Pfizer vaccine approved

[Westley]

3 hours ago, Docleo said:

You know nothing about what you're writing. This is scaring.

WHY change the habit of his PW 'lifetime'    

[grrclark]

The UK is a leading player on the global stage in pharmacology and pharmaceutical development so may explain why we could approve so quickly.  It saddens me that so many of us fail to appreciate just how much brilliant talent and knowledge we have in this country.

We are first on approving the Pfizer vaccine, but Russia and China have already approved other vaccinations.

On Thalidomide, if folk are really interested have a read on the history of the approval of that drug and all the mistakes that were made with its use during pregnancy; the drug company knew.  It is an interesting story and the lessons of that scandal have been reflected in drug testing regimes in the 60-70 years since then.  Thalidomide is still used as to treat some skin disease and particular cancers.

It also makes me laugh that so many of those who bang on about the Covid vaccine being an unknown quantity for long term health will happily be puffing away on fags, cigars or a pipe when there are very well known long term health impacts.  Likewise with anyone who is very overweight or drinks too much booze.

[mel b3]

59 minutes ago, grrclark said:

The UK is a leading player on the global stage in pharmacology and pharmaceutical development so may explain why we could approve so quickly.  It saddens me that so many of us fail to appreciate just how much brilliant talent and knowledge we have in this country.

We are first on approving the Pfizer vaccine, but Russia and China have already approved other vaccinations.

On Thalidomide, if folk are really interested have a read on the history of the approval of that drug and all the mistakes that were made with its use during pregnancy; the drug company knew.  It is an interesting story and the lessons of that scandal have been reflected in drug testing regimes in the 60-70 years since then.  Thalidomide is still used as to treat some skin disease and particular cancers.

It also makes me laugh that so many of those who bang on about the Covid vaccine being an unknown quantity for long term health will happily be puffing away on fags, cigars or a pipe when there are very well known long term health impacts.  Likewise with anyone who is very overweight or drinks too much booze.

Firstly . Can you please leave us fat folks out of it . And secondly . Can you please stop using , common sense , sound reasoning , and facts , because you'll ruin a perfectly good bun fight 😊

[AVB]

I found this an interesting picture to show the accelerated timeline vs the norm. 

[clangerman]

14 minutes ago, AVB said:

I found this an interesting picture to show the accelerated timeline vs the norm. 

nice work shows what dr june raines the regulator who claimed on the news today quote no corners whatsoever have been cut unquote is really worth 

[AVB]

4 minutes ago, clangerman said:

nice work shows what dr june raines the regulator who claimed on the news today quote no corners whatsoever have been cut unquote is really worth 

Not sure you can say that. The same processes exist just timelines compressed or run in parallel. Doesn’t mean corners being cut. 

[Vince Green]

4 hours ago, AVB said:

Does anybody know if having the vaccine will cause a positive test to be recorded? If so it’s going to be a nightmare differentiating real covid from vaccinated covid. 

No the vaccine does not give you a muted version of the illness. Thats old vaccine technology

[clangerman]

5 minutes ago, AVB said:

Not sure you can say that. The same processes exist just timelines compressed or run in parallel. Doesn’t mean corners being cut. 

nothing wrong with fast track if needed just the blatant way everyone from doris downwards avoids actually saying it is safe with the importance of a vaccine this should be the first three words we hear not the last if at all 

[AVB]

6 minutes ago, clangerman said:

nothing wrong with fast track if needed just the blatant way everyone from doris downwards avoids actually saying it is safe with the importance of a vaccine this should be the first three words we hear not the last if at all 

I heard lots of people say it today. Whether you want to believe it is another matter 

[Vince Green]

43 minutes ago, AVB said:

I found this an interesting picture to show the accelerated timeline vs the norm. 

Yes but "normal" vaccine development the delays between stages are mostly dead time because the world of academia keeps long holidays, three weeks at easter, two weeks at christmas and two months in the summer.

The timescale involved large amounts of delays while people "read the notes" before commenting at leisure.

forcing these people to do it NOW is not cutting corners

[AVB]

1 minute ago, Vince Green said:

Yes but "normal" vaccine development the delays between stages are mostly dead time because the world of academia keeps long holidays, three weeks at easter, two weeks at christmas and two months in the summer.

The timescale involved large amounts of delays while people "read the notes" before commenting at leisure.

forcing these people to do it NOW is not cutting corners

Which is good but begs the question why we previously accepted a 10 year timeline? Work a bit harder and it can be done 10 time faster! 

[ordnance]

31 minutes ago, AVB said:

Which is good but begs the question why we previously accepted a 10 year timeline? Work a bit harder and it can be done 10 time faster! 

Money was never threw at a vaccine like it has with this one, things can be done a lot quicker when money object. 

[loriusgarrulus]

The normal drug testing timeliness is that each phase is worked through and approved before the next phase is started. If the drug fails on one phase testing stops. Its an expensive business and many drugs get stopped in early stages due to ineffectiveness or side effects etc. By running studies in parallel at the same time and compressing the timeliness is extremely expensive as if a drug fails you have done more testing and incured more costs which is millions of pounds. Its not just the testing that is expensive. Initially small amounts of drug are produced in a laboratory. Further down the line  larger amounts are produced at pilot plants which are mini factory stage. Once a drug is approved it goes to factory scale production.

To speed the process once these vaccines looked promising they went straight to factory scale. Which means they are producing millions of doses ready to role them out. I think the Oxford vaccine is ready with 40 million doses at £3 a time. So thats £120 million invested just in the cost of the doses,  besides the accelerated testing programme costs. That £3 a dose is cost price without any profit to pay for the for the testing or future testing of new drugs. If they did not get approval at late stage development they have probably shelled out in excess of £200 million. That's why normally it takes 10 years in developement. On an accelerated developement the cost of failure is much higher.

All the normal stages of developement have been done, but in a much more expensive way.

[Docleo]

4 hours ago, loriusgarrulus said:

The normal drug testing timeliness is that each phase is worked through and approved before the next phase is started. If the drug fails on one phase testing stops. Its an expensive business and many drugs get stopped in early stages due to ineffectiveness or side effects etc. By running studies in parallel at the same time and compressing the timeliness is extremely expensive as if a drug fails you have done more testing and incured more costs which is millions of pounds. Its not just the testing that is expensive. Initially small amounts of drug are produced in a laboratory. Further down the line  larger amounts are produced at pilot plants which are mini factory stage. Once a drug is approved it goes to factory scale production.

To speed the process once these vaccines looked promising they went straight to factory scale. Which means they are producing millions of doses ready to role them out. I think the Oxford vaccine is ready with 40 million doses at £3 a time. So thats £120 million invested just in the cost of the doses,  besides the accelerated testing programme costs. That £3 a dose is cost price without any profit to pay for the for the testing or future testing of new drugs. If they did not get approval at late stage development they have probably shelled out in excess of £200 million. That's why normally it takes 10 years in developement. On an accelerated developement the cost of failure is much higher.

All the normal stages of developement have been done, but in a much more expensive way.

This 👍

[Smokersmith]

4 hours ago, loriusgarrulus said:

The normal drug testing timeliness is that each phase is worked through and approved before the next phase is started. If the drug fails on one phase testing stops. Its an expensive business and many drugs get stopped in early stages due to ineffectiveness or side effects etc. By running studies in parallel at the same time and compressing the timeliness is extremely expensive as if a drug fails you have done more testing and incured more costs which is millions of pounds. Its not just the testing that is expensive. Initially small amounts of drug are produced in a laboratory. Further down the line  larger amounts are produced at pilot plants which are mini factory stage. Once a drug is approved it goes to factory scale production.

To speed the process once these vaccines looked promising they went straight to factory scale. Which means they are producing millions of doses ready to role them out. I think the Oxford vaccine is ready with 40 million doses at £3 a time. So thats £120 million invested just in the cost of the doses,  besides the accelerated testing programme costs. That £3 a dose is cost price without any profit to pay for the for the testing or future testing of new drugs. If they did not get approval at late stage development they have probably shelled out in excess of £200 million. That's why normally it takes 10 years in developement. On an accelerated developement the cost of failure is much higher.

All the normal stages of developement have been done, but in a much more expensive way.

Perfectly understandable and we’ll put.

[JohnfromUK]

I will be taking the vaccine as soon as available to me (roughly priority 7)

Pros taking vaccine:

• Reduces likelihood of getting Covid - by 70 - 90%
• Reduces likelihood of getting Covid serious illness by more than above
• Overall, reduces the likelihood of serious illness/death by near 100%
• Assists me, everyone, the economy in 'getting back to normal

Cons taking vaccine:

• Trials period/numbers limited to date, so possible risks remaining
• Risk of illness/side effects of vaccine - very low as none shown by trials to date
• Long term effects unknown other than experience of other vaccines (no long term effects?)

Pros NOT taking vaccine:

• Avoid risk of illness/side effects of vaccine

Cons NOT taking vaccine:

• Risk of getting Covid remains as now - basically low, but dependant on local levels
• Risk of getting serious illness/death from Covid remains - low, but significant
• If many avoid vaccines - outbreaks, NHS overloads, higher NHS costs, further lockdowns, potential for mutations all likely
• If many avoid vaccines - economy may be very slow/never get back

Just my views.

[243deer]

 I am not anti vaccine but I would like to know the possible side effects and also have an indication as to which known underlying medical issues will make the vaccine in-effective. This information is presumably known from the thousands of medical trial reports that will have been processed (a very boring and repetative job that is none the less well rewarded).

At this moment in time it would appear that if everyone in the country has the vaccine 3 million plus people will then be unprotected. How will they know this and so be able to take suitable precautions? 

It is clearly deemed that the vaccine is safe and so has been approved on the basis that its benefit will outweigh its detriment based on the statistical results so far. However if you are part of the 3 million then potentially 1 in 20 of the people you pass in a supermarket might still give you the virus.

A plan needs to be published explaining how this situation is going to be managed.

[JohnfromUK]

12 minutes ago, 243deer said:

A plan needs to be published explaining how this situation is going to be managed.

I think it goes as follows;

1. Current R value is around 1 (maybe 0.8 to 1.2)
2. That means that each person (person A) with CV infects 1 other (from among those they meet) - Person B
3. No one has vaccine immunity now, a few may have 'had it' immunity, few again possibly natural immunity
4. So most (say 90%) that persons A & B meet are currently vulnerable to catching CV
5. After 75% of population are vaccinated, at about 90% effective, then well over 60% of those A & B meet will have immunity (those from point 3 and 90% of the 75% in point 4)
6. This means the R rate will fall to less than half what it is now.
7. That will put CV firmly in decline ....... and hopefully allow a return to near normal

It is to be noted that Prof Van Tam yesterday indicated that some measures (masks, social distances, gathering restrictions) may need to remain.  I guess the takeup rate may be a big driver to that as it directly influences the R rate

[oscarsdad]

12 hours ago, ditchman said:

what are you taking for your herpes........

Deliberate misspelling of the worst courier company out there...

[243deer]

John I understand the r rate very well however that does not answer the question of how folk will know if they are protected or not.

Are those not protected going to be asked to take the risk? I think a lot would for the benefit of all as long as they know that they are at risk or does everyone that has had the vaccine need to presume that they are still at risk?

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, 243deer said:

... how folk will know if they are protected or not.  

Are those not protected going to be asked to take the risk?

The big question currently unknown is how long (assuming you are in the 90% for which it worked) it lasts; the lesser question is how do you know you are not in the 10% for whom it has not worked?

13 minutes ago, 243deer said:

or does everyone that has had the vaccine need to presume that they are still at risk?

Until we know the answers above - I think yes - but at statistically reduced risk

The key thing here is in numbers; you overall won't know - but the population as a whole will know that with most people vaccinated at 90% effective the overall risk is much reduced.

Then of course the wild cards - mutations, imports of new strains from overseas ....... another as yet unknown?

[Dave at kelton]

19 hours ago, Scully said:

I can’t wait to have it, then I can get out to play again and get in with my life.

Those who don’t want it don’t have to ( they’ll have it eventually ) but they’re leaving themselves vulnerable in my opinion, and will have to go in wearing masks and staying 2m away from people until they do. 
We’ll see how that pans out. 

And probably be unable to take holidays abroad, fly etc etc. Might not even be allowed into Scotland knowing Nippy. We will have Westlands to ourselves!

[Mungler]

I doubt if fit people under 30 (and who are capable of reproducing) will even get offered the vaccine - why would they, when their age group is getting Covid very mildly / asymptotically?

Me, I can’t flippin wait. I have a flu jab each year and when this all kicked off a professor client of mine tipped me the nod to get an MMR booster. So I tripped down to the private quack, asked for the MMR booster and told him the story about my Professor client - turns out the private quack (whom I had never met before) is in the same running club as the Prof and had just had his MMR booster.

Did I know what was in the MMR booster? Of course not. Did I know what was in that wrap my mate gave me when I was 18 and standing in the queue to Hollywood’s nightclub in Romford when I was 18? 😆

And I’m still here 😆

 

[Smokersmith]

One positive is that even the Oxford vaccine with 70% efficacy seems to stop all fatalities.

With the 30% who showed symptoms, it's believed that these were much reduced, also stopping Long Covid which I know many fit and healthy folks are still struggling with.

[snow white]

The wife and myself are in or seventies and would be reluctant to have jab it’s not been tested long enough.