i think it just highlights that there is still risk attached to taking any vaccine.
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
Of course there's an element of risk in any medical intervention. You have to balance that up against the risk of non-intervention and decide which is worth it.
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
I am proud that on this day and momentous announced we get right to what matters.
Gay secks
Also some topical transexual discussion.
As I said proud day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My favourite headline this week
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/antilgbt-hungarian-mep-resigns-after-being-caught-at-gay-sex-party-breaching-covid-rules/news-story/b8b0283b00de5353e69d444dd71cff44
The vaccine stuff aside, obvs.
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 49 minutes ago
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange as the answer is pretty obvious.
Its very early days how much testing has it had and can we be sure that in all cases not serious issues can be caused by the treatment.
Those who lived with the completely safe morning sickness miracle drug in the 60s might be particularly concerned.
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 49 minutes ago
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange as the answer is pretty obvious.
Its very early days how much testing has it had and can we be sure that in all cases not serious issues can be caused by the treatment.
Those who lived with the completely safe morning sickness miracle drug in the 60s might be particularly concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that went a vaccine against a deadly diasese.
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
Versus
Highly contagious disease that had infected 65 million we know about and killed 1.5 million people. And left a similar amount with long term likely permanent respitory damage
I ain't sure it's a struggle of a choice
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
—-
Only the American ones. Although there seems to be a lot of them.
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
I am proud that on this day and momentous announced we get right to what matters.
Gay secks
Also some topical transexual discussion.
As I said proud day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My favourite headline this week
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/antilgbt-hungarian-mep-resigns-after-being-caught-at-gay-sex-party-breaching-covid-rules/news-story/b8b0283b00de5353e69d444dd71cff44
The vaccine stuff aside, obvs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha, read that last night.
Tried to make his way down a drainpipe to getaway.
Not the first pipe he went down on that day.
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 6 seconds ago
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
—-
Only the American ones. Although there seems to be a lot of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you seen Corbyn's brother on vaccines, 5g and lockdown.
Talk about a fruit n nutcase.
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 49 minutes ago
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange as the answer is pretty obvious.
Its very early days how much testing has it had and can we be sure that in all cases not serious issues can be caused by the treatment.
Those who lived with the completely safe morning sickness miracle drug in the 60s might be particularly concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's had the same level of testing as any other vaccine ever approved.
Long term testing (stage IV) only occurs after it has been distributed to the general population. This vaccine is no different than any other that has had to go through this process.
The only reason it took less time is the fact unlimited resources have been thrown at it, with labs all across the world focussing on this vaccine and essentially little else.
Just goes to show what can be achieved when there's the political will to do so with financial backing.
https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/vaccine-development
And anyone comparing thalidomide with this vaccine is a moron.
You're trying to compare a drug to a vaccine for a start. A drug that was administered in large doses, before testing even existed.
It was precisely because of it that we have these rigourous procedures, to prevent it occurring again.
You'd have to laugh at these people if it didn't have real world implications 🤦♂️
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 47 minutes ago
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Long term side effects and interactions are identified even when the normal timeline of around 10 years is spent developing and testing a drug.
This vaccine is coming to market in probably 6-8 months after discovery/development.
On the surface if it I would say we know less about the safety profile of this specific vaccine than any other approved for human use.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 49 minutes ago
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange as the answer is pretty obvious.
Its very early days how much testing has it had and can we be sure that in all cases not serious issues can be caused by the treatment.
Those who lived with the completely safe morning sickness miracle drug in the 60s might be particularly concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's had the same level of testing as any other vaccine ever approved.
Long term testing (stage IV) only occurs after it has been distributed to the general population. This vaccine is no different than any other that has had to go through this process.
The only reason it took less time is the fact unlimited resources have been thrown at it, with labs all across the world focussing on this vaccine and essentially little else.
Just goes to show what can be achieved when there's the political will to do so with financial backing.
https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/vaccine-development
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry but I am not sure how this can be the case.
Phase 3 trials monitor the effect of taking the the drug over a 12-36 month period.
No matter how you look at assessing the effect a drug has on your body over 12-36 months takes .....12-36 months.
I think the phase 3 trials can only have been conducted over 3-4 months max.
It will have been assessed on a risk basis but the dataset is far smaller than any that will have been approved before.
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 47 minutes ago
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Long term side effects and interactions are identified even when the normal timeline of around 10 years is spent developing and testing a drug.
This vaccine is coming to market in probably 6-8 months after discovery/development.
On the surface if it I would say we know less about the safety profile of this specific vaccine than any other approved for human use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the average turn around time for every flu vaccine that's produced annually? Can only be several months, surely?
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 47 minutes ago
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Long term side effects and interactions are identified even when the normal timeline of around 10 years is spent developing and testing a drug.
This vaccine is coming to market in probably 6-8 months after discovery/development.
On the surface if it I would say we know less about the safety profile of this specific vaccine than any other approved for human use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the average turn around time for every flu vaccine that's produced annually? Can only be several months, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the flu vaccine is slightly modified each year to account for mutations.
But by that point they have a lot of data on previous versions to be able to assess the risk of the slight changes they make.
These COVID vaccines seem to be new ones that have been developed.
If they have data from very similar vaccines that are already out there then that would definitely help manage the risk.
As I say it about weighing up the risk of intervention v's non-intervention.
They must be doing something funky to have the assurances it is OK.
As I said earlier - maybe computer modelling is being used much more as a predictive tool in accelerated approvals.
The MHRA will have been under massive pressure to approve the vaccine but they are a pretty tough bunch who understand the responsibility they have.
So whatever it is they have done to accelerate the phase 3 trial part is deemed acceptable to them then you have to think it should be reasonably solid.
I would just love to know how they have manged to get it through in this time frame.
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 20 minutes ago
And anyone comparing thalidomide with this vaccine is a moron.
You're trying to compare a drug to a vaccine for a start. A drug that was administered in large doses, before testing even existed.
It was precisely because of it that we have these rigourous procedures, to prevent it occurring again.
You'd have to laugh at these people if it didn't have real world implications 🤦♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly dont ever call me a moron
Secondly its a very good example of testing procedures that can go wrong OR ARE INSUFFICIENT.
Because you have complete faith in the procedures does not make you correct.
As said thousands of other drugs have been tested approved then pulled due to unforeseen side-effects.
Im not saying thats whats happened here and as said I will gladly take it, but plenty of others will have very valid concerns.
The fact that you laugh at these concerns is ...well laughable.
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 47 minutes ago
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Long term side effects and interactions are identified even when the normal timeline of around 10 years is spent developing and testing a drug.
This vaccine is coming to market in probably 6-8 months after discovery/development.
On the surface if it I would say we know less about the safety profile of this specific vaccine than any other approved for human use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 1 minute ago
As I say it about weighing up the risk of intervention v's non-intervention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree - I completely get how it all works. Not being all uppity about it but I worked in pharma and specifically New Product Introduction and Clinical Trials for the best part of 15 years.
I didnt work on vaccines though so there might be some specific short cuts that are standard practice.
If there had been a successful vaccine developed for a different strain of Coronavirus then that would have been a great starting point. And if they had a lot of existing safety data for very similar vaccines that then it might be of some use in shortening the phase 3 trials.
But TBH I dont know if any coronavirus vaccines have ever been successfully developed in the past. They never successfully came up with vaccines for SARS or MERS which were the two main high profile coronaviruses.
Whatever they have done this time around is clearly impressive. But I would just personally like to understand just how they have managed to get to a point where they can confidently say that you wont have any issues 18 - 36 months down the line after receiving the vaccine when in reality it was only developed a few months ago and the trials only lasted 3-4 months before it was greenlit.
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 1 minute ago
As I say it about weighing up the risk of intervention v's non-intervention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree - I completely get how it all works. Not being all uppity about it but I worked in pharma and specifically New Product Introduction and Clinical Trials for the best part of 15 years.
I didnt work on vaccines though so there might be some specific short cuts that are standard practice.
If there had been a successful vaccine developed for a different strain of Coronavirus then that would have been a great starting point. And if they had a lot of existing safety data for very similar vaccines that then it might be of some use in shortening the phase 3 trials.
But TBH I dont know if any coronavirus vaccines have ever been successfully developed in the past. They never successfully came up with vaccines for SARS or MERS which were the two main high profile coronaviruses.
Whatever they have done this time around is clearly impressive. But I would just personally like to understand just how they have managed to get to a point where they can confidently say that you wont have any issues 18 - 36 months down the line after receiving the vaccine when in reality it was only developed a few months ago and the trials only lasted 3-4 months before it was greenlit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very valid concerns
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 20 minutes ago
And anyone comparing thalidomide with this vaccine is a moron.
You're trying to compare a drug to a vaccine for a start. A drug that was administered in large doses, before testing even existed.
It was precisely because of it that we have these rigourous procedures, to prevent it occurring again.
You'd have to laugh at these people if it didn't have real world implications 🤦♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly dont ever call me a moron
Secondly its a very good example of testing procedures that can go wrong OR ARE INSUFFICIENT.
Because you have complete faith in the procedures does not make you correct.
As said thousands of other drugs have been tested approved then pulled due to unforeseen side-effects.
Im not saying thats whats happened here and as said I will gladly take it, but plenty of others will have very valid concerns.
The fact that you laugh at these concerns is ...well laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfectly ok to be cautious, mate.
With asthma at 56 and WFH due our DWP building being a covid kip, I will take it and let yeez all know...if I in the early vaccine group, that is.
Knowing my luck, I will turn Tim and ginger..
So, if everybody adopts the cautious approach being proposed.....?
Sign in if you want to comment
Vaccine approved for use in the UK
Page 5 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 2/12/20
i think it just highlights that there is still risk attached to taking any vaccine.
posted on 2/12/20
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
posted on 2/12/20
Of course there's an element of risk in any medical intervention. You have to balance that up against the risk of non-intervention and decide which is worth it.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
I am proud that on this day and momentous announced we get right to what matters.
Gay secks
Also some topical transexual discussion.
As I said proud day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My favourite headline this week
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/antilgbt-hungarian-mep-resigns-after-being-caught-at-gay-sex-party-breaching-covid-rules/news-story/b8b0283b00de5353e69d444dd71cff44
The vaccine stuff aside, obvs.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 49 minutes ago
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange as the answer is pretty obvious.
Its very early days how much testing has it had and can we be sure that in all cases not serious issues can be caused by the treatment.
Those who lived with the completely safe morning sickness miracle drug in the 60s might be particularly concerned.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 49 minutes ago
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange as the answer is pretty obvious.
Its very early days how much testing has it had and can we be sure that in all cases not serious issues can be caused by the treatment.
Those who lived with the completely safe morning sickness miracle drug in the 60s might be particularly concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that went a vaccine against a deadly diasese.
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
Versus
Highly contagious disease that had infected 65 million we know about and killed 1.5 million people. And left a similar amount with long term likely permanent respitory damage
I ain't sure it's a struggle of a choice
posted on 2/12/20
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
posted on 2/12/20
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
—-
Only the American ones. Although there seems to be a lot of them.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by super phoenix rangers - comments on this forum are not mine but a fictionalised version loosely based on someone similar to me (U14864)
posted 27 minutes ago
I am proud that on this day and momentous announced we get right to what matters.
Gay secks
Also some topical transexual discussion.
As I said proud day
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My favourite headline this week
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/antilgbt-hungarian-mep-resigns-after-being-caught-at-gay-sex-party-breaching-covid-rules/news-story/b8b0283b00de5353e69d444dd71cff44
The vaccine stuff aside, obvs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha, read that last night.
Tried to make his way down a drainpipe to getaway.
Not the first pipe he went down on that day.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by PointyBirds (U21890)
posted 6 seconds ago
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
—-
Only the American ones. Although there seems to be a lot of them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you seen Corbyn's brother on vaccines, 5g and lockdown.
Talk about a fruit n nutcase.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 49 minutes ago
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange as the answer is pretty obvious.
Its very early days how much testing has it had and can we be sure that in all cases not serious issues can be caused by the treatment.
Those who lived with the completely safe morning sickness miracle drug in the 60s might be particularly concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's had the same level of testing as any other vaccine ever approved.
Long term testing (stage IV) only occurs after it has been distributed to the general population. This vaccine is no different than any other that has had to go through this process.
The only reason it took less time is the fact unlimited resources have been thrown at it, with labs all across the world focussing on this vaccine and essentially little else.
Just goes to show what can be achieved when there's the political will to do so with financial backing.
https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/vaccine-development
posted on 2/12/20
And anyone comparing thalidomide with this vaccine is a moron.
You're trying to compare a drug to a vaccine for a start. A drug that was administered in large doses, before testing even existed.
It was precisely because of it that we have these rigourous procedures, to prevent it occurring again.
You'd have to laugh at these people if it didn't have real world implications 🤦♂️
posted on 2/12/20
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 47 minutes ago
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Long term side effects and interactions are identified even when the normal timeline of around 10 years is spent developing and testing a drug.
This vaccine is coming to market in probably 6-8 months after discovery/development.
On the surface if it I would say we know less about the safety profile of this specific vaccine than any other approved for human use.
posted on 2/12/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 2/12/20
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 49 minutes ago
I keep asking anti-vaxxers on Twitter what it is specifically that scares them about this vaccine.
Rarely get a coherent answer if any
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Strange as the answer is pretty obvious.
Its very early days how much testing has it had and can we be sure that in all cases not serious issues can be caused by the treatment.
Those who lived with the completely safe morning sickness miracle drug in the 60s might be particularly concerned.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's had the same level of testing as any other vaccine ever approved.
Long term testing (stage IV) only occurs after it has been distributed to the general population. This vaccine is no different than any other that has had to go through this process.
The only reason it took less time is the fact unlimited resources have been thrown at it, with labs all across the world focussing on this vaccine and essentially little else.
Just goes to show what can be achieved when there's the political will to do so with financial backing.
https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/vaccine-development
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry but I am not sure how this can be the case.
Phase 3 trials monitor the effect of taking the the drug over a 12-36 month period.
No matter how you look at assessing the effect a drug has on your body over 12-36 months takes .....12-36 months.
I think the phase 3 trials can only have been conducted over 3-4 months max.
It will have been assessed on a risk basis but the dataset is far smaller than any that will have been approved before.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 47 minutes ago
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Long term side effects and interactions are identified even when the normal timeline of around 10 years is spent developing and testing a drug.
This vaccine is coming to market in probably 6-8 months after discovery/development.
On the surface if it I would say we know less about the safety profile of this specific vaccine than any other approved for human use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the average turn around time for every flu vaccine that's produced annually? Can only be several months, surely?
posted on 2/12/20
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 47 minutes ago
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Long term side effects and interactions are identified even when the normal timeline of around 10 years is spent developing and testing a drug.
This vaccine is coming to market in probably 6-8 months after discovery/development.
On the surface if it I would say we know less about the safety profile of this specific vaccine than any other approved for human use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's the average turn around time for every flu vaccine that's produced annually? Can only be several months, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes the flu vaccine is slightly modified each year to account for mutations.
But by that point they have a lot of data on previous versions to be able to assess the risk of the slight changes they make.
These COVID vaccines seem to be new ones that have been developed.
If they have data from very similar vaccines that are already out there then that would definitely help manage the risk.
posted on 2/12/20
As I say it about weighing up the risk of intervention v's non-intervention.
posted on 2/12/20
They must be doing something funky to have the assurances it is OK.
As I said earlier - maybe computer modelling is being used much more as a predictive tool in accelerated approvals.
The MHRA will have been under massive pressure to approve the vaccine but they are a pretty tough bunch who understand the responsibility they have.
So whatever it is they have done to accelerate the phase 3 trial part is deemed acceptable to them then you have to think it should be reasonably solid.
I would just love to know how they have manged to get it through in this time frame.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 20 minutes ago
And anyone comparing thalidomide with this vaccine is a moron.
You're trying to compare a drug to a vaccine for a start. A drug that was administered in large doses, before testing even existed.
It was precisely because of it that we have these rigourous procedures, to prevent it occurring again.
You'd have to laugh at these people if it didn't have real world implications 🤦♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly dont ever call me a moron
Secondly its a very good example of testing procedures that can go wrong OR ARE INSUFFICIENT.
Because you have complete faith in the procedures does not make you correct.
As said thousands of other drugs have been tested approved then pulled due to unforeseen side-effects.
Im not saying thats whats happened here and as said I will gladly take it, but plenty of others will have very valid concerns.
The fact that you laugh at these concerns is ...well laughable.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 47 minutes ago
You have a vaccine with no known major side effects.
--
I think the key word is KNOWN.
And thats almost certainly true.
But then it was also true of the thousands of drugs released then later withdrawn once side effects became KNOWN.
I am not anti the vaccine and will most probably take it.
My point is that anyone who may be concerned is not some mad conspiracy lunatic.
Concerns are perfectly valid and understandable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Long term side effects and interactions are identified even when the normal timeline of around 10 years is spent developing and testing a drug.
This vaccine is coming to market in probably 6-8 months after discovery/development.
On the surface if it I would say we know less about the safety profile of this specific vaccine than any other approved for human use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 2/12/20
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 1 minute ago
As I say it about weighing up the risk of intervention v's non-intervention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree - I completely get how it all works. Not being all uppity about it but I worked in pharma and specifically New Product Introduction and Clinical Trials for the best part of 15 years.
I didnt work on vaccines though so there might be some specific short cuts that are standard practice.
If there had been a successful vaccine developed for a different strain of Coronavirus then that would have been a great starting point. And if they had a lot of existing safety data for very similar vaccines that then it might be of some use in shortening the phase 3 trials.
But TBH I dont know if any coronavirus vaccines have ever been successfully developed in the past. They never successfully came up with vaccines for SARS or MERS which were the two main high profile coronaviruses.
Whatever they have done this time around is clearly impressive. But I would just personally like to understand just how they have managed to get to a point where they can confidently say that you wont have any issues 18 - 36 months down the line after receiving the vaccine when in reality it was only developed a few months ago and the trials only lasted 3-4 months before it was greenlit.
posted on 2/12/20
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 1 minute ago
As I say it about weighing up the risk of intervention v's non-intervention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree - I completely get how it all works. Not being all uppity about it but I worked in pharma and specifically New Product Introduction and Clinical Trials for the best part of 15 years.
I didnt work on vaccines though so there might be some specific short cuts that are standard practice.
If there had been a successful vaccine developed for a different strain of Coronavirus then that would have been a great starting point. And if they had a lot of existing safety data for very similar vaccines that then it might be of some use in shortening the phase 3 trials.
But TBH I dont know if any coronavirus vaccines have ever been successfully developed in the past. They never successfully came up with vaccines for SARS or MERS which were the two main high profile coronaviruses.
Whatever they have done this time around is clearly impressive. But I would just personally like to understand just how they have managed to get to a point where they can confidently say that you wont have any issues 18 - 36 months down the line after receiving the vaccine when in reality it was only developed a few months ago and the trials only lasted 3-4 months before it was greenlit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very valid concerns
posted on 2/12/20
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by JukeboxJunkie (U10162)
posted 20 minutes ago
And anyone comparing thalidomide with this vaccine is a moron.
You're trying to compare a drug to a vaccine for a start. A drug that was administered in large doses, before testing even existed.
It was precisely because of it that we have these rigourous procedures, to prevent it occurring again.
You'd have to laugh at these people if it didn't have real world implications 🤦♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly dont ever call me a moron
Secondly its a very good example of testing procedures that can go wrong OR ARE INSUFFICIENT.
Because you have complete faith in the procedures does not make you correct.
As said thousands of other drugs have been tested approved then pulled due to unforeseen side-effects.
Im not saying thats whats happened here and as said I will gladly take it, but plenty of others will have very valid concerns.
The fact that you laugh at these concerns is ...well laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perfectly ok to be cautious, mate.
With asthma at 56 and WFH due our DWP building being a covid kip, I will take it and let yeez all know...if I in the early vaccine group, that is.
Knowing my luck, I will turn Tim and ginger..
posted on 2/12/20
So, if everybody adopts the cautious approach being proposed.....?
Page 5 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10