22 Nov 2022 3:50 p.m

The partial vaccination requirement for staff in clinics and nursing homes is expected to expire at the end of the year. The facility-related vaccination requirement has been in effect since mid-March of this year. The German Nursing Council recognizes the existence of a “two-class society”.

Since March 16, all employees who work in medical and nursing facilities and companies have theoretically had to provide proof of a corona vaccination. According to the specifications of the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG), the employer should inform the health department if proof of vaccination is missing, incomplete or invalid.

The binding regulation is regulated in paragraph 20a of the Infection Protection Act (IfSG) and theoretically expires at the end of the year, unless the Bundestag decides to extend it. According to information from ARD Capital Studios this possibility is no longer considered. As the relevant article states:

“As the ARD capital studio learned from circles of the Federal Ministry of Health, the facility-related vaccination requirement is to expire at the end of the year. The aim was for employees in certain facilities to be vaccinated in order to reduce the risk to vulnerable groups Increase in the Corona variant BQ.1.1 can no longer be expected.”

According to the Süddeutsche Zeitung Federal Minister of Health Karl Lauterbach looks at the regulation that he had called for as “not worth continuing” and “hardly justifiable from a medical point of view”. It will therefore “expire on December 31” according to the article.

The previous regulation stipulated that the health authorities could issue bans on activities or entry for employees of clinics or care facilities if they did not submit proof of vaccination or recovery even after being asked to do so or did not have a certificate that exempts them from a corona vaccination. Within the framework of this rigid regulation, there were repeated criticisms from employers, among other things because of the effort involved in enforcing compulsory vaccination. In addition, this regulation artificially forced the already scarce staffing levels of various institutions in the country. The federal care representative, Claudia Moll (SPD), commented in October:

“I don’t think picking out individual groups, some of which then feel understandably stigmatized, is a good way to go.”

In October, Lauterbach received a request from four health ministers from the federal states of Saxony, Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and Thuringia to provide timely security for the necessary planning uncertainty. The demand related to the still outstanding notification as to whether the partial vaccination obligation would be continued. From the ranks of the coalition partner FDP there have been demands for a long time to let this regulation expire.

Regarding the details that have now become known and a corresponding justification from the BMG, the article says:

“The basis for the partial vaccination obligation is no longer given with a ‘more or less completely immune-vasive variant’. The phasing out is therefore medically justified because, according to initial findings, the new variant escapes the immune system to a greater extent. That means more people who are vaccinated or have recovered, fall ill with Corona. The vaccination then also protects even less against transmitting the virus.”

Lauterbach continues to recognize looming problems in dealing with the topic, based on possible unknown “variant effects”, in purely speculatively announced “autumn and winter waves”. There are still no statements on the reality of the demonstrably conditional effectiveness of the monovalent and bivalent vaccines used and the resulting end of an argumentative vaccination requirement. However, he found his usual direct words on the discussion about ending the isolation obligation, which is also anchored in the IfSG, after a positive corona decision. So wrote Lauterbach on November 12 on Twitter:

“(…) Nobody wants to share the workplace with people infected with Corona (…).”

In June, Lauterbach had insulted nursing staff who had decided against a COVID-19 vaccination for individual reasons at a demonstration for better working conditions and against the existence of the current institution-related vaccination obligation with the statement:

“Those who are protesting against the vaccination here have made no contribution to it (the care burden in the Corona crisis) and shouldn’t really be here. They have no right to be here. (…) Their work has no contribution done.”

One year after the introduction of the 3G coercion - the BMG insists on its mask policy

The German Nursing Council, on the other hand, speaks of a “two-class society” in the context of the overall discussion on the subject of facility-related compulsory vaccination. According to the Council, the obligation to vaccinate could “not be extended”. A publication dated November 16 states:

“The facility-related vaccination requirement must expire at the end of December 2022. Nothing else makes sense. Anyone who argues with the protection of patients and those in need of care fails to recognize that professional care has not only been experts in questions of infection protection and hygiene since the beginning of the corona pandemic .”

With regard to the discussion that is also being held outside the industry, it is therefore stated that “the competence to create and comply with the hygiene concepts in the facilities lies with the professional caregivers and must also be left to them”. In addition, “external interference in the core competencies of our profession is prohibited,” according to the German Nursing Council in its statement. The board of directors of the Patient Protection Foundation, Eugen Brysch, welcomed the announced end of facility-related compulsory vaccination for employees in medical facilities. “The vaccination protects against serious illnesses and death, but not against the transmission of the virus. That’s why the institution-related vaccination obligation was in vain from the start,” Brysch told the Handelsblatt.

The second “hospital-based online survey on COVID-19 vaccination” among employees in early October revealed a vaccination rate of 91 percent of the participating hospital staff and 94 percent of the medical profession. According to the RKI, the main reasons given “against vaccination” were “the fear of permanent damage, the concern that the new vaccination technologies might not be safe, the desire to wait and see and the fear of severe side effects” (reproduced as in the Original).

More on the subject – Pfizer documents: What the company and authorities knew about the risks of mRNA preparations

By blocking RT, the EU aims to silence a critical, non-pro-Western source of information. And not only with regard to the Ukraine war. Access to our website has been made more difficult, several social media have blocked our accounts. It is now up to all of us whether journalism beyond mainstream narratives can continue to be pursued in Germany and the EU. If you like our articles, feel free to share them wherever you are active. It’s possible because the EU hasn’t banned our work or reading and sharing our articles. Note: However, with the amendment of the “Audiovisual Media Service Act” on April 13, Austria introduced a change in this regard, which may also affect private individuals. That’s why we ask you not to share our posts on social media in Austria until the situation has been clarified.

Source: RT

Disclaimer: If you need to update/edit/remove this news or article then please contact our support team Learn more

J. A. Allen

Author, blogger, freelance writer. Hater of spiders. Drinker of wine. Mother of hellions.

Leave a Reply