Weston Super Saint

Perhaps it's a question of interpretation... I read : As well as : I also read the rules that you have posted, which I disregarded as irrelevant given the two statements above. I considered them to be more relevant to this statement : Especially because before the list of rules it specifically states : If you don't have to self isolate and can continue to carry on working as normal, then you would have no reason to 'return to work' (presumably from a period of absence, enforced or otherwise), as you would technically still be at work! I am more than happy to agree that the wording of the UKHSA update and guidance is ambigous, open to interpretation and in some places contradictory.

I stand corrected. I wasn't aware that NHS staff (fully vaccinated) had to follow different guidelines, however that does seem like it has been self imposed by the NHS on the NHS... In the letter you linked to, there is the following link : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings/covid-19-management-of-exposed-healthcare-workers-and-patients-in-hospital-settings In that link it states the following : So it would appear that the official Gov't advice for NHS workers is the same as for all other workers. The fact that the NHS has self imposed different rules suggests they are shooting themselves in the foot. It also makes the point about NHS staff not being given priority for testing irrelevant as the Gov't hasn't insisted on these tests...

In conclusion, if it's number 2 then NHS staff are to blame as they would not have taken up the offer of a vaccination. Number 1 is a little more nuanced, but I forgive you for not figuring that out.

Thanks for that. I wonder why I put this line into my original post that you are referring to? The people in number 2 that I was referring to would be non positive, non symptomatic, non asymptomatic but also non vaccinated and therefore being instructed to isolate because they have not taken up any offers of protection and have come into contact with positive cases. Not sure where your whataboutery regarding asymptomatic, blah, blah, blah comes from given that I wrote this in the same post : Not sure it's critical thinking that is missing at the moment rather than critical reading!

Remind me, what are the criteria that need to be in place before someone can book a test? Once you've read the criteria, apply some critical thinking and let me know how someone without any symptoms can test positive....

Oh dear, I think someone needs to do some critical thinking about the 'if' word. Give Lighthouse a shout if you get stuck.

Why are asymptomatic nurses isolating? If they aren't testing positive then they shouldn't need to be isolating should they?

Interestingly, that article also states : Presumably, they don't believe that the vaccine will work if that have that kind of jab rate and STILL have restrictions. Seems pointless jabbing the population if you're going to keep the restrictions in place!

Interesting statistic on the news this lunchtime. 35,000 NHS staff were off work due to covid on the 2nd of January and that number is rising. Putting my 'critical thinking' hat on, is that because : 1. They are ill (tested positive) for covid or 2. They are isolating because they have come into contact with someone who is positive. If it's 1, I guess that's not entirely avoidable given the prevalence (although you would expect that those working for the NHS would be more aware of how to protect themselves!!). If it's 2, then WTF? Not a lot of point putting procedures in place to protect the NHS if they can't protect themselves as this will mean that they are unvaccinated.... As always, we're given headline statistics without any actual substance to qualify them....

Does endemic Yellow Fever cause more illness than Omicron? Are there people who are exempt from having Yellow Fever vaccines on medical grounds and therefore would not have to show a valid certificate?

It wouldn't be on the banned list as it hasn't been rigorously tested, that's the point. It stems back to Lighthouse's critical thinking around what 'could' happen. In the same way that a Gov't can justify lockdowns based on what 'could' happen, sportspeople 'could' cite potential side effects as a legitimate medical / anti doping concern when completing a medical exemption form (after all, we don't actually know what was cited on Novax's exemtion form). All we know is that Australia Border Patrol have stated that he has failed to 'provide appropriate evidence', but they haven't said what for....

On the first point, it's more to do with anti doping. There has been no rigorous testing of the vaccine and what effects it could have on a sportsman, it could increase red blood cell count and therefore be classed as an advantage. In a world where an athlete can eat a steak that has been treated with steriods and receive a ban, elite sportspeople cannot be too careful - after all, WADA is very clear that each athlete is responsible for what goes into their body.

I've had 2 jabs a booster and a flu jab this year - that was my choice. My wife has had 2 jabs and a booster (which she only had this week as she couldn't afford to risk any side effects before Xmas and miss any time away from work). My daughter (17) initially said she didn't want the jab as she felt even if she caught the virus, statistically she was unlikely to suffer more than a heavy cold. She then changed her mind (her choice) in October and tried to book a jab but there wasn't any availability. She didn't want to have it during term time and risk missing any school - she missed the best part of a year during her GCSEs and didn't want to risk her A levels. She had her first jab last week. My view is that it is everyone's choice whether they have the vaccine or not and they should assess that based on not only their age group or medical conditions risk, but also against their own perceived risk. I don't agree with restrictions being forced on anyone as there really are no activities where an individual cannot protect themselves if they wish to do so. No one is forced to go to a busy shopping centre (there are plenty of times when it won't be busy if you need to go at all) and even if / when you do have to go somewhere there are plenty of ways to protect yourself against infection. The onus of protection should be on the individual, not on the masses to protect the stupid. It still astonishes me the amount of people who use the gym who dilligently wipe down the seats of the equipment with a clearly watered down general purpose cleaner (that still gets in your through and makes you cough), yet don't wear any sort of face covering! They are seemingly happy to accept the risk of using the gym with no protection against what is an 'airborne' virus, but somehow think they'll be safe by wiping down a vinyl seat - where let's be honest, the chances of catching the virus from that are negligible unless you crawl around the floor licking the seats as soon as someone else stands up!

He could quite easily claim that as part of his profession and being that he is so closely monitored by WADA, that a vaccine that hasn't been rigorously tested should not be taken by professional sportspeople as they don't know what effects it may have and therefore should be avoided in order to maintain the integrity of the sport. I believe the questions regarding the veracity of his medical exemption have come from the federal Gov't, AFTER the state Gov't ratified it - hence my point about this being an internal political wrangle. Novax followed the rules that he was presented with, he hasn't tried to circumvent them. The fact that what he was told is now trying to be changed can't be blamed on him, no matter what his opinions about vaccines are.

Sigh. Hasn't Sir Keir Starmer just tested positive for the second time, despite having all his vaccinations? Must blow your mind to know that a fully vaccinated person can catch and potentially spread the virus whilst also acting as a petri dish for mutations and prolinging the pandemic. Ironically, if Sir Keir was a tennis player and not a politician, he would have been allowed into Australia at the beginning of the week before testing positive due to his vaccine status....

But he did follow the rules of the country. The rules stated he needed to have a medical exemption to enter the country to play in the tournament. He applied for one amd was granted one (ratified by Victoria state). The debate now is whether he filled the forms in correctly (I doubt for one minute he even did that himself!) which apparently means they are looking at all the other tennis players they've already let in to the country who have been granted a very similar medical exemption. It's not about rich people being given seperate rules to follow, it's got more to do with the federal Gov't unhappy with how the local state Gov't handled the situation - which is a political argument!

Sounds like an MLG Xmas excuse

I assume you'll be working on the 3rd of June then when the rest of us have an extra bank holiday to celebrate 70 glorious years of her maj....

Shurlock aka Gavin Davies.

Slippery slope? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59884038

Definitely not guilty, m'lud - it says so in the 'document' Although I suspect it has more to do with the 500,000 not so random bits of paper rather than this one random one as to why she cannot bring charges....

I heard on the radio this morning that whilst hospital admissions have gone up for covid patients, it was stated that the vast majority were admitted to hospital for another reason and either had covid when they were admitted as well, or caught it in the hospital. He also stated that there were 'very few' covid patients on ventilators, especially compared to this time last year. He did state though, that whilst those infected with covid weren't particularly sick as a result of that infection, they were still draining more resources than they normally would due to the covid protocols in place in hospitals. Maybe that's an area that needs to be addressed to free up more staff?

The full document is here It specifically states : Which would suggest it is viable in both state and federal and seems pretty much all encompassing!

Pretty sure everyone has figured out that he did. He just can't be sued for it....

Good news for Andrew, maybe they'll let him back into the family now.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831