Govt has given Pfizer protection from any legal action

Generally I don't think people are knocking the quality of the vaccine. The questions are around process and unnecessary short cuts taken by uk gov. If its OK for them to rush approval through without EMA approval then they might as well have done it 3 weeks ago. It is possible that our government are still in panic mode trying to redeem themselves having handled so many things, so badly, for so long.

If I had a choice then personally speaking I would postpone my vaccination by a fortnight so as to ensure defect liability was with the manufacturer and not run the risk of saddling my son and his generation with even more national debt.

The whole mask thing is also a bit of farce. You have the DCMO offering advice on national TV on our mask wearing future and alas Dr Bozza Johnson interrupting him to rubbish his comments. Dr Bozza knows best, it will be gone by summer, I mean autumn, no Christmas then, OK I meant spring, or possibly next summer. To label him a buffoon is to do a disservice to buffoons across the land.
 
Last edited:
Capybara said:
They haven't done tests on pregnant women so can't guarantee its safety.
Click to expand...
Whose safety CAN they guarantee.? I am not knocking the fact that a vaccine appears to have been found and I will be glad of it. It's Pfizer that worries me. It seems that in the US they have been sued many times over different irregularities. I don't know the cost of the Pfizer vaccine compared to the cost of the vaccine developed in Oxford, however the Pfizer vaccine needs to be stored at minus 70 degrees C. That means that specialist storage/transport facilities must be found/manufactured. That could be a very difficult logistical problem The Oxford vaccine does not need such specialist storage facilities. In fact it can be stored and transported in the same way as any other vaccine. Neither does the Oxford vaccine need to be imported which adds to the cost. It seems strange to me that a vaccine has already been developed in the UK but preference has gone abroad.
Given the track record of contracts for mates that the Tories have, you can colour me suspicious and cynical but the question I ask is, do the owners of these specialist manufacturing/storage/transport facilities have connections to the Tory Party?
 
It's certain the government will extend this protection to Moderna also.

"UK government has now secured 7 million doses of Moderna vaccine, which will be available in Europe as early as spring 2021
trials show vaccine is almost 95% effective"

The favourite to take over from Johnson as PM does have a few fingers in the Moderna pie.

www.cityam.com

Rishi Sunak refuses to disclose whether he will profit from Moderna vaccine

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has refused to disclose whether he will profit from a surge in Moderna’s share price, after the
www.cityam.com www.cityam.com
 
Trug said:
Whose safety CAN they guarantee.? I am not knocking the fact that a vaccine appears to have been found and I will be glad of it. It's Pfizer that worries me. It seems that in the US they have been sued many times over different irregularities. I don't know the cost of the Pfizer vaccine compared to the cost of the vaccine developed in Oxford, however the Pfizer vaccine needs to be stored at minus 70 degrees C. That means that specialist storage/transport facilities must be found/manufactured. That could be a very difficult logistical problem The Oxford vaccine does not need such specialist storage facilities. In fact it can be stored and transported in the same way as any other vaccine. Neither does the Oxford vaccine need to be imported which adds to the cost. It seems strange to me that a vaccine has already been developed in the UK but preference has gone abroad.
Given the track record of contracts for mates that the Tories have, you can colour me suspicious and cynical but the question I ask is, do the owners of these specialist manufacturing/storage/transport facilities have connections to the Tory Party?
Click to expand...
I was answering the question atypical asked. Perhaps 'guarantee' was the wrong word. The point was that the data isn't there for women who are pregnant so the vaccine can't be passed for use with pregnant women.
 
It’s funny how they’ll give indemnity to Pfizer but not Care Homes so perhaps one member of a family can visit their parents! No money in it I guess!🤔
 
£££££££££££££££££ a select few have got, and will get incredibly rich off the back of Covid - just saying ......... of course no one is going to say there may be dangers taking this vaccine, why would they ? it won’t help with uptake of it if they say oh by the way, in the unlikely event of you suffering terrible side effects you won’t get a penny in compensation 😳




🐔
 
zorro_mfc said:
I’m not Tory but I can’t see the issue here look at the stats look at the process look at the risk v reward factor and it’s all positive.

I get the feeling some people are just looking for anything to knock this vaccine and discredit before it’s out.

Ok we get it you don’t like wearing masks as it’s big brother you don’t like tier restrictions and lock downs as it’s impinging civil liberties and now you don’t like the vaccine our route out of this nightmare.

Please people stop spreading these lies as this vaccine and others like it will save thousands of lives.

I’ll leave it there.
Click to expand...
But why wouldn’t Pfizer take the liability if they believe in their own vaccine ?
 
zorro_mfc said:
He has now apologised for that remark. I have a lot of time for dr fauci and the work he has done in the US, so I was surprised at his remarks but this seems to have cleared it up.

Dr Fauci apologises for saying UK 'rushed' vaccine https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55177948
Click to expand...

The only reason Fauci and some European voices are questioning the U.K. approach is because they are worried the public in their countries might think ‘eh? Why are we dragging our heels over this? Why have they got it and we haven’t? It’s not like this vaccine has come as a surprise ...... why weren’t we ready to hit the ground running?’
Let’s face it, if they had approved it and we didn’t even have a meeting booked to discuss it until Dec 10th or Dec 29th, the majority of us on here would be screaming government incompetence yet again.

It’ll all be irrelevant in a few weeks time anyway, when they both approve it too.
Then hopefully anybody with any lingering thoughts that we’ve cut corners and are rushing it through will feel a bit better about it all, if they think the EU and USA have performed a more rigorous evaluation....

Personally, I just think we’ve been completely on the ball, efficient and proactive in the regulatory process.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
The only reason Fauci and some European voices are questioning the U.K. approach is because they are worried the public in their countries might think ‘eh? Why are we dragging our heels over this? Why have they got it and we haven’t? It’s not like this vaccine has come as a surprise ...... why weren’t we ready to hit the ground running?’
Let’s face it, if they had approved it and we didn’t even have a meeting booked to discuss it until Dec 10th or Dec 29th, the majority of us on here would be screaming government incompetence yet again.

It’ll all be irrelevant in a few weeks time anyway, when they both approve it too.
Then hopefully anybody with any lingering thoughts that we’ve cut corners and are rushing it through will feel a bit better about it all, if they think the EU and USA have performed a more rigorous evaluation....

Personally, I just think we’ve been completely on the ball, efficient and proactive in the regulatory process.
Click to expand...
We actually have cut corners. Even i missed this but it's been given emergency use authorisation. In other words we haven't fully approved it
 
SmallTown said:
We actually have cut corners. Even i missed this but it's been given emergency use authorisation. In other words we haven't fully approved it
Click to expand...

Yeah, that wasn’t a secret? It was always emergency use authorisation. I’m surprised you missed that, to be honest. It’s not something that has been hidden.

And it’s not cutting corners, it’s a completely legitimate process. We’ve followed the process and rules required in order to provide emergency use authorisation.

If the MHRA have not followed the correct procedures and have provided authorisation illegitimately, to vaccinate 50 million odd people, then that will come out and there will be a whole world of problems. It’s potentially a government toppler. So I think they’ve probably been pretty careful.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
Yeah, that wasn’t a secret? It was always emergency use authorisation. I’m surprised you missed that, to be honest. It’s not something that has been hidden.

And it’s not cutting corners, it’s a completely legitimate process. We’ve followed the process and rules required in order to provide emergency use authorisation.

If the MHRA have not followed the correct procedures and have provided authorisation illegitimately, to vaccinate 50 million odd people, then that will come out and there will be a whole world of problems. It’s potentially a government toppler. So I think they’ve probably been pretty careful.
Click to expand...
Still rushed it for political expediancy which is a shame
 
SmallTown said:
It stops the spread of communicable diseases. Good for the economy as we have less sick days, spend less on the NHS and, feel better.

I know when the covid thing fades everyone in the UK will stop wearing them. You can't deny it slows dow the spread of all communicable diseases
Click to expand...

Couple of things
The science is still contrary - only last week a BMJ article from a peer reviewed study in Denmark said masks were having no effect on stopping the Covid virus.
Up until the end of 2019 masks were not seen as the way forward.
Those in Asia are predominantly worried about pollution

Assuming they have some +ve effect - why change now because of a random disease that may/may not come back. If it (or something similar) does and we believe in masks we put them back on.
Proportionate response please
 
I
SmallTown said:
Still rushed it for political expediancy which is a shame
Click to expand...

I think it is fair and reasonable that people have questions about the vaccine. I do myself actually, and I think given the choice I’d chose the Oxford jab, as it’s used a much more tried and tested vaccine technology.
However, the regulatory process still has to follow the rules and protocols in place to provide the necessary scrutiny.
If Johnson and chums try to make political gain out of this, I think that is a consequence of the approval and short lived, rather than the cause of the approval.
I’m sure they will have pressured the MHRA into providing authorisation, but I believe they’d still have to jump through the same hoops.

Time will tell I guess, and if it comes out that there has been underhand tactics in play and the full and correct process has not been followed in authorising a new type of vaccine technology for 50 odd million people, then there will be a whole world of trouble ahead that could easily topple a government.
If the States and EU had been as organised as our regulatory bodies have been, we probably wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

Let’s face it, I don’t recall anybody, Fauci included, questioning things when the US provided emergency use authorization for Remdesivir or the monoclonal antibody treatments.
 
1finny said:
Couple of things
The science is still contrary - only last week a BMJ article from a peer reviewed study in Denmark said masks were having no effect on stopping the Covid virus.
Up until the end of 2019 masks were not seen as the way forward.
Those in Asia are predominantly worried about pollution

Assuming they have some +ve effect - why change now because of a random disease that may/may not come back. If it (or something similar) does and we believe in masks we put them back on.
Proportionate response please
Click to expand...
Not true for Japan, Taiwan and probably Koreare pollution. So, China then

There's no point in responding to your second paragraph, given your first paragraph but in not just talking covid.

Disproportionate response please
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top