CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 12)

[404 Page not found]

I caught approximately 12.5 seconds of the Brit awards last night (Dua Liper was giving an acceptance speech...yeah)
But anyway - Apparently most of the audience were key workers, and this was a test for large gatherings with no distancing or masks etc.
OK, great...but, we're using our valuable key workers in a mass gathering experiment?
I thought key workers were key workers because they were important?
...But we're experimenting with them?

I'm sure I'm not the only one confused by this mixed message?
I wonder if these key workers were the same ones pleading with us to wear masks and stop going out buying loo rolls a few months ago?

[dmahon]

isaldiri said:

Quite curious to see what happens here. I think it's fair to say politics mean it's certain to be agreed for EUA here especially in view of the FDA doing the same but it will be rather amusing to see how the MHRA is going to justify 'emergency use authorisation' for millions kids to get jabbed who absolutely are not clearly getting a benefit from the vaccine. Jabbing up kids to provide a (slight) risk reduction for people already protected by the vaccine would at first glance seem to be a lousy reason for EUA but we live in strange times after all.....

Surely we will start finding a limit to the madness at this point? Surely...?

[Ntv]

dmahon said:

isaldiri said:

Quite curious to see what happens here. I think it's fair to say politics mean it's certain to be agreed for EUA here especially in view of the FDA doing the same but it will be rather amusing to see how the MHRA is going to justify 'emergency use authorisation' for millions kids to get jabbed who absolutely are not clearly getting a benefit from the vaccine. Jabbing up kids to provide a (slight) risk reduction for people already protected by the vaccine would at first glance seem to be a lousy reason for EUA but we live in strange times after all.....

Surely we will start finding a limit to the madness at this point? Surely...?

Will any politicians be brave enough to oppose it?

Some on the Tory side I think

But no doubt the fearless "Sir" Kier Starmer will cower in the corner nodding his head as he always does

Musn't do anything to risk the wrath of social media hey "Sir" Kier?

[Ntv]

404 Page not found said:

I caught approximately 12.5 seconds of the Brit awards last night (Dua Liper was giving an acceptance speech...yeah)
But anyway - Apparently most of the audience were key workers, and this was a test for large gatherings with no distancing or masks etc.
OK, great...but, we're using our valuable key workers in a mass gathering experiment?
I thought key workers were key workers because they were important?
...But we're experimenting with them?

I'm sure I'm not the only one confused by this mixed message?
I wonder if these key workers were the same ones pleading with us to wear masks and stop going out buying loo rolls a few months ago?

If it's a test event then presumably there must be risk. Otherwise what is it testing?

And if there is risk, what is the rationale for care workers generating that risk to people's health?

[V1nce Fox]

404 Page not found said:

I caught approximately 12.5 seconds of the Brit awards last night (Dua Liper was giving an acceptance speech...yeah)
But anyway - Apparently most of the audience were key workers, and this was a test for large gatherings with no distancing or masks etc.
OK, great...but, we're using our valuable key workers in a mass gathering experiment?
I thought key workers were key workers because they were important?
...But we're experimenting with them?

I'm sure I'm not the only one confused by this mixed message?
I wonder if these key workers were the same ones pleading with us to wear masks and stop going out buying loo rolls a few months ago?

What the hell is a dual liper?

[BrabusMog]

404 Page not found said:

I caught approximately 12.5 seconds of the Brit awards last night (Dua Liper was giving an acceptance speech...yeah)
But anyway - Apparently most of the audience were key workers, and this was a test for large gatherings with no distancing or masks etc.
OK, great...but, we're using our valuable key workers in a mass gathering experiment?
I thought key workers were key workers because they were important?
...But we're experimenting with them?

I'm sure I'm not the only one confused by this mixed message?
I wonder if these key workers were the same ones pleading with us to wear masks and stop going out buying loo rolls a few months ago?

Saw something about that on the news this morning. Always makes me wonder why it's just NHS that deserve a payrise, what about care workers, people having to work "on the frontline" in places like Tesco etc?

[Twinfan]

markyb_lcy said:

isaldiri said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Quite curious to see what happens here. I think it's fair to say politics mean it's certain to be agreed for EUA here especially in view of the FDA doing the same but it will be rather amusing to see how the MHRA is going to justify 'emergency use authorisation' for millions kids to get jabbed who absolutely are not clearly getting a benefit from the vaccine. Jabbing up kids to provide a (slight) risk reduction for people already protected by the vaccine would at first glance seem to be a lousy reason for EUA but we live in strange times after all.....

Yep, it’s interesting how they get around this stuff. I recently got the letter through the post with the vax info booklet. Under the “who should have this vaccine” it basically only says older people or those with a list of existing conditions. For a healthy, younger person, the booklet doesn’t actually explicitly recommend they get the vax. I suspect this is how they can still say it is “emergency use”.

I showed it to the missus, who is fence-sitting but was more on the side of having the vax. I told her ... “this booklet stops short of actually recommending you take the vaccine”, to which she replied “hmm, yea, you’ve kind of got a point” (with a somewhat puzzled look on her face).

I expect we will see something similar, perhaps even more stark, for the “emergency” use of the vaccine in kids.

I could see approval for emergency use in vulnerable kids (e.g. those with cystic fibrosis maybe?) but rolling out an emergency approval to every 12-15 year old is batst crazy.

If it happens, I'm probably going to end up having a very awkward couple of conversations as I really don't want my nieces and nephew to have one as we just don't know what the long term effects might be.

[JagLover]

V1nce Fox said:

What the hell is a dual liper?

No idea, nice outfit though.

[Twinfan]

Ntv said:

If it's a test event then presumably there must be risk. Otherwise what is it testing?

And if there is risk, what is the rationale for care workers generating that risk to people's health?

There's no risk, it's just testing the process of getting a test prior to entry and maybe a bit of science about people flows and ventilation.

There's no control group so it's not a test of how the virus spreads in a normal environment, the same as all the other test events.

[anonymous-user]

404 Page not found said:

I caught approximately 12.5 seconds of the Brit awards last night (Dua Liper was giving an acceptance speech...yeah)
But anyway - Apparently most of the audience were key workers, and this was a test for large gatherings with no distancing or masks etc.
OK, great...but, we're using our valuable key workers in a mass gathering experiment?
I thought key workers were key workers because they were important?
...But we're experimenting with them?

I'm sure I'm not the only one confused by this mixed message?
I wonder if these key workers were the same ones pleading with us to wear masks and stop going out buying loo rolls a few months ago?

Doesn't really matter what the result of the test is. It can either be promoted or suppressed depending on the desired outcome. The important thing is that we can be told a test has been done and our amazing key workers have been rewarded.

[markyb_lcy]

Twinfan said:

Ntv said:

If it's a test event then presumably there must be risk. Otherwise what is it testing?

And if there is risk, what is the rationale for care workers generating that risk to people's health?

There's no risk, it's just testing the process of getting a test prior to entry and maybe a bit of science about people flows and ventilation.

There's no control group so it's not a test of how the virus spreads in a normal environment, the same as all the other test events.

In any case, it will be hailed as a “great success” for mass-testing.

[Twinfan]

markyb_lcy said:

In any case, it will be hailed as a “great success” for mass-testing.

Yep, the "new normal" which I really, really hope will get told to fk off.

[markyb_lcy]

Twinfan said:

markyb_lcy said:

isaldiri said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Quite curious to see what happens here. I think it's fair to say politics mean it's certain to be agreed for EUA here especially in view of the FDA doing the same but it will be rather amusing to see how the MHRA is going to justify 'emergency use authorisation' for millions kids to get jabbed who absolutely are not clearly getting a benefit from the vaccine. Jabbing up kids to provide a (slight) risk reduction for people already protected by the vaccine would at first glance seem to be a lousy reason for EUA but we live in strange times after all.....

Yep, it’s interesting how they get around this stuff. I recently got the letter through the post with the vax info booklet. Under the “who should have this vaccine” it basically only says older people or those with a list of existing conditions. For a healthy, younger person, the booklet doesn’t actually explicitly recommend they get the vax. I suspect this is how they can still say it is “emergency use”.

I showed it to the missus, who is fence-sitting but was more on the side of having the vax. I told her ... “this booklet stops short of actually recommending you take the vaccine”, to which she replied “hmm, yea, you’ve kind of got a point” (with a somewhat puzzled look on her face).

I expect we will see something similar, perhaps even more stark, for the “emergency” use of the vaccine in kids.

I could see approval for emergency use in vulnerable kids (e.g. those with cystic fibrosis maybe?) but rolling out an emergency approval to every 12-15 year old is batst crazy.

If it happens, I'm probably going to end up having a very awkward couple of conversations as I really don't want my nieces and nephew to have one as we just don't know what the long term effects might be.

In order to justify recommending it for “most kids”, thry would have to define the emergency as being kids need to be vaccinated to protect adults. To me, that seems utterly unjustifiable and somewhat unprecedented.

Have we ever, in the past, vaccinated people (kids) to a pathogen for which they’re not directly at risk, under an emergency-use authorisation, for the (presumably) benefit of adults who they themselves have been offered the same vaccination? Pretty nonsensical at best.

[Twinfan]

markyb_lcy said:

In order to justify recommending it for “most kids”, thry would have to define the emergency as being kids need to be vaccinated to protect adults. To me, that seems utterly unjustifiable and somewhat unprecedented.

Have we ever, in the past, vaccinated people (kids) to a pathogen for which they’re not directly at risk, under an emergency-use authorisation, for the (presumably) benefit of adults who they themselves have been offered the same vaccination? Pretty nonsensical at best.

I think it would be unprecedented as you say, and for me it sits very uncomfortably alongside ICH and GCP regulations.

Isn't the whole concept of "vaccination to protect others rather than yourself" new to SARS-CoV-2 as well?

[markyb_lcy]

Twinfan said:

I think it would be unprecedented as you say, and for me it sits very uncomfortably alongside ICH and GCP regulations.

Isn't the whole concept of "vaccination to protect others rather than yourself" new to SARS-CoV-2 as well?

It certainly seems that way to me.

[bern]

markyb_lcy said:

Twinfan said:

markyb_lcy said:

isaldiri said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Quite curious to see what happens here. I think it's fair to say politics mean it's certain to be agreed for EUA here especially in view of the FDA doing the same but it will be rather amusing to see how the MHRA is going to justify 'emergency use authorisation' for millions kids to get jabbed who absolutely are not clearly getting a benefit from the vaccine. Jabbing up kids to provide a (slight) risk reduction for people already protected by the vaccine would at first glance seem to be a lousy reason for EUA but we live in strange times after all.....

Yep, it’s interesting how they get around this stuff. I recently got the letter through the post with the vax info booklet. Under the “who should have this vaccine” it basically only says older people or those with a list of existing conditions. For a healthy, younger person, the booklet doesn’t actually explicitly recommend they get the vax. I suspect this is how they can still say it is “emergency use”.

I showed it to the missus, who is fence-sitting but was more on the side of having the vax. I told her ... “this booklet stops short of actually recommending you take the vaccine”, to which she replied “hmm, yea, you’ve kind of got a point” (with a somewhat puzzled look on her face).

I expect we will see something similar, perhaps even more stark, for the “emergency” use of the vaccine in kids.

I could see approval for emergency use in vulnerable kids (e.g. those with cystic fibrosis maybe?) but rolling out an emergency approval to every 12-15 year old is batst crazy.

If it happens, I'm probably going to end up having a very awkward couple of conversations as I really don't want my nieces and nephew to have one as we just don't know what the long term effects might be.

In order to justify recommending it for “most kids”, thry would have to define the emergency as being kids need to be vaccinated to protect adults. To me, that seems utterly unjustifiable and somewhat unprecedented.

Have we ever, in the past, vaccinated people (kids) to a pathogen for which they’re not directly at risk, under an emergency-use authorisation, for the (presumably) benefit of adults who they themselves have been offered the same vaccination? Pretty nonsensical at best.

I've emailed my MP informing him he is welcome to climb over my dead body if he wants to jab my kids.

Because that is what he would have to do.

[vixen1700]

Twinfan said:

Isn't the whole concept of "vaccination to protect others rather than yourself" new to SARS-CoV-2 as well?

Yep, the whole new divisive 'selfish' thing.

[Goates]

vixen1700 said:

Twinfan said:

Isn't the whole concept of "vaccination to protect others rather than yourself" new to SARS-CoV-2 as well?

Yep, the whole new divisive 'selfish' thing.

It is in the general population, not in the NHS. This is how Flu Jab uptake in the NHS has been pushed for years.

[Rollin]

markyb_lcy said:

Twinfan said:

I think it would be unprecedented as you say, and for me it sits very uncomfortably alongside ICH and GCP regulations.

Isn't the whole concept of "vaccination to protect others rather than yourself" new to SARS-CoV-2 as well?

It certainly seems that way to me.

Not new at all.

[markyb_lcy]

Rollin said:

markyb_lcy said:

Twinfan said:

I think it would be unprecedented as you say, and for me it sits very uncomfortably alongside ICH and GCP regulations.

Isn't the whole concept of "vaccination to protect others rather than yourself" new to SARS-CoV-2 as well?

It certainly seems that way to me.

Not new at all.

Have you got a good example to substantiate that assertion?