SaintHacker
Journeyman Pro
Clearly fantastic new this morning. My only worry is that Gerneration Snowflake will now decide they don't need to wear those nasty oppresive masks anymore as we're all safe already
PJ87
Journeyman Pro
Clearly fantastic new this morning. My only worry is that Gerneration Snowflake will now decide they don't need to wear those nasty oppresive masks anymore as we're all safe already
Think the anti mask boomers are just as bad to be fair....
road2ruin
Q-School Graduate
I think across all the generations that appear to think that the injustice of wearing a mask is just too much for them to bear. On a recent(ish) golf trip the ones causing most issues to the staff were the groups of 60-70yr old men for whom the rules didn't seem to apply. Same in the supermarket, older ladies who pull down their masks to tell Doris how they can't talk properly with the mask on and have a full blown conversation in the aisle.
I’ve searched and can’t find such a list - can you post a link please, or cut and paste from it? I’d be interested to see it.
road2ruin
Q-School Graduate
This priority list is as follows:
- residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
- all those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers
- all those 75 years of age and over
- all those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable individuals[footnote 1]
- all those 65 years of age and over
- all individuals aged 16 years to 64 years with underlying health conditions which put them at higher risk of serious disease and mortality
- all those 60 years of age and over
- all those 55 years of age and over
- all those 50 years of age and over
Not that list - the one with the numbers in each category. Thanks, though.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Same as a few above.
Ive had covid and I have the antibodies (been tested) - ill have the vaccine as late as possible so everyone who needs it more than me can have it!
Im not even sure when 27 year old males will be considered
Ive had covid and I have the antibodies (been tested) - ill have the vaccine as late as possible so everyone who needs it more than me can have it!
Im not even sure when 27 year old males will be considered
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
In response to 'why have UK Gov given Pfizer legal protection?'
I liked the answer I heard earlier today which went alone the lines...
Pfizer are not saying the vaccine is 100% effective - they are being totally open about it being 95% effective - and so this protection is against claims being raised by those in the remaining 5% who are given the vaccination but subsequently still contract the virus.
Nothing at all to do with safety concerns or the vaccination causing serious side-effects...just that the vaccine might not work for everyone - and the government is happy to accept that (what vaccine is ever going to be 100% effective after all...)
I liked the answer I heard earlier today which went alone the lines...
Pfizer are not saying the vaccine is 100% effective - they are being totally open about it being 95% effective - and so this protection is against claims being raised by those in the remaining 5% who are given the vaccination but subsequently still contract the virus.
Nothing at all to do with safety concerns or the vaccination causing serious side-effects...just that the vaccine might not work for everyone - and the government is happy to accept that (what vaccine is ever going to be 100% effective after all...)
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
do pfizer have protection if it causes side effects? yes or no
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
I believe the answer to this is yes as it's been authorised for emergency use. The protection is then removed further down the line possibly after further testing. I think it might have been @Ethan who mentioned this earlier in the thread.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
All drugs have side effects...
The question was 'why do Pfizer have legal protection?'
The answer was '...because the vaccination is not 100% effective'
and yes - it will have some side effects...but these are clearly deemed acceptable as they are with any other drug. But clearly if I am vaccinated and think I am safe then go and get seriously ill as I am one of the 5% then I might be a bit upset.
But I am not going to hang about waiting for a vaccination that is proven 100% effective as that might never turn up. because as I hang around waiting there is a much greater chance that I will pick up the virus and with no protection could develop Covd-19
fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
no thats the way you are choosing to spin the story. they have legal protection against anything going wrong currently, not just it not protecting someone
Ethan
Money List Winner
This is about licensing. Normally manufacturers determine when they think they have enough data to make an application for approval. Approval in the UK is still covered (for a few weeks) by EMA, but EMA regulations allow all countries in the EU to take local steps to approve a medicine for emergency use. The UK has chosen to do this, for a mixture of reasons, discussion of some of which are precluded by forum rules.
The same regulations make provision for indemnity for some elements of liability to be covered by a Govt that chooses to bring forward a drug before it is fully approved. That is what is going on here. These vaccines do not have marketing authorisations (i.e. full approvals), they only have emergency use authorisations. When they do get full approval, the companies will take back liability for prospective use. The indemnity is limited. Manufacturing defects and quality control are still their responsibility to the point of delivery.
If you take a medicine and get a side effect, in order to make a claim, you would have to show negligence on the part of the company. If the manufacturer has done their development properly and described their findings accurately, they will not be liable. Being in the 5% who still get Covid is definitely not grounds for a claim. Remember that it was estimated the vaccs would only be 50-60% effective.
Ethan
Money List Winner
If anyone is interested, the Oxford vaccine interim results have been published in The Lancet
Oxford vaccine results
Oxford vaccine results
Ethan
Money List Winner
The correct answer is not because it is not 100% effective. It was never expected to be, certainly not promised to be, and few medicines are.
AmandaJR
Money List Winner
I read a bit and especially the part about the half/full dose producing a better result than full/full. Does it mention this was serendipitous?
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
Well having seen the roll out of the vaccine this morning I've changed my mind and definitely won't be getting it having seen the side effects.
The woman that had it first seemed fine but the guy that went second came out thinking he was William Shakespeare.
The woman that had it first seemed fine but the guy that went second came out thinking he was William Shakespeare.
Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
Oh, To be ( vaccinated) or not To be, that is the question.
YandaB
Newbie
The taming of the flu
Ethan
Money List Winner
This issue is discussed in the paper. As I understand it, it appears that one of the contract manufacturing sites which was supposed to be a normal dose, but because of a problem with their assay used to determine dose, the actual dose was about half of that expected. The paper says the investigators discussed this with the MHRA who agreed they should interpret the data as they did.
I don't think this is an issue of any concern, and it would not put me off taking the Oxford vaccine, which is the one most of us will be offered.
