worthingseagull123
Well-known member
- May 5, 2012
- 2,687
Why has the government done this?
A government payout will be far less compensation than directly from the drug company.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Vaccine Thread
- Thread starter Mellotron
- Start date
Why has the government done this?
A government payout will be far less compensation than directly from the drug company.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
This is standard practice for mass immunisation programmes which is why the act is in place. To get the companies to act at such speed, volume and in the national interest you have to allow the government to step in and take on the risk. The Oxford vaccine is being produced at cost.
It's only paid out 937 times since 1978 which shows you that severe reactions to vaccines are incredibly rare.
There is no conspiracy, this is standard throughout the world. It's just that times like this don't come along very often.
Last edited:
It's a conspiracy by Big Pharma. Or something like that.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 9,801
For the love of God, what fresh hell is this? They are cancelling appointments for the second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. There is absolutely no evidence of its eficacy after 12 weeks. Many more will die as a result. What a dereliction of trust this is - imagine the grief it's causing to those already vaccinated, knowing they will still be unprotected for another three months. Evil incompetent b*****ds.
milliepops
Active member
My wife works at Worthing Hospital. She, like many others have her first dose of the Pfizer vaccine last week with the second jab appointment made for 3 weeks time. Her colleague from the vaccination department has just phoned her to say that all of the second doses are being pushed back to 12 weeks. Very annoying, hopefully won't make the first dose pointless.
It is disgraceful. And sneaking the story out on New Years Eve. They really are incompetent snakes.
And people wonder why people suggest 2021 is a write off
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
I don't often defend the Government but I think this is a debate within the Health Service rather than a debate between Government and the Health Service.
Hasn't been sneaked out, just decision making (and reversals) being made very quickly. Many GPs have actually applauded the change. Large and bureaucratic organisations like the NHS and GPs by their nature are adverse to that, but we are where we are.
I say that with zero medical knowledge but most of the criticism appears to be on organisational and logistic grounds rather than medical.
One of the unknowns as the moment is whether you can still "catch" the virus after vaccination but still spread it asymptomatically. On the radio yesterday I was listening to an expect who was worried about the effect of "slowly" introducing people into society who believe themselves to be immune when most around them aren't.
It therefore makes perfect sense to me to get a theoretical lower level of immunity to as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
If it keeps everyone still on their guard it's a good move.
Last edited:
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,014
its coming from PHE/MHRA. there is evidence of efficacy after the first dose (over 50% threshold for vaccine acceptance), assume the objective here is to give more people the first dose and get wider protection from severe symptoms.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/health/covid-vaccine-pfizer.html
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...ow-pfizer-covid-vaccine-protects-after-1-dose
Last edited:
This....not sure why people are pissing their pants TBH, there are enough scientists involved in the decision making to be clear it’s the right thing to do. Karen off Facebook ranting about the lack of a second dose isn’t really a factor.
First dose basically prevents anyone getting seriously ill. Get as many people through this as fast as possible, then start second doses. Fastest way out of this mess without overwhelming the NHS.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,876
It's unfortunate for the authorities but if they hadn't made such bad decisions in the past, I suspect they would be getting better press for a seemingly good tactical one made quickly and under pressure.
Spot on
But I don’t understand why when we have such strict standards and regulations that have to be met for a vaccine to be approved, that that vaccine procedure can then be changed so quickly when Pfizer have said that it’s only been tested up to 21 days apart?
It was clearly not going to go down well with a lot of people, including the BMA, so I have absolutely no doubt this news was released today to coincide with New Years and Brexit etc and for the impact to be softened a bit.
crodonilson
He/Him
I see Whitty has admitted that caccibe shortages will last many months yesterday. Fewer than 700,000 doses available next week with the promise of millions more not until the end if Feb earliest. Surely another reason to get the country indefinitely locked down?
- Thread starter
- #336
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...absolute&time=2020-12-31..latest®ion=World
Latest vaccine figures
Latest vaccine figures
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,625
The "over 50%" protection was from day 1 to day 21. But no vaccine works instantly; vaccines work by introducing the foreign virus into the body and waiting for the body to ramp up its defences. So when you walk out of the clinic you are no more protected than when you went in. Most of the "48% unprotected" cases will be people who caught the disease just before vaccination 1 or in the few days afterwards.
The figure for the expected protection at the end of three weeks is 85%.
Link ? Why do you keep peddling fake news ?
1 million available Monday and a further 2m by the middle of Jan, with a total of 19-20m readily available.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ly-approved-oxford-vaccine-will-ready-monday/
Nobby
Well-known member
- Sep 29, 2007
- 2,892
Erm
That’s The Telegraph
I would rather believe Karen off Facebook to be honest
“Readily available”. Brilliant slip sliding. Lol
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,625
The decision to shift the jabs to 12 weeks apart isn't set in stone. It is being reviewed daily, and there will be vast amounts of data to go off.
At the current rate, about 1 in 1,000 of the population are testing positive each day. No doubt they are all being asked if they have had the vaccination stage 1, and when they had it.
On 27th December, the number vaccinated was all but 1 million. So on 17th January, if there are still 50,000 positive tests per day, about 1 in 1,000 of the adult population, you would expect 1 in 1,000 of them to be people who had been vaccinated at least three weeks ago. If that number is say 150, then there is the evidence of 85% efficiency as predicted in the vaccine tests. If it's 1,000, there is evidence that the vaccine doesn't work. If it's nil, there is evidence that the vaccine is infallible.
On then on 18th January they have another 50k positive tests, and on 19th another 50k, and all the time the number vaccinated is growing, They will have bast amounts of data so they will know whether the delay in the second jab is doing any harm. They will be reviewing this policy daily.
Remember it has never been tested whether 3 weeks is the most efficient time period anyway. 3 weeks is a theoretical period but it has never been put to practical testing as to whether it is better or worse than 12 weeks. This current situation is, in effect, living the trial No doubt statisticians around the worls will be comparing notes.
At the current rate, about 1 in 1,000 of the population are testing positive each day. No doubt they are all being asked if they have had the vaccination stage 1, and when they had it.
On 27th December, the number vaccinated was all but 1 million. So on 17th January, if there are still 50,000 positive tests per day, about 1 in 1,000 of the adult population, you would expect 1 in 1,000 of them to be people who had been vaccinated at least three weeks ago. If that number is say 150, then there is the evidence of 85% efficiency as predicted in the vaccine tests. If it's 1,000, there is evidence that the vaccine doesn't work. If it's nil, there is evidence that the vaccine is infallible.
On then on 18th January they have another 50k positive tests, and on 19th another 50k, and all the time the number vaccinated is growing, They will have bast amounts of data so they will know whether the delay in the second jab is doing any harm. They will be reviewing this policy daily.
Remember it has never been tested whether 3 weeks is the most efficient time period anyway. 3 weeks is a theoretical period but it has never been put to practical testing as to whether it is better or worse than 12 weeks. This current situation is, in effect, living the trial No doubt statisticians around the worls will be comparing notes.