UK approves Pfizer jab for use in 12-15-year-olds
Discussion
gizlaroc said:
Roman Rhodes said:
There is no "guy who invented the mRNA tech". HTH
Just watch it and tell me what you think?Have you got the day off today?
APontus said:
The indemnity situation perhaps tells you the appetite for taking those risks on behalf of pharma.
The indemnity situation is simply due to the fact their is legislation enacted within the UK which means that because the MHRA have authorised the use of the vaccines in light of public health emergency, the manufacturer, health care professional administering etc are not liable. This is not new for COVID and has been in place for a while for the use of drugs which do not hold a marketing authorisation and "used" on the behest of HMG/NHS/DHSC/MHRAhttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/regu...
Similarly there is very similar legislation in the US too https://www.phe.gov/emergency/events/COVID19/COVID...
Roman Rhodes said:
Keep doing what? You don’t care if the website is “dodgy” so long as you like the message, you say so yourself.
I have never said that at all! I said that if the info there is from reputable people with official facts and figures used I will allow the fact the site is a bit pants and that it often has stuff I find laughable.
I can't say it anymore times.
Roman Rhodes said:
Do you get royalties for promoting this wafflethon? I have watched some of it. It’s a complete Nothingburger and the guy certainly doesn’t claim to have invented mRNA vaccines.
Just more lies.And you accuse me??
Give your head a little wobble.
I'm done replying to you, everyone says to simply ignore you, and like a t
t I keep trying to be polite. I'm done as it is obvious you are trying for a wind up to get me to bite and then once again you will go running to the mods saying "he's weally, weally, 'orrbile to me.".
I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I can see right through you.
Bye.
APontus said:
It has been front page news. The AZ being restricted has been very well publicised.
As for why testing vaccines on the population with limited data is not a big story, it's obviously part and parcel of an ongoing, bigger one. People are in extraordinary times and they're more likely to accept extraordinary undertakings. They are less newsworthy. Not to mention the obligations placed on the press not to undermine government efforts. No conspiracy, just press regulation.
Not sure it has to be one extreme or the other in these conversations.
Not what I asked about. Not even close to what I asked about. As for why testing vaccines on the population with limited data is not a big story, it's obviously part and parcel of an ongoing, bigger one. People are in extraordinary times and they're more likely to accept extraordinary undertakings. They are less newsworthy. Not to mention the obligations placed on the press not to undermine government efforts. No conspiracy, just press regulation.
Not sure it has to be one extreme or the other in these conversations.
APontus said:
Doesnt logic tell you that what we're doing with the vaccines is (in vaccine terms) higher risk than normal?
We are combining;
- Relatively new technology for vaccines;
- Numerous different vaccines;
- Under a shorter and smaller than normal testing regime and
- Vaccinating everybody (with some condition and age (for now) related exceptions)
I am not saying the vaccines are dangerous, or that the process under which they're authorised is dangerous or that everybody will get ill. What I am saying is that if you wanted to take a high risk approach to vaccination, what we have done would tick some boxes.
The principle that we encourage the whole world population to take the vaccines all at once rings alarm bells for me. If something systemic were to be found, you're too late and the number of people you might harm is off the scale, even compared to Covid.
The above are points of view on principles. I have no reason to think these vaccines are going to cause serious harm in the future, only the view that taking that risk is signifanct and people ought not be ridiculed for pointing it out. You would certainly expect government to be raising that point with the creators of the vaccines for comfort before agreeing roll out. The indemnity situation perhaps tells you the appetite for taking those risks on behalf of pharma.
Thankfully we are using several different vaccines. There is likely more risk in total (easier for something to go wrong somewhere with multiple approaches) but if we only had one vaccine and in the worst case it had a big impact on fertility or something else bad long term it'd be a disaster if we had given it to almost everyone it before we start getting much of an idea on the consequences. It's typically a strategy you'd want to avoid on a population level when we don't have data on the long term impacts. We are combining;
- Relatively new technology for vaccines;
- Numerous different vaccines;
- Under a shorter and smaller than normal testing regime and
- Vaccinating everybody (with some condition and age (for now) related exceptions)
I am not saying the vaccines are dangerous, or that the process under which they're authorised is dangerous or that everybody will get ill. What I am saying is that if you wanted to take a high risk approach to vaccination, what we have done would tick some boxes.
The principle that we encourage the whole world population to take the vaccines all at once rings alarm bells for me. If something systemic were to be found, you're too late and the number of people you might harm is off the scale, even compared to Covid.
The above are points of view on principles. I have no reason to think these vaccines are going to cause serious harm in the future, only the view that taking that risk is signifanct and people ought not be ridiculed for pointing it out. You would certainly expect government to be raising that point with the creators of the vaccines for comfort before agreeing roll out. The indemnity situation perhaps tells you the appetite for taking those risks on behalf of pharma.
SS2. said:
When the likes of Hancock, Whitty, Vallance et al take to the lectern and stress confidently and unwaveringly that the vaccines are 'safe', against what criteria are they measuring 'safe' ?
Have they ever published figures they deem to be an acceptable number of adverse vaccine reactions, be it a slightly sore arm or an episode resulting in fatality ?
Is 'safe' an absolute number, a range, a % of vaccinations where no adverse reactions become immediately apparent ?
Considering they have revised some of their advice and recommendations on vaccine deployment since the initial rollout (due in no small part to unexpected adverse reactions), are they still considered as 'safe' as they were when Mags & Bill were first paraded in front of the cameras ?
Seems to me. you will only believe something is “safe” when not a single person anywhere in the world has any reaction at all to Amy thing ever again in the whole of their lives and even then we need multiple generations of people to go through this. That’s great, check back in a few millennia and we’ll see if your timeframe has been met. Have they ever published figures they deem to be an acceptable number of adverse vaccine reactions, be it a slightly sore arm or an episode resulting in fatality ?
Is 'safe' an absolute number, a range, a % of vaccinations where no adverse reactions become immediately apparent ?
Considering they have revised some of their advice and recommendations on vaccine deployment since the initial rollout (due in no small part to unexpected adverse reactions), are they still considered as 'safe' as they were when Mags & Bill were first paraded in front of the cameras ?
Nobody is going to quote a figure or a percentage because the next words out of your mouth would be “OMGZ the government has actually said n,000 people, or n% of people will be sacrificed by taking this vaccine. The government are practising satanic rituals at your cost”
pavarotti1980 said:
The indemnity situation is simply due to the fact their is legislation enacted within the UK which means that because the MHRA have authorised the use of the vaccines in light of public health emergency, the manufacturer, health care professional administering etc are not liable. This is not new for COVID and has been in place for a while for the use of drugs which do not hold a marketing authorisation and "used" on the behest of HMG/NHS/DHSC/MHRA
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/regu...
Similarly there is very similar legislation in the US too https://www.phe.gov/emergency/events/COVID19/COVID...
Fully aware of that, thank you.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1916/regu...
Similarly there is very similar legislation in the US too https://www.phe.gov/emergency/events/COVID19/COVID...
gizlaroc said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Do you get royalties for promoting this wafflethon? I have watched some of it. It’s a complete Nothingburger and the guy certainly doesn’t claim to have invented mRNA vaccines.
Just more lies.And you accuse me??
Give your head a little wobble.
I'm done replying to you, everyone says to simply ignore you, and like a t
t I keep trying to be polite. I'm done as it is obvious you are trying for a wind up to get me to bite and then once again you will go running to the mods saying "he's weally, weally, 'orrbile to me.".
I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I can see right through you.
Bye.
Nice little flounce there - the last refuge of a gullible simpleton when he realises that all his copy and paste doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I notice that you've failed to understand yet again some nonsense you've posted on the other thread and swerved the ensuing question from someone else.
As you seem to have an intimate knowledge of what the mods do and who they ban you'll know that I haven't reported anyone - including you. You're far too much of a court jester and your anti-vax postings are so weak and risible they're more likely to convert sceptics and doubters to actually get vaccinated.
gizlaroc said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Do you get royalties for promoting this wafflethon? I have watched some of it. It’s a complete Nothingburger and the guy certainly doesn’t claim to have invented mRNA vaccines.
Just more lies.And you accuse me??
Give your head a little wobble.
I'm done replying to you, everyone says to simply ignore you, and like a t
t I keep trying to be polite. I'm done as it is obvious you are trying for a wind up to get me to bite and then once again you will go running to the mods saying "he's weally, weally, 'orrbile to me.".
I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I can see right through you.
Bye.
Lord only knows why anyone would ever put that much time and effort into it, I mean, your not even being superior to real people.
unident said:
SS2. said:
When the likes of Hancock, Whitty, Vallance et al take to the lectern and stress confidently and unwaveringly that the vaccines are 'safe', against what criteria are they measuring 'safe' ?
Have they ever published figures they deem to be an acceptable number of adverse vaccine reactions, be it a slightly sore arm or an episode resulting in fatality ?
Is 'safe' an absolute number, a range, a % of vaccinations where no adverse reactions become immediately apparent ?
Considering they have revised some of their advice and recommendations on vaccine deployment since the initial rollout (due in no small part to unexpected adverse reactions), are they still considered as 'safe' as they were when Mags & Bill were first paraded in front of the cameras ?
Seems to me. you will only believe something is “safe” when not a single person anywhere in the world has any reaction at all to Amy thing ever again in the whole of their lives and even then we need multiple generations of people to go through this. That’s great, check back in a few millennia and we’ll see if your timeframe has been met. Have they ever published figures they deem to be an acceptable number of adverse vaccine reactions, be it a slightly sore arm or an episode resulting in fatality ?
Is 'safe' an absolute number, a range, a % of vaccinations where no adverse reactions become immediately apparent ?
Considering they have revised some of their advice and recommendations on vaccine deployment since the initial rollout (due in no small part to unexpected adverse reactions), are they still considered as 'safe' as they were when Mags & Bill were first paraded in front of the cameras ?
Nobody is going to quote a figure or a percentage because the next words out of your mouth would be “OMGZ the government has actually said n,000 people, or n% of people will be sacrificed by taking this vaccine. The government are practising satanic rituals at your cost”
For the record, I fully concede that all drugs and treatments can have unwanted side effects.
And so I'll repeat - when they glibly say 'safe', what criteria are being applied ? On the 'safe' scale, do they sit at the same point they were at when first rolled out ?
Are the vaccines as 'safe' as those for influenza, swine flu, any other viral infection ?
SS2. said:
Missed the point by a mile - again.
For the record, I fully concede that all drugs and treatments can have unwanted side effects.
And so I'll repeat - when they glibly say 'safe', what criteria are being applied ? On the 'safe' scale, do they sit at the same point they were at when first rolled out ?
Are the vaccines as 'safe' as those for influenza, swine flu, any other viral infection ?
Oh I’m sorry. Was the point that these were all just developed and immediately rolled out to the wider public without any scrutiny at all? You’ve decided this so you’re obviously right. I mean, there’s zero chance that any due diligence or trials or anything was carried out by anyone or any government anywhere in the world. It’s just a bunch of random Hail Marys that may or may not work. For the record, I fully concede that all drugs and treatments can have unwanted side effects.
And so I'll repeat - when they glibly say 'safe', what criteria are being applied ? On the 'safe' scale, do they sit at the same point they were at when first rolled out ?
Are the vaccines as 'safe' as those for influenza, swine flu, any other viral infection ?
Better?
scottyp123 said:
gizlaroc said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Do you get royalties for promoting this wafflethon? I have watched some of it. It’s a complete Nothingburger and the guy certainly doesn’t claim to have invented mRNA vaccines.
Just more lies.And you accuse me??
Give your head a little wobble.
I'm done replying to you, everyone says to simply ignore you, and like a t
t I keep trying to be polite. I'm done as it is obvious you are trying for a wind up to get me to bite and then once again you will go running to the mods saying "he's weally, weally, 'orrbile to me.".
I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I can see right through you.
Bye.
Lord only knows why anyone would ever put that much time and effort into it, I mean, your not even being superior to real people.
You're, not "your" BTW.
Please post the longer term data to show the safety of the vaccines. You're making fun of someone who is asking about it, so the easiest way to prove it is posting the studies and statistics.
Unident, you're ignoring the point as well as you ignored the question if you want to save a few British lives or a lot more foreigners.
Unident, you're ignoring the point as well as you ignored the question if you want to save a few British lives or a lot more foreigners.
NRS said:
Please post the longer term data to show the safety of the vaccines. You're making fun of someone who is asking about it, so the easiest way to prove it is posting the studies and statistics.
Unident, you're ignoring the point as well as you ignored the question if you want to save a few British lives or a lot more foreigners.
Define long term for me. That never gets answered. Unident, you're ignoring the point as well as you ignored the question if you want to save a few British lives or a lot more foreigners.
Foreign vs British is overly simplistic. There are considerations around where the vaccines are currently, storage and transport challenges and so on.
I’m sure you love your binary world, but there are many, many more numbers than 1 or 0
Edited by unident on Monday 14th June 20:12
gizlaroc said:
3 years?
That is when the trial ends.
Those who are are in the vaccine game, mRNA game etc. have also all said that 36 months should be enough time to tell if we have any long term auto immune issues.
So your approach would be to lockdown for 3 years whilst all other protocols are followed. You can’t say “open up and don’t worry about it either” that’s not a realistic option. That is when the trial ends.
Those who are are in the vaccine game, mRNA game etc. have also all said that 36 months should be enough time to tell if we have any long term auto immune issues.
unident said:
So your approach would be to lockdown for 3 years whilst all other protocols are followed. You can’t say “open up and don’t worry about it either” that’s not a realistic option.
Why is it not? The vulnerable are vaccinated.
Compare the curves for countries that have vaccinated vs not, locked down vs opened up, and the one thing that we can see is the curves are pretty much identical across them all.
The virus is doing what it is going to do, they always do.
Vaccinate the vulnerable and open up.
Then if the vaccine is still needed for the other age ranges after we have seen some proper results that it is safe, we can start to jab everyone.
Let me ask you this, what if we do start to see auto immune diseases in the vaccinated or high levels of Myocarditis or serious infertility over the next couple of years?
Do you think it would be good to see children burdened with that as well?
gizlaroc said:
Why is it not?
The vulnerable are vaccinated.
Compare the curves for countries that have vaccinated vs not, locked down vs opened up, and the one thing that we can see is the curves are pretty much identical across them all.
The virus is doing what it is going to do, they always do.
Vaccinate the vulnerable and open up.
Then if the vaccine is still needed for the other age ranges after we have seen some proper results that it is safe, we can start to jab everyone.
Let me ask you this, what if we do start to see auto immune diseases in the vaccinated or high levels of Myocarditis or serious infertility over the next couple of years?
Do you think it would be good to see children burdened with that as well?
So now the vaccines are Ok, because people are vaccinated, but the vaccines aren’t Ok because we might see random things that you’ve decided are valid. You just chop and change your argument. If you’ve decided we’re basing this on where we are then all hypothetical arguments go out of the window. The vulnerable are vaccinated.
Compare the curves for countries that have vaccinated vs not, locked down vs opened up, and the one thing that we can see is the curves are pretty much identical across them all.
The virus is doing what it is going to do, they always do.
Vaccinate the vulnerable and open up.
Then if the vaccine is still needed for the other age ranges after we have seen some proper results that it is safe, we can start to jab everyone.
Let me ask you this, what if we do start to see auto immune diseases in the vaccinated or high levels of Myocarditis or serious infertility over the next couple of years?
Do you think it would be good to see children burdened with that as well?
Where we are is that we are well on the way to vaccinating the adult population of the country. However, no vaccine is 100% effective and nobody has ever claimed that. New variations raise questions over whether the existing vaccines are effective against them or not. Current infection rates are rising again, the R rate is above 1, hospitalisations are rising, deaths aren’t. The latter is a very good sign, but the hospitalisations remains a concern as there are outcomes than death with this virus. Variations that might resist the vaccine are a real concern.
Children can catch and transmit the virus. Schools are a Petri dish for all sorts of illnesses as we all know from experience. Inoculating kids might be the way forward, but as this isn't actually happening, or being rolled out or anything, then it’s a hypothetical.
The rest of your tinfoil hat outcome b
ks is just that. bks. I’m not answering it, because it’s bks. Why don’t you watch Sweet Tooth and come back and tell us all about the Netflix documentary you’ve seen with these hybrid children.
unident said:
So now the vaccines are Ok, because people are vaccinated, but the vaccines aren’t Ok because we might see random things that you’ve decided are valid. You just chop and change your argument. If you’ve decided we’re basing this on where we are then all hypothetical arguments go out of the window.
I have no idea what you are talking about. unident said:
Where we are is that we are well on the way to vaccinating the adult population of the country. However, no vaccine is 100% effective and nobody has ever claimed that. New variations raise questions over whether the existing vaccines are effective against them or not. Current infection rates are rising again, the R rate is above 1, hospitalisations are rising, deaths aren’t. The latter is a very good sign, but the hospitalisations remains a concern as there are outcomes than death with this virus. Variations that might resist the vaccine are a real concern.
Children can catch and transmit the virus. Schools are a Petri dish for all sorts of illnesses as we all know from experience. Inoculating kids might be the way forward, but as this isn't actually happening, or being rolled out or anything, then it’s a hypothetical.
The rest of your tinfoil hat outcome bks is just that. bks. I’m not answering it, because it’s bks.
Why don’t you watch Sweet Tooth and come back and tell us all about the Netflix documentary you’ve seen with these hybrid children.
HahahaahaChildren can catch and transmit the virus. Schools are a Petri dish for all sorts of illnesses as we all know from experience. Inoculating kids might be the way forward, but as this isn't actually happening, or being rolled out or anything, then it’s a hypothetical.
The rest of your tinfoil hat outcome b
ks is just that. bks. I’m not answering it, because it’s bks. Why don’t you watch Sweet Tooth and come back and tell us all about the Netflix documentary you’ve seen with these hybrid children.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff