I notice the BBC and Sky are laying into Anthony fauci over his remarks implying the UK has rushed its vax approval. This is the same Fauci that they are now calling stupid who they loved to quote ad nauseum as an expert when he was slagging off trump :rolleyes
The European Medicines Agency has also suggested British regulators prioritised speed over winning public confidence.
Sour grapes or do they have a point. Looking at the poll its running 9 yes and 9 no or don't know.
I don't do rain or threat there of. dry rider only with no shame.
Quote: Looking at the poll its running 9 yes and 9 no or don't know
Looks like a clear majority for 'yes' to me :rolleyes
If you could go around co-opting the 'don't knows', who knows what might have happened. We might still be in the EU 
04-12-20, 03:37 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-12-20, 05:36 PM by fazersharp.)
(04-12-20, 03:06 PM)mtread link Wrote: Quote: Looking at the poll its running 9 yes and 9 no or don't know
Looks like a clear majority for 'yes' to me :rolleyes
If you could go around co-opting the 'don't knows', who knows what might have happened. We might still be in the EU Well if you recall the EU vote based on the polls people thought remain would win but it looks like all those "don't knows" actually turned into Leave votes in the privacy of the voting booth.
Professional pollsters are learning that when asked there are people that dare not say their real opinions.
Look at the Trump vote this year It looked like Biden would walk it.
I have read that pollsters have identified “shy” Trump voters—people reluctant to share their opinions for fear of being judged. Could the same be said for what people say when asked about taking the vax for fear of being called an anti vaxer or unsociable, inconsiderate conspiracy theory nut jobs and so on, when they just have genuine fears.
Some polsters I think are are now incorporating a "How do you think your friends and neighbors will vote?”—which some researchers believe makes it easier for people to share their true opinions without fear of being judged for their views.
I don't do rain or threat there of. dry rider only with no shame.
As I said before, it normally takes 5 to 10 years to develop effective vaccines. It took 45 years for the Ebola vaccine. Because of the threat posed by Covid to economic structures as well as human life, processes have been ramped up worldwide, and I am concerned that the process of clinical trails as described in several worthy medical journals for vaccine development, which normally span the above mentioned time frame, cannot be compressed and retain its certainty. As yet, I'm not aware that any other medical governing body, apart from out own MHRA, has approved any vaccine for use yet in their own nations, or the WHO. Normal success rate for developed vaccines is 6%, and an ineffective vaccine could well make the situation worse. I sincerely hope that that the vaccines every success.
I'll wait for further developments before I take my shot(s)
Stay safe all
More people spent more money on research for a Covid19 vaccine as it is more prevalent and deadly than Ebola and has the ability to stop thw world economy. If Ebola was as bad as Covid19, it would have been done within a year too.
Another ex-Fazer rider that is a foccer again
04-12-20, 06:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-12-20, 06:59 PM by fazersharp.)
Perhaps this will be the way for all new vaccines instead of 10-20 year development. Its true that there has been a massive worldwide push and co operation not to mention money thrown at this.
As far as I can tell it has only been tested on 20 thousand people for a few months.
I don't do rain or threat there of. dry rider only with no shame.
(04-12-20, 06:22 PM)BBROWN1664 link Wrote: More people spent more money on research for a Covid19 vaccine as it is more prevalent and deadly than Ebola and has the ability to stop thw world economy. If Ebola was as bad as Covid19, it would have been done within a year too.
Death rate for Ebola is around 50% of infections. Mainly occurs in the less well developed nations, so unlikely to receive the same level of focus one suspects.
Quote: As far as I can tell it has only been tested on 20 thousand people for a few months.
That's what happens when you have 65 million cases worldwide and 1.5 million deaths so far.
Speed is important. Bring it on
(04-12-20, 06:59 PM)fazersharp link Wrote: Perhaps this will be the way for all new vaccines instead of 10-20 year development.
There have been massive changes to vaccine development and delivery systems in the past few years.
That, plus the billions that have been poured into the technology have been a real game-changer.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/healt...22683.html
Yes looks like this "war" has advanced tech in a way that all was have done.Its still only been tested on 20,000 people as far as I can see.
I treat it the same as whenever a new softwear update is released after beta testing once many 100's of thousands have downloaded it its only then that they find major problems and have to quickly release a patch, I never have my devices to auto update and I wait a few weeks first to see if people have had issues.
I don't do rain or threat there of. dry rider only with no shame.
The approved vaccine has been developed using "Emergency Regulations" and has not undergone the extensive trails that normally take place. Its much akin to a war, where desperate need shoves aside longer term plans. The companies will be aware that, should longer term effects result, there will be no shortage of people dragging them through the courts.
(05-12-20, 05:39 PM)agricola link Wrote: The approved vaccine has been developed using "Emergency Regulations" and has not undergone the extensive trails that normally take place. Its much akin to a war, where desperate need shoves aside longer term plans. The companies will be aware that, should longer term effects result, there will be no shortage of people dragging them through the courts. No one will be allowed to take them to court.
The UK government has granted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer a legal indemnity protecting it from being sued, enabling its coronavirus vaccine to be rolled out across the country as early as next week.
The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed the company has been given an indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine.
Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications.
I don't do rain or threat there of. dry rider only with no shame.
The government is taking on the liability under the Vaccine Damages Payments Act.
Wealthy countries are buying up all the vaccines. Covid will continue to thrive in the '3rd World'.
The devil made me do it!
(05-12-20, 06:48 PM)fazersharp link Wrote: [quote author=agricola link=topic=26604.msg321857#msg321857 date=1607186352]
The approved vaccine has been developed using "Emergency Regulations" and has not undergone the extensive trails that normally take place. Its much akin to a war, where desperate need shoves aside longer term plans. The companies will be aware that, should longer term effects result, there will be no shortage of people dragging them through the courts. No one will be allowed to take them to court.
The UK government has granted pharmaceutical giant Pfizer a legal indemnity protecting it from being sued, enabling its coronavirus vaccine to be rolled out across the country as early as next week.
The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed the company has been given an indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine.
Ministers have also changed the law in recent weeks to give new protections to companies such as Pfizer, giving them immunity from being sued by patients in the event of any complications.
[/quote]
Hmm. Didnt know that. The taxpayer will foot any future liabilities then?
(06-12-20, 01:15 AM)mtread link Wrote: The government is taking on the liability under the Vaccine Damages Payments Act.
:agree
Later
Well so much for not forcing it on people ?
http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-brito...s-12154203
Surely if you've been vaccinated then your immune and you have nothing to fear from people that haven't ?
Quote: Well so much for not forcing it on people ? [color=rgb(74, 74, 74)]http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-brito...s-12154203[/color]
Surely if you've been vaccinated then your immune and you have nothing to fear from people that haven't
Perhaps because you'd be flying to a country that hasn't vaccinated yet?
Unless you are just going to stay on the plane?
(07-12-20, 07:01 PM)Dudeofrude link Wrote: Well so much for not forcing it on people ?
Surely if you've been vaccinated then your immune and you have nothing to fear from people that haven't ? Yep don't get it either.Maybe its because the current jab dose not stop you getting it but only reduces the symptoms also they do not even know if you can still pass it on after being vaccinated. So I don't see much point in everyone getting it.Just vaccinate the very old and the very vulnerable.
I don't do rain or threat there of. dry rider only with no shame.
(07-12-20, 07:01 PM)Dudeofrude link Wrote: Well so much for not forcing it on people ?
I was one of the people on that YouGov poll and IMO the question was phrased poorly.
What they asked was "Once a vaccine against the coronavirus is freely available to all, do you think it would or would not be acceptable to only allow people who have had a vaccination to....
"Travel by plane?"
When phrased like that, it's almost guaranteed that a majority would think "Well, I suppose it's only sensible..."
However if they'd phrased it as "Do you think it would be acceptable to ban people from travelling by plane if they hadn't had the vaccine", I think the results would have been somewhat different.
|
