A new report, published today by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, has ruled that the government's evidence for the move was "broad-brush" and "superficial".
"The house may expect to be provided with some very strong evidence to support this policy choice, and DHSC has signally failed to do so" Committee reportIt added that the potential benefits of the proposal seemed "disproportionately small", given the subsequent costs for recruitment and the disruption it would have on the health service.
Comment: So, were it not for NHS staff willing to sacrifice their livelihoods by threatening to quit, the vaccinate mandate would likely have gone ahead, despite there being no evidence that they were necessary.
Note that these same considerations weren't given to the estimated 50,000 unvaccinated care home staff or the residents they provide care for, because that mandate was pushed through just under a month ago, and already care homes are closing or suffering a dangerous lack of staff. Meanwhile we were told that these mandates were necessary to protect the vulnerable.
Comment: It's notable that numerous countries in the West in recent years have tried to ram through inadequate (and insidious) proposals of all kinds that would drastically change the norms of society - from euthanasia, to protest, to emergency powers - however it's a rarity that these proposals are actually challenged, the vast majority get passed.
One imagines that one of the reasons the NHS mandate did not is because the fall out would lead to a backlash that, ultimately, would interfere with other aspects of the establishment's nefarious agenda which it needs to get through first: