Pfizer vaccine approved

[Count Steer]

All valid concerns, but not relevant to a doctor who is making a decision to give a treatment to a patient where the approving body have decided that the risks outweigh the benefits.

The remits of JVCI and SAGE are not all encompassing and do not consider all risks and benefits. Only the ones within their allocated scope.

[Noggin]

As evidence shows that COVID-19 rarely causes severe disease in children without underlying health conditions, at this time the JCVI’s view is that the minimal health benefits of offering universal COVID-19 vaccination to children do not outweigh the potential risks.

I'd want to know if they mean -

Potential risks to the child from the vaccine

or

Potential risks to the child from the virus


If it's the first I would understand not doing it.

If it's the second, well, surely that's like the MMR. You probably won't have an issue and if you don't get it you probably won't get the virus BUT the more kids that have the vaccine then the fewer people will get the virus

(I think I've written that how I mean it!!)

[wheelnut]

As evidence shows that COVID-19 rarely causes severe disease in children without underlying health conditions, at this time the JCVI’s view is that the minimal health benefits of offering universal COVID-19 vaccination to children do not outweigh the potential risks.

I'd want to know if they mean -

Potential risks to the child from the vaccine

or

Potential risks to the child from the virus


If it's the first I would understand not doing it.

If it's the second, well, surely that's like the MMR. You probably won't have an issue and if you don't get it you probably won't get the virus BUT the more kids that have the vaccine then the fewer people will get the virus

(I think I've written that how I mean it!!)

It's the first. The JCVI have come to the conclusion that the potential harm from the vaccine side effects outweigh the potential adverse effects of the virus in kids. Therefore, under the ethics principle that you cannot give drugs to one person for the benefit of another, it's going to be difficult for a medic to administer it to a (healthy) kid.

[wheelnut]

As CS says, that probably depends upon how narrowly/widely "medical benefits" are considered.

The remits of JVCI and SAGE are not all encompassing and do not consider all risks and benefits. Only the ones within their allocated scope.

The remit is the medical risks/benefits involved in giving a vaccine to a particular group. And when it comes to administering or not administering a drug that's a wide enough scope. You cannot give a drug to an indivudual that has been determined may cause a net harm in order to solve some of the side effects of a pandemic. It's basic, simple principle of medicine that the government are obviously struggling to get around.

[irie]

As CS says, that probably depends upon how narrowly/widely "medical benefits" are considered.

The remits of JVCI and SAGE are not all encompassing and do not consider all risks and benefits. Only the ones within their allocated scope.

The remit is the medical risks/benefits involved in giving a vaccine to a particular group. And when it comes to administering or not administering a drug that's a wide enough scope. You cannot give a drug to an indivudual that has been determined may cause a net harm in order to solve some of the side effects of a pandemic. It's basic, simple principle of medicine that the government are obviously struggling to get around.

Because the above defines neither the exact scope of what is meant by "medical risks/benefits", nor exactly what is meant by "a particular group", it is generalised to the point of being meaningless. Which of course is what it is meant to be.

[Count Steer]

As CS says, that probably depends upon how narrowly/widely "medical benefits" are considered.

The remits of JVCI and SAGE are not all encompassing and do not consider all risks and benefits. Only the ones within their allocated scope.

The remit is the medical risks/benefits involved in giving a vaccine to a particular group. And when it comes to administering or not administering a drug that's a wide enough scope. You cannot give a drug to an indivudual that has been determined may cause a net harm in order to solve some of the side effects of a pandemic. It's basic, simple principle of medicine that the government are obviously struggling to get around.

Because the above defines neither the exact scope of what is meant by "medical risks/benefits", nor exactly what is meant by "a particular group", it is generalised to the point of being meaningless. Which of course is what it is meant to be.

Also, "The committee* instead suggested ministers ask the four chief medical officers of the UK to examine wider factors such as the potential impact of disruption to schools".

I assume that the MHRA have approved vaccine for 12 to 15 year olds otherwise the JVCI would have had nothing to consider.

*JVCI (who said they could not recommend it based on purely clinical considerations ie they just ducked).

[Mussels]

If kids shouldn't have the covid jab why are they suddenly vaccinating kids in bulk for flu? I've just had an an email from the school saying the immunisation service is turning up to school on Monday to do this???
Unless the risk of flu to individual children has suddenly changed and I missed it

[irie]

Old(ish) news. Naughty Pfizer and BioNTech? Looks like it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business ... d-lawsuit/

Moderna sued Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech on Friday [19th August 2022], alleging that the rival firms improperly used its foundational technology in developing their coronavirus vaccine. The suit sets up a legal battle between the most prominent companies that helped curb the coronavirus pandemic in the United States by developing highly effective shots in record time.

BioNtech also being sued by Curevac for patent infringement.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-022-01442-8

[weeksy]

They should've shared every bit of info and tech anyway

[DefTrap]

Maybe shareholders would disagree. I dunno. Maybe Michelin should give out free tyres, or patent technology, because it's a road safety issue.

In other news, I get my #4 CovId jab on saturday afternoon, the bivalent one focusing on a couple of the Omicron variants.

[irie]

They should've shared every bit of info and tech anyway

Is "they" Pfizer/BioNtech, or Moderna, or Curevac?

[weeksy]

They should've shared every bit of info and tech anyway

Is "they" Pfizer/BioNtech, or Moderna, or Curevac?

Simple answer, all of them. None of this should ever have been about money, technology etc. It was quite literally life and death. Going back and no trying to sue or or the other just makes them utter slime in my book.

Maybe if they'd shared more, some people wouldn't be dead now.

[irie]

They should've shared every bit of info and tech anyway

Is "they" Pfizer/BioNtech, or Moderna, or Curevac?

Simple answer, all of them. None of this should ever have been about money, technology etc. It was quite literally life and death. Going back and no trying to sue or or the other just makes them utter slime in my book.

Maybe if they'd shared more, some people wouldn't be dead now.

From the link I posted it appears that Moderna did share - it's Pfizer and BioNTech that have made big profits and, as Moderna's lawsuit alleges, refused to acknowledge their use of Moderna patents.

[Pirahna]

Maybe shareholders would disagree. I dunno. Maybe Michelin should give out free tyres, or patent technology, because it's a road safety issue.

Volvo invented the 3 point seat belt, patented it, then let everyone use it for free because it was a big step forward in road safety.

[Greenman]

Maybe shareholders would disagree. I dunno. Maybe Michelin should give out free tyres, or patent technology, because it's a road safety issue.

In other news, I get my #4 CovId jab on saturday afternoon, the bivalent one focusing on a couple of the Omicron variants.

[Supermofo]

Maybe shareholders would disagree. I dunno. Maybe Michelin should give out free tyres, or patent technology, because it's a road safety issue.

In other news, I get my #4 CovId jab on saturday afternoon, the bivalent one focusing on a couple of the Omicron variants.

I'm getting my 4th tomorrow night. Other than shivers etc after the first AZ one I've had no side effects at all.









Other than trying to shag 5G masts.

I'm gonna drink a load of cider/rum Fri night and another load Sat night as I'm going to see Bob Vylan, I'm sure that'll be worse for me than the jab.

[Noggin]

I've had 4 x pfizer jabs - obviously no sense no feeling cos no effect from any of them

[Felix]

I've had 4 x pfizer jabs - obviously no sense no feeling cos no effect from any of them

Read the side effect leaflet. They make you accident prone

[Noggin]

I've had 4 x pfizer jabs - obviously no sense no feeling cos no effect from any of them

Read the side effect leaflet. They make you accident prone

Must have had that vaccine 50+ years ago then - cos accident prone ain't new

[ZRX61]

Fauci, Biden, CDC etc: Get the jab, it helps prevent transmission.

Pfizer: "Er, we never tested if it actually does that.."

Fauci, Biden, CDC etc: Wear a mask, it helps prevent you being infected

Mask manufacturers & *science*: None of the masks do that.

Fauci, Biden, CDC etc: Wear a mask, it helps prevent you from spreading the virus

Mask manufacturers & *science*: No they don't.