leahyl wrote: » yes, but we're only one of two in Europe that isn't ready? Every other country is? Wouldn't you think that we'd be well prepared by now? Anyway....I'm keeping positive!
is_that_so wrote: » We've been planning it since September apparently, well the HSE/DoH have, but the task force has only been up an running for about a month.
Dr Favier said it will be important not to rush things and to get this right. She said the involvement of GPs in vaccine provision has yet to be decided, but GPs are very good at rolling out vaccinations and know their patients, so they are nimble and can respond to challenges. However, she said that GPs are overworked but will "potentially stand up to the plate" and respond if needed.
Ashbourne hoop wrote: » They really aren't ahead. There is still data been analysed by the EMA, but the Uk have gone ahead for purely political/Brexit reasons, possibly preparing for a no deal Brexit. It's a bit of a gamble by the UK, it'll most likely be fine, but a gamble none the less.
AdamD wrote: » The UK could also be doing it for medical reasons, the earlier they get this out the fewer deaths they'll have.
Cordell wrote: » UK had to approve it because they are not EU anymore and the EU approval is worth nothing to them, right? If this is the case, Boris had seized an opportunity to score some points and prove that they were right to leave and so on, while doing something good for a change.
BrianD3 wrote: » We don't know that they are or aren't ahead. We don't know what assessments of what data have been or remain to be carried outAs complete speculation, it could be that the British have analysed safety data but been less thorough on analysing efficacy data, deciding, following a risk assessment that it is preferable to get needles in arms next week rather than wait a month for the inevitable "x number of projected deaths caused by vaccine approval delay" headlines. Nothing they've done so far would suggest they've made such a calculated decision, it's possible I guess, but unlikely imo. Yes the British action is a gamble, inaction is also a gamble. The EU could spend as long as it wants analysing the Pfizer submission and it still wouldn't guarantee that nothing bad would ever happen and it still wouldn't satisfy the militant anti vaxxers.
is_that_so wrote: » It's more to make them look like they finally have a plan. They have screwed up all the way through the pandemic. This is for a political win and of course for medical reasons.
ixoy wrote: » A little bit of more concrete detail here on RTE, including: * nine ultra-low temperature containers have been obtained for storage (not sure how many doses each container can old) and that " this equipment will be commissioned by the middle of next week." MM claims it's their top priority but, even so, gives us a moment of humour when he says: "He said he was sure the Department of Health and HSE had a lot of experience and expertise." .. Assuming they're allowed exert that expertise and not stifled by red tape.
afatbollix wrote: » EMA used to be based in London, London has all the experts already. How many people of the EMA wanted to stay in London instead of Amsterdam when it moved last year? The UK has also been doing a rolling review of the data. They didn't get the data all on day 1 like the EMA. But they will be seen as wrong in the EU or Irish eyes no matter what they do.I expect the Vaccine to be approved by the EMA it will just take longer, We should be asking the experts why it is taking longer?
brisan wrote: » Talk of them using hospitals to give the vaccinations Well my mother and a few of her neighbours will not be going near a hospital 3 people in the estate went into hospital Covid free with other ailments , caught Covid in the hospital and died with / from Covid They are petrified of going near a hospital
Caraibh wrote: » Is that the same Lancet that was forced to retract a bogus study on hydroxychloroquine?
speckle wrote: » What about the motorbikers in the gardai medical corp army and those who deliever bloods first responders etc. Have staff in place and they do the transport. Or refrigerated truckers.. just throwing ideas out for you all.
Pasteur. wrote: » How is the cartoon relevant? Seems to be the goto for smartypants
leahyl wrote: » Just reading an article on RTE this morning and Dr Margaret Harris from WHO says this "She said the vaccine will be an immune barrier, but it will not stop the transmission for a long time unless we continue with the public health guidelines." Eh what? How long do we have to continue with masks and social distancing even after we get the vaccine and are protected?? It sounds like it's indefinite from that statement?
ShineOn7 wrote: » It's a bit of craic on a great day To be fair, you asked if a vaccine should be injected in us on a vaccine thread It's the most direct way to get anything into the human body
chrisbonnie wrote: » Do you mind me asking, have you had any other vaccines in your life, and if so, genuinely, how much of a background check did you do on them, ie, checking their efficiency, checking how many people where in the trials, numbers of people with side effects etc..... And please be honest.
Deleted User wrote: » I heard they were considering fusing it with the sugar coating of Fruit Pastilles
Pasteur. wrote: » Why does everyone have to be injected? Is there no simpler method?
Goldengirl wrote: » Cannot be done like that . What if someone faints or has a reaction to the jab ? True reactions are rare but they do occur, most reactions are fainting. The testing centres could be used but not drive thru .
afatbollix wrote: » I expect the Vaccine to be approved by the EMA it will just take longer, We should be asking the experts why it is taking longer?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-legal-indemnity-safety-ministers-b1765124.html 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.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-health-coronavirus-eu-vaccine/covid-19-vaccine-makers-see-eu-shield-against-side-effect-claims-idUKKCN26D0UG BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Vaccine makers will be indemnified in Europe if their COVID-19 shots cause unexpected side-effects, an industry official said on Tuesday, urging European regulators to set up more predictable schemes to compensate possible victims.
JDD wrote: » I do understand lawrencesummers feelings on this. Put aside the fact that we need herd immunity to protect individuals who cannot take the vaccine for whatever health reason. Say we get to June, and there has been an 80% uptake from over 70's, HCW and under-70's with serious underlying conditions. The letter comes to you in the post offering you an appointment time to get your vaccine. You are in your twenties, or thirties, healthy, no underlying conditions. Your parents and those close to you in the vulnerable categories have already been immunized. You know that the vaccine being offered to you is safe in the short term, because lots and lots of people worldwide took the vaccine in January or February. You do not know how safe the vaccine is in the medium term or the long term. You understand that for the vast majority of vaccines if issues come up they tend to come up immediately, but it is still at the back of your mind that the vaccine is only 12 months old, at best. So there is a sense of the unknown. In addition, you don't know whether you will need to get a top up vaccination every year. What are the health implications of having to get a top up every year? Nobody knows, at least not yet. Whereas you do have some certainty is over what effects Covid would have on you should you become infected. If you are young, healthy, and do not work in a health care or factory environment, the chances of being hospitalised are miniscule. You may consider the possibility that you will be effected by long covid, as a result of a mild infection. However, again, it appears that long covid is rare, and even rarer in those not hospitalised as a result of their infection. Still, you consider the possibility. And then you weigh it against the unknown medium or long term effects of the vaccine, or indeed the unknown short, medium or long term effects of having to take the vaccine on an annual basis. If you are at the middle point, perhaps taking the vaccine because it is the "right thing to do for society" might tip you into the "alright then, I'll take it" category. But if you are some percentage points away from the middle point, the "good for society" aspect isn't going to get you there. Just to say, I will take the vaccine when it is offered to me. I am young and healthy. But I would be more concerned about catching a bad dose of covid or indeed suffering from lingering symptoms, then I would be about the miniscule chance that these frontrunner vaccines have some unknown long term side effects. The way I see it, I took a few illegal substances in my time without genuinely thinking what the long term effects might be. And they were just to have a good time at a party. This will actually prevent me from getting sick. But I can see why someone might tip the other way.
Marhay70 wrote: » What the UK has approved is exactly the same product as the EU is being asked to approve. If it takes the EU another month to come to the same conclusion as the UK, and in the meantime tens of thousands more people die, that's going to take a lot of explaining
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c8f64116a02fb35bb4652b6f11c7f3cf.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5117ec177439400b1e5944f4d30acdda.svg)
