Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,129
Very Monty Python. In Cork RTC in the 80s we were given 3 options but couldn't take the first 2.
Just a tongue in cheek response , I agree with you but the civil liberty crowd would be up in arms, not to mention the Gemmas of this world if this was introduced.I don't understand your comment.
People will have a choice - get vaccinated or not.
But those who choose not to get vaccinated, will not be able to do a lot of things in public. They can make that choice. We don't have that choice now - we can't travel or go to pubs. Those of us who are happy to be vaccinated, will be able to do so in future. Those who don't want to be vaccinated will continue under the current restrictions.
Brendan
No but the data is now with the FDA ,EMA and UK regulatory authorities for emergency use.@Paul O'Mahony, are you saying that the Pfizer Phase III trials have been concluded and have been published?
Or like Helen McEntee, you have 3 choices but they are all Seamus WolfeVery Monty Python. In Cork RTC in the 80s we were given 3 options but couldn't take the first 2.
I'm certainly no anti vaxxer generally, but I do have reservations about the speed at which this has been developed/tested.
Not really Leo, Astrazeneca/Oxford vaccine is the old way I believe but the data sharing helped.It should be noted that mRNA vaccines are significantly quicker to develop than traditional vaccines. The whole process of growing weakened versions of the protein is eliminated and that element can take years with normal levels of funding.
People will have a choice - get vaccinated or not.
I'm sure there were many worried about other vaccines but now with the Internet we thankfully can express those worries which is a good thing.Absolutely!
If and when the various vaccines receive Emergency Use Authorization, then recipients would have to be told that they are about to receive an unapproved vaccine under an EUA.
For instance, people about to receive the annual flu vaccine are given a patient information leaflet setting out the benefits and risks.
Sometimes they are advised against flu vaccination because of existing medical conditions. One of my relatives, an asthmatic, cannot get vaccinated when he is wheezing badly or has a bad cold.
People would typically be guided by their GP or consultant, who taking account of their individual health status, will weigh the benefits of available vaccines against possible risks.
Since it is expected that priority will be given to those most at risk, the benefits/risks to age and comorbidity would be of particular interest to health experts.
Time will reveal full details.
If I am vaccinated would I fly or go to a crowded bar next year.
I don’t know, because, at present, I don’t know exactly what safeguards the vaccines offer to me or to people with whom I have close contact.
Of course, that does not rule out future advancements of fully approved vaccines.
I'm sure there were many worried about other vaccines but now with the Internet we thankfully can express those worries which is a good thing.
Vaccines aren't just made for anything once they always improved on as more data is gathered.
Do you have a immunology consultant?I am aware of that Paul, but I shall still seek the advice of my consultant.
I think people will be aware of the EUA. They probably won't understand the amount of validation that a vaccine has to go through to get a EUA.If and when the various vaccines receive Emergency Use Authorization, then recipients would have to be told that they are about to receive an unapproved vaccine under an EUA.
For instance, people about to receive the annual flu vaccine are given a patient information leaflet setting out the benefits and risks.
Sometimes they are advised against flu vaccination because of existing medical conditions. One of my relatives, an asthmatic, cannot get vaccinated when he is wheezing badly or has a bad cold.
Can you explain how they can fast track 4-7 of testing that it normally takes before approving a vaccine? No amount of money thrown at it or experts working on it can do that unlike what they want people to believe.I don't think you need reservations on this aspect.
The companies halted most of the other research and threw everything at this. Which is why they have come up with some vaccines so quickly.
Likewise the approval process won't take shortcuts. But they have a team on standby to review this as soon as the application is submitted. It won't go to the back of a long queue of other drugs.
Brendan
What's 4-7 of testing?Can you explain how they can fast track 4-7 of testing that it normally takes before approving a vaccine?
YearsWhat's 4-7 of testing?
There can't be longitudinal studies but there is a massive amount of data being generated and analysed.Years
This isn't normal vaccine development, data was shared and the biggest clinical trails in human history preformed, over 500,000 participants.Can you explain how they can fast track 4-7 of testing that it normally takes before approving a vaccine? No amount of money thrown at it or experts working on it can do that unlike what they want people to believe.
I read that according to initial analysis by the CDC and announced by Moncef Slaoui, vaccine "czar" in the US that between 10 and 15% of clinical trail volunteers did " notice significant effects" after receiving the vaccine.
These included soreness in injection area and severe chills , but it noted that these passed in the majority after a couple of days.
I tried linking to the story, but its on cnbcs website
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?