Pfizer Covid vaccine approved for use next week in UK

Post by shmel » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #287

pmoriarty wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be places you won't be allowed to go and things you won't be allowed to do (like work, maybe) unless you show proof of having been vaccinated. There's a good chance that situation will create a black market both for vaccines (real and fake) and forged proof of vaccination.

There may be places you won't be allowed to go and things you won't be allowed to do (like work, maybe) unless you show proof of having been vaccinated. The UK government has ruled out having a vacination passport (for good reason in my opinion).

Post by simonh » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

swalsh wrote: post #331

jakozaur wrote: post #19

In terms of rollout. UK is the ideal country to be the first: 1. Heavily impacted by Covid-19. 2. Centralised health care system makes it easier to compare results and efficiency. E.g. it's UK which figured out that dexamethasone is efficient against Covid https://www.who.int/news/item/16-06-2020-who-welcomes-prelim... 3. Developed country with great logistics.

In a recent article about the Moderna vaccine, it was mentioned that the actual development only took 2 days.... and it was done in January! Given how short of a time it took to actually develop this thing, could we have drastically sped up this process by maybe being a bit more risky with the trials? At this point ~1.5 million people have died from the virus. I've really struggled with this knowledge that we've had…

Post by calebm » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 2:53 PM UTC

Arkhaine_kupo wrote: post #25

waihtis wrote: post #20

Not sure why the posts asking for vaccine risks are getting downvoted. Pandemrix, the vaccine for swine flu, caused a notable amount of narcolepsy cases in recipients here in FIN (notable here meaning the amount of yearly cases spiked by 3-4x) and as with anything that's taken quick to market there has to be some risk of overlooking some tail events somewhere. It's not an anti-vaccine attitude, just healthy skepticis…

Healthy skepticism belong in peer-reviews, in revisions of medical journals. Skepticism in the public space fosters anti-vaccine sentiments, adds to the already growing anti-vax movements and puts in risk the vulnerable in our society as they require shielding and for the rest of us to do our part.

Post by KingOfCoders » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

spuz wrote: post #305

nmca wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that that trial condition (half->full) was administered accidentally (thus not pre-registered) and nobody expected it to work better, and the sample size is small and on the wrong age groups.

This doesn't matter though. The results are still valid.

Post by jcims » Wed, Dec 02, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

jbob2000 wrote: post #338

free2OSS wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Medical isn't constrained to science. Healthcare professionals are allowed to use tradition, authority, and Art in combination with science. It's mind boggling to Engineers to hear this, but Medicine is older than the scientific method and physicians used Regulatory capture to prevent competition. I'd love a science based healthcare alternative.

Science doesn't have all the answers. My partner recently got into a heated debate with a pharmaceutical company she was working for because they wanted something added to their standards of care document for a rare genetic disorder they developed a therapy for. She couldn't find a study to backup the claims that the medical team wanted to make in the document, but the lead doctor said that if this wasn't included, t…