Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

Kellfire said:
They’re saying they were promised a scientifically backed vaccination program to allow them to return to work safely but after they had agreed to it, they had the goalposts moved illegally (as per the paperwork they had to complete to receive their vaccinations) in a manner that is highly suggestive that they were duped into accepting it when it was known the three week window was a false promise.

The point here is they believe they were lied to and they believe it may we worth taking legal action to find out if that was the case - were they told three weeks when those overseeing knew it would be twelve.

They do believe they are at lesser risk of contracting Covid now, even with just one dose, but that’s not their ultimate grievance.
Click to expand...

Kellfire said:
See post above. It’s about the deception and at what point do we challenge a constantly deceptive administration.
Click to expand...

Legal cases are about specific and testable issues. If they wish to challenge a deceptive administration (and I do not disagree with the characterisation), then fine, but this is not the winning issue. Even if they were able to show that they had been lied to, had consent interfered with, or whatever, unless they have suffered demonstrable harm, the only legal remedy will be that they can have their shot asap, and if that happens the knock on effects will interfere with many others getting their first shot and will cost lives as a result. Do they want that to happen?

It is perfectly likely that the plan to delay, or even to go to one shot, were hatched a long time ago. A range of contingencies should have been so planned. What if several vaccine programmes failed (like the GSK/Sanofi) or threw up unexpected safety issues. What if manufacturing problems occurred (these are biologics and liable to batch failure). Frankly, I would be reassured to know the Govt had anticipated possible issues and had plans in place. I don't think any court will hold the having such plans means that people were duped.

The Govt will argue that their plan is scientifically backed, and can wheel out a bunch of scientists to back it. There was never a guarantee of safe returning to work, just the hope of a reduction of the risk of severe outcomes.

A legal challenge to this is unhelpful, possible harmful and screams entitlement, in my view.
 
DanFST said:
Good news, We are now vaccinating faster than infections.

Hopefully a light at the end of the tunnel. You have to hand it to the government in this one instance, we are currently doing very well.

May annoy some, but in this instance, Brexit helped us.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't.

EMA regulations allow any member state to put in place local emergency measures. The UK could have done so while remaining a full member of the EU and EMA. The EMA decided that it would not rush approval of the vaccines because of public concern about the hasty approval. It did, however, continue logistics in member states. The UK chose to do its own thing and make some political points. The head of the MHRA had to correct this.

Brexit hindered the UK joining the EU procurement system even though they were invited. If they had done so they would have some Moderna vaccine arriving right now.
 
maxfli65 said:
We dont know and that's the point. If a pharmaceutical manufacturer recommends after intense research/trials doses at 3 weeks apart, surely that's not just an arbitrary timeframe? Govt told us 3 weeks apart as well when rollout started...until they found the supply chain can't keep up....then extend timeframe to suit. Hardly inspires confidence.

Cant do politics alas so the B word shouldn't have come up.
Click to expand...

The Pfizer statement was exactly as you would expect. No way they are going to say anything other than it should be done in line with the clinical trial.

However, that clinical trial was designed based on assumptions about effect size and durability later shown to be pessimistic. The choice of 3 weeks is partly arbitrary, pragmatic is perhaps a better word, in that the longer you extend the interval, the longer the clinical trial must last, but also that it was chosen to hit in the middle of the IgG antibody response, when your immune system is obviously geared up. But we already know that the time course of antibodies is over a number of months, probably more like 6 months (although even that is not the end of immunity), and conventional immunology would suggest that a booster any time in that interval would do just fine, if one is even needed.

Personally, I am pretty comfortable with the strategy. I am not surprised that individuals want their second shot, but this is a population strategy.
 
Kellfire said:
I haven’t spoken to either since the day after it happened so perhaps their anger has subsided. I don’t know. But I certainly don’t blame them for they initial anger at least.
Click to expand...

I would blame them , they are without doubt the biggest of. (choose an adjective).

How many lives might be saved from the millions who will get their first dose because of the change of plan, I'm no expert but doubt many will die as a result of the change.
 
Had one today that just frustrated Me

My good friend from work we litterally started at 16 on the same day

Work together pretty often. We picked rostered positions that mean we work together more often.

Anyways today he asks for a lift to work.. really found it hard to say no (I did refuse in end) but I feel a right idiot. We work together for hours on end (12 hours Saturday for example) yes we social distance and wear masks when not at desks but their are no windows and the air con is recycled air so if one of us got it chances are we all would.

But I didn't feel right breaking the guidance

On the flip side that would have been one less car on the road, one less chance of an accident etc

Also got to work all afternoon with him winding me up for refusing lol
 
pauljames87 said:
Had one today that just frustrated Me

My good friend from work we litterally started at 16 on the same day

Work together pretty often. We picked rostered positions that mean we work together more often.

Anyways today he asks for a lift to work.. really found it hard to say no (I did refuse in end) but I feel a right idiot. We work together for hours on end (12 hours Saturday for example) yes we social distance and wear masks when not at desks but their are no windows and the air con is recycled air so if one of us got it chances are we all would.

But I didn't feel right breaking the guidance

On the flip side that would have been one less car on the road, one less chance of an accident etc

Also got to work all afternoon with him winding me up for refusing lol
Click to expand...
I would just say I’d rather you alive as a friend than the risk of one of us dying.
Tough time need tough decisions,imo you made the right one.
Least he’s taking the mick so sounds like he’s took it well.
 
pokerjoke said:
I would just say I’d rather you alive as a friend than the risk of one of us dying.
Tough time need tough decisions,imo you made the right one.
Least he’s taking the mick so sounds like he’s took it well.
Click to expand...

He respects my decision , others will give each other lifts as they believe working together in the air con room etc

But I haven't given him a lift in since mid may I think when the guidance on car sharing came out
 
chrisd said:
I would blame them , they are without doubt the biggest of. (choose an adjective).

How many lives might be saved from the millions who will get their first dose because of the change of plan, I'm no expert but doubt many will die as a result of the change.
Click to expand...
At the time there was advice from the manufacturers not to follow the twelve week rule. For all we knew/know, it could render the vaccination less effective.
 
Kellfire said:
At the time there was advice from the manufacturers not to follow the twelve week rule. For all we knew/know, it could render the vaccination less effective.
Click to expand...

There wasn't. They offered no advice, because that is not their role. They reiterated that the only evidence was as obtained by the schedule used in the clinical trials. They made no comment on the possible efficacy or lack thereof of different schedules.
 
Kellfire said:
But we aren’t. We’re not vaccinating properly. The government have spread the doses farther apart than guidance says they should purely so they can claim more people are immune. Once again they’ve picked politicking over the greater good.
Click to expand...
I've had enough of this hatred. You are beyond the pale.
It has been explained by those who know the science , on here it's Ethan, that the first dose gives a high degree of immunity( after X days). Not full, but high enough to protect.
The country is in crisis and it's important to get as many people protected as fast as possible.
If you can't see that 200 single doses protects 200 people , whereas the same 200 doses, two each person, protects 100, then you are being highly , nastily , political. I say that because I do not believe that you are as thick as otherwise someone might think.
Why not try being fair minded for once.
 
Swinglowandslow said:
I've had enough of this hatred. You are beyond the pale.
It has been explained by those who know the science , on here it's Ethan, that the first dose gives a high degree of immunity( after X days). Not full, but high enough to protect.
The country is in crisis and it's important to get as many people protected as fast as possible.
If you can't see that 200 single doses protects 200 people , whereas the same 200 doses, two each person, protects 100, then you are being highly , nastily , political. I say that because I do not believe that you are as thick as otherwise someone might think.
Why not try being fair minded for once.
Click to expand...

I suspect he will be there like a shot no matter how many doses he’s offered.
 
Swinglowandslow said:
I've had enough of this hatred. You are beyond the pale.
It has been explained by those who know the science , on here it's Ethan, that the first dose gives a high degree of immunity( after X days). Not full, but high enough to protect.
The country is in crisis and it's important to get as many people protected as fast as possible.
If you can't see that 200 single doses protects 200 people , whereas the same 200 doses, two each person, protects 100, then you are being highly , nastily , political. I say that because I do not believe that you are as thick as otherwise someone might think.
Why not try being fair minded for once.
Click to expand...

Had to click the "show ignored content" to see what you replied to.

Now I remember why I put him on ignore the first time around.
 
Unfortunately and sadly, I fear that many of the complaints we hear in respect of the vaccinations and lockdown are what we get when so many have, over the years, developed ever greater feelings of individual self-importance and entitlement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top