hewielewie
Well-known member
Forced? Please provide evidence.
I said before you are scaremongering and now you have just proved it.
Govt has given Pfizer protection from any legal action
- Thread starter kuepper
- Start date
I said before you are scaremongering and now you have just proved it.
Randy
Well-known member
You could argue that the timing of the vaccine announcement was to take the news away from the previous day's events where the tier system was almost voted against (if Labour had any sort of opposition plan, which they don't or are too scared to announce)
SmallTown
Well-known member
I'm not though. It's a fact the vaccine is going to be used without full approval. It's also a fact that the government is trying to get political capital and pro brexit sentiment out of it. Both of this things have actually happened
hewielewie
Well-known member
Evidence of them being forced please?
Laughing
Well-known member
I was more referring to the language you chose to use Billy. I don't think masks are effective, but wear one, as you say, whats the harm? I wouldn't refer to anyone who choose not to as selfish and certainly not as an ****
Jedi boro
Well-known member
As for this rushed debate
Btw it can take about a decade to fully process and give a full analysis of a vaccine
So are you prepared to wait a decade then as is the norm - of course not so yes it’s been expedited but not rushed things have been speeded up as they have to be but to say it’s been rushed is just not accurate.
Btw it can take about a decade to fully process and give a full analysis of a vaccine
So are you prepared to wait a decade then as is the norm - of course not so yes it’s been expedited but not rushed things have been speeded up as they have to be but to say it’s been rushed is just not accurate.
Laughing
Well-known member
The reality is, if you spend less time, even with checks and balances, the chances of someone making a mistake increases.
The question is not that the vaccine development was expedited as was the approval process, the question is : were the process' expedited to the extent that errors are likely to have been made, either in the development or approval process'.
I have no idea, and by it's very nature, even the teams involved in these process' can't be sure.
Caution is an understandable reaction to the vaccine. Ultimately everyone will make the choice that they feel comfortable with, and that is how it should be.
Some of the black and white opinions on this thread are not helpful and are very innaccurate, it's not a case of take it now or wait a decade, for example.
The question is not that the vaccine development was expedited as was the approval process, the question is : were the process' expedited to the extent that errors are likely to have been made, either in the development or approval process'.
I have no idea, and by it's very nature, even the teams involved in these process' can't be sure.
Caution is an understandable reaction to the vaccine. Ultimately everyone will make the choice that they feel comfortable with, and that is how it should be.
Some of the black and white opinions on this thread are not helpful and are very innaccurate, it's not a case of take it now or wait a decade, for example.
BiggEggo
Well-known member
60k + dead, covid deliberately launched into care homes, travellers travelling into the UK from Covid hotshots with no checks, track and no trace, fantastic algorithms. PM who doesn't know his 4rse from his elbow. Oh and don't forget their permission for Cheltenham and the Spanish covid hoards to visit Anfield. Or the about turn on mask wearing.
Completely on the ball, efficient and proactive, - such things can never be things this government will ever be associated with.
Last edited:
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
I agree with you. To be clear, I didn’t mean it in terms of the pandemic handling by Johnson and his crooked team of charlatan posho thieves.
I meant it purely and solely in respect of the MHRA getting regulatory approval for the vaccine.
I couldn’t be more angry or disgusted at how the government have handled the pandemic from start to finish, and how they’ve seized the opportunity to ensure their connections make a fortune out of our pockets.
Johnny Vincents Motorbike
Well-known member
Guinea pigs.
C
Cooper671
Guest
HolgateCorner
Well-known member
Cooper I’m not sure what relevance this is to giving the elderly, the vulnerable and the front line health people this vaccine?
C
Cooper671
Guest
removed that one. Sure it would have upset someone.
Ive posted many times how this is fantastic news for these people. Its the scaremongerers (who arent these people and arent even due it) who I take issue with. Go ask someone who has been locked up for the year unable to see family and friends and ask their opinion on it. Its all well and good criticising (seemingly for political point scoring) when it doesnt affect you
I understand peoples cautious approach, 100%
But I think the answer to your question above is no. The teams behind the vaccines have explained quite clearly that:
1. The work on these vaccines had started long before (up to 10 years in some cases I believe) they were actually needed exactly for a situation like this. By design they can be adapted to target the disease in question so in the future if we have a situation like this they should be able to "plug-and-play" the disease specific part of the vaccine to help combat the next virus much quicker. This means that it only took a couple of months (if that) to actually "make" the vaccine - they started trials a month after the first lockdown started and so have been testing for 7 months.
So the technology has been around for a while, although this will be the first time it has been used - but the process certainly hasn't been expedited as in your question, in fact they have been ready and waiting for years to actually use this.
2. A large portion of the "10 years to make a vaccine" is spent getting funding, getting volunteers, and crucially having enough volunteers in enough demographics that are likely to contract the disease (by likely I mean the disease is prevalent in the community - imagine how hard it would be to trial a new measles vaccine these days?). This means that it can take a long time to get a suitable trial group together, and the phase 1/2/3 trials are done separately and sometimes with huge gaps between them. Luckily (in terms of trials anyway!) covid was rife all over the world, and there was an almost unlimited amount of money being thrown at this in order to keep things moving - this meant a huge number of people could be recruited, across every demographic, in different parts of the world.
They were able to run a large scale trial program and they had enough volunteers that they could do phase 2 and 3 in parallel (overseen by an independent organisation I believe). So again the process wasn't sped up, it was just able to get moving A LOT quicker and once moving, certain parts were able to be ran in parallel. The reality is that the people in the vaccine trial haven't had the vaccine for any less time than they would in a "normal" scenario, but the amount of time to get to a stage where they begin trials, and the amount of time taken to get the results in front of a review board have been much much quicker. The review board have also, by all accounts, cleared their schedule and focussed just on this.
3. The "Emergency Use" authorisation is a standard procedure in these circumstances, as is the indemnity by the government. I don't know too much about this area but I believe the idea behind it is that the data shows it is safe for the majority of the population, based on the trials, but it isn't something that can be used for some people (pregnant women, kids, people with certain conditions) because there is no data to support it, and that will become available over time at which point it will get certified with known parameters. As for the indemnity, I believe this is always the plan and without it, it is unlikely we would have a vaccine as which company would take on that level of risk - at least not at a price that would make it affordable for countries to use on such a scale. In an ideal world it would be an altruistic act from a multi billion dollar company, but sadly that is not the world we live in. As it is, we are getting the oxford vaccine at cost price (I think!).
On the whole, vaccines have always been very safe - I believe this is because they aren't drugs or medicines as such, and are something that is designed to stimulate and trigger your immune system. There is always a risk, albeit a very small one (in my opinion, anyway!). At this point I'm not sure what the alternative is - do you wait 2 years to see if people develop complications? 5 years? What about what happens after 6 years?
Do you get another review of the vaccine? Wait until the EU and the USA approve it also?
It is a personal choice at the end of the day like you said, and it comes down to whether you believe what the scientists say (you can find them talking about this in detail in various articles, and news reports) or do you hold off? I would wager that no-one (in the general public) really knows enough about it to make an informed choice and I am ok deferring to the scientists who plainly do know more. The claim that "the vaccine has been rushed through, how do we know it has been produced, tested, and reviewed properly?" is not supported by a great deal of evidence, and I'm not seeing much of a counter argument when faced with the details the scientists have given. I feel like you could also go the other way and say that this vaccine will have had the full focus of the medical companies and everyone involved will have been so thorough as they know the eyes of the world are on them, and no-one wants to be associated with something this huge if they drop the ball - so it might actually be safer than your typical new vaccine... but that is equally as wild a claim as the vaccine is rushed and unsafe imo
Can you tell it's been a slow monday morning at work...
Laughing
Well-known member
Thanks for that detailed explanation matt much appreciated. I was aware of the explanation, but thanks anyway. My point is two fold I guess. Firstly medical professionals need to assure people of the safety of the vaccine. Secondly, everyone should understand that the development will always be quicker if you throw money at it, that's a given. However in the race to release a vaccine were any additional short cuts taken. Prioviding the ratification and testing schedules were unchanged then yes the vaccine is as safe as any other newly released vaccine.I understand peoples cautious approach, 100%
But I think the answer to your question above is no. The teams behind the vaccines have explained quite clearly that:
1. The work on these vaccines had started long before (up to 10 years in some cases I believe) they were actually needed exactly for a situation like this. By design they can be adapted to target the disease in question so in the future if we have a situation like this they should be able to "plug-and-play" the disease specific part of the vaccine to help combat the next virus much quicker. This means that it only took a couple of months (if that) to actually "make" the vaccine - they started trials a month after the first lockdown started and so have been testing for 7 months.
So the technology has been around for a while, although this will be the first time it has been used - but the process certainly hasn't been expedited as in your question, in fact they have been ready and waiting for years to actually use this.
2. A large portion of the "10 years to make a vaccine" is spent getting funding, getting volunteers, and crucially having enough volunteers in enough demographics that are likely to contract the disease (by likely I mean the disease is prevalent in the community - imagine how hard it would be to trial a new measles vaccine these days?). This means that it can take a long time to get a suitable trial group together, and the phase 1/2/3 trials are done separately and sometimes with huge gaps between them. Luckily (in terms of trials anyway!) covid was rife all over the world, and there was an almost unlimited amount of money being thrown at this in order to keep things moving - this meant a huge number of people could be recruited, across every demographic, in different parts of the world.
They were able to run a large scale trial program and they had enough volunteers that they could do phase 2 and 3 in parallel (overseen by an independent organisation I believe). So again the process wasn't sped up, it was just able to get moving A LOT quicker and once moving, certain parts were able to be ran in parallel. The reality is that the people in the vaccine trial haven't had the vaccine for any less time than they would in a "normal" scenario, but the amount of time to get to a stage where they begin trials, and the amount of time taken to get the results in front of a review board have been much much quicker. The review board have also, by all accounts, cleared their schedule and focussed just on this.
3. The "Emergency Use" authorisation is a standard procedure in these circumstances, as is the indemnity by the government. I don't know too much about this area but I believe the idea behind it is that the data shows it is safe for the majority of the population, based on the trials, but it isn't something that can be used for some people (pregnant women, kids, people with certain conditions) because there is no data to support it, and that will become available over time at which point it will get certified with known parameters. As for the indemnity, I believe this is always the plan and without it, it is unlikely we would have a vaccine as which company would take on that level of risk - at least not at a price that would make it affordable for countries to use on such a scale. In an ideal world it would be an altruistic act from a multi billion dollar company, but sadly that is not the world we live in. As it is, we are getting the oxford vaccine at cost price (I think!).
On the whole, vaccines have always been very safe - I believe this is because they aren't drugs or medicines as such, and are something that is designed to stimulate and trigger your immune system. There is always a risk, albeit a very small one (in my opinion, anyway!). At this point I'm not sure what the alternative is - do you wait 2 years to see if people develop complications? 5 years? What about what happens after 6 years?
Do you get another review of the vaccine? Wait until the EU and the USA approve it also?
It is a personal choice at the end of the day like you said, and it comes down to whether you believe what the scientists say (you can find them talking about this in detail in various articles, and news reports) or do you hold off? I would wager that no-one (in the general public) really knows enough about it to make an informed choice and I am ok deferring to the scientists who plainly do know more. The claim that "the vaccine has been rushed through, how do we know it has been produced, tested, and reviewed properly?" is not supported by a great deal of evidence, and I'm not seeing much of a counter argument when faced with the details the scientists have given. I feel like you could also go the other way and say that this vaccine will have had the full focus of the medical companies and everyone involved will have been so thorough as they know the eyes of the world are on them, and no-one wants to be associated with something this huge if they drop the ball - so it might actually be safer than your typical new vaccine... but that is equally as wild a claim as the vaccine is rushed and unsafe imo
Can you tell it's been a slow monday morning at work...
The proviso is where most informed people will be asking questions.
Good postI understand peoples cautious approach, 100%
But I think the answer to your question above is no. The teams behind the vaccines have explained quite clearly that:
1. The work on these vaccines had started long before (up to 10 years in some cases I believe) they were actually needed exactly for a situation like this. By design they can be adapted to target the disease in question so in the future if we have a situation like this they should be able to "plug-and-play" the disease specific part of the vaccine to help combat the next virus much quicker. This means that it only took a couple of months (if that) to actually "make" the vaccine - they started trials a month after the first lockdown started and so have been testing for 7 months.
So the technology has been around for a while, although this will be the first time it has been used - but the process certainly hasn't been expedited as in your question, in fact they have been ready and waiting for years to actually use this.
2. A large portion of the "10 years to make a vaccine" is spent getting funding, getting volunteers, and crucially having enough volunteers in enough demographics that are likely to contract the disease (by likely I mean the disease is prevalent in the community - imagine how hard it would be to trial a new measles vaccine these days?). This means that it can take a long time to get a suitable trial group together, and the phase 1/2/3 trials are done separately and sometimes with huge gaps between them. Luckily (in terms of trials anyway!) covid was rife all over the world, and there was an almost unlimited amount of money being thrown at this in order to keep things moving - this meant a huge number of people could be recruited, across every demographic, in different parts of the world.
They were able to run a large scale trial program and they had enough volunteers that they could do phase 2 and 3 in parallel (overseen by an independent organisation I believe). So again the process wasn't sped up, it was just able to get moving A LOT quicker and once moving, certain parts were able to be ran in parallel. The reality is that the people in the vaccine trial haven't had the vaccine for any less time than they would in a "normal" scenario, but the amount of time to get to a stage where they begin trials, and the amount of time taken to get the results in front of a review board have been much much quicker. The review board have also, by all accounts, cleared their schedule and focussed just on this.
3. The "Emergency Use" authorisation is a standard procedure in these circumstances, as is the indemnity by the government. I don't know too much about this area but I believe the idea behind it is that the data shows it is safe for the majority of the population, based on the trials, but it isn't something that can be used for some people (pregnant women, kids, people with certain conditions) because there is no data to support it, and that will become available over time at which point it will get certified with known parameters. As for the indemnity, I believe this is always the plan and without it, it is unlikely we would have a vaccine as which company would take on that level of risk - at least not at a price that would make it affordable for countries to use on such a scale. In an ideal world it would be an altruistic act from a multi billion dollar company, but sadly that is not the world we live in. As it is, we are getting the oxford vaccine at cost price (I think!).
On the whole, vaccines have always been very safe - I believe this is because they aren't drugs or medicines as such, and are something that is designed to stimulate and trigger your immune system. There is always a risk, albeit a very small one (in my opinion, anyway!). At this point I'm not sure what the alternative is - do you wait 2 years to see if people develop complications? 5 years? What about what happens after 6 years?
Do you get another review of the vaccine? Wait until the EU and the USA approve it also?
It is a personal choice at the end of the day like you said, and it comes down to whether you believe what the scientists say (you can find them talking about this in detail in various articles, and news reports) or do you hold off? I would wager that no-one (in the general public) really knows enough about it to make an informed choice and I am ok deferring to the scientists who plainly do know more. The claim that "the vaccine has been rushed through, how do we know it has been produced, tested, and reviewed properly?" is not supported by a great deal of evidence, and I'm not seeing much of a counter argument when faced with the details the scientists have given. I feel like you could also go the other way and say that this vaccine will have had the full focus of the medical companies and everyone involved will have been so thorough as they know the eyes of the world are on them, and no-one wants to be associated with something this huge if they drop the ball - so it might actually be safer than your typical new vaccine... but that is equally as wild a claim as the vaccine is rushed and unsafe imo
Can you tell it's been a slow monday morning at work...
I think there has been a lot of talk already about how and why the vaccine is safe, from the medical/scientific community. I agree they (the government) could be doing more to put it front and centre of the general public - maybe work with some of the big hitting investigative shows that people know and trust.
Laughing
Well-known member
Thats a good idea about using something like panorama to ge tthe message out there. Problem is, unless there is a problem Panorama may not be interested despite it being in the public interest.
Yea... just something that is going to grab peoples attention and make people want to watch - as long as it is built up in some way then a lot of people will watch it.
Obviously some people won't watch, and won't change their mind no matter what you tell them... but you just aren't going to reach some people. But if there is a sizable amount of people who are unsure and you can turn 50% of them then that's got to be a good thing
Obviously some people won't watch, and won't change their mind no matter what you tell them... but you just aren't going to reach some people. But if there is a sizable amount of people who are unsure and you can turn 50% of them then that's got to be a good thing