafe for people 16 or younger in most countries, but fine for adults?" -- because testing is incomplete. For a variety of reasons from moral to complex physiology testing on children is more difficult. Since they were less obviously impacted by catching covid, they also caught the back of the queue for studies.

          Those studies have now mostly wrapped up, and those clinical trials are now being examined. The vaccines will almost certainly be approved for young people, because they have proven themselves to be safe in the trials. Just like for adults.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Why are they considered unsafe for people 16 or younger in most countries, but fine for adults?"

          Nonsense - it is not considered unsafe, it has not been assessed. There are trials still underway for these age groups. There are complications around consent for testing minors.

          "unsafe" and "not yet known" are vastly different things to anyone who is evidence based.

          1. W.S.Gosset

            There's also the point of cost-benefit, which is the one made from the outset by most public health officials&analysts. Specifically --and assuming standard side-effects; no nasties for under20yos-- the risk&consequences of side-effects is about the same or larger than the risk worn by catching Covid, and both are very very low for these age-groups. That is, for this cohort of the population, the "cure" is the same as the disease, so there's no real point.

            But this is a boring type of point to make, and not dramatic, and wontsomeonethinkofthechildren. So I think vaccinations for under20yo will be rolled out as a matter of course despite being rather pointless.

            For assuaging kiddie-vax fears, this is a decent article to point people at:

            https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/kids/experts-break-down-the-risk-of-covid19-in-children-after-palaszczuks-outburst/news-story/d08802ec228a37210d3dd7fa8e89edc9

            > We sat down with three experts in the field: Robert Booy – an infectious disease paediatrician from The Children’s Hospital at Westmead; Shidan Tosif – a consultant paediatrician and researcher for the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; and Andrew Steer – a paediatric infectious diseases physician at the Royal Children’s Hospital.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "That is, for this cohort of the population, the "cure" is the same as the disease, so there's no real point."

              That is an extremely short term benefit analysis, of the immediate impact on the individual alone.

              No man (woman, child, person) is an island.

              Someone has to feed the children, get them books, educate them, parents go to the supermarket or expect "government" to solve it.

              If kids go around being super spreaders, and kill the critical mass of adult population needed for them to thrive, this might not be damaging to them as a biological disease sure, but impacts them in multiple other ways. If vaccinating them works in curtaliing the velocity of spread in the entire population, this is a rather large benefit to them. The *immediate* individual risk might be low, but the wider impact as super spreader can cripple their own upbringing.

              (No school today - teachers ill, no veg only crisps in the shop, electricity is out no fuel shipments, internet is down, etc )

              Maybe when everything is done by robots, it won't be necessary.

              Nothing here is specific to covid, these are well analysed in studies on pandemics. Just that it was ignored. In the grand scheme of things, COVID is actually a "kind" pandemic, with an infection, incubation rate that allows humans to respond.

          2. Roland6 Silver badge

            >it has not been assessed

            Which is also why in the first instance pregnant women were advised not to get vaccinated, however, now there is sufficient data to show that it is definitely in the mothers interest to get vaccinated and a growing body of evidence that vaccination doesn't negatively affect unborn babes.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Well out of those who understand "safe" Realize that it means nothing without unknown is now unpacking it to the specific goals and accepted compromises The back that ruling.

            If you don't agree with the exact end goal it's angle and compromises that it does not apply to you In the way it does to others.

            Safety is subjective and softdefined relative to the goals of the The entity declaring a judgment of safety.

            If you don't share their goals and perspectives, and Preference of execution,

            their judgments are invalid and Not authoritative, and Instead Manifest as a declaration of war 4 against the existence of Other sentient life.

            To comply is to destroy a Divergent individual in order to render them into a generic proxy limb to a foreign will and Philosophy. There is nothing more Is oppositional to the mechanisms of sentient life then opressive dominant rule

            by an external sentience.

        4. Filippo Silver badge

          The "we don't know the long-term effects of the vaccine" argument is... not insane. It's unlikely that the vaccine has serious long-term effects, but nobody can say it's 100% impossible. The reason it's not a good argument isn't because it's flat-out false. It's because we also don't fully know the long-term effects of catching COVID, and from what we do know, they look nasty.

          Unfortunately, given how contagious it is, eventually everyone who doesn't live in some kind of bunker will either be vaccinated, or get infected. So your choice is really between risking the long-term effects of the vaccine, or risking the long-term effects of the virus. Of these two, from all evidence we have, the first is by far preferable.

    6. Potemkine! Silver badge

      its still their free choice.

      Nope. This is not freedom. Freedom is doing everything which injures no one else. Refusing to get vaccinated is taking the risk to injure or kill somebody else. Therefore this is not freedom.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Vaccine misinformation

          The only thing you have clearly established here is that you couldn't care less about the facts. Data is abundantly available regarding cases and vaccinations which show - unequivocally i.e. beyond any reasonable doubt - that vaccines work.

          The keyword here being of course reasonable doubt.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Vaccine misinformation

            Works to accomplish the goals of some, by devaluing the goals of others.

        2. Alumoi Silver badge

          Re: Vaccine misinformation

          Let me make it clear for you: covid vax won't keep you from getting it, but it will help your body to fight against it and, in most cases, prevent you from clogging the hospitals.

          It's not scientific data but comes from real life cases tendend by my wife. She's a family doctor and, according to national laws, has to monitor covid patients for the duration. And it's not a whole lot of cases, only about 1200 so far :(

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Vaccine misinformation

            Except... it may actually prevent you from getting it. As with any vaccine, efficacy varies from person to person. It really depends on your immune response to viral exposure and exposure viral load.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Vaccine misinformation

          It's not a personal choice, because by taking that choice you put a bunch of other people at risk.

          Your last claim that it does not help with slowing or preventing spread, is patently garbage; there are reputable scientific papers well documenting that it has had a positive effect.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Vaccine misinformation

              @ a/c"Please link to some, I genuinely want to read them".

              I know that this is a really radical idea, but have you ever thought of, you know, using a search engine?

              To start you off here is a link to the one I use

              https://searx.org

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

        4. Steve Button Silver badge

          Re: Vaccine misinformation

          Wait, what? There's PLENTY of evidence that it stops the spread. Just not the 93% originally claimed, more like 39% they are finding in Israel with Delta which is why cases have still been high there. Or should I say "infections" rather than "cases" as most of those people are not ill, and therefore not a case.

          So, yes it does stop the spread somewhat. But not enough that people should be forced to take the jab if they don't want it. That doesn't make sense if you stop to think about it... but most people on here do seem to think that makes sense. Odd.

          You titled your post "Vaccine misinformation" and that's certainly what you provided.

        5. BloggsyMaloan

          Re: Vaccine misinformation

          "Here's a peer-reviewed paper published in major medical journals:

          https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7"

          Having just skimmed a few of the 74,519 articles resulting from a search for 'covid' on the site I think you seem to have been very (un-?)lucky to find one that supports your view.

          Perhaps you might trot on back to Facebook for more 'science' to support your claim that "there's simply nothing to suggest it helps with slowing or preventing the spread of COVID-19".

      2. codejunky Silver badge

        @Potemkine!

        "Freedom is doing everything which injures no one else. Refusing to get vaccinated is taking the risk to injure or kill somebody else."

        Stabbing someone with a needle to inject a substance the person does not consent to (even coercion) is taking away freedom.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: @Potemkine!

          The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: @Potemkine!

            @jake

            "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

            Wasnt that the justification for the USSR, Nazi Germany and countless atrocities around the world?

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: @Potemkine!

              That may have been the claim, but the perpetrators were are clearly lying to justify their own selfish actions.

            2. Roland6 Silver badge

              Re: @Potemkine!

              >"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

              And it was effectively Asimov's 4th law of robotics and proceeded to write several SF books about the uneasy ramifications of it.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @Potemkine!

            Many people say that, But When it becomes pragmatic to eliminate them or They have to watch personally ,the suffering necessary To achieve this, They prove With their passionate oppositionthat they don't really practice what they preach. Turns out they do subscribe to the idea of valuing yourself.

            You're Conscious desires Or what you wanna be but are not.

            Your base line of consistent patterns is what you are.

            Every time your baseline changes a derivative self, Takes the place of the old.

            If it's not consistent across diverse time periods and cultures, And levels of technology,

            Then do not consider it valid.

            It's a manipulation taken advantage of false distinguishment, rebranding of terms and the Inherent shortcomings Humans regarding interpretation of language.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Potemkine!

          So lets sue mosquitoes and midges. Grow a pair!

        3. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: @Potemkine!

          I see 12 downvotes at the idea that stabbing someone with a needle and injecting something they do not consent to is wrong. Watching the news there are girls being 'spiked' by needle because someone else feels they have the right to that girls body and to inject a substance they dont want.

          I wonder how far removed those opinions are.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: @Potemkine!

            Do you really have to wonder?

            Seek help. Quickly.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: @Potemkine!

              @jake

              "Do you really have to wonder?"

              Yes. In both cases someone else believes they have the right to inject something into your body regardless of your rights, freedoms and consent. Both doing it for their own good not the one being injected. Its for the good of everyone else around them who perceive some great risk even though they are vaccinated.

              Put this against the backdrop of some countries not accepting immunity as good enough but requiring the vaccine to be considered safe. Against the stupidity of people arguing against herd immunity as real (which was the goal ffs and why the vaccines were being developed) only to have them pushing for mass vaccination. A disturbing implicit trust in governments which is not only unusual but these are the same governments constantly criticized as incompetent and dangerous to the population.

              *I will mention that I am double jabbed after taking some time to think about it. That does not mean I believe in forcing people against their will from not taking it.

              1. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: @Potemkine!

                Codejunky you were being deliberately ambiguous; but you are right they really only differ in intent of the perpetrator and the awareness of the patient/victim to being jabbed.

      3. Zolko Silver badge
        Pirate

        Refusing to get vaccinated is taking the risk to injure or kill somebody else.

        like driving a car: you pollute the air and you take the risk of accidentally killing my children. If you refuse to walk or take a bus or ride your bicycle, you should be deported to some remote island where you can exert your dangerous lifestyle. I shouldn't have to put up with irresponsible and dangerous people like you.

        See ?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          If you take the car to the corner shop instead of walking, you are a prat. You are causing traffic congestion, you are causing climate change and you are missing out on the chance for some health affirming exercise. If you drive that car along the pavement at 70 miles an hour you deserve to be locked up (given the fact that we have run out of spare empty islands for deporting people.

          Not wearing a mask when appropriate is driving to the corner shop. Not getting vaccinated without a clear medical reason is driving on the pavement.

          1. Steve Button Silver badge

            Bit of a straw man argument? If you drive along the pavement at 70mph you are pretty sure to kill someone every few seconds. If you drive normally on the roads you are pretty sure to kill someone after a few thousand years (at a guess).

            Going around unvaccinated is somewhere in between, but it's a big gap.

            It's still very unlikely, bearing in mind the number of people who are protected by the vaccine. And going around vaccinated there's still a chance you could infect and kill someone.

            Perhaps we should all stay locked in our homes and wrapped in cotton wool for the rest of our lives... just in case?

            We need to take actions which are proportionate to the risk.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            >If you take the car to the corner shop instead of walking, you are a prat.

            I consider myself a 'prat'; my nearest corner shop is 5 miles away along unlit roads without pavements.

    7. jmch Silver badge

      "I do get why they want people vaccinated but its BS to force people"

      I agree, which is why, hats off to Apple for a policy that reasonably balances health concerns with respect for their employees' privacy and freedom of choice.

      1. codejunky Silver badge

        @jmch

        "I agree, which is why, hats off to Apple for a policy that reasonably balances health concerns with respect for their employees' privacy and freedom of choice."

        I find it more concerning how the others have acted in response to the virus. Well done Apple but hopefully all will continue to allow working from home for those who wish to.

        1. Stork Silver badge

          Re: @jmch

          To my shock I am in agreement with codejunky here. Apple has found a compromise here; if an action such as vaccination is forced, it should be by legislation and not random companies

          1. codejunky Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: @jmch

            @Stork

            "To my shock I am in agreement with codejunky here"

            I am sure there is plenty common ground. Even if we have different opinions on other subjects.

    8. DrXym

      I can give you two reasons.

      First the moral explanation - because Apple have a duty to their staff to keep them safe and to ensure their wellbeing while they work.

      Second the libertarian explanation - because profits come first and staff who don't vaccinate cost them money. Money in the form of lost productivity when people get sick, higher insurance premiums, and even potentially lawsuits.

      It's probably both reasons. Either way, the simplest way to avoid getting tested is to get vaccinated and if they want to exercise their free choice they can go work for an employer who doesn't give a fuck what contagions they're bringing into the office.

      1. Adelio

        Apple should withdraw health insurance from those refusing to be vaccinated

        1. mevets

          tempting

          But I scarcely think the solution to a delusional mob is revenge.

          In the first place, punitive measures seldom have the desired effect -- reinforcing resistance would be likely. If it were purely a matter of convenience, rationale or knowledge, it might be an effective strategy. This is more like a religious fervour; and there is nothing better to rally a cause than a bit of oppression.

          In the second place, it undermines the moral position of the effort. In general, the people wanting everyone vaxed are doing so out of a community minded desire for safety, and a personal desire to get this pandemic over with as soon as possible. These goals are not compatible with punishment; more so, such a punitive approach may validate the unfounded claim of coercion.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: tempting

            On the one hand, most western countries at least, have long passed the stage where there could be 100% vaccinated population. The "carrot" of being and feeling safer, protecting yourself and others, is all used up. Any fence sitters who needed more convincing are, on the whole, now off the fence, one side or the other. All that's left is the "stick" now.

    9. Jean Le PHARMACIEN

      "forced"

      I "had" to have 'flu vaccine when I worked as I was visiting clinician on a 17 bed ITU; 14 bed Max Care Unit possibly on odd days to Renal Transplant Unit.

      My directorate did not force vaccination but I would not be permitted to any patient facing role. Bit difficult in a 900 bed hospital

      On the other hand, how would you feel about me being at your bedside/your relatives bedside unvaccinated? In a hospital filling with seasonal flu??

      People pass 'flu (and Covid-19) by proximity. More contact istances; with more people possibly ill with/infectious spread disease. Indescriminately i.e. colleagues; visitors;

      1. Steve Button Silver badge

        Re: "forced"

        Big difference between Renal Transplant Unit and The Office?

        But it seems most people on here just don't see that?

        If you are working all day with vulnerable and very sick people, it makes sense that you should have to take all your jabs. For all the other jobs, it should be your choice. What's so hard about that?

        1. DS999 Silver badge

          Re: "forced"

          Do you know the lives of everyone in your office? Well maybe in YOUR office you do if it is very small, but in general people don't.

          You say it is fine to require vaccines for someone who will be around people in renal failure. What if the person two desks down from you has someone in dialysis at home? Or undergoing cancer treatments? Or whose spouse works in a hospital around those with renal failure, etc.

          You don't just risk passing an infection on to the presumably healthy people around you in the office. You risk passing it to them and THEM passing it onto others who are less healthy. If the vaccine was 100% effective this concern wouldn't exist, but unfortunately we have a good but not perfect vaccine that can't fully stop transmission in its tracks at a vaccinated person.

          It is this selfish logic of "who cares about those around me, my rights are all that matters" that's the reason we are still dealing with this virus 18 months on, and are seeing a potentially (remains to be seen) worse strain emerging in the UK and now seen in multiple US states.

      2. WhereAmI?

        Re: "forced"

        This ^. My wife works in a hyper acute ward (think: a patient who may or may not survive the next couple of days). According to a lot of posters here, to them it would have been perfectly acceptable for her to refuse vaccination and still be allowed to work with extremely vulnerable patients i.e. decrease their chances of survival even further.

        I would like to hear some well-reasoned justification from some/all of those posters as to why this situation should be allowed.

        As it happened, as soon as the vaccine became available ALL medical and nursing staff chose to be vaccinated. Yes, they were given the option of a non-patient-facing job but not ONE of them took that option because they believed in what they were doing and they believed that the vaccine was safe. I would say that perhaps they were in a prime position to know about things like that.

        You also have NO IDEA what the stress levels were like on medical staff at the start of the pandemic. For weeks all my wife did was come home, eat, sleep and go back to work. On a day off? Sleep. On two days off? Sleep. For weeks this went on. The vaccine was a welcome relief.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: "forced"

          "You also have NO IDEA what the stress levels were like on medical staff at the start of the pandemic. For weeks all my wife did was come home, eat, sleep and go back to work. On a day off? Sleep. On two days off? Sleep. For weeks this went on. The vaccine was a welcome relief."

          It may not be much but it's the best I can do. Tell he some random stranger on the internet said "Thank you" to her.

          1. WhereAmI?

            Re: "forced"

            Appreciated - thank you.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "forced"

          >You also have NO IDEA what the stress levels were like on medical staff at the start of the pandemic.

          Not helped by the hospital experts: we have patients in acute care with an unknown condition (remember initial tests didn't detect Sars-Cov-2) so giving front line staff any reasonable form of PPE (Ebola suits?) was considered as being too distressing to patients.

          My niece hasn't worked since April 2020 - she was one of the nurses who administered psychotherapy to those in acute care and medically induced comas, she naturally contracted CoViD twice and now has the ME like form of long-CoViD.

    10. Test Man

      They do, actually.

      Depending on your role and the company, sometimes you have to have had certain vaccinations as a condition of taking the role.

      1. TimMaher Silver badge
        Windows

        Very old man.

        You are quite right @Test.

        In our sideboard I have all of my passports from when I was seven.

        Underneath that stack, I have all of my old vaccine certificates, issued in different countries across Asia, Africa & in the UK.

        For one journey I had to travel into London, to the School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine to get a TABC cocktail (Wipeout!). On another trip, the doctor signed off my Yellow fever jab saying i’d had so many I didn't need any more.

        Without those vaccines I wasn’t allowed to fly.

        My certificates start in 1960.

        So grow up everybody and whinge about something else, like the new name for Facebook or something.

    11. herman

      Unfair dismissal

      Vac requirements are one sided modifications to your employment contract. In general that is not legal and if a worker is dismissed for these reasons it would be an unfair dismissal - see a lawyer and cash out.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Unfair dismissal

        I'd expect (most of) the Apple offices are in California which is an "at will" state so they, I think, have the ability to tell employees who don't comply that they're no longer employed withouyt any need to give notice. Similarly, and employee that objects is able to say that their moving with immediate effect to another job without any notice. Having worked in the US and with US design centres in the past I've seen this on both side - a site where they announced a 10% "reduction in forces" at 9am and by lunchtime 10% of the employees were gone and on the other hand a project where people announcing in the middle of one week that they would be in a new job at the start of the next week became a regualr occurence.

      2. Roland6 Silver badge

        Re: Unfair dismissal

        >In general that is not legal and if a worker is dismissed for these reasons it would be an unfair dismissal

        In general if a worker were to be dismissed for these reasons it would be because the management have failed to engage with HR (and legal) and so not put in place and then adhered to a CoViD ways of working transformation programme.

    12. Binraider Silver badge

      One does not need to go far to know the difference in lethality and contagion between COVID and Flu.

      A mandate for the former is a good thing. If nothing else, to protect the handful that have genuine medical no-go to the range of available vaccines. Wishy-washy responses to a severe threat are not good government.

      Cue usual whinging by the "free-dumb" brigade about freedom of choice and tyranny in 3-2-1.

    13. Bill Michaelson

      They're not being forced

      They're being coerced, so that we can get to a point where we won't have to force anyone, because we don't want to force anyone.

    14. ChrisC Silver badge

      "but its BS to force people"

      Regardless of personal belief on this point is, it's worth noting (and something the article itself really ought to have done to help clarify the discrepancies between companies) that in the case of IBM and other employers, their mandatory vaccination policies are being imposed on them by the White House due to their being classed as federal contractors.

      It's also worth noting that, unless things have changed very recently, then White House policy/guidance for larger private employees was to require employees to be vaccinated or tested weekly. So assuming Apple don't fall into the federal contractor category (in which case their policy falls short) then they appear to be going further than necessary to comply with the private company requirements...

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        And the funny thing is

        Another employer that imposed a vaccine mandate or daily test regimen exactly like Apple's several months before the White House announcement is Fox News. All those on-air talking heads talking about how terrible Biden's mandate is are living under a worse mandate.

        None of them have said a SINGLE word on air about it - most likely because their contract prevents them from saying anything critical of Fox, and they aren't actually scared of the vaccine, their real fear is losing their cushy well paid job!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And the funny thing is

          >None of them have said a SINGLE word on air about it

          Probably because they've all been vaccinated...

    15. Snake Silver badge

      It has ALREADY been decided

      "I do get why they want people vaccinated but its BS to force people."

      For those of you either not in the know, or outside the United States, this topic has already been decided.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

      Yes, governments CAN force you to inoculate. The PROBLEM is that, right now, everyone is playing politics with the topic and therefore coddling people - as shown, state governors have the right to force the issue. But they simply do not want to play this card because "I have the right to...!" partisan political agendas, heaven forbid anyone gets told to do anything in today's I'm-Always-Right society.

    16. martyn.hare
      Stop

      Why was MrTuK downvoted?

      I'm fully vaccinated against said virus too and would absolutely recommend folks get themselves an mRNA-based vaccine ASAP if they haven't already... but there's two sides to every story.

      If it's OK for businesses to suspend people for being unvaccinated on the basis of reducing the risk of spreading the disease, then the following should also end up suspended by the very same logic:

      * Smokers (whether daily or occasionally)

      * Those with a BMI over 30

      * Weekend binge drinkers

      * Recreational cannabis users

      After all, the longer you're infected for, the greater the risk you'll infect others and all of the above is known to affect ones recovery time. It could be argued that across the whole spectrum of highly transmissible diseases that refusing folks matching one or more of the above would be a fantastic way to minimise HR liabilities. There are already employers (like the WHO) who refuse to employ people who make obviously unhealthy lifestyle choices (if you smoke, the WHO won't employ you, period).

      Are we 100% sure accepting these new restrictions isn't a catalyst to losing a bit more of our free will? I'm quite happy to live a healthier life around healthier people (a workplace full of healthy, happy people is 100% for the win) but isn't the idea of freedom based on the idea that everyone has individual responsibility and a right to choose?

      Let's be careful what we wish for here.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why was MrTuK downvoted?

        Could up or down vote you for that - pity I can't do both.

        Are we 100% sure accepting these new restrictions isn't a catalyst to losing a bit more of our free will?

        Which is a good point. I work on a site that is now "dry" - no alcohol allowed at all. Some sites in the organisation I work for have also gone smoke free - no smoking anywhere on the site.

        I'm inclined to think that the rules are a bit too far - what's wrong with allowing smoking in designated places (typically a cold and draughty device that looks like a bus shelter) ?

        As someone a bit too fond of a bit of chocolate (and other goodies), yes I tend to think it smacks of "first they came for the drinkers, but I wasn't a drinker ..." and logically end up with "and then they came for me ..."

        In the case of my site being dry, it's an industrial site and any impairment from alcohol could have serious consequences - not just for the person who's been drinking. And it's a (probably, that can be debated) reasonable measure to ban alcohol from the site to avoid any illicit drinking on site.

        But the site hasn't banned smoking, and AFAIK there's no plans to. Having "had a fag" 1/2 hour ago really doesn't create a significant risk of injury to anyone else, just like me being a bit corpulent doesn't.

        If it's OK for businesses to suspend people for being unvaccinated on the basis of reducing the risk of spreading the disease, then the following should also end up suspended by the very same logic

        And this is the bit I'd have downvoted you for - because it's just so far off the mark.

        If someone isn't vaccinated, then they are far far more likely to catch and spread the virus - that's pretty well decided science. Having a physiological factor making you slower to recover actually doesn't provided common sense is employed. The risk of spreading it before showing symptoms isn't really affected by how long it takes to recover, and if you've had it, you should be going to work anyway until you have recovered.

        So that fact that I'm a bit fond of all the stuff I should eat less of doesn't significantly affect the risk of me having covid and spreading it. It might make me prone to being more ill - when I'd be isolating anyway. It might make recovery take longer, when I'd not be at work anyway. So no justification for treating me, and anyone else with on of your listed characteristics in the same way as those who haven't been vaccinated - because there isn't the same risk, not by a long way.

        Oh yes, and the site I work on, because of the nature of the work (where social distancing really isn't practical) and the cost (both monetary and project delivery times) of a covid outbreak, has a weekly PCR test regime regardless of whether vaccinated or not - they've even setup an on-site lab (yes, a lot of tests every week - big site). No negative PCR test - no access, no exceptions.

    17. John Robson Silver badge

      Except that the risk isn't just to those who aren't vaccinated - it's also to the rest of us, both those vaccinated (who have to deal with a higher prevalence and chance of infection) and particularly to those who for medical reasons *cannot* have the vaccine.

      That's somewhat comparable with saying that the risk is higher for people who drive whilst blindfolded so it's their free choice.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I would.

    If it was possible I'd stick it in the bloody water supply.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I would.

      Alas, a frightening attitude that is all too common in many countries that were previously believed to be liberal democracies.

      1. Gordon 10
        Flame

        Re: I would.

        "Alas, a frightening attitude that is all too common in many countries that were previously believed to be liberal democracies."

        I think you are confused by what a democracy is - its literally "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members." Guess what anti-vaxxers are, a tiny, dumb minority. I have no problem with someone not being vaccinated for genuine medical reasons. For those muppets who think it infringes their freedoms - get over yourselves. Your freedom to get sick and infect others is not a freedom I care to tolerate. You're basically the equivalent of office smokers from the 80's.

        Someone I know was fit, double vaccinated then caught Covid and was utterly bedridden for a week, and 2 weeks later still can't climb the stairs without passing out. He's going to lose months of his life and health to Covid - and his case is considered mild. I've no wish to even tolerate any higher risk than I have to of that happening to me.

        Since every anti-vaxxer increases the chances of that happening to me - no f*ck you very much, get your jab or get marginalised.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: I would.

          "I think you are confused by what a democracy is - its literally "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.""

          No, I'm pretty sure it's you who are confused here. Without going into the specific case of vaccinations being mentioned here, but Western Liberal Democracy strictly limits the actions of the majority, in particular prohibiting them from infringing of the rights of minorities simpley because they are in the majority.

          That's why democracies have basic law / constitutions / bill of rights etc. It is to specifically prohibit the "tyranny of the majority".

        2. jmch Silver badge

          Re: I would.

          "Since every anti-vaxxer increases the chances of that happening to me"

          The paper linked to by someone else above seems to refute that statement.

          1. Dave314159ggggdffsdds Silver badge

            Re: I would.

            No, it doesn't. You're flat-out lying.

        3. DevOpsTimothyC

          Re: I would.

          Your response / attitude justifies persecution of minorities by majorities the world over.

    2. jake Silver badge

      Re: I would.

      That is a no. To much potential for collateral damage.

      Hint: There really are people who can't take the jab for medical reasons.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I would.

        Like you'd know. You're an expert on everything aren't you Jake?

        Funny how every post on this page you've guffed out is anti vaccine.

        1. W.S.Gosset

          Re: I would.

          You appear to have quite serious mental problems.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: I would.

            That's my favorite nameless, faceless blob of grey goo. It pops up every month or two at random times. Apparently I attracted its ire by posting some comment about specific British tax laws a year and a half or so ago, despite the fact that I've never made comments about the specific British tax laws that it cites. Sometimes it's fun to poke it with a stick (when I'm completely bored), but usually it's easier to ignore it and move on. Think Formosa's Law.

            ElReg usually removes its more egregious comments, probably to protect it from itself. (No, I've never reported its ramblings. No point, they speak for themselves ... and frankly, I wish ElReg would leave them up for that very reason.)

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I would.

          Did jake shag your wife or something?

  3. jake Silver badge

    If, and I stress the IF ...

    ... their job requires them being face to face with random people, and they refuse to get vaccinated, fire them for being incapable of filling the requirements for the job. It's not like Apple can't replace them with folks who have had the jab, and yet are out of work.

    It's time to stop pussy-footing around with the pig-ignorant anti-science anti-vax crowd.

    Before anyone says it, if somebody is actually medically incapable of getting the jab (rare, but reality for some people) they wouldn't want to put themselves in that position in the first place.

    So called "religious objectors" can kiss my pasty white butt ... unless you can show me in scripture (any scripture!) where it unequivocally states vaccines are a big Thou Shalt Not. I've looked, and see no valid examples, just dumb-ass "preachers" rabbiting on about their freedumbs. (The only freedom they actually seem to want is the freedom to collect loot from their flocks, and otherwise maintain their power over other people. Slimeballs, the lot of 'em.)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

      There is mounting evidence that naturally acquired immunity, from a past COVID infection, is at least equal to that of the vaccines *and* is longer lasting. The logical position would therefore be to offer the option of a T-cell serology test with a positive result being equivalent to full vaccination. No need for mandates. No need to force people to undertake a medical intervention. Ask yourself carefully why this might not be happening.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

        The big problem with naturally acquired immunity is you have to risk death from COVID first. Plus, a vaccine shot after you have been sick will boost your immunity further. It was good enough for the big orange, although he didn't really advertise the fact. Shame, as it might have persuaded some of his idiotic followers to get vaccinated.

      2. DrXym

        Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

        This is odd logic for a couple of reasons.

        1. "Natural immunity" is a bullshit antivax / antimask talking point. It is basically equivalent to saying do nothing and the consequences are evident in the number of people dying and survivors suffering long term or even life long harm.

        2. The whole purpose of a vaccine *is* to prepare your body for possible infection. i.e. it trains your body to recognize the virus and fight it before it kills you. In so doing you still get "natural immunity" but with less of the dying or infecting other people part.

        In other words, advocating "natural immunity" against a novel virus is demonstrable nonsense. I would have thought most readers are technically minded and would veer towards evidence based science rather than antivax / mask whargarbl.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

          "This is odd logic for a couple of reasons..."

          I don't think the OP meant that people should choose to catch covid instead of getting vaccinated. What I understood is that for people who already have had covid without noticing, they already have an immunity at least equivalent to vaccination and therefore if some paperwork is required to prove vaccination status, then having a 'positive' antibody test should entitle a person to an equivalent certificate.

          Given that it's estimated that around 80% of people who contract Covid do not have any symptoms at all, there must be millions of people who have the same effective level of protection as those vaccinated, but they are being denied equal treatment because of paperwork.

          1. DrXym

            Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

            If they had COVID already without knowing then they should be vaccinating. At worst they prime their immune system with a second form of recognition in case their body encounters it again. It certainly doesn't affect their "natural immunity".

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

        No knowledge of Apple's rules - but most vaccine passports 'accept' tested proof of antibody as equivalent to vaccination - so ask yourself carefully why you believe anti-vax bullshit?

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

          "most vaccine passports 'accept' tested proof of antibody"

          Not sure what you mean by 'most'. For EU vaccine passport you can have vaccination or a medical certificate saying that you have tested +ve for Covid at such-and-such a date. Antibody tests don't count. I don't know about other places, but accepting positive antibody tests should be part of that passporting regime

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

      I'm not anti-vax, I just refuse to be an early adopter of the highly novel vaccine platforms (mRNA & adenovirus vector) that are currently available in my country.

      Fortunately, an alternative from the French pharma company Valneva, that I would be willing to take, is showing stellar results in phase 3 trials and should be approved shortly.

      “The low levels of reactogenicity and high functional antibody responses alongside broad T-cell responses seen with this adjuvanted inactivated whole virus vaccine are both impressive and extremely encouraging. This is a much more traditional approach to vaccine manufacture than the vaccines so far deployed in the UK, Europe and North America and these results suggest this vaccine candidate is on track to play an important role in overcoming the pandemic.”

      https://valneva.com/press-release/valneva-reports-positive-phase-3-results-for-inactivated-adjuvanted-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-vla2001/

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

        You're not anti vaccine, it's just you're anti the specific vaccines made thus far?

        But you offer a token "oh this one might be the one"

        Your science is absolutely spurious, sir. Give your head a wobble.

        1. W.S.Gosset

          Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

          > You're not anti vaccine, it's just you're anti the specific vaccines made thus far? ...

          > Your science is absolutely spurious, sir.

          Actually, that's an entirely valid position to take. And your understanding of "science" is catastrophically flawed, being apparently upside down. Your obnoxious would-be sneering from this position of towering dis-knowledge, makes you look even more stupid.

          With your logic, if someone refused to buy a Trabant, you would scream at him that he's anti-car.

          1. NoKangaroosInAustria

            Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

            >With your logic, if someone refused to buy a Trabant, you would scream at him that he's anti-car.

            Yes. Absolutely. Thanks for proving the opposing party's point.

            According to Wikipedia, the Trabant came out in 1930s in Eastern Germany. Or to put it differently, it was the first and only car available there at that particular point in time and place (Place = Communist East Germany behind the Berlin Wall)

            So if you were refusing to buy a Trabant at that time and in that place because you were holding out for

            something better even though there wasn't anything comparably good available - then yes, that would make you anti-car and entirely anti-reason.

            1. W.S.Gosset

              Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

              You're seriously trying to take an analogy down to the bare metal? Oi vey.

              More apposite then: if someone refused Windows 8, saying they'll wait for the next one, you would scream at him that he's anti-computers.

              And by the way, your attempt to over-literalise Trabant fails since there was no other choice. Here, in the real world, there are.

      2. W.S.Gosset

        Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

        > highly novel vaccine platforms (mRNA & adenovirus vector)

        mRNA vector is novel; the adenovirus vector is not.

        There's a few alternatives coming, though, if you don't like the heart issues of the former or the 0.9-per-million deathrisk of the latter. This Aussie one looks interesting, particularly for its apparent blocking of infectiousness, meaning finally there'd be GOOD reason to look at mandatory Covid vaccination.

        Research papers:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8351577/

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21009920

        Normal-people's version I saw in my searchresults:

        "Promising COVID vaccine developed in Australia gets green light for human clinical trials"

        I got 2x the adenovirus-based AstraZeneca vaccine and I'm still not dead. YMMV.

        1. SphericalCow

          Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

          "mRNA vector is novel; the adenovirus vector is not."

          I strongly urge you to check your facts before posting, especially when refuting a claim.

          Prior to the arrival of the COVID vaccines there had been a grand total of two viral vector vaccines approved for use, both for treating Ebola. The first came in November 2019 and the second July 2020.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector_vaccine#History

          If that doesn't fit the definition of novel then I don't know what does!

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

            So, it's a 3rd one? Not so "novel" now then.

      3. Don Dumb
        Stop

        Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

        "I'm not anti-vax, I just refuse to be an early adopter of the highly novel vaccine platforms"
        (Emphasis mine)

        Are you qualifed in the field of immunology, virology, pharmacology or in fact in any medical science capacity? If not, then like I imagine so many people in this comment section, you are not qualified to make such a comment and your opinion on the effectiveness of vaccines, their quality and the processes they were subjected to for approval is frankly worthless.

        I would have thought this site would definitely be behind the principle of "an unqualified 'self-researched' opinion is not valuable when compared to qualified assessment".

        This article's comment section appears little better than a youtube comment section. Unless all the software engineers that usually comment quietly got PhDs in pharmology during the lockdown.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

          "Are you qualifed in the field of immunology, virology, pharmacology or in fact in any medical science capacity? "

          What has that got to do with anything? The OP is making a factual statement - that many of the new covid vaccines are based on new platforms. However many years of previos research is involved, they have been 'live' in tiny numbers for a handful of years, and in significant numbers for less than a year.

          I think that saying "I'm gonna wait and see", as well as "I'm gonna go for the tried-and-tested platform" is a fair position to take with respect to the new vaccine platforms. It might be overly cautious but not unreasonable.

          1. Don Dumb

            Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

            @jmch -

            I think that saying "I'm gonna wait and see", as well as "I'm gonna go for the tried-and-tested platform" is a fair position to take with respect to the new vaccine platforms.

            And what standard, or test will they be waiting for, and why? What education do they have to understand those desicions and tests?

            Quite simply the people that actually know and understand about these things have done the research, are qualified to do the research and have made valuable assessments. Simply saying "I'm going to wait until I'm satisfied" is amazingly arrogant unless the person saying is (relevantly) qualified.

            1. jmch Silver badge

              Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

              "what standard, or test will they be waiting for, and why?"

              Everyone is free to make their own choice regarding what standard they find reasonable. It's not like doctors, or any experts more generally, have never been wrong. In fact a lot of initial covid recommendations by WHO etc ended up being revised after a few months. A vaccine that was initially approved was put on hold. That's natural, it's something new, discoveries are still being made, long-term effects are still being studied.

              "Simply saying "I'm going to wait until I'm satisfied" is amazingly arrogant unless the person saying is (relevantly) qualified"

              What you are describing is total and unquestioned obedience to authority. No thanks.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

              "Quite simply the people that actually know and understand about these things have done the research, are qualified to do the research and have made valuable assessments. Simply saying "I'm going to wait until I'm satisfied" is amazingly arrogant unless the person saying is (relevantly) qualified."

              Wrong. The only way to determine any possible long term side effects from these novel vaccines is to wait it out and see what develops. For the case of autoimmune diseases the timescales involved can be several years. Unfortunately with the mad rush to vaccinate everyone and his dog (under 5s anyone?), we've virtually eliminated the control group.

              Nobody has a crystal ball on these matters, regardless of their prior qualifications.

              1. DryBones

                Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

                No, we haven't eliminated the control group. They're called "the unvaccinated".

                I think someone said a lot of them are dying.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

      As I have noted before, since a medical exemption will require a Doctors' certificate, a religious exemption should require a Deitys' certificate.

    4. jmch Silver badge

      Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

      "if somebody is actually medically incapable of getting the jab (rare, but reality for some people) they wouldn't want to put themselves in that position in the first place."

      Well, yes and no. There are many different conditions for which vaccination is contraindicated. Many of those, which involve being immunocompromised, would also preclude getting a job that involves face-to-face contact with other people. However there are also other conditions, such as having a previous allergic reaction to vaccination, and most notably, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers where having a job that involves face-to-face contact with other people.

      The latter category in particular is huge - just for the US, with close to 4M births a year, the number of women who are either pregnant or breastfeeding at any one time could be 6-8M, around 2% of the population

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

        The CDC recommends pregnant and breastfeeding women in the US get the vaccination, so I'm not sure what you are on about.

        1. jmch Silver badge

          Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

          "The CDC recommends ..."

          All of the trials that the vaccination approvals are based on specifically excluded pregnant and breastfeeding women (and minors IIRC). So I'm not sure what the CDC is basing it's recommendations on, unless I missed the results of a further batch of trials that included these categories.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

            How hard is it to get the idea that evidence changes? Since not trialing initially on pregnant mothers we have real world evidence of giving the vaccine to millions of pregnant women - with no significant contra-indications or evidence of increased risk. And of course you 'aren't sure' because you aren't a bl...dy expert in virology. That's we pay experts to study these things and make recommendations.

      2. katrinab Silver badge

        Re: If, and I stress the IF ...

        Pfizer is approved for pregnant women, Astra Zenecca isn't. So if you are pregnant, you still have an option for getting vaccinated.

  4. Pandora LB

    Well....

    I am not jabbed ( wanted VLA2001 - but hey it kicked AZ's ar$e and isnt spike protein-centric ... even so HMG cancelled the 100M dose contract)

    I test every 4 days so know if i go out I am not a carrier

    How many double jabbed and now socially non-distancing, non-masking people test ? Yet go out and about and can potentially be a vector.

    Just because you have had a jab (or two) doesnt mean you are immune or can't carry or more importantly cant pass it on .

    But many of those who advocate draconian action against non-jabbed (and not all like me are anti-vax ) may be missing the point [sic]

    If the current mRNA treatments are such a success:

    o why do we need boosters ?

    - we are only 10 months into the program

    -Israel is looking at 4th doses

    o why are the double jabbed hospitalised and dying

    o viruses know no politics they just want to spread

    ... if they cant spread -maybe because of encountering a jabbed protected host... maybe they mutate?

    Maybe the jabbed are contributing to the rise of a more virulent, harmful strain??

    Just sayin' .... DYOR - this is more than the headlines, lies and propaganda

    GLA

    1. whoseyourdaddy

      Re: Well....

      "know...I am not a carrier".

      You seem to be making assumptions on actual COVID test sensitivity. A negative result indicates you do not have an infection strong enough to show up on the test, which is why they are about 93% accurate, not 100%.

      True, anyone who is vaccinated, they can contract and pass it to someone else while their body is dealing with the infection. But, being unvaccinated, your body will multiply this virus exponentially and spread... destroying vital tissue cells as it replicates...before you feel sick enough to do anything about it.

      For your own sake, you need to understand a COVID infection leaves permanent scarring. Your choice of holding out for your preferred vaccine has me wondering if this isn't something you should keep to yourself as you maintain a distance away from me.

      So, Mask wearing continues to be important even though it isn't 100%.

      More than 6 Billion shots have been administrated. 99% of those in hospitals with COVID have not been vaccinated. The science is indisputable.

      But, don't take my word for it. My second-worst grade was high school biology. So..

      Check out an actual microbiologist/virologist:

      https://www.tiktok.com/@scitimewithtracy?

      If I am wrong on anything, I want to rectify that.

    2. jake Silver badge

      Re: Well....

      "why do we need boosters ?"

      Same reason we need boosters for other inoculations.

      "why are the double jabbed hospitalised and dying"

      Those that are hospitalized and dying near as makes no nevermind all have medically compromised immune systems caused by other issues. (Colin Powell, for example, is listed as dying of Covid. In reality, he was already dying of multiple myeloma, further compromised by Parkinson's.)

      "viruses know no politics they just want to spread"

      Who said anything about politics? This isn't about politics, it's science. Only anti-science idiots try to make it a political issue.

      "... if they cant spread -maybe because of encountering a jabbed protected host... maybe they mutate?"

      Non sequitur ... and also not how it works. Educate yourself. And no, I don't mean "watch videos on that side of You Tube. That's not education, it's a method for so-called "creators" to make money off the eyeballs of the gullible.

      "DYOR"

      I have. Have you done due diligence on the subject matter, or do you automatically reject ideas and concepts that don't fit your preconceived notions?

      "this is more than the headlines, lies and propaganda"

      Not for you, apparently.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well....

      I also wanted VLA2001. I wonder if we'll be able to order it up privately after it receives approval?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Well....

        Didn't the UK Government cancel their order of VLA2001? I seem to remember reading that recently ... can anyone confirm or deny? And if confirm, why they canceled it?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well....

      DYOR

      https://xkcd.com/2515/

    5. ScottK

      Re: Well....

      "Maybe the jabbed are contributing to the rise of a more virulent, harmful strain??"

      In a post full of drivel, this is possibly the most idiotic comment.

      Viruses have the chance of mutation every time they reproduce. The more they reproduce, the more chance of a mutation producing a more dangerous strain (as already happened with Alpha and Delta before vaccines were widely available).

      What do we have that can limit the virus reproduction and try to inhibit new variants? VACCINES!

      So the truth is the exact opposite of your statement.

      1. Twanky

        Re: Well....

        Meh. Viruses don't reproduce, we (re)produce them - and so does every other living thing. Similarly they don't spread, 'we' spread them.

        I agree about the mutation though - sometimes the host makes an unusual batch which has different characteristics. Sometimes better, sometimes worse - depending on your point of view. We tend to take more notice of the worse.

    6. Filippo Silver badge

      Re: Well....

      "I test every 4 days so know if i go out I am not a carrier"

      No, you don't. You test every 4 days, so you have a good chance of not being a carrier. If you're unlucky, your last test could be a false negative, or you could just have bad timing; it can take 3 days or less to go from infected to contagious.

      Also, in the very next line you point out that the vaccine is not 100% effective at preventing spread. Quite the double standard you have there!

      1. Cederic Silver badge

        Re: Well....

        Well, his window of exposure (for others) is 4 days.

        Vaccinated people expose others for as long as it takes them to notice symptoms, because they're not testing.

        It just doesn't make sense to demand testing for non-vaccinated people and not for vaccinated. If anything it's worse, as it creates a false sense of security.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Well....

          I'm vaccinated. I still test, as do my vaccinated family and my work colleagues and my friends. The first because I'd rather not die a lingering death gasping to breath, the second because we would rather not be responsible for someone else lingering death.

    7. W.S.Gosset

      Re: Well....

      re Boosters etc, the graphs here tell the story: the vaccines decay far faster than ordinary vaccines. Pfizer wanes as far in effectiveness in 4-5mths as our standard Tetanus shot wanes in 30+ years.

      https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.15.21263583v1.full -- "Vaccine effectiveness and duration of protection of Comirnaty, Vaxzevria and Spikevax against mild and severe COVID-19 in the UK"

      HOWEVER, that's VE (Vaccine Effectiveness) vs just getting Infected. No one really cares about that; it's the risk of Death or Hospitalisation that matters. And both VEhosp & VEdeath are far higher and far more stable.

      Reason the UK's getting so many hospitalised is that VEinf is dropping, so more are running the risk of it becoming severe. Simply a numbers game.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Well....

        In what way are the COVID vaccines not "normal" vaccines? A vaccine is a vaccine is a vaccine. They all do the same job which is to train the immune system on a particular pathogen.

        The vaccine doesn't decay. It is gone in a few days after it has done its job. It is the immune systems response that fades over time.

        The immunity is more to do with how your body deals with the pathogen than the vaccine. It was observed with the SARS and MERS vaccines that immunity wanes. Seems to be a characteristic of corona viruses in general. The immune system doesn't seem to have the "memory" that it does for a bacterial infection like Tetanus.

        If that means regular boosters, then so be it.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Well....

        What 'Ordinary vaccines' ? I travelled a lot to tropical countries. I had lots of vaccines (and no - I didn't do my own research - You-tube wasn't invented when i stated to travel). Some vaccines needed a booster at 10 years. Some needed one at 6 months. Some were 1 jab and good to go, some were spread out with multiple jabs over several months. Some the science changed and it was realized that regular boosters could be dropped. Vaccine protocols are as varied as the diseases they protect us from.

        1. W.S.Gosset

          Re: Well....

          "Ordinary vaccines" for ordinary people living ordinary lives, which they receive in the ordinary scheme of things as an ordinary matter of course. The ordinary vaccines we all get. Measles, mumps, etc. The bulk of these last many many years -- in fact Tetanus is a bit of an outlier (inlier?) with a booster recommended after only 10yrs (altho that turns out to be a quick guess not data-based; research coupla years ago determined the actual need was not until at least 30yrs).

          Tropical-disease vaccines etc are not really ordinary for most people. And yes, they vary a lot.

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Well....

            "Tropical-disease vaccines etc are not really ordinary for most people."

            Unless you live in the tropics :-)

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Well....

            By that definition then, the COVID vaccine is likely to become "ordinary". You will get it once or twice a year to boost immunity and cope with any new variants.

            A combined flu/COVID jab would be ideal.

    8. Don Dumb
      Boffin

      Re: Well....

      Just sayin' .... DYOR - this is more than the headlines, lies and propaganda

      Fucking No. Don't 'do your own research' unless you are a scientific researcher or academic authority in the relevant fields.

      Everyone else, listen to those people and stop thinking you are in any way capable of 'doing your own research'.

      For instance, Dr Anthony Fauci "joined the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a clinical associate in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases's (NIAID) Laboratory of Clinical Investigation (LCI). He became head of the LCI's Clinical Physiology Section in 1974, and in 1980 was appointed chief of the NIAID's Laboratory of Immunoregulation. In 1984, he became director of the NIAID, a position he still holds....Fauci has been a visiting professor at many medical centers." - He knows more than you and me

    9. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Well....

      "o why are the double jabbed hospitalised and dying"

      Some are, yes, but your out of context statement is implying something other than the whole truth. The number dying with COVID is vastly reduced such that it's primarily only the most susceptible or weakened through other cause who are dying. Of those who do die with COVID, more than four times as many unvaccinated die than those who have had at least one vaccination.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good job Apple

    Screw IBM and their mandatory vaccines. This is the correct way - personal choice on a vaccine, whilst meeting social responsibility by being tested.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Good job Apple

      It's not a personal choice. Unvaccinated people who contract the virus are far more likely to spread the virus to other people than vaccinated people who contract the virus. This is scientific fact, like it or not.

      The intentionally unvaccinated are incredibly selfish people and should be ashamed of themselves. The rest of us should ostracize them, and the sooner the better.

      1. W.S.Gosset

        Re: Good job Apple

        > Unvaccinated people who contract the virus are far more likely to spread the virus to other people than vaccinated people who contract the virus. This is scientific fact, like it or not.

        Actually, Jake, I'll pull you up there. Pre-Delta, vaccinated people were only about 40% less infectious than the unvaccinated. (See Harris et al (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2107717), used as the basis for Australia's Doherty Institute's federal govt modelling; they quote 50% "adjusted" but give no replicable basis for this adjustment, just a handwavy assertion, so I don't trust it. Raw #s there are 56.4% as infectious for AZ and 61.4% for Pfizer).

        Delta I'm still waiting on seeing solid research, but the virologists have been pointing out for a while that there could well be identical infectiousness b/w vaccinated and unvaccinated for Delta since it essentially blocks itself out a little enclave in your nasal passages (somehow hiding from/not triggering the immune response being measurably triggered elsewhere in the body) and almost immediately starts throwing out fresh virus into the air. And appears to do so for the duration of the normal infectious period. And "almost immediately" can mean under an hour after meeting an infected person: we had a chap down in Melbourne who infected several people after meeting an infected mate on the train on the way in to the MCG.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Re: Good job Apple

          Fair enough.

          However, I seem to remember reading that the CDC said there is some question about how viable this virus retrieved from vaccinated people actually is.

          Obviously, I'll have to continue reading. As should we all

          (As a side note, it occurs to me that it's possible the chap down in Melbourne crossed paths with another infected person, perhaps completely asymptomatic and still undetected, the day before the chance meeting on the train. We'll never know.)

          1. W.S.Gosset

            Re: Good job Apple

            > continue reading

            Yep. A lot of this (disease + defence) is breaking new ground, so the world's learning as we go. And big safety tip for everyone: you need to read the actual body of the paper, and in painstaking detail. Abstracts are now routinely "spun" in published research, and in virtue-display topics are routinely contradicted by the research they pretend to summarise. And very often you'll find the most useful information buried in the Supplementary Materials.

            > (As a side note, it occurs to me that it's possible the chap down in Melbourne crossed paths with another infected person, perhaps completely asymptomatic and still undetected, the day before the chance meeting on the train. We'll never know.)

            Actually, very unusually, in this case we _can_ be certain. It was the very beginning of a new infection set --city+State had been at 0 for a while until another quarantine failure-- and the test&trace mob determined that mate-on-the-train was the Index Case. Unusual situation allowing unusual observation.

            (Oh and it wasn't a chance meeting -- those bastards had ARRANGED to meet up! Conspiracy! :)

        2. Cederic Silver badge

          Re: Good job Apple

          Public Health England publish monthly 'technical briefing' documents on variants of interest, and were for a few months tracking outcomes by vaccination status for Delta.

          Check Table 5 of https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1014926/Technical_Briefing_22_21_09_02.pdf

          Compare deaths/case for fully vaccinated under 50s to unvaccinated under 50s.

          Of course that doesn't take into account case rates, so if the vaccine reduces the chance of catching COVID then it's still adding value. Given the correlation between age and outcome though, if I had children I'd be wanting solid hard evidence of benefit before getting them jabbed.

          Unfortunately (and even in this discussion) people are taking blanket binary positions, and that often includes regional or national Governments, and that's preventing a nuanced informed discussion, policy and approach.

          1. W.S.Gosset

            Re: Good job Apple

            > Table 5 of

            Hmm!

            Over 50s, VEdeath of ~70%.

            Under 50s, VEdeath of negative -27.5% !

            Random fluctuations, small number effect: we're looking at quite small sample size for the very small risks involved. Under50s%Death here is 0.00059 / 0.00047. If Vaxxed Deaths were 29 instead of 37, or UNvaxxed were 126 instead of 99, the odds would match.

            But yeah, your key point is bang on: the younger you get, the tinier the Covid risk becomes, and the cost-benefit of vaccination becomes moot (LatinFrench) or meh (Modern), but that point/consideration (and others) is being lost/drowned out.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. DryBones

          Re: Good job Apple

          Well, there's vaccinated and there's not. And until we can scale the antibody testing sufficiently it's really that simple. Worse is the fact that not all develop the same degree of antibody response to the vaccine.

          You're trying to make this some multiple option personal choice carousel.

          It's public health. Get vaccinated.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good job Apple

      When your personal choice amounts to keeping a virus that kills alive, it's ridiculous to condemn it being mandatory in any way shape or form.

      Apple are doing the right thing here. But so were IBM.

  6. ZeroPete

    Update : 2 shots = unvaccinated

    There is apparently a plan afoot that considers anyone that has not had a 6 month boostershot as 'unvaccinated', even after the first two shots (or single in case of e.g. Johnson).

    So if y'all thought you were done with this you are sadly mistaken.

    I imagine the next step will be 'required vaccination *by the company physician*'

    Pete

    1. Cederic Silver badge

      Re: Update : 2 shots = unvaccinated

      Already happened in Israel: "Israel will strip more than a million citizens of their vaccine passports on Sunday, becoming the first country to regulate booster shots as evidence of fully immunised status."

      -- https://www.ft.com/content/a1b2fd70-71b5-4e91-be0b-553b0e1e2639

      I think it would be naive to assume it won't happen elsewhere.

    2. BloggsyMaloan

      Re: Update : 2 shots = unvaccinated

      "There is apparently a plan afoot that considers anyone that has not had a 6 month boostershot as 'unvaccinated'"

      So the plan is to adjust policy to reflect scientific observation and analysis?

      Quelle surprise.

    3. Boothy

      Re: Update : 2 shots = unvaccinated

      Not sure why you're acting like this is something unexpected?

      At the very beginning of vaccination work, they'd already said boosters would be quite likely, just like we have with many other jabs.

      This, the need for a booster, was confirmed many month ago now, and they were just waiting to figure out what the timing needed to be per vaccination.

      So it's been fully expected that vaccinated people would lose their vaccinated status at some point in time, without a booster.

  7. Winkypop Silver badge
    Coat

    I had friends at school who had Polio

    Give me your vaccines, now and forever!

    Praise be to modern medicine and it’s practitioners.

    Blessed are the vaccine makers.

    —> lab coat

    1. W.S.Gosset

      Re: I had friends at school who had Polio

      Nowadays we have the luxury of looking a bit baffled and saying, "That's a mint, isn't it?"

      1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

        Re: I had friends at school who had Polio

        A friends baby died of whooping cough about five years back, in England. She was too young to have been immunised (which happens a at two months). It still happens, it’s just so much rarer. Not so long ago it would have been common to lose a child.

        The tragedy of vaccines is they are so effective at suppressing disease that people start questioning their need. It’s like questioning the need for an umbrella while you’re standing under one in the rain.

  8. Conundrum1885

    Vaccines

    As someone who owes their very survival to vaccines, I feel that people who refuse them are mentally ill.

    My grandmother NEARLY died aged 13, from poliomyelitis and never fully recovered but as others had

    been vaccinated it may have been a less virulent strain fortunately.

    I had a bout of German measles and chickenpox when younger, fortunately got over them as had been

    given at least the initial dose of MMR probably around 12 months.

    I may have died when young had it not been for the very hard and dedicated work of folks like Salk, who

    in some cases risked attack by "anti-vaxxers" every single day.

    People who literally trust in faith over science expecting $Deity to "save them" are in for a shock.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Vaccines

      Yet for unfathomable reasons you still get downvotes. On this subject, anyone defending the "pro-choice" or worse the "anti vaxx" brigade especially is a self entitled loon.

      Our friends in developing countries know the value of vaccination and would walk literally miles for the chance to get some cover.

      The desire to get back to normal is strong. The route to do so, is contingent upon getting absolutely everyone well covered; because at this stage it is clearly impossible to stop circulation of the virus. (Blame squarely aimed at a particular communist nation states cover-up attempt for this).

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Vaccines

      "People who literally trust in faith over science expecting $Deity to "save them" are in for a shock."

      My argument to God bothers is "God helps those who helps themselves and each other". That's why he created doctors and scientists to help others :-)

  9. gryphon

    Compulsory Testing

    My sister lives in Sydney and works at a reasonably large US owned factory.

    Even though she is double-vaccinated with Pfizer along with most of the staff, they all have to take a test every day when they arrive on site.

    Originally it had to be administered by company nurse totally but I believe they've now moved over to a more rapid test which I presume means not having to shove a swab up ones nose.

    Not sure if that is a company policy or New South Wales govt. though but we know how paranoid android the Aus authorities are.

    Currently they all also have to wear masks as well but she said that is going away for those who are vaccinated from Monday.

    Apparently there are a few VERY vocal anti-vaxxers on site but they declaim rather than discuss.

    Personally I was on vaccine trial for Novavax and feeling somewhat screwed over that it still isn't approved. Supposed to be getting a whole new course of Pfizer to go 'official' for travel etc. but it's currently in a "we'll let you know what's happening" pattern.

    1. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: Compulsory Testing

      The NHS England (and Scotland) rapid tests do involve shoving a swab up your nose. The Wales and Northern Ireland ones are probably the same.

      1. whoseyourdaddy

        Re: Compulsory Testing

        Every test I have seen has been swab-vs-nose test..

        Better detection accuracy than drawing blood, I was told by an MD unwrapping the really long swab.

  10. Russell Chapman Esq.

    This comment thread is depressing

    One of the things I generally like about ElReg commentards is how affable everyone is. This thread however just seems to be swirling around a whirlpool of anger and spittle. If you want the vaccine, have it, I do. If you don't then don't. But let's stop with the anger and vitriol that this topic so easily generates, it is infantile. I got rid of my social media because of the cesspit the comments sections have become. I would hate to see ElReg go the same way.

    1. Sixtiesplastictrektableware

      Re: This comment thread is depressing

      You called it, my dude. I've had a running theory that a bunch of people from the old-timey slashdot lurk about these here parts-- from when slashdot was fun and a bit more thinky.

      ElReg is one of the only places I know where people have said 'oh, my mistake'.

      Corporeally, I have remarked on this situation hitting all our soft spots, being social and economic, which restricts our moves and slows response. If that's new to a body, it'll frustrate and then here we are.

      I try to keep in mind that a great writer (to me, anyway) said 'struggle is the first law of growth'.

  11. Peter2 Silver badge

    I have had both jabs, just for full disclosure.

    I also think that people shouldn't be forced to have them if they don't want them; if they get it then it's their life on the line both literally and figuratively. Forcing daily tests on the unvaccinated shouldn't be allowed. It's reasonably well known that the vaccinated can catch and transmit Covid; so as well as being discriminatory this sort of measure is ineffective at safeguarding staff unless everybody is being tested.

  12. wolfetone Silver badge

    I don't approve of mandatory vaccinations.

    I fully believe people should be given the facts, shown what can happen, and let them decide whether or not it's right for them. By the very same token, they should apply that to their interactions with the people around them. Even if it's just in the canteen, or at the communal water fountain, they are coming in to contact with other people, and they don't know how healthy or strong that person is. I took the decision to have it, as I see people who are frail like my own mother.

    In the UK at least, pregnant women were told for ages not to have it as the jab as no one was sure about how safe it is. Then one day the midwife council say "yeah pregnant women must have it now" - nothing changed other than the rates of infection in pregnant women went mad. The wife is expecting, and rightly was concerned by it. She's not an anti-vaxxer, neither am I, but both of us were unsure as to what could happen to the unborn child at that point in the pregnancy. Her midwife reiterated the point made by the boss of the midwife council, but gave the caveat that her personal view would be to not have it. This was about 4 months ago now, and we're at the point where the baby could arrive any day now. For her whole pregnancy, my wife hasn't been out of the house. We go to the shop late on a weekday when it's quiet. She's rocking around with the builders mask for asbestos and her hands are dry as hell from the alcohol gel. I've not been able to go out as much either, as I don't want to be the one that brings this vile thing home and cause them to be both sick. She's since had the first jab at least, as the development has stopped and the baby is just growing now, so as far as she's concerned the risk isn't as much as it could've been had she had the jab when the baby was still growing. Given the lack of information and data on how the vaccine reacts with pregnancy, I think this is a fair enough reason to have elected to not have the jab.

    The decision should always be left to the individual, and if they don't want to vaccinate then that's absolutely fine. But don't go out with that fucking green lanyard saying you're exempt from wearing a mask. Don't be that gobshite who will stand within a foot of someone splurting out bullshit about how it's all about the Illuminati and population control and that we don't do this for flu. Don't be crying about having the God awful COVID test to prove you don't have it either. Wear a mask, wash your hands, and don't be a dick. Protect people that way if you don't want to vaccinate yourself.

    The problem though is that we have lived through a good period of time where those in power, those in trust, have lied to us. Even now, in the UK again, we have the health secretary saying we should be wearing masks, then the posh tosser goes to the house of commons saying they don't need to wear masks as they know each other. I know the bus driver of my route, doesn't mean I won't wear a mask in front of him. But this mixed messaging, saying one thing then doing another, it dissolves the trust the people have in those in power and it's been dissolving for decades. Now we're in a more connected world where your mom's mate's son called Kev will tell you that the vaccine is population control with a 5G microchip and it rots your liver. Given what we see from politicians and experts who I'd like to think are doing their best, of course these tossers spouting shite will be believed.

    The problem is how you deal with these people, both the politicians and the Kevs. You don't deal with the Kevs by banning their videos. It's the job of those in power to put the trust back in to their own words and demonstrate to people that this is the right thing to do. Banning them because it's "fake news" isn't enough, as it emboldens the conspiracy claims. But that's too much like hard work, as it means politicians actually have to stop lying and set an example and not live by the whole "do as I say not as I do" mantra that's infested governments across the world.

    1. W.S.Gosset

      re Wife:

      If her jab was mRNA (Pfizer/Moderna), tell her to sit VERY tight until she's had her 2nd. Pregnant women are apparently oddly vulnerable to Covid during this interstitial period: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.abi8631

      > After analyzing several different classes of antibodies produced by each cohort, the researchers found that pregnant and lactating women didn’t make as many of the protective immune molecules following the first shot of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. However, after the second shot, those differences more or less disappeared.

      Also, watch out if sprog is male :D https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/19/sex-of-the-fetus-influences-the-mothers-response-to-covid-19-infection-new-research-shows/

      And the fertility-risk thing apparently probably came from a hoax letter saying that the immune system was being primed to attack the spike protein which was actually a placenta protein, syncitin-1. That would require humans to have evolved to require infection from a pangolin* virus in order to breed in the first place, which I personally feel is not supported by my own observations but what would I know. https://www.statnews.com/2021/03/25/infertility-myth-covid-19-vaccines-pregnancy/

      .

      * Covid's body is bat-based, its spike protein is ~identical to that of a pangolin virus.

      1. wolfetone Silver badge

        Thanks for that. I was planning on going to a pub for a proper pint (haven't been to one since the last time they were closed) as she's had the first jab. It can wait. Further complicating matters is that we don't know what we're having.

    2. W.S.Gosset

      Re: last 3 paragraphs

      Exactly.

      The Kevs have also been further alienated by the google/facebook/etc algorithms which heterodyne people harder and harder into a smaller and smaller bubble. (The same works for the Left, too -- there are now people in Australia vehemently citing sites which are the left version of alien lizard overlord sites.)

      But the big problem is the 2-speed society which has had the covers sharply yanked by the speed and real-world-ness of the pandemic. In Australia, our federal CMO Chief Medical Officer has cited fraudulent research to support criminalising people, the medical regulator has permanently stripped doctors of their licence for offering public opinions on lockdowns' cost-benefit tradeoff, and in my State of Queensland our CHO Chief Health Officer has proudly stated on the record that she routinely lies to the public in order to get them to do what she wants, and that this is an important part of the job. It's far wider than just the Covid stuff -- it's endemic, it's deep, and it's quite concerning for the longer term implications for us plebs. Particularly when coupled with the positive-feedback exaggeration of difference created by google/socialmeeja's algorithms on top of the human-nature herding problems it unavoidably exaggerates anyway.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: last 3 paragraphs

        It's funny, in a sad sort of way. Australia has a reputation of being a laid back, surf culture, no worries mate, tomorrow will do sort of place. Yet the politics there seems pretty poor and the recently released info on Aussie Govt. attitude to global warming and coal production really seem to show the true side your "rulers".

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Ah yes, those "tests"....

    For a clinical test to be valid (i.e not gross medical malpractice) they must have a Type I and Type II error rate not greater than 5%. False Negative and False Positive rates. But when RT/PCR is used as an active infection proxy test in a low prevalence population sample (not in lab calibration tests in ideal conditions against reference samples) the Type I error rate is > 50% and the Type II error rate is > 90%. Thats why pre March 2020 all RT/PCR tests were at the end of the differential diagnostic chain to guarantee probably high prevalence > 10% and a reasonable selection of possible antigens in the test panels. Many dozens of infectious agents have the same range of non-specific respiratory symptoms.

    For a mass screening test to be valid they should Type I error rate < 20% and a Type II Error < 20%. Give or take. The lower the IFR and R0 the lower the acceptable error rate if used for public health infection control. For SARs CoV2 given its low IFT and R0 a test error rate of > 10% would make the tests worthless from an infection control point of view. The current antigen and antibody tests for SARs CoV2 (immuno-chromatography and other types) have Type I error rates > 50% and Type II errors > 90%. Again due to low prevalence.

    What this means is that anyone with an actual active infection (maybe 3 or 4 in 1000) if tested has a less than 50% probability of returning a positive test result. And 90% plus of all positive test results are for those with no active infection.

    This is partly due to the pathology of viral infections but mostly due to some very basic maths.

    Thats how bloody stupid this testing is. About as "scientific" as looking at tea leaves. At least in that case you would get a nice relaxing cup of tea out of the "test" first.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ah yes, those "tests"....

      Oh good - bout time we had an expert in clinical testing here. Can you fix the squeaky brakes on my bicycle while you are here?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ah yes, those "tests"....

        Oooh, how smart. What a witty post.

        So as you seem to know so much about the subject please point out the factual errors in the posting. There ain any. C*ckwomble.

        What the last 18 months has reinforced is just how sh*t at mathematics medical and bio-science people are. And how credulous and fatuous most posters are here about subjects based on the evidence presented they know little or nothing about. Just the bleatings of RightThink sheep.

        If they had spent the last four decades dealing with doctors they would know medical people are just about as reliable and trustworthy as lawyers. OK for simple stuff but the difficult stuff, pray you have one of the few that knows what the f*ck they are doing. Not many of those about. Doctors or lawyers. You should ask two of my dearest friends who were both told categorically they had only months to live. Several decades ago. About par for the course over the years based on many visits to the ER / A&E.

        And you can guess where you should stick that squeaky bike of you. From whence you speak.

  14. BOFH in Training

    Will not be surprised if companies owned / run by anti vaxxers ask that all those who are vaccinated leave and don't come back.

    It's already started :

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/anti-vaccine-school-in-florida-tells-kids-to-stay-home-if-they-get-a-covid-shot/

  15. hoola Silver badge

    Scary

    I am flabbergasted by many of the comments and equally the numbers of downvotes on factually correct statements regarding Covid vaccines.

    If this is where we stand on this then humanity (in the West in particular) is really stuffed.

    Covid has resulted in a radical change in how society can operate to avoid unacceptable levels of mortality and moving forward, economic catastrophe. For the foreseeable future there are going to be mitigations required due to Covid and if that means we end with compromises on what people perceive as freedom of choice then we have issues.

    At the moment there appears to be a significant number of people who want everything to return to normal but are not prepared to take part in any of the mitigations. Look at the huge fuss about wearing masks and using hand sanitiser in the UK. Neither are hugely onerous if there is a benefit we should be doing it. If people choose not to be vaccinated then ultimately they may have to put up with not being able to take part in society without additional checks. Remember that for all those who choose to refuse to be vaccinated, or take any of the other mitigations, there are people out there who are unable to vaccinated for medical reasons. They do not have a choice.

    I have been vaccinated and will have the booster. I also decided to have the Flu vaccine this year as there has been less general exposure to all the normal background bugs for the last year making one's immune system less effective that it would normally be.

    Yes, in most civilized societies there is choice and we are fortunate to have that however with choice also comes responsibility.

    1. Sixtiesplastictrektableware

      Re: Scary

      I know I'm sounding all long-haired-kumbaya-hippie, but I just hate to see things tarnish.

      We're in a tight spot that you can't solve with the usual human panache (shoot or punch it). It freaks some people out. All they've got left is a less-traveled existentialism.

      Quiet strength has less pizzazz than a clarion call to marshal forces against an unseen enemy. That's just human history.

      I don't see us being anymore stuffed than usual, so long as we can trade ideas. For instance, I'm totally using the term 'stuffed' from now on 'cuz it's awesome. Hope for humanity yet.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Scary

      Look at the huge fuss about wearing masks and using hand sanitiser in the UK. Neither are hugely onerous if there is a benefit we should be doing it.

      Yes, that's the thing "if there is a benefit". The only benefit actually claimed for masks is that if somebody is infected and coughs then that reduces the distance the droplets travel. And... that's it. Yet we have people wandering around under the impression that a non fitted cloth mask that they have worn for the last year without washing it is actually a military spec NBC suit and provides complete immunity against catching Covid and as a result people claim that they are going to continue wearing them until the day they die despite being completely bloody useless because they provide zero protection against breathing things in.

      And on the subject of breathing things in? You know the FFP2/N95 masks? 95 is the percentage of particles they are supposed to block on a good day. DIY shops sell you reusable FF3/N99 masks with replaceable filters for doing loft insulation FFS because they think that the extra 4% filtration is wanted in case you breath in a bit of fibreglass, which has a very considerably lower mortality rate that Covid.

      Now by all means encouraging people who think they have any form of infectious disease to wear a mask would be sensible as it might reduce the transmissibility somewhat. But requiring everybody in the country to wear them all of the time is ridiculous and quite inevitably is going to lead to people pointing that out.

  16. Spanners Silver badge
    Linux

    NHS Policy

    I was double vaccinated a while back. I had my booster last week and was doing lateral flow tests twice a week until recently.

    Now, like other NHS people, I do saliva tests instead. I "dribble" into a little tube, seal and double wrap it and stick it into a box.

    They send me a nice text message saying I am not yet infected again.

    Will Apple employees not like that as it could be used to see who's on drugs as well?

  17. This post has been deleted by its author

  18. W.S.Gosset
    Megaphone

    To convert an Anti-Vaxxer

    For those interested, I have converted anti-vaxxers simply by showing them the FULL effect of Covid. Because if you look at just the individual risk, for anyone under 50-60, the only sensible response is "rats arse". Couple that with public officials screaming "PHEAR!!" and an angry response/dismissal of the whole rigmarole is entirely justifiable.

    The eye-widening comes from looking at the whole-country impact. For some reason, no public official I've seen/heard has done more than wail "PHEARRR", has not simply laid the numbers out. And the numbers talk.

    To do it: just follow the methodology laid out in Australia's federal modelling by the Doherty Institute. ("Interestingly", they hid all the following numbers.) Get the risk numbers from Knock et al (the best to date), p65 Table S9 in the Supplementary Materials: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.11.21249564v1.full . That's per Infection, not per Case, so you'll need to back out the Asymptotic assumption of 0.60 (p62), re-apply the age-bucketed figures from Davies et al, p14 in the PDF (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9), then if you like scale up for Alpha severity which gets you closeish to Delta (Delta is less lethal): get the scaling figures from Table S1 p23 of Doherty (https://www.doherty.edu.au/uploads/content_doc/DohertyModelling_NationalPlan_and_Addendum_20210810.pdf): +42% Hospitalisation, +61% Death.

    Now you have your risk numbers.

    Then get your population numbers by age-bucket and simply multiply them out, to get the total country-wide effects. This assumes that everyone will eventually get Covid. Which is the opinion of every sane epidemiologist/virologist: it's not IF, it's WHEN. Just a timing issue. For Australia, p29 of Doherty has them.

    So for Australia, you'll get ~460,000 Deaths and ~2,600,000 Hospitalisations. (America's about 6.4m deaths iirc)

    That's the equivalent of over 1,100 years of flu deaths.

    That's enough to have the antivaxxer doing a serious doubletake, if not start talking about getting the vaccine.

    Then do up a table of those Hospitalisations vs Hospital Bed Capacity. For Australia, Doherty have 55,440; UK has ~140,000 (down from 300,000 30yrs ago; NHS policy now is to shut down any hospital running at less than 85% capacity. This is great for generating headlines like "NHS nearly 90% full!" any time there's a hiccup, and for diverting money away from doctors&nurses to more deserving types like middle management). In my State of Queensland, our hospitals have been so run down that we're near 100% capacity just under normal conditions: we have ~0 Covid right now but a number of hospitals running at 105%, with Code Yellows becoming routine.

    So then, Timing. How long will it take to reach that number? Doherty's projections imply 2.5yrs for Delta @ 50% vaccination if no lockdowns, masks, home isolation, etc. So run up a table showing that number over that many weeks at various time-spent-in-hospital against the number of hospital beds. A yank Covid nurse told me they're seeing 3 weeks per patient being the average, if you just want to do one number not a table.

    For Australia, that implies our hospitals running at 109% capacity. Just for Covid. On top of all the usual workload.

    .

    (On the upside, as of a few weeks ago, Australia's oldies-first vaccination approach + rollout had dropped the Max.Deaths by 75%. Due to 99.5% of the deaths being in the Over-50yos.)

    --

    Other things to throw in:

    * Delta looks less lethal but in Australia is Hospitalising ~20% of the UNvaccinated. So you should probably ~double the above Individual Risk numbers for Hospitalisation.

    * ICUs blow out LONG before Hospitals. Average is about 8-10days in ICU iirc. Australia is currently seeing about 20% of our Hospitalised ppl need ICU, so you can whack that number in as a guesstimate and calc the result vs 8-10days duration per ICU Case.

    * Point out to your antivaxxer that once we get past 100% capacity in hospitals/ICUs, for everyone else, that %Hospitalisation is death. So after a year or so of exponential growth rather than the bodgy linear you've got in your calcs above, add %Hosp+%Deaths to get actual %Death risk. So 60yos will literally be playing russian roulette every time they step outside: 1 in 6 chance of death if they bump into an infected person, even an asymptotic kid.

    And in my experience, it's about this time even your rantier anti-vaxxer drops the anti.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    FORCE

    Oh my God! They are forcing us to stop at stop lights. Forcing us to refrain from murder! Forcing us to not rob people at gun point.

    Meanwhile using force to prevent impoverished people from entering the counry is fine. Using force to lynch minorities is fine.

    The Q-diots are still with us and as long as 230 stands they will continue to grow in number. If you like the direction things are going, by all means defend 230.

  20. codejunky Silver badge

    Experts

    Of course the experts we are expected to believe are bowing to politics over reality-

    https://bigthink.com/health/medical-journals-fashionable-nonsense/

    https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/well-yes-polly-but-the-nhs-still-isnt-very-good

    We cant blindly follow expert advice as different experts have different views, and even outright lie for political reasons (think WHO at the start of the pandemic over China). That vaccines would put an end to restrictions (hasnt). The aim is for herd immunity, then thats just stupid, then back to vaccine for herd immunity.

    While not an advocate against being vaccinated (I am double jabbed) I am not for forcing people to be vaccinated. We can make our choices and live with them.

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: Experts

      Re: Fashionable nonsense

      Well a 20 year old book seems to have hit the nail on the head:

      Quantum Computing — a term that sounds erudite but is complete gibberish.

    2. codejunky Silver badge

      Re: Experts

      At what point are we vaccinated enough? At what point do we get to live our lives as before?

      https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1451976915225559050

      Does a vaccination protect yourself or everyone else? Does vaccination stop the spread or not? Will there be an end to this or is it a convenient excuse as was the 'war on terror'?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Experts

        "At what point are we vaccinated enough?"

        To find out, try reading something like this instead of your GammonBroadcasting News Twitter feed?

        1. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Experts

          @AC

          "To find out, try reading something like this instead of your GammonBroadcasting News Twitter feed?"

          But your link only stands by what I asked and you part quoted. So if we aint getting rid of covid (not a shock) then when do we get to live our lives again?

          Its no good complaining about the source when yours adds nothing to the one I linked to.

          1. Roland6 Silver badge

            Re: Experts

            > So if we aint getting rid of covid (not a shock) then when do we get to live our lives again?

            We don't, I thought that was obvious; welcome to the post-CoViD19 world.

            The big unknown going forward is just how long immunity (in any form) lasts and thus whether boosters become part of the normal preventative landscape.

            However, I would hope some serious scientific research is quietly going on so that we can better understand the transmission vectors and what mitigations best disrupt them. The problem is, I can see the government turning off the sequencing machines - to save money to spend on projects like HS2 and Trident refurbishment., and demanding the construction of energy-efficient buildings with Sars-Cov-2 friendly distribution systems...

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Experts

              @Roland6

              "We don't, I thought that was obvious; welcome to the post-CoViD19 world."

              Thats the worrying part. There seems to be no desire to end this just as there was no desire to end the war on terror. It gives too much power to do stupid things people wouldnt generally accept.

              "The problem is, I can see the government turning off the sequencing machines - to save money to spend on projects like HS2 and Trident refurbishment"

              Or even to spaff on something we dont even get to see anything of. Government is very good at spending more money. I couldnt believe they were looking at tax rises considering the UK has fallen down the tax league and is spending like money is going out of fashion.

              1. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: Experts

                @codejunky

                Don't disagree

                >There seems to be no desire to end this just as there was no desire to end the war on terror.

                The worrying ramification is there seems to be no desire to actually stand up and say there will be no end to the 'war' and thus start the debate about how are we going to live, what powers are actually necessary and who gets to use them.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like