Some of the outraged people on this thread are the same people who for months championed the Great Barrington Declaration, the gist of which was protect the vulnerable and let the rest get on with it. Now an idea of how to protect the vulnerable has been mooted it has suddenly changed to you can’t do that, it’s a human rights violation.
If not this then how, exactly, can the most vulnerable be protected? Totally isolate them from all human contact so they can live out their final months in the most miserable, inhumane way possible?
I don't see how this is related - the vulnerable will have been offered a vaccine. Some might not be able to have it for their own health reasons, but are they going to be excluded from care homes? Are family members who cannot be vaccinated going to be excluded from visiting? So therefore why should people lose thier livelihoods over it? More to the point, there is already a care staffing crisis, and this isn't going to help - thus the vulnerable lose out.
Haven't you realised that those in care homes have been isolated from their families for much of the past year, and many did live their final months in the most miserable, inhumane way possible due to lockdown rules? The average length of stay in a care home is 15 months, and obviously that usually ends with the death of the resident. So half of the care home population of January 2020 in the UK have probably passed without having much contact with any of their loved ones from that date. That's a scandal in itself that isn't being talked about much.
People were allowed to work in care homes - as far as I know - whether they had the flu vaccine or not. I'm pretty sure it wasn't a job requirement (though I'm happy to be corrected?). Yet the flu still kills off the vulnerable, and the vaccines' effictiveness was far lower than the COVID ones, so why should that change for COVID?