Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SarahBell

How Many Health Workers In The Uk?

Recommended Posts

More than five million people potentially at risk of health complications from flu went unvaccinated in England over the winter. Hundreds of thousands of frontline health workers also had no jab, leaving them open to infecting vulnerable patients.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/27/risk-flu-complications-unvaccinated-england

Just wondered what they count as frontline health workers and how on earth those in the medical professional wouldn't get a vaccine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...how on earth those in the medical professional wouldn't get a vaccine?

Take your pick

a. They couldn't be bothered

b. Supply shortages (not a major factor from the articles I've read)

c. They chose not to risk it

Not that the risks, or benefits, are all that easy to pin down

I commented on this forum a couple of months back that it was easier to find out the ingredients of Pop Tarts than the Flu Vaccine. And the Pop Tarts don't get injected straight into your bloodstream

Finding out the stats for flu infection rates amongst those who have and haven't been vaccinated is also on the tricky side

So much for informed consent

Edited by Charlton Peston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than five million people potentially at risk of health complications from flu went unvaccinated in England over the winter. Hundreds of thousands of frontline health workers also had no jab, leaving them open to infecting vulnerable patients.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/27/risk-flu-complications-unvaccinated-england

Just wondered what they count as frontline health workers and how on earth those in the medical professional wouldn't get a vaccine?

wow, look at that, over 5 million didnt take the jab and the world didnt end with a flu plague. :rolleyes:

how many people died of flu during the winter? Did the doctors even note much flu this year?

I think that this trend is likely to continue as more people learn about vaccines and decide not to risk it for potentially no protection at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how on earth those in the medical professional wouldn't get a vaccine?

maybe they reviewed the (lack of) evidence, and decided an un-proven and un-tested mass-vaccination wasn't for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe they reviewed the (lack of) evidence, and decided an un-proven and un-tested mass-vaccination wasn't for them.

Oh god, here they come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine#Clinical_trials_of_vaccines

Vaccine ingredients are as difficult to find as typing "influenza vaccine ingredients" into google then clicking on any link that doesn't look like a jabs wacko site. the lance Armstrong link seems rational enough.

Btw The flu jab is intramuscular, not intravenous and so doesnt go "straight into your bloodstream", whatever that is supposed to imply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god, here they come.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine#Clinical_trials_of_vaccines

Vaccine ingredients are as difficult to find as typing "influenza vaccine ingredients" into google then clicking on any link that doesn't look like a jabs wacko site. the lance Armstrong link seems rational enough.

Btw The flu jab is intramuscular, not intravenous and so doesnt go "straight into your bloodstream", whatever that is supposed to imply.

Presumably the 'Oh god, here they come' applies to several hundred thousand frontline NHS workers as well?

That Lance Armstrong site lists formaldehyde and thimerosal as ingredients. That site makes no reference to squalene as a vaccine ingredient but other sites, such as your chosen reference for clinical trial data, do...

Use as an adjuvant in vaccines

So, that's embalming fluid, a mercury compound and a chemical that possibly p1sses off your immune system for starters

Only it's difficult to be entirely sure as I have had little joy on official sites such as NHS Direct finding out the specific ingredients of the specific flu vaccines that were being doled out this year. If you could provide a link to such information that would be peachy

and on the subject of trials, here's a simple question, where do I find out what proportion of people admitted to UK hospitals with flu have had the flu shot?

Edited by Charlton Peston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and on the subject of trials, here's a simple question, where do I find out what proportion of people admitted to UK hospitals with flu have had the flu shot?

That would probably take an FOI request to each of the primary care trusts.

Might as well start up a website and collect some donations...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than five million people potentially at risk of health complications from flu went unvaccinated in England over the winter. Hundreds of thousands of frontline health workers also had no jab, leaving them open to infecting vulnerable patients.

http://www.guardian....cinated-england

Just wondered what they count as frontline health workers and how on earth those in the medical professional wouldn't get a vaccine?

There was a note on the bbc site the other day saying NHS employs 1.4 million people. Given that they have privatised all the cleaners, caterers and maintenance staff, that mostly leaves frontline health workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably the 'Oh god, here they come' applies to several hundred thousand frontline NHS workers as well?

That Lance Armstrong site lists formaldehyde and thimerosal as ingredients. That site makes no reference to squalene as a vaccine ingredient but other sites, such as your chosen reference for clinical trial data, do...

Use as an adjuvant in vaccines

So, that's embalming fluid, a mercury compound and a chemical that possibly p1sses off your immune system for starters

Only it's difficult to be entirely sure as I have had little joy on official sites such as NHS Direct finding out the specific ingredients of the specific flu vaccines that were being doled out this year. If you could provide a link to such information that would be peachy

and on the subject of trials, here's a simple question, where do I find out what proportion of people admitted to UK hospitals with flu have had the flu shot?

Don't forget that dread ingredient, dihydrogrn monoxide which is toxic if inhaled and is found in maignant tumours.

I'm not sure what conclusion you are trying to reach with your last question - how efficacious the vaccine is? The answer to your question will only give you limited insight into half the public health impact of the vaccine. What you need to know is how many of all the people who had the flu shot ended up in hospital with the flu compared with how many of all the people who didn't have the flu shot and ended up in hospital with the flu, importnantly, within the same demographic.

The answer to your question would only give you a horizontal slice across that data and would not lead to any meaningful interpretation... IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a note on the bbc site the other day saying NHS employs 1.4 million people. Given that they have privatised all the cleaners, caterers and maintenance staff, that mostly leaves frontline health workers managers, administrators, HR people, audit convenors, clinical governance leads, dignity champions, five-a-day co-ordinators, care pathway facilitators, customer loyalty management co-ordinators, etc., etc., etc.

Corrected it for you.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that it'll be the frontline folk who actually treat patients who'll be first against the wall when the cuts arrive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corrected it for you.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that it'll be the frontline folk who actually treat patients who'll be first against the wall when the cuts arrive...

I thought that was what they meant by frontline....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than five million people potentially at risk of health complications from flu went unvaccinated in England over the winter. Hundreds of thousands of frontline health workers also had no jab, leaving them open to infecting vulnerable patients.

http://www.guardian....cinated-england

Just wondered what they count as frontline health workers and how on earth those in the medical professional wouldn't get a vaccine?

They refused it due to possible side effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a note on the bbc site the other day saying NHS employs 1.4 million people. Given that they have privatised all the cleaners, caterers and maintenance staff, that mostly leaves frontline health workers.

It mostly leaves admin staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corrected it for you.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that it'll be the frontline folk who actually treat patients who'll be first against the wall when the cuts arrive...

yup, that's what is happening in our hospital Trust.

I've noticed that there has been an absolute profusion of these morons (managers, administration managers (wtf?), clinical governance leads, clinical auditor etc etc etc) suddenly making themselves known around the hospital, either strutting around - but more importantly via the departmental-wide email distribution system.

Also I noticed something really interesting - has anyone heard of LinkedIn? Anyway, suddenly a huge rash of people with these non-jobs (I've never seen so many project managers, admin managers etc etc) have registered on LinkedIn ... maybe they're hoping to get a job in the private sector???? :lol:

f*cking useless bunch of tw@ts the lot of them - you would not notice any difference in the running of the hospital if they were axed, unfortunately it IS the frontline workers who have the weakest voice (your phlebotomists, technicians, care assistants, auxillary assistants, porters) who will get shafted ... as they are in my place of work (the bits that haven't been hived off to the private sector such as Sodexo)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that dread ingredient, dihydrogrn monoxide which is toxic if inhaled and is found in maignant tumours.

I'm not sure what conclusion you are trying to reach with your last question - how efficacious the vaccine is? The answer to your question will only give you limited insight into half the public health impact of the vaccine. What you need to know is how many of all the people who had the flu shot ended up in hospital with the flu compared with how many of all the people who didn't have the flu shot and ended up in hospital with the flu, importnantly, within the same demographic.

The answer to your question would only give you a horizontal slice across that data and would not lead to any meaningful interpretation... IMHO.

and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the dihydrogen monoxide reference, unless you're implying that flu jabs contain only a teensy weensy little bit of toxic crud and therefore that's OK?

and yes you're right the stats I asked for would only give a limited insight but 1. that's better that my current level of insight and 2. rough stats for the numbers of people who have taken the shots nationally in past seasons are publicised

Over the last couple of years some older folk I know, including my mother, asked me for my opinion as to whether they should take flu shots, especially the swine flu jab. I don't take that sort of thing lightly and did my best to research the possible risks and benefits

To cut a long story short, what sealed the question for me was the relatively low uptake by frontline medical staff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the dihydrogen monoxide reference, unless you're implying that flu jabs contain only a teensy weensy little bit of toxic crud and therefore that's OK?

and yes you're right the stats I asked for would only give a limited insight but 1. that's better that my current level of insight and 2. rough stats for the numbers of people who have taken the shots nationally in past seasons are publicised

Over the last couple of years some older folk I know, including my mother, asked me for my opinion as to whether they should take flu shots, especially the swine flu jab. I don't take that sort of thing lightly and did my best to research the possible risks and benefits

To cut a long story short, what sealed the question for me was the relatively low uptake by frontline medical staff

Righto - my first point relates to the fact that toxic ingredients are only toxic when present in toxic levels at the risk of tautologising. Also, that the form of a toxic compound affects it's toxicity. Hg is a good example of that, for reasons too long winded to go into here.

Wrt your mum, you need to talk about the risk reduction vs possible adverse effects and so you'll need to work out or find the stats as discussed. Eg out of 100 vaccinated individuals like your mum how many were hospitalized vs 100 unvaccinated people like your mum... And how many of them experienced what side effects.

Btw my experience of front line health workers is that they are blasé about their own health hence wont make the effort to have the jab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the nurses I know, and I know a lot, are $hit scared of needles. No way they'd have a flu jab.

..its not the needle ...it's the unknown content transmitted into your veins...

Edited by South Lorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

check out some of the other vids on the page too.

I wont take the flu vaccine, will never let them give it to my daughter and even asthmatic wifey wont have it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

check out some of the other vids on the page too.

I wont take the flu vaccine, will never let them give it to my daughter and even asthmatic wifey wont have it now.

Wow, what a bunch of crackpots the thinktwice.com gang are. I don't know about you, but i can't think of a better source than the New Atlantean Press on which to base my healthcare choices.Check out this logical gem in answer to how an non-vaccinated child could never affect an unvaccinated one:

"First of all, how could your non-vaccinated child be a danger to the vaccinated child? If the vaccines are effective, then the baby should be protected. Actually, it's the vaccinated children who spread disease. Many of the disease outbreaks that we are warned about today, are caused by, and occur in, recently vaccinated children."

But according to think twice, vaccines aren't effective... or are they 100% effective? I suppose it depends which argumeyou they are having at the time. Don't they understand that sometimes vaccinations fail... they do of course because they use that in a different argument. So perhaps my child's vaccination didn't work in which case your "choice" dcould directly affect the health of my child. Many disease outbreaks caused by vaccinations? How does that explain the massive increase in measles in the uk since Wakefield and ensuing massive decrease in vaccination? How does that work? I would have thought the think twice theory would argue the other way.

I think i'll leave it there.

Edited for iPad issues

Edited by aussieboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to Aussieboy for gods sake don't listen to crackpot hippie **** dribble, vaccinate your children.

Polio and TB, to name a few, are rife in the worlds poor, you think homeopathy gave us our low infant moratlity.

Walk round a Victorian graveyard and read the inscriptions it is heartbreaking and sobering,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to Aussieboy for gods sake don't listen to crackpot hippie **** dribble, vaccinate your children.

Polio and TB, to name a few, are rife in the worlds poor, you think homeopathy gave us our low infant moratlity.

Walk round a Victorian graveyard and read the inscriptions it is heartbreaking and sobering,

vaccinations against other diseases is another debate, one that I probably also wouldnt listen to aussiboy in tbh, but this is about the flu vaccine.

I see that no one commented on the section at the end about the effectiveness of the vaccines in under 2's, under 65's or over 65's as produced from masters reports and lancet articles. Why is that?

I cant say that I know the think twice group I just did a quick google and theirs was a vid that had many of the things that I know included in it. There is a wealth of info out there, the vast majority not supporting a flu vaccine in any way.

You can chooses to follow the government propaganda advice if you wish, as given to them by the pharma companies experts but I choose to do as the experts do. Another point not commented on is that 70% of Doctors, experts, do not have the vaccines either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Righto - my first point relates to the fact that toxic ingredients are only toxic when present in toxic levels at the risk of tautologising. Also, that the form of a toxic compound affects it's toxicity. Hg is a good example of that, for reasons too long winded to go into here.

Yes, that's what I thought you meant

But in the case of, say, the squalene it is present in levels high enough to have an effect on the recipient. otherwise they wouldn't put it in the vaccine in the first place. So that dog won't hunt

I've seen apologists for thimerosal make an analogy with table salt - arguing that chlorine is quite toxic on its own but a lot less so when bonded with sodium in the form of salt ...and therefore the mercury in thimerosal ain't bad for you at all. One of the several problems with that analogy is that organic mercury compounds often turn out to be *more* toxic than plain mercury, a lot more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen to Aussieboy for gods sake don't listen to crackpot hippie **** dribble, vaccinate your children.

Polio and TB, to name a few, are rife in the worlds poor, you think homeopathy gave us our low infant moratlity.

Walk round a Victorian graveyard and read the inscriptions it is heartbreaking and sobering,

My understanding is that clean drinking water, and better standards of hygene, diet and housing are the key factors which drove down infant mortality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.