nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures Megathread [Mod Warning - Post #1]

Masala

Today being Paddy Day 2020... when do you think we will have a ‘flu jab’ / pill / syrup that we can take to make us immune/ les likely to catch this 19 virus?.

Mod: The purpose of this thread is baked into the title - COVID-19: Vaccine/antidote and testing procedures - it's not a platform to push an anti vaccination agenda. If posters wish to discuss the perceived cons of vaccinations, or push various theories regarding 'the agenda' (whatever that is supposed to mean), open a thread elsewhere on it.

Threadbanned Users:
3xh
Dr.Frost
kingbhome
nannerbenahs
skooterblue2
Fodla
Caraibh
drunkmonkey
lawrencesummers
Howard Beale

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

brisan

Gael23 wrote: »

Your right but it’s the government that will get the bashing if it goes wrong so it’s up to them to intervene at the highest level to get it right

Do you honestly think the HSE takes a blind bit of notice of the Government of the day
They know there will be another Government in a couple of years
I personally knew the head man in Beaumont hospital (knew him since age 11 ) ,some of the stories he told were incredulous about ineffiency and waste

opinionated3

Alok Sharma almost trying to paint this as a victory for Brexit and that Britain leads the way for exiting the pandemic. Deposit the fact that the vaccine is developed by a German company. Hancock saying it's because of Brexit that they were able to accelerate distribution. My god.

drunkmonkey

stephenjmcd wrote: »

UK prioritisation list for rollout

Do we know what percentage of the population that will cover?

MrMusician18

Mark1916 wrote: »

https://t.co/X6S4ED2XWN

Covid-19 vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech has been approved by Britain's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and is expected to be made available from next week

What I'm a bit confused by is that the FDA are not the first or of the blocks here.

You would expect that the largest, most well resourced regulators would be first. This definitely smells political.

[Deleted User]

brisan wrote: »

Do you honestly think the HSE takes a blind bit of notice of the Government of the day
They know there will be another Government in a couple of years
I personally knew the head man in Beaumont hospital (knew him since age 11 ) ,some of the stories he told were incredulous about ineffiency and waste

The stories themselves were incredulous? How did the stories relay their incredulity?

Also, the head man in Beaumont is kind of responsible for the waste, so maybe it should have been you who were incredulous at him basically telling stories decrying waste in the system, when he was the individual responsible

timsey tiger

drunkmonkey wrote: »

People want a safe vaccine the manufacturer will stand over. Asking for a state guarantee against possible litigation doesn't inspire confidence.

If we had a poll and asked will you pay €20 for a vaccine with a state guarantee or €200 for a vaccine with a manufacturer guarantee I'm not convinced the majority will choose the cheap shot.

Manifacturer, wouldn't be standing over it anyway, some insurance company would. They are happy with the risk all they do is load on the premiums, which is then passed on to the public aka. the government.

So instead of indemnifying the risk very likely to be free, we'd just end up fueling massive profits to the insurance sector at the cost to the state.

So well done giving €180 to an insurance company for something that costs €20.

[Deleted User]

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Do we know what percentage of the population that will cover?

In total it's 28 million over 50 in the UK.

The first 2 groups, care homes, health staff and everyone over 80 is 6 million, with expected uptake and supply no reason that can't be done by end January.

It's about another 14m over 60 including high and moderate risk under 65. That uses up all their Pfizer doses.

Micky 32

stephenjmcd wrote: »

Light at the end of the tunnel either way.

Aye, to think we had the experts on here with the “ There won’t be a vaccine” a few weeks back

drunkmonkey

timsey tiger wrote: »

So instead of indemnifying the risk very likely to be free

That's impossible to say as it's only been tested on 44,000 people it's not until it's rolled out in the millions were going to have concrete data to make that assumption.
They were upfront about the deaths expected per year from the luas when it was being built, they have a figure on the estimates for compensation if it was to occur, I don't see why that can't be public knowledge seen as it's public money that's backing it up.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

In total it's 28 million over 50 in the UK.

The first 2 groups, care homes, health staff and everyone over 80 is 6 million, with expected uptake and supply no reason that can't be done by end January.

It's about another 14m over 60 including high and moderate risk under 65. That uses up all their Pfizer doses.

Less than 50% so we still need a big percentage of the healthy 16 to 50yr old group to take it regardless. Are we 12mts away from them getting access.

timsey tiger

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's impossible to say as it's only been tested on 44,000 people it's not until it's rolled out in the millions were going to have concrete data to make that assumption.
They were upfront about the deaths expected per year from the luas when it was being built, they have a figure on the estimates for compensation if it was to occur, I don't see why that can't be public knowledge seen as it's public money that's backing it up.

I take it you don't understand Bayes' theorem.

[Deleted User]

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Less than 50% so we still need a big percentage of the healthy 16 to 50yr old group to take it regardless. Are we 12mts away from them getting access.

I think Oxford will be the one for healthy under 50s, there'll be enough of that ready within 3 months if it gets approval to cover that group (UK already have 4 million doses, enough for 3 million people in the half dose full dose regimen).

drunkmonkey

timsey tiger wrote: »

I take it you don't understand Bayes' theorem.

Are we using it on PCR testing?

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Oxford will be the one for healthy under 50s, there'll be enough of that ready within 3 months if it gets approval to cover that group (UK already have 4 million doses, enough for 3 million people in the half dose full dose regimen).

Why the Oxford one, I know it's the cheapest but is there another reason?

[Deleted User]

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Why the Oxford one, I know it's the cheapest but is there another reason?

Easier to produce, store and distribute. You'd be able to get it in Boots. It may not offer the same level of protection, but in truth for healthy people under 50 you probably don't need the 95% efficacy level as for most in that group severe disease is fairly rare.

[Deleted User]

mean gene wrote: »

Not confusing though is it.
Half dose followed by a full dose is over 90 % what's confusing abt that

That scenario was only tested in a group of under 3,000 with nobody over 55. I don't think that will be enough data for a regulator to be confident. We'll have to wait and see.

StewF

Hi Guys,

What number does your covid test result text come from ?

Thanks

opinionated3

spook_cook wrote: »

After all the moaning, jeering etc I read for weeks about how much of a mess-up it was that the UK didn't join with the EU for buying ventilators (did that even come to anything? I know they aren't used but still, something must have happened right?!) I think I can forgive the UK a bit of F-U to the nayseighers.

....... Except that one of the British experts, Dr Raine just said in the press conference that it was because of European co operation and European law's which are in place till 1st January, that this has happened for the Brits. Nothing to do with the lunacy of Brexit, no matter how much Union Jack waving the Tories want to do.

MrMusician18

spook_cook wrote: »

After all the moaning, jeering etc I read for weeks about how much of a mess-up it was that the UK didn't join with the EU for buying ventilators (did that even come to anything? I know they aren't used but still, something must have happened right?!) I think I can forgive the UK a bit of F-U to the nayseighers.

It looks to me that the UK government have gone ahead and approved the vaccine while the other big regulators are finalizing their approvals. This it would appear to me to have been done for political reasons, to steal a march of a few days on the US and EU in particular as is evident from the political responses to this news this morning.

The one thing I'm always mindful when consuming UK politics is how the message is being spun.

The correct way for the approvals to be announced would have been the EMA and FDA along with others to coordinate the announcement of their approvals. This was a global effort, so global credit sharing should have been the order of the day.

brisan

Deleted User wrote: »

The stories themselves were incredulous? How did the stories relay their incredulity?

Also, the head man in Beaumont is kind of responsible for the waste, so maybe it should have been you who were incredulous at him basically telling stories decrying waste in the system, when he was the individual responsible

Yes we did but the waste was endemic in the whole system and had been that way for decades and still is
Its the same in the vast majority of the public service

is_that_so

spook_cook wrote: »

If that's all there is to it, why isn't the vaccine being rolled out in Dublin next week? Or in Amsterdam?

It's almost like... there's something else at play and people will use whatever bs for their own agenda.

"HAHA BRITS LOST OUT ON OPTION TO BUY VENTILATORS!!!"

"HAHA BRITS ONLY GOT VACCINE BECAUSE... " if you're American, you rally and rage that the company is based in your country and obviously credit due. If you're pro-EU, it's cos of EU rules.

It doesn't have EMA approval nor FDA approval. The EU plan was always to do it at the same time for all members, in early January.

eigrod

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1334065175050276866?s=21

[Deleted User]

spook_cook wrote: »

Interesting. Who did it for political reasons? What evidence do you have?

Now I'm asking you the same question that I put to Trumpers after they rallied that the announcement of vaccines was held back til after the elections.

I'm still waiting on them, wager I'll be waiting on you too.

EU and America == the globe now.

A lot of people view Brexit in a black or white way. Brexit Bad. EU good. Personal view is it's mostly bad but in this one scenario it has worked well for the UK and the concept of "taking back control" is what we are seeing. They have benefitted from a transition period where they have been able to play both sides, EMA system for the groundwork, MHRA decision for the actual approval.

[Deleted User]

eigrod wrote: »

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1334065175050276866?s=21

They should line up Lizzy and Phil for any public vaccination. Get a black immigrant nurse to give Phil his one.

[Deleted User]

eigrod wrote: »

https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/1334065175050276866?s=21

I am imaging John Hurt getting ‘vaccinated’ in an alternative scene from 1984

Micky 32

I see that one of the rags headlining “ Covid hope as nation set for Jan 12th vaccine roll-out” in Ireland.

[Deleted User]

Clearly an easy "Brexit win" for the Tories as they'll spin it that way regardless of the truth. If it pays off and there's no serious issues then fair play but there's no chance the tories are rolling it out early for the good of the nation.

lbj666

opinionated3 wrote: »

....... Except that one of the British experts, Dr Raine just said in the press conference that it was because of European co operation and European law's which are in place till 1st January, that this has happened for the Brits. Nothing to do with the lunacy of Brexit, no matter how much Union Jack waving the Tories want to do.

So because of Brexit they had to get this approved before end of year?

[Deleted User]

circadian wrote: »

Clearly an easy "Brexit win" for the Tories as they'll spin it that way regardless of the truth. If it pays off and there's no serious issues then fair play but there's no chance the tories are rolling it out early for the good of the nation.

The MHRA would not take approval lightly at the behest of government. We consistently overestimate the power of politicians

stephenjmcd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The MHRA would not take approval lightly at the behest of government. We consistently overestimate the power of politicians

I agree wouldn't be taken lightly.

EMA seemingly being critical of the UK approach now as well.

EMA saying its longer approval procedure was more appropriate as it was based on more evidence and required more checks than the emergency procedure chosen by Britain.