Should that be under 65's?Seem to be growing reports that EMA will only authorize AZ vaccine for over 65s, and up to individual countries if they want to give emergency authorization for use on over 65s. This greatly complicates our vaccine rollout strategy as I think government had planned on distributing this to over 70s via GP network. Also, you may have at risk people understandably demanding Pfizer instead..
How should that work? Should they rock up to you house with a menu?
None of the vaccines have been tested at high volumes on older people because vaccines aren't tested like that.
None of them have been tested on children either because vaccines aren't tested on children.
According to the German Health Minister around 8% of participants in the AstraZeneca trial were over 65
and they quote a figure of 341.
...
Now they are hell bend,if they receive approval, on vaccinating us with the least effective vaccine available.
We are not children, we are able to weight up the risks
AstraZeneca trials of two standard doses showed 62% efficacy.
All I am suggesting is that those of us in Group 3 are given the opportunity to make an informed choice.
They didn't do that for all the other announcements .Awaiting the EMA announcement
"Hear ye Hear ye Hear ye"
"All hail the EMA"
"The EMA speaks now"
"Hear ye what he speaks"
"...............................................
Yea, there's a distinct lack of pomp and ceremony around the whole thing.They didn't do that for all the other announcements .
If the EMA say that more data is required before it is approved for over 65's then that's an informed decision. If they say it is then that's also an informed decision. With respect I think they know more about these things than you or me.2 standard doses are being administered in the UK
half dose/full dose trial, all participants were under 55.
We are due to receive around 6 million doses of Pfizer, I don’t know the amount from Moderna and then Johnson and Johnson.
All I am suggesting is that those of us in Group 3 are given the opportunity to make an informed choice. The convenience of receiving a vaccine locally and possibly quicker as against delaying until one of the other vaccines are available.
anyway, I rest my argument until I read the EMA a decision tomorrow,
I think valery is in her 70s and if Astrazeneca is only to be used under 65s she'll get Pfizer or Moderna.If the EMA say that more data is required before it is approved for over 65's then that's an informed decision. If they say it is then that's also an informed decision. With respect I think they know more about these things than you or me.
Your individual wishes also impact on the common good so no, you shouldn't be allowed to decide when you get a vaccine and which vaccine you get.
Sure, that's what I was talking about above ref the EMA, but if the Astra Zeneca vaccine is approved for over 70's then it should be given to them. They should not have a choice of which approved vaccine they get.I think valery is in her 70s and if Astrazeneca is only to be used under 65s she'll get Pfizer or Moderna.
If/when we get Astrazenecas vaccine it can be rolled out to under 65s and its not unreasonable for the Pfizer/Moderna to kept for over 65s until they are vaccinatinated.
Obviously supply again comes into play here, as does logistics and the HSE being able to differentiate correctly.
I agree with that , but lets be honest here Astrazeneca did not carry out any meaningful trials on older people.Sure, that's what I was talking about above ref the EMA, but if the Astra Zeneca vaccine is approved for over 70's then it should be given to them. They should not have a choice of which approved vaccine they get.
"Confident " really isn't a scientific procedure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?