Vaccines and footballers

[kenada_blue]

They dont need to be forced, they need to be persuaded. Look at Basketball and American Football players.

The coming wave of infections, hospitalisations and deaths will make this issue toxic this winter. The club's need to get ahead of that.

"hey you don't get vaccinated, you cant travel/play for your national team. You get ill, you don't get paid"

That's persuasive enough in my book.

I like how people say "they should have a choice". Well, I'm paying you £100k a week by choice to perform, paying more to create a safe environment for employees to make sure they all can work. Yet, you won't do this one thing that 90% of the country have done?

There's privilege and taking the piss.

 

[NathDogg]

Sorry, we’ll have to disagree again, I don’t think it was an easy decision for the employers and I’d hope they did appreciate the work that those did in the months previously. However ultimately patient safety takes precedence and the bald reality is that an unvaccinated carer is a greater danger to spread what could be a fatal illness to those they tend than a vaccinated one.

Sorry Legs, I take your point but personally I think they could have handled the whole thing much better, and didn't have to create the looming care crisis that we will have in this country, by firing highly qualified people who do not want the jab.

They could have restructured who the unvaccinated carers interacted and cared for, avoiding contact the most at risk residents?

They could have adjusted tasks and work flows to enable these trained unvaccinated individuals to remain in the care system.

It seems we, in the UK, are not enforcing a mandatory vaccination program in our NHS for doctors, nurses, and all other NHS staff, yet we have in the care system - why should it be different based on what you have said, if protecting the residents/patients is critical by stopping interaction with the unvaccinated?

 

[Lineker]

@LinekersLegs
Reading this again (and being pedantic), your sans Legs counterpart here is technically correct in a legal sense, while being wrong scientifically.

Legally, vials that have a label with ”Pfizer-BioNTech” on it are still under EUA. The FDA full approval was for Cominarty and vials with that label may not yet be off production lines and available for distribution.

That said, it‘s the exact same vaccine in the vials, coming off the same production lines. They are just slapping a different label on the vial now.

That is precisely what I said and no I am not scientifically incorrect...I never said they were different only called out they were legally distinct. All 5 manufacturers are engaging in this. They may be the same item, but for the purposes of any recourse they are separate items.

Using Pfizer ad the example I have heard a mid 2022 date as when they will become available...also publicly available information but you do have to dig for it. If it is only the label, there should not be such a delay unless something else is going on.

Should I change my username to lineker sans legs?

 

[Lineker]

That is precisely what I said and no I am not scientifically incorrect...I never said they were different only called out they were legally distinct. All 5 manufacturers are engaging in this. They may be the same item, but for the purposes of any recourse they are separate items.

Using Pfizer ad the example I have heard a mid 2022 date as when they will become available...also publicly available information but you do have to dig for it. If it is only the label, there should not be such a delay unless something else is going on.

Should I change my username to lineker sans legs?

What I am suggesting is that the manufacturers are having their cake and eating it too (i.e. relying on the public's ignorance to market these as fda approved while still being shielded from liability). It is obvious on the face of it if you know the facts and a disgrace that they are being allowed to do it.

 

[RAFUH]

That is precisely what I said and no I am not scientifically incorrect...I never said they were different only called out they were legally distinct. All 5 manufacturers are engaging in this. They may be the same item, but for the purposes of any recourse they are separate items.

Using Pfizer ad the example I have heard a mid 2022 date as when they will become available...also publicly available information but you do have to dig for it. If it is only the label, there should not be such a delay unless something else is going on.

Should I change my username to lineker sans legs?

I am sure you know given what you do, there is always a delay between FDA approval and when product is actually on the market. In this case, they are using up current supply of vaccine already labeled and even the labels themselves, etc. Lord knows big Pharma isn't going to risk losing a penny.

As it is the exact same vaccine, it's controversy for controversy's sake to make the distinction between the two on a footy forum as it's legal semantics not clinically relevant.

 

[Lineker]

I am sure you know given what you do, there is always a delay between FDA approval and when product is actually on the market. In this case, they are using up current supply of vaccine already labeled and even the labels themselves, etc. Lord knows big Pharma isn't going to risk losing a penny.

As it is the exact same vaccine, it's controversy for controversy's sake to make the distinction between the two on a footy forum as it's legal semantics not clinically relevant.

I dont have an easy window into inventory supplies, but if the June 2022 date is accurate (and that I the earliest I've heard) then that would suggest almost a years worth of inventory in hand if your theory is correct. I would be astounded if that were the truth.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Sorry Legs, I take your point but personally I think they could have handled the whole thing much better, and didn't have to create the looming care crisis that we will have in this country, by firing highly qualified people who do not want the jab.

They could have restructured who the unvaccinated carers interacted and cared for, avoiding contact the most at risk residents?

They could have adjusted tasks and work flows to enable these trained unvaccinated individuals to remain in the care system.

It seems we, in the UK, are not enforcing a mandatory vaccination program in our NHS for doctors, nurses, and all other NHS staff, yet we have in the care system - why should it be different based on what you have said, if protecting the residents/patients is critical by stopping interaction with the unvaccinated?

Given the typical age profile and/or medical issues of a care home resident I doubt there are many that would not be classed as “at risk“. Juggling tasks might be something you could do if it is just one carer (say who can’t get the vaccine because of allergic reactions) but if you had multiple unvaccinated then I think logistically it would quickly become a nightmare to manage.

The care home population are especially vulnerable but on your last point I’m supportive of the mandate being much broader as has happened here in California

California Mandates Vaccination for Health Care Workers by Sept. 30

With the significant increase in COVID-19 cases, the state of California has started implementing new measures to try to combat the rise.

www.shrm.org

 

[davek]

Unvaccinated footballers are putting lives at risk. Is it time to stop picking them? | Max Rushden

It goes against my natural instincts to consider something so draconian but dressing rooms are strange places

www.theguardian.com

What a time to reject science. There is no good time. But now, when many parts of the world are still locked down. Where family members haven’t been able to see each other for years, where people haven’t been able to say goodbye to their loved ones. Where the only way out is to vaccinate the world. Why suddenly choose to ignore the science?

The science that has guided their fitness, the science that has fixed their knees, the science that dictates what they eat, what they drink, when they sleep. The science that has injected them to mask the pain before a big game, that has flown them from ground to ground, the science that has built the stadiums they play in. The science that has enabled people to go back and watch them in those grounds.

Pat Nevin was on the radio the other day. “Football players have had so many benefits over this period of time,” he said. “Everyone has bent over backwards to get football back on … To not then be vaccinated and help secure other people’s safety as well as their own, I’m gobsmacked, I’m really upset about it.” I couldn’t put it any better.

 

[Drico]

Unvaccinated footballers are putting lives at risk. Is it time to stop picking them? | Max Rushden

It goes against my natural instincts to consider something so draconian but dressing rooms are strange places

www.theguardian.com

What a time to reject science. There is no good time. But now, when many parts of the world are still locked down. Where family members haven’t been able to see each other for years, where people haven’t been able to say goodbye to their loved ones. Where the only way out is to vaccinate the world. Why suddenly choose to ignore the science?

The science that has guided their fitness, the science that has fixed their knees, the science that dictates what they eat, what they drink, when they sleep. The science that has injected them to mask the pain before a big game, that has flown them from ground to ground, the science that has built the stadiums they play in. The science that has enabled people to go back and watch them in those grounds.

Pat Nevin was on the radio the other day. “Football players have had so many benefits over this period of time,” he said. “Everyone has bent over backwards to get football back on … To not then be vaccinated and help secure other people’s safety as well as their own, I’m gobsmacked, I’m really upset about it.” I couldn’t put it any better.

Yes, a cracking article, that. There's way too much indulgence of these wealthy cretinous man-children. My feeling, as an Irishman, on the Robinson revelation is that he is clearly unprepared to take the vaccine to protect his team-mates and others around him in the camp - even as the latest evidence suggests that even those who suffered from COVID benefit from vaccination. If he is unwilling to protect and show solidarity with his team-mates off the pitch, what makes anybody think he would do it on the pitch?

The FAI put out a shameful - or shameless in their case - statement yesterday saying they had to "accept" the wishes of players like this. No you don't. What about those who showed solidarity and took the vaccine? Why should they be unnecessarily exposed to increased risk of transmission by those who refuse vaccination? Put it another way: why should I have to return to my office when our unvaccinated secretary is in there instead of being told to work from home? I certainly won't be. I suspect that there are some players who have been vaccinated who have vulnerable people - including children who cannot get a vaccine - living with them. Why would they want to increase the risk of their loved ones getting this virus just because Callum is worried his balls might swell?

 

[davek]

Yes, a cracking article, that. There's way too much indulgence of these wealthy cretinous man-children. My feeling, as an Irishman, on the Robinson revelation is that he is clearly unprepared to take the vaccine to protect his team-mates and others around him in the camp - even as the latest evidence suggests that even those who suffered from COVID benefit from vaccination. If he is unwilling to protect and show solidarity with his team-mates off the pitch, what makes anybody think he would do it on the pitch?

The FAI put out a shameful - or shameless in their case - statement yesterday saying they had to "accept" the wishes of players like this. No you don't. What about those who showed solidarity and took the vaccine? Why should they be unnecessarily exposed to increased risk of transmission by those who refuse vaccination? Put it another way: why should I have to return to my office when our unvaccinated secretary is in there instead of being told to work from home? I certainly won't be. I suspect that there are some players who have been vaccinated who have vulnerable people - including children who cannot get a vaccine - living with them. Why would they want to increase the risk of their loved ones getting this virus just because Callum is worried his balls might swell?

As the article suggested, an awful lot of the heavy lifting on this can be done by the managers of clubs / national teams. Send out the message to players and leave it in the back of their minds that it's viewed very dimly...they'll fold because they are more afraid of losing the drugs of fame and fortune than taking that vaccine. They just have to be handled a lot more forcefully.

 

[Carlito]

No, of course not.

What business is it of mine?

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

Yes. Not just footballers. Everyone should be jabbed daily until Covid is dead.

Got to be hardline about such things. No surrender etc. Down with covid.

I would agree with you if there was a jab capable of doing that but there isn't.

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

I would agree with you if there was a jab capable of doing that but there isn't.

Cillit bang, innit. 500mg and you are sorted.

 

[ilikecheese]

View attachment 141921

This is so stupid.