I’m unfamiliar with normal vaccine roll-out, so I don’t know how this compares.
How long would it normally take to be released? Why would the TUA not be appropriate, considering how quickly it was developed? How long would you have liked it to have taken, how does this compare to similar recent vaccines (obviously dose numbers will be incomparable) and would you have rather waited for a different authorisation?
Isn’t the TUA put in place because the next level takes longer to sign off?
The MHRA was still operating under the European Medicines Agency (EU) in 2020 and issued a TUA. The mRNA vaccine was different to previous vaccines in that it used gene therapy and was a new technology. Gene therapies are usually classed as ‘advanced medicines’ and have to comply with more regulations. Legal framework: Advanced therapies | European Medicines Agency (europa.eu)
So, inadvertently it created a loophole through which mRNA products could be marketed as vaccines.
The WHO called covid-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on March 11th allowing for vaccinations to be developed on an emergency use basis if none previously existed.
So my concern is that a new technology that only recently began trials was given a ‘TUA’ and would normally require years of trials and testing to be certified as safe.
My understanding is that all the hurdles that normally hold up something like this were removed, since so many people are dying. I don’t believe the safety checks were abandoned, just sped up to get this thing out there and into the arms of the sane.
Like when anti-vaxxers were complaining that it came out too quickly, but that was because it wasn’t being sold. These are completely different circumstances.
Either way, if there was any real danger, some real experts would come out and tell us. It’s a no-brainer that reports will exist that have found different results, but picking one report out of an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary isn’t how anything works.
It needed to be rushed out though didn’t it? shit was imminent. Before, meds/vaccines probably sat in queues to get from one stage to another much like a piece of council planning taking months to get passed across the room to another desk when if everyone in the office is free the plan could be passed in 20 mins.
Regardless of whether it took 5 years to pass or 5 months a side effect or a negative of any sort can be missed or not become evident until it reaches the perfect candidate for it to manifest. Timescale and side effects are not related I don’t think personally.
Yes, anything can kill somebody. With enough people, some are going to die. Like with Covid, for example, that’s killed 5.2m people globally. Loads! The vaccines, which help prevent people dying of Covid, have killed 73 people. I don’t know why it’s such a tricky line to walk.
Hippos kill 3,000 people a year! Three THOUSAND. Why aren’t we shooting all these creatures?!
Not sure why you stated it like I said that these possible future side effects/negatives were promoting not taking the vaccine. I was pointing out that these things can happen with anything on trial that has to have stringent testing regardless of how long it took to pass.
See the couple of posts above my first one. I was stating in the most simple way that the vaccine timescales were not something that should be linked to side effects which is a massive point that anti vaxxers use for their argument, solidifying that the vaccine should be taken regardless of how fast or what side effects crop up.
But people aren’t. That’s why there are anti vaxxers. The arguments go down rabbit holes and forget simple common sense. Not saying i’m clever enough to remind people about common sense but there you go.