Covid

Was waiting for you to pop up!

Don’t go

why you say that?

You absolutely don’t have to. I wouldn’t

1 Like

There are a few reasons that mean I have to unfortunately.

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?

1 Like

Swear you always turn up in an argument.

2 Likes

Are… are you guys ok?

1 Like

My ten year old claims this is his only fear. He goes on about it a fair bit

2 Likes

Amazing. He’s probably invincible now then, is it still a thing?

1 Like

I’m not an expert but it is usually between 5-10 years Vaccine Research & Development - Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center (jhu.edu).

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)

However, ‘vaccines against infectious diseases’ are not classed as gene therapies under EU law: Commission Directive 2009/120/EC of 14 September 2009 amending Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use as regards advanced therapy medicinal productsText with EEA relevance (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.

1 Like

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?!

3 Likes

Isnt that completely untrue?

1 Like

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.

1 Like

Because Builda replied to my post in a strange way but that’s fairly normal here. As you were Mick.

Well I’ve failed to understand what you were saying then, so apologies. I thought I was replying logically.

It was a fine reply if I said that I wasn’t going to take the vaccine because of the side effects.