# Ministers urged not to ‘threaten’ NHS staff over mandatory Covid jab (England)



## Northerner (May 31, 2021)

Ministers have been urged not to “threaten” NHS staff by forcing them to get vaccinated against coronavirus under plans being considered by the government.

The shadow Commons leader, Thangam Debbonaire, said it was not a “good idea” after the vaccines minister, Nadhim Zahawi, said the proposal was being investigated alongside the existing consultation on making jabs mandatory for social care workers.

There is nervousness in Whitehall about doing anything to destabilise the vaccine rollout by requiring that people get the jab instead of keeping it voluntary – something that several behavioural scientists have warned could dampen take-up among already vaccine-hesitant groups.

But after concerns that a sizeable number of health and social care staff, who were among the first to be offered the vaccine, are reluctant to get jabbed, the government has been consulting on making vaccines mandatory for care workers, and is now expanding that to include all those working in the NHS.









						Ministers urged not to ‘threaten’ NHS staff over mandatory Covid jab
					

Labour calls for caution after vaccines minister says government is considering plan




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## mikeyB (May 31, 2021)

What's the big deal? Health and Social care staff are looking after folk, the vast majority of whom have been vaccinated, and are unlikely to be carrying the virus. People who need social care tend not to socialise.


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 3, 2021)

All surgeons in the NHS are required to have a Hepatitis B vaccination. No ifs or buts. And full cooperation. No blackmail or coercion, or ridicule. They just can't work without it.


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 7, 2021)

I didn't say they were. I just used surgeons as an example of compulsory vaccination which has been accepted without a single protest. This should be obvious, I would have thought.

I'll try and make my posts simpler to understand, If you like, so you don't need to invent things I didn't say.


----------



## pm133 (Jun 7, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> I didn't say they were. I just used surgeons as an example of compulsory vaccination which has been accepted without a single protest. This should be obvious, I would have thought.
> 
> I'll try and make my posts simpler to understand, If you like, so you don't need to invent things I didn't say.



That seems needlessly aggressive.
Are you just lashing out at everyone today?


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 8, 2021)

Lashing out? I was just trying to be helpful. And responding to a difficulty causing misunderstanding of my obviously difficult to understand post.


----------



## Andy HB (Jun 8, 2021)

It is true that masks are pretty ineffective. However, they do reduce the level of transmission to some small degree. This is definitely a case of every little helps (and with exponential growth a little can end up being a lot!!).

But if people want to have punch ups or shout at others for not wearing them, then any benefit they may have given just goes out the window.

On a different matter which Amity Island mentioned, I have always been perplexed as to why people with ginger hair are ridiculed. Personally, I have always loved that colour of hair (I'm not ginger by the way).


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 8, 2021)

I think there is something of a topic drift here.

Health workers have intimate contact with patients. Surgeons wear masks during surgery, and are immunised against Hepatitis B, a blood borne disease. That is to protect both the surgeon and the patients.

It is not, in my view, a difficult ask for health workers to be immunised against Covid to reduce the possibility of patients being infected. It’s not a personal choice, it’s a safety measure protecting the public, and limiting spread of Covid in hospitals.


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 8, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> I think there is something of a topic drift here.
> 
> Health workers have intimate contact with patients. Surgeons wear masks during surgery, and are immunised against Hepatitis B, a blood borne disease. That is to protect both the surgeon and the patients.
> 
> It is not, in my view, a difficult ask for health workers to be immunised against Covid to reduce the possibility of patients being infected. It’s not a personal choice, it’s a safety measure protecting the public, and limiting spread of Covid in hospitals.


I agree - personally I think the NHS should insist on it otherwise they are failing to provide adequate care under the Health and Safety at work act, in the same way a construction worker should be removed from site if they fail to follow the safety rules. If a NHS worker gets COVID and dies or worse passes that on to many critical care patients with compromised immune systems and they all die - is the NHS negligent when protective measures now exist?

I think people have a right to say no to it, why they would though baffles me with the horror they have witnessed, but if they do say no the NHS ought to consider assigning a role to them which is off the front line of care.

Similar argument but different - people can
put whatever they like into their bodies so far as I am concerned - but I’d expect the plane I was on to be flown by a sober pilot.


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 9, 2021)

Your concerns are valid, but misses the point I was making. The fundamental principle is - the NHS has a legal and moral duty to protect their employees and patients. What I was saying is - the NHS should insist front line care is undertaken by people who have been afforded the maximum protection possible as driven by the best available data therefore managing the risk to the best extent they can. That would include in my opinion reassigning employees to other types of work that is lower in risk to them and others if they choose not to take up the vaccine. Not the NHS should insist on people having the vaccine.

The overwhelming evidence is that having the vaccine is safer than not having the vaccine both for the individual and others with the exception of 20-29 year olds with low exposure risk (arguably NHS workers are high exposure risk).


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 15, 2021)

here it is then

Covid vaccine to be required for England care home staff https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57492264

were they listening to what I said, spooky.

_“Care staff are expected to be given 16 weeks to have the jab - or face being redeployed away from frontline care, or lose their jobs”_

although lose their job is a bit much


----------



## Leadinglights (Jun 16, 2021)

BlueArmy said:


> here it is then
> 
> Covid vaccine to be required for England care home staff https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57492264
> 
> ...


Bearing in mind many care home staff are of an age where they will be mixing with their children and own families, you would think for their own protection and that of their family they would be all to willing to get the vaccine.


----------



## trophywench (Jun 16, 2021)

Well the wording should really be  or RISK losing their jobs  I suppose, but this is a newspaper article not a legal employment contract, so I'm OK with that.  If more refused the jab than there are vacancies 'in other areas' then of course losing the job becomes a risk, and is obvious so didn't really need saying!   If you apply for any job and there are less positions available than there are applicants, you risk not being employed in the first place and always have done!  When companies need to make redundancies, ditto.  Just because where you happen to work has never hitherto needed to make people redundant, does not mean they never will.


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 16, 2021)

I am aligned with some of the points other people made though about forcing people. Its needs to remain their choice, even if my own view is that is a particularly poor choice on many levels both for them and selfishly for everyone else who did take the risk to protect themselves and everyone else for the benefit of those who choose not to return to a normal life as well, just believe every reasonable effort should be made to redeploy first and losing jobs should be the worst case when all else fails. But I stand by the basic principles of - these organisations and government is negligent if they do not enforce the protective measures in the same way every other industry would be should they choose to not manage risk to health and safety properly


----------



## trophywench (Jun 16, 2021)

PS my big sis had ginger hair and wore glasses and always had more friends than me.  Knowing well how boys tease/bait other boys far more than little girls used to, as an adult I asked an 11 year old boy at our naturist club (his parents were members, all quite proper!) if his mates at school ever said anything about his brown bum and he replied 'Occasionally one of them says Hey - you're completely brown everywhere, no white bits! so I just say, 'I know - lovely, ain't it!' then turned his back on me and patted his bum - 'and then just ignore them.'   Always thought he was a nice kid brought up properly anyway - so was relieved to hear he'd been taught well about bullying and knew how to handle it.  I didn't know any other kids that sort of age I could have such a conversation with, and still don't.  I mean our youngest granddaughter aged 8 told her grandad when they went a walk a few weeks ago that I have an anger management issue about her not being taught her times tables - cos yeah, I freely admit I did go apeshit when I discovered kids aren't taught them now!

(How on EARTH does an 8 yo know the term 'Anger Management' ..... I think I have an anger management problem about that too ........ )


----------



## pm133 (Jun 16, 2021)

@BlueArmy, if I understand you and @Amity Island correctly, you are coming at the argument from different sides.

Amity is coming at it from the perspective of the individual and you are coming at it from the perspective of the rest of society.

On this issue, I am siding more towards the rights of the individual.
I'm well aware that this side of the argument is where you'll find all the conspiracy theory nutters but I think when it comes to injecting medicine into people, the rights of the individual shades it for me.

You gave a comparison with a pilot requiring to be sober to fly a plane but this isn't a persuasive argument at all. In fact that's the opposite of forcing someone to take something into their bodies to keep their job.

The conspiracy nutters might be unhinged but the argument is shaded in their favour on this. People should have the right to refuse any medical treatment of any nature without being subject to discrimination. On this point, I'm not convinced that the individual owes the rest of society anything.


----------



## trophywench (Jun 16, 2021)

@BlueArmy - sack em for proving to be far to stupid to safely work for us?


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 16, 2021)

i have not been clear, I agree that right is a basic human right and 100% support it. But that has to be balanced against the basic human right of others deserving protection through managed risk and the negligence of leadership not to enforce that somehow. The pilot example was more an analogy, people also have a right to put into their bodies whatever they like (in the same way they have the right to prevent anything not of their choosing to be put into their bodies) but that right should not prevail over my right to be safe on a flight (or in this case, whilst under the care of others)


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 16, 2021)

trophywench said:


> @BlueArmy - sack em for proving to be far to stupid to safely work for us?


haha - reassign to reduce risk would be my preference!

They still rigorously teach times tables in schools by they way, I think they do it extensively when they get to 9 - my boy has been through that this year, have had to hammer them into him somehow when all he wants to do is be like batman.


----------



## trophywench (Jun 16, 2021)

Not that it's possible anyway in 2021 - but if eg I broke a bone and was admitted to hospital cos it needed pinning - I'd tell Pete not to visit me please since he only has 50% lung capacity and I wouldn't wish him to expose himself to breathing anything untoward in, just because I'm there.  It's only like not going to see a new grandchild yet because you happen to have a cold - or missing a toddler's birthday party because your toddler has chicken pox and you wouldn't want all the other kids to come out in spots.  An innate responsibility towards other people ...... I thought but obviously incorrectly this was a human trait so am a bit confused why so many folk who aren't actually directly affected are taking such umbrage about it.


----------



## pm133 (Jun 16, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Not necessarily "all", see letter below
> 
> 
> 
> http://medisolve.org/yellowcard_urgentprelimreport.pdf



I'm pretty sure you won't find any conspiracy theorists on the other side of that argument.


----------



## pm133 (Jun 16, 2021)

trophywench said:


> An innate responsibility towards other people ...... I thought but obviously incorrectly this was a human trait



In some people yes. In others, not so much.
There are plenty of people out there who don't care about others and have neither a right nor responsibility to do so. As long as they're not doing anyone any harm there should be no issue.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 16, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Not necessarily "all", see letter below
> 
> http://medisolve.org/yellowcard_urgentprelimreport.pdf


Wow, The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd are _really_ keen on Ivermectin.


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 16, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Not necessarily "all", see letter below
> 
> 
> 
> http://medisolve.org/yellowcard_urgentprelimreport.pdf


its a fair point - but difficult to assess the risk.

Wish the MHRA would publish the findings in the context of other vaccine programs - is it more or less risky than flu jab, tetanus etc which are taken by many without second thought and certainly without the level of scrutiny they feel they can make on the covid vaccines.

Having this data would enable us to more broadly classify them as nutcases or not!

It does get under my skin though that we have a bunch of amateur scientists and medical wannabes and people cannot just trust the systems and experts that are there to make the informed decision on our behalf. That group of people - the great masses of educated purely by facebook conspiracy theorists are complete nutcases


----------



## pm133 (Jun 16, 2021)

BlueArmy said:


> It does get under my skin though that we have a bunch of amateur scientists and medical wannabes and people cannot just trust the systems and experts that are there to make the informed decision on our behalf. That group of people - the great masses of educated purely by facebook conspiracy theorists are complete nutcases



In fairness, our professional medical and scientific experts have shown themselves to be unscrupulous, untrustworthy and unethical over many decades and countless issues.
Conspiracy theorists are batshit crazy but they have been handed plenty of material to work with.


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 16, 2021)

can’t argue that. The only glimmer of hope that maintains my faith is that the processes flush it out eventually and you’d hope it was highly rare!


----------



## pm133 (Jun 16, 2021)

BlueArmy said:


> can’t argue that. The only glimmer of hope that maintains my faith is that the processes flush it out eventually and you’d hope it was highly rare!


Depressingly, it's not rare at all.
The systems designed to prevent problems don't always work either.

You saw the discussion over the surgeon who decided to brand his patients with his initials.
That man should be sitting in jail right now but not only is he walkinhg the streets, the authorities designed to stop such people have said he can continue to work as a surgeon. The message is clear - if you are sufficiently talented you can get away with almost anything. If you are sufficiently well connected, you can also get away with almost anything.

No field escapes this.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 16, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> What is your point about the concerns raised in that letter?


I think the reports should be studied in context. So MHRA (or JVCI, or whoever's the appropriate body) should consider whether the vaccines are actually causing more of (say) heart attacks. And (for relatively common things like heart attacks) that'll need looking at other sources of data than the yellow card system.

If there are very rare things then just the yellow card system might show those (I presume that's what happened with these blood clots combined with a low platelet count).

The letter doesn't seem to give any indication of how common the various events are generally so I've no idea whether anyone should be worried about the vaccines possibly causing them.

And comparing with other vaccines, it seems rather likely that these will be associated with higher rates of death because for the most part vaccines aren't given to elderly patients. (An exception being the annual flu vaccines.)


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 16, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> And comparing with other vaccines, it seems rather likely that these will be associated with higher rates of death because for the most part vaccines aren't given to elderly patients. (An exception being the annual flu vaccines.)


If I interpret that correct your saying the other vaccines are likely worse. If that is the case and I hope it is, I really wish they would push it.

Its a great british disease  - we are all wonderfully creative and brilliant at coming up with ideas and solutions but god awful at communication. I still there there is more risk of dying on the roads than taking a vaccine but we all still do it without thought.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 16, 2021)

BlueArmy said:


> If I interpret that correct your saying the other vaccines are likely worse.


I honestly don't know. I have the impression that the Covid vaccines have stronger side effects (maybe because they're not yet dosed as finely as the yearly flu vaccines?).

I'm just guessing that for most vaccines not too many people die shortly after taking them because most are given to people who're rather unlikely to die in the next few years. But with the Covid vaccines we deliberately started with patients in care homes and similar. That doesn't mean people shouldn't look to see what's happening, but it does mean it needs to be done carefully or we won't learn anything.

The letter from the Ivermectin fans seems (in isolation) not to be helpful. Fine to prompt proper investigation (which I hope is being done anyway) but it doesn't look useful for anything else.

I completely agree with you that I hope we'll see the post release analysis (as we've seen the pre-release trial information).


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 16, 2021)

Ivermectin is drug used to treat helminthic infections, such as intestinal worms, and used topically to treat the lesions of acne rosacea. Unlicensed uses are risky. Used orally, these are the potential side effects:

abnormal sensation in eye; anaemia; appetite decreased; asthenia; asthma exacerbated; chest discomfort; coma; confusion; conjunctival haemorrhage; constipation; diarrhoea; difficulty standing; difficulty walking; dizziness; drowsiness; dyspnoea; encephalopathy; eosinophilia; eye inflammation; faecal incontinence; fever; gastrointestinal discomfort; headache; hepatitis; hypotension; joint disorders; leucopenia; lymphatic abnormalities; Mazzotti reaction aggravated; myalgia; nausea; oedema; pain; psychiatric disorder; seizure; severe cutaneous adverse reactions (SCARs); stupor; tachycardia; tremor; urinary incontinence; vertigo; vomiting. ( data from the BNF - the British National Formulary)

If folk want to take that to prevent getting Covid, good luck to them. The drug has absolutely no effect on viruses, any more than antibiotics do, because viruses are not living organisms.

And no reputable medical scientist would use it clinical trials against a virus, because that is completely irrational, and would leave them open to legal action, and losing their jobs because the drug is not licensed for such a trial. This is the same as the last row about Chloroquine, an anti malarial drug.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 16, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> And no reputable medical scientist would use it clinical trials against a virus, because that is completely irrational, and would leave them open to legal action, and losing their jobs because the drug is not licensed for such a trial. This is the same as the last row about Chloroquine, an anti malarial drug.


It does seem a bit weird to me. But it is being tested because (as I understand it) some trials have suggested it works while others haven't. Likely it'll turn out not to be useful (because most things have) but I'm fine with it being tested in proper trials.

What seems irresponsible is claiming that it has enough evidence to start using it routinely. Or that (as some claim) it, together with some other drugs (which also have mixed evidence) are sufficiently effective and safe that we should prefer them to  the vaccines.


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 16, 2021)

Mixing other drugs with Invermectin is particularly risky, so safety comparisons with vaccines are ludicrous. And viruses, as I said, are not living organisms, so cannot be killed with a drug designed to kill worms. So neither effective nor safe.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jun 17, 2021)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1405362892845686785


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 17, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Never, ever heard of it until yesterday, now it's become the popular topic on the thread.


Yes, my fault. I apologise.

For what it's worth I'm also unhappy with the idea of mandating vaccination of NHS staff. I think, anyway. I think there's arguments on both sides. If the healthcare worker looking after me had chosen not to be vaccinated I think I'd worry about their judgment. But I'd much prefer encouragement (with individual discussions and so on) than threatening people.

(I'm OK with the idea that we'll "have to learn to live with the virus". I'd just like us to live with as little of it as we can, so I want us to have really high vaccination rates. Globally, obviously. So it's more like measles than flu: something that flares up occasionally but most of us can ignore it most of the time.)


----------



## pm133 (Jun 17, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> The Ivermectin 3 @Bruce Stephens @Eddy Edson and @mikeyB
> 
> Never, ever heard of it until yesterday, now it's become the popular topic on the thread.
> 
> I've since read a little bit about it and as @Bruce Stephens says, looks like some doctors are trying to have it licenced to treat covid19. We will have to see how the trials go...it may become another option in the future for new variants.



If I understand it correctly, some medical researchers have made claims about it's efficacy without feeling any obligation to provide any sort of credible research studies to back their view. They appear to have used it on patients, decided it works and apparently that's all that is needed. I seem to remember reading one of them being directly quoted as being annoyed at being asked to provide comparative placebo trials. He thinks that would be "unethical" by all accounts.

All of them are properly trained doctors from good universities too. And yet this is the nonsense they come out with.

The covid pandemic really has brought out the worst in a lot of professional scientists and medical people - all of whom seem to be drunk on any attention they get.


----------



## pm133 (Jun 17, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> I'm OK with the idea that we'll "have to learn to live with the virus"



Absolutely agree on that.

Sadly for us Scots, Nicola Sturgeon doesn't agree with that phrase at all.
She said this week (during FM questions I think) that such a phrase is "disrespectful to the dead".

I do like her and have voted for her for many years now but she's sorely testing my patience this last year with irrelevant, patronising nonsense like this.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 17, 2021)

pm133 said:


> All of them are properly trained doctors from good universities too. And yet this is the nonsense they come out with.


Can see how it happens: you've got a bunch of sick people and you know many are going to die, and you don't know of effective things to do for them. But you have this reasonably safe Ivermectin (or one of the other choices) which might help and it's easy for you to use those.

In contrast, doing a proper trial's hard even if you can do it just using your patients. Which you probably can't because you don't have enough.

That's one of the successes of the RECOVERY trial: making it easy for everyone so they could roll it out to really large numbers.


----------



## pm133 (Jun 17, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Can see how it happens: you've got a bunch of sick people and you know many are going to die, and you don't know of effective things to do for them. But you have this reasonably safe Ivermectin (or one of the other choices) which might help and it's easy for you to use those.
> 
> In contrast, doing a proper trial's hard even if you can do it just using your patients. Which you probably can't because you don't have enough.



That's understandable but what you can't be doing, as these researchers are doing, is running around screaming that this drug is some kind of wonder cure for things and that you are being held back for "reasons unknown".

That provides fuel for conspiracy theory nutters who then run around persuading normally sane people to avoid taking a life saving vaccine that HAS been shown to work in controlled trials.
Who knows how many lives the actions of these doctors has cost.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 17, 2021)

pm133 said:


> That provides fuel for conspiracy theory nutters who then run around persuading normally sane people to avoid taking a life saving vaccine that HAS been shown to work in controlled trials.


In this case it's the same group (which is how this came up).

Though arguably they're not (I think) arguing that people shouldn't take any of the vaccines, they're merely searching the yellow card reporting system and reporting the nastiest sounding results and saying that they should be investigated. So (like the apparently crazy Naomi Wolf) they're just asking questions.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Jun 17, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> In this case it's the same group (which is how this came up).
> 
> Though arguably they're not (I think) arguing that people shouldn't take any of the vaccines, they're merely searching the yellow card reporting system and reporting the nastiest sounding results and saying that they should be investigated. So (like the apparently crazy Naomi Wolf) they're just asking questions.


"Just asking questions" is the anti-vaxxer hallmark.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jun 17, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> In this case it's the same group (which is how this came up).
> 
> Though arguably they're not (I think) arguing that people shouldn't take any of the vaccines, they're merely searching the yellow card reporting system and reporting the nastiest sounding results and saying that they should be investigated. So (like the apparently crazy Naomi Wolf) they're just asking questions.



Yes it was interesting that the report highlighting possible concerns over the vaccine was published by an organisation actively promoting an alternative. Rather coloured my view of the motivations behind the yellow card questions I’m afraid.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Jun 17, 2021)

I’m not sure I can answer that, but Dr Tess Lawrie who signed the report you linked to seems to be quite central to BIRD (British Ivermectin Development Group)

_”The BIRD meeting was convened by Dr. Tess Lawrie in order to present the findings from her rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19.”_

And I suppose it felt like such a group may have something of an agenda, and if they can present Ivermectin as an alternative against Covid19, may further their cause with vaccine hesitancy?

Perhaps I am being too cynical?


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 17, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> And I suppose it felt like such a group may have something of an agenda, and if they can present Ivermectin as an alternative against Covid19, may further their cause with vaccine hesitancy?


Presumably, but @Amity Island  is right that that doesn't suggest a financial motive (or not much of one, anyway).

On the other hand, I seem to remember reading there is quite a bit of money funding some of the anti vaccination stuff and maybe this is close enough that they get some of that. (I've no idea why anyone would fund such stuff but there's enough rich people that some of them are a bit strange.)


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 22, 2021)

That trial has not been peer reviewed, nor has it been published in any reputable journal.

This whole Invermectin thing has sprung from it being effective in vitro against Covid. These tests, if used in humans, would likely cause severe health problems because the doses needed to affect the virus were *nine* times higher than the safe oral dose. In other words, it was less effective than Domestos, which works brilliantly, but you wouldn’t drink it. 

Nonetheless, this info was picked up and rapidly gained traction. The FDA has forbidden its use in Covid infection, the BMJ has criticised all recent reports of the efficacy of Invermectin, and our government, on the advice of  all scientists and virologists, have quite rightly ignored positive reports. Not one of them has been peer reviewed either in methodology or results. Not a single doctor in the UK would prescribe it off licence for treating, or preventing Covid infection because of the evidence from around the world.

One woman bleating on about trials which should be set up to assess its preventive ability against Covid is living in a fantasy world. They will never happen, despite her and the gullible Dr John Campbell that might be unethical to withhold this treatment because of its safety and “efficacy” is not only ludicrous, it’s almost criminally untrue, and will convince only the scientifically ignorant, and those unaware of the views of reputable virologists around the world. And yes, I mean you @Amity Island.


----------



## BlueArmy (Jun 23, 2021)

Seems timely that this posted on BBC news website this morning. Looks like Oxford University are starting a trail on it's use.









						Covid: Ivermectin to be studied as possible treatment in UK
					

Scientists begin to give the drug to people at home with symptoms to see if it can keep them out of hospital.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## mikeyB (Jun 23, 2021)

It’s the wrong headline for that story. It’s a useless study anyway, because the folk studied are self selecting, so have an inbuilt interest in getting better. Unless you have a strict double blind system, it will be worthless.

The story is wrong in one respect - it is not in formal use in the US, or indeed anywhere, and it’s wrong to compare the example of oral or inhaled steroids - they aren’t being used off licence.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Jun 23, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> It’s a useless study anyway, because the folk studied are self selecting, so have an inbuilt interest in getting better. Unless you have a strict double blind system, it will be worthless.


The trial is randomised (so once you sign up it's random whether you get normal care or normal care with one of these trial drugs). I agree it's not blinded (so certainly not ideal). I wonder why they didn't try to blind it too?


----------



## BlueArmy (Sep 10, 2021)

BlueArmy said:


> here it is then
> 
> Covid vaccine to be required for England care home staff https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57492264
> 
> ...


Covid: Unvaccinated frontline NHS staff at Southampton hospital to be redeployed https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-58408971

Common sense prevails as unvaccinated staff are redeployed from front line care roles.


----------

