Pfizer vaccine approved

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, Deker said:

why would they need to do that if the vulnerable have been vaccinated

It is and entirely false supposition that the 'young' are 'not vulnerable'.  Covid is not well understood and (admittedly a few) who are young and healthy do get seriously ill.

Certainly the elderly and those with (actually quite a long list of) various quite common conditions are the most vulnerable ....... but even some of them get it mildly.

[Docleo]

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

Tomato tomahto potato potahto Tesco Tescos Pfizer Pfizers. What's the state of play with we immunosuppressed mob?

Not exactly the same as Tesco Tescos. Anyone who worked (with a decent scientific/regulatory role) for one of the biggest pharma company in the world would use the correct name. 

As for your question re the immunosuppressed, I really hope that people will accept to be vaccinated to also protect who can't benefit directly from the vaccine.

Unfortunately, this would require a lot of common sense to be achieved. Not so easy these days.

As I said, me and my family will get the vaccine as soon as available.

[Deker]

6 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is and entirely false supposition that the 'young' are 'not vulnerable'.  Covid is not well understood and (admittedly a few) who are young and healthy do get seriously ill.

Certainly the elderly and those with (actually quite a long list of) various quite common conditions are the most vulnerable ....... but even some of them get it mildly.

But you don't (and shouldn't) put every other person at risk (and no matter how many people say otherwise there's always a risk with any vaccine) due to a few who may get ill? at what point does one outweigh the other (risk of side effect over risk of serious illness)?

This isn't like bringing seat belts into law (or smoking bans), the possible side effects of any vaccine aren't reversible, who will take the blame for any who suffer through them? the selfish must-vaxxers? the government? the drug companies? the media for their scare stories?

 

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Deker said:

at what point does one outweigh the other (risk of side effect over risk of serious illness)?

Agreed - and that is where the personal choice lies ........... but at present, even among the 'young and fit' there is a (low but present) rate of getting seriously ill.  We do not know yet what the rate of getting ill from the vaccine is - but from what I have read NO ONE has got seriously ill in trials so far ............

[Deker]

4 minutes ago, Deker said:

wrong button 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by Deker

[Deker]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

Agreed - and that is where the personal choice lies ........... but at present, even among the 'young and fit' there is a (low but present) rate of getting seriously ill.  We do not know yet what the rate of getting ill from the vaccine is - but from what I have read NO ONE has got seriously ill in trials so far ............

 

And hopefully none will but at the minute no matter who shouts the loudest it IS an unknown so expecting everyone to jump onboard the "lets get vaccinated train" is a little selfish in my eyes, people need to be responsible for their own well being and if that means getting a vaccine then great, but also respect the wishes of those that don't want to (either permanently or just not yet).

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Deker said:

 

And hopefully none will but at the minute no matter who shouts the loudest it IS an unknown so expecting everyone to jump onboard the "lets get vaccinated train" is a little selfish in my eyes, people need to be responsible for their own well being and if that means getting a vaccine then great, but also respect the wishes of those that don't want to (either permanently or just not yet).

Agreed again, but remember that (like tobacco, alcohol and other 'voluntary' risks - those who choose to take the risk of smoking and drinking pay for that higher risk (in those cases 'excise duty').  Although not introduced as such, those taxes are now very much considered as going towards the health care you may need. 

Maybe those who choose to increase their risk by not getting a vaccination offered get penalised?  I don't know, but higher holiday insurance maybe? 

Remember that a lot of measures introduced to 'protect the public' became compulsory eventually (seat belts, crash helmets, speed limits, flouride in water ........)

[Gu5]

3 hours ago, Deker said:

for me.. 4 or 5 years, I'm healthy enough to not need to worry about it for a while but I understand the vulnerable wanting it as it may be the lesser of two evils (or it could be completely safe...) 

BTW I'm not anti-vaccine, just anti rushed out vaccine

4-5 years is nothing in the testing of long term side effects. 
 

Think back to the yellow fever vaccine, it took over 90 years for it to be established that 1 dose was good for life rather than needing a 10 year top-up. 

[Zetter]

I cant see any government in the UK forcing this on anyone.

However and this is a big however that is not to stop private businesses not wanting to deal with people who have not had a vaccine especially in high risk of infection scenarios. 

Quatas have already allegedly started with this by stating they wont carry people without up to date vaccinations and you could see a scenario where countries will bar entry without up to date vaccinations as its not their citizens they are likely to be annoying. 

So opting out of the vaccine will not be an issue but carrying on certain bits of life you take for granted could be. if you are not vaccinated in the future.     

Edited December 2, 2020 by Zetter

[clangerman]

42 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Deker - thanks for that. Anyone I have discussed it with always trots out Thalidomide.

 

here’s a new one how many died thanks to the governments contaminated blood scandal anyone know the body score? 

[loriusgarrulus]

Thalidomide came out in 1957. Things have moved on a bit on drug safety testing in the last 60+ years.

[Scully]

57 minutes ago, Deker said:

yes, the swine flu vaccine caused brain damage 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/victims-of-swine-flu-jab-to-get-pound60m-payout-02ptvlnlzqk

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/guillain-barre-syndrome/causes/

 

why would they need to do that if the vulnerable have been vaccinated? 

Because they themselves can catch it from children ( I’m assuming children aren’t to be vaccinated ?) and other people who haven’t been vaccinated. 
There is also the risk they could catch it from someone who has been vaccinated but still showing symptoms......many people have caught Covid from people showing no symptoms whatsoever, so it seems logical to me that they could catch it from someone who has been vaccinated but showing mild symptoms? 🤷‍♂️

[AVB]

Any ideas how come the U.K. has been the first to approve this? I assume they got all the information from Pfizer at the same time as every other country? And I am guessing that approval requires reading lots of material and looking for anomalies so what is it, so we just have faster readers than everybody else? 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, AVB said:

Any ideas how come the U.K. has been the first to approve this?

It might be unusual, but maybe the UK was better organised to start immediately at full speed - and might have longer hours (through weekends?) and less bureaucracy?

[Raja Clavata]

8 minutes ago, AVB said:

Any ideas how come the U.K. has been the first to approve this? I assume they got all the information from Pfizer at the same time as every other country? And I am guessing that approval requires reading lots of material and looking for anomalies so what is it, so we just have faster readers than everybody else? 

I was just about to ask the same question.

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I was just about to ask the same question.

Some other countries might have to wait for 'approved' translations? 

[Raja Clavata]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Some other countries might have to wait for 'approved' translations? 

All your points are plausible, it would be useful if it was officially clarified I feel.

[discobob]

1 hour ago, Smokersmith said:

Nor was it a vaccine ...

No it wasn't - but that doesn't make much difference to my step-brother who was affected by it. People are still battling for compensation from it.

1 hour ago, AVB said:

I had the rabies vaccine. Made me howl at the moon, chase balls and lick my own ********. 

The best time of your life I bet!!! 😂

1 hour ago, JDog said:

The point of my post was to show that trials of Thalidomide were hasty and the long term effects were not established.

This!!

[AVB]

Interesting that the EU are raising concerns over the speed of approval and insisting their process is better. No surprise there. Assuming that the vaccine is safe then the fact that we have got it quicker than EU counties is one of the benefits of Brexit. 

16 minutes ago, discobob said:

The best time of your life I bet!!! 😂

It was ruff 🐶 

[JohnfromUK]

34 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

it would be useful if it was officially clarified I feel.

I'm not really sure there is anything to 'clarify'?  Someone has to be first.  Maybe the 'others' whoever they are are just a bit 'slower'. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I'm not really sure there is anything to 'clarify'?  Someone has to be first.  Maybe the 'others' whoever they are are just a bit 'slower'. 

Many people have been involved in the trials already.

[JohnfromUK]

18 minutes ago, AVB said:

Interesting that the EU are raising concerns over the speed of approval

It is quite likely that the EU itself (whatever you construe it to be) may need approval from all, or a majority of member states, and that one dissenter state will prevent EU level approval.  It is also likely that some nations will requite translations by 'approved' translators (which takes a long time for a complex document).

The whole EU approvals with the many languages, many vested interests, and different cultures is never going to be quick at these things.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

It is quite likely that the EU itself (whatever you construe it to be) may need approval from all, or a majority of member states, and that one dissenter state will prevent EU level approval.  It is also likely that some nations will requite translations by 'approved' translators (which takes a long time for a complex document).

The whole EU approvals with the many languages, many vested interests, and different cultures is never going to be quick at these things.

The Eu have the EMA which is a direct descendent of our HMA that they had to institute when we left.

[Smokersmith]

Britain's medicines regulator, the MHRA, says the jab, which offers up to 95% protection against Covid-19 illness, is safe to be rolled out.

[JDog]

59 minutes ago, AVB said:

Any ideas how come the U.K. has been the first to approve this? I assume they got all the information from Pfizer at the same time as every other country? And I am guessing that approval requires reading lots of material and looking for anomalies so what is it, so we just have faster readers than everybody else? 

Let us hope that it was diligence, hard work, brains, funding, knowledge and a bit of luck rather than political.