COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[BlueAnorak]

Not true, as we are still under EU rules until January, and we could give approval whether a member or not.

No bollox - one if the early paragraphs:
"When we were part of the EU, the EMA had areas of jurisdiction that meant only it could make decisions about certain types of medicine, including vaccines. National regulators like the MHRA couldn’t get involved."
Same rules - different sign off.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Miles more people out and about today,public transport busier and the roads are hammered.

 

[domalino]

No bollox - one if the early paragraphs:
"When we were part of the EU, the EMA had areas of jurisdiction that meant only it could make decisions about certain types of medicine, including vaccines. National regulators like the MHRA couldn’t get involved."
Same rules - different sign off.

Who do you think you are kidding? Either you only have the attention span to read 2 paragraphs of an article, or you think if you just lie and only copy the part of the article which is being corrected, no one else will notice?

The European regulations we adopted during our time in the trade bloc are still in effect until the end of 2020.​

​

That includes the rule that says vaccines generally must be authorised by the EMA instead of national regulators.​

​

But as a UK government press release from 23 November 2020 states: “if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate, […] becomes available before the end of the transition period, EU legislation which we have implemented via Regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations allows the MHRA to temporarily authorise the supply of a medicine or vaccine, based on public health need.”​

​

So even if we were still a member of the EU, the UK regulator would have been able to take this decision on its own because EU law already allows it. Incidentally, that legislation took effect in the UK in 2012, long before Brexit was on the cards.​

​

​

I have seen some shit attempts to win an argument in my time on this forum, but copying and pasting half of an article specifically explaining why you are wrong is up there with the shittest.

 

[twosips]

England hospital deaths 3 wks v 2 wks v last wk v today:

DEATHS // NW // NW PERCENTAGE

246d // 54 // 22%

326d // 59 // 18%

338d // 64 // 19%

274d // 45 // 16% TODAY

Looks things are heading in the right direction. Fingers crossed it stays that way. Big drop on last week!

 

[blueparrot]

No bollox - one if the early paragraphs:
"When we were part of the EU, the EMA had areas of jurisdiction that meant only it could make decisions about certain types of medicine, including vaccines. National regulators like the MHRA couldn’t get involved."
Same rules - different sign off.

Well it's been accepted by most now that's wrong, so you musn't be keeping up with days old news.

 

[Healdplace]

England hospital deaths more detail:

1 of the 274 was under 20 tragically, The others were 13 aged 40 - 59, 118 aged 60 - 79 and 142 aged over 80.

As I have been mentioning in this daily update the numbers over 80 are falling - which I suspect is a key reason why death numbers are falling. They are still the highest age group but the gap has been narrowing regularly to the next youngest group.

I trust someone has noticed this and is investigating what the reasons are. Possibly we have finally got on top of the care home tragedy as the majority in there will be 80 and over.

Outside of the 45 deaths in the NW (no hospital in the region in double figures and Liverpool the most second day running) - other regions were - NE & Yorkshire 77, Midlands 59, South East and London 24.

 

[03 March 2002]

To clarify, the MHRA has had the power to invoke article 174 at any time given permission by the home office, regardless of EU status.

We could and would have done this whether in or out of the EU.

 

[inchy14]

Who do you think you are kidding? Either you only have the attention span to read 2 paragraphs of an article, or you think if you just lie and only copy the part of the article which is being corrected, no one else will notice?

The European regulations we adopted during our time in the trade bloc are still in effect until the end of 2020.​

​

That includes the rule that says vaccines generally must be authorised by the EMA instead of national regulators.​

​

But as a UK government press release from 23 November 2020 states: “if a suitable COVID-19 vaccine candidate, […] becomes available before the end of the transition period, EU legislation which we have implemented via Regulation 174 of the Human Medicines Regulations allows the MHRA to temporarily authorise the supply of a medicine or vaccine, based on public health need.”​

​

So even if we were still a member of the EU, the UK regulator would have been able to take this decision on its own because EU law already allows it. Incidentally, that legislation took effect in the UK in 2012, long before Brexit was on the cards.​

​

​

I have seen some shit attempts to win an argument in my time on this forum, but copying and pasting half of an article specifically explaining why you are wrong is up there with the shittest.

Where I accept you’re right, do you actually ever engage with any poster on here in a civil manner? Does everything have to be so inflammatory from you? Can’t you just tone it down a little to posters or even better just not answer them?

 

[shemnel]

Clearly bollox - Not having to wait for aproval from 27 other nations public health administrations clearly enabled the UK to approve the vaccine more quickly

i think youre wrong there

 

[domalino]

Where I accept you’re right, do you actually ever engage with any poster on here in a civil manner? Does everything have to be so inflammatory from you? Can’t you just tone it down a little to posters or even better just not answer them?

It's hard to be civil when someone is clearly being intentionally dishonest.

For a start, they replied to the article Ric posted without reading it, but simply repeating a false claim the article showed to be wrong.

Then the user posted paragraph 4 of an article knowing full well it was misleading because the first 3 paragraphs of the article were about how it was wrong, and so was all of the article after the bit they copied and pasted.

And the headline of the article was literally "Brexit did not speed up UK vaccine authorisation".


So why should anyone engage with someone who's intentionally trying to bullshit the rest of us with anything except the contempt they clearly have for the users he's trying to con?

 

[Healdplace]

​

​

Bad Request​

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Size of a request header field exceeds server limit.


Really struggling to get on here. Keep getting stopped by this message. I have this site allowed for cookies and that usually is OK.

Cleared the cache but it has made no difference. Only lets me post if I am lucky.

Working for now but any suggestions from computer whizzes next time it happens would be appreciated.

You can PM me here.

 

[artfuldodger]

Daughter was emailed last week to say she would have the vacc next week front line nhs. Got another today to say sorry not this hospital only the 50 hubs.

Maybe to do with this.

NHS staff no longer top priority for vaccine despite fear of third wave

Health officials warn infections at Christmas gatherings could lead to overwhelmed hospitals

www.theguardian.com

 

[roubaixtuesday]

No bollox - one if the early paragraphs:
"When we were part of the EU, the EMA had areas of jurisdiction that meant only it could make decisions about certain types of medicine, including vaccines. National regulators like the MHRA couldn’t get involved."
Same rules - different sign off.

Blue, this is a temporary use permission.

Here's the relevant part of uk law.

The Human Medicines Regulations 2012

These Regulations consolidate the law of the United Kingdom concerning medicinal products for human use (“products”) in respect of the topics described below.

www.legislation.gov.uk

We are still under EU law until Jan 1st, and this is within EU law. We can't, and have not, fully approve until the EMA does.

Hungary have or plan to, I believe, do likewise to authorise the Russian vaccine, which has not even been submitted to the EU.

Hope that helps.

 

[vincent]

It's hard to be civil when someone is clearly being intentionally dishonest.

For a start, they replied to the article Ric posted without reading it, but simply repeating a false claim the article showed to be wrong.

Then the user posted paragraph 4 of an article knowing full well it was misleading because the first 3 paragraphs of the article were about how it was wrong, and so was all of the article after the bit they copied and pasted.

And the headline of the article was literally "Brexit did not speed up UK vaccine authorisation".


So why should anyone engage with someone who's intentionally trying to bullshit the rest of us with anything except the contempt they clearly have for the users he's trying to con?

You generally speak to people like they’re pieces of shit. I have been on the end of it once or twice and every time I log on here you’re at it with someone else.

 

[twosips]

It's hard to be civil when someone is clearly being intentionally dishonest.

For a start, they replied to the article Ric posted without reading it, but simply repeating a false claim the article showed to be wrong.

Then the user posted paragraph 4 of an article knowing full well it was misleading because the first 3 paragraphs of the article were about how it was wrong, and so was all of the article after the bit they copied and pasted.

And the headline of the article was literally "Brexit did not speed up UK vaccine authorisation".


So why should anyone engage with someone who's intentionally trying to bullshit the rest of us with anything except the contempt they clearly have for the users he's trying to con?

To be fair mate you were being very aggressive to me yesterday too when I hadn't done anything wrong and was perfectly civil and polite at all times. Turns out I was asking totally reasonable questions too based on another poster's knowledge on the subject. I think you're going in a bit too strongly at the moment. Feel free to ignore me if you like, but I'm not out to get anyone. Just being honest. I think BlueAnorak is wrong in this case too, but I don't think the aggression/insults are needed.

 

[vincent]

Italy is really struggling. 993 deaths yesterday alone. Shocking numbers.

 

[domalino]

To be fair mate you were being very aggressive to me yesterday too when I hadn't done anything wrong and was perfectly civil and polite at all times. Turns out I was asking totally reasonable questions too based on another poster's knowledge on the subject. I think you're going in a bit too strongly at the moment. Feel free to ignore me if you like, but I'm not out to get anyone. Just being honest. I think BlueAnorak is wrong in this case too, but I don't think the aggression/insults are needed.

Yesterday you started getting worked up and questioning why the MHRA hadn't taken what was in your view "totally normal steps" before approving the vaccine like the Swiss had, and falsely claimed the UK was a massive outlier in their processes.

I told you that it was stupid to question the work of an organisation with a fantastic reputation that's given you no reason to question their ability when you have no idea what is and isn't "totally normal steps" and that the Swiss were the outliers because neither the FDA or the EMA had taken the Swiss position that more information was needed. That's something I completely stand by.

Then someone who worked in vaccines told you the MHRA did everything they should, like I had, but their apparent authority calmed you down enough to stop questioning the integrity of the MHRA for a day or two.

I also will maintain that people implying that the MHRA has done something wrong and skirted corners by asking almost comically loaded questions is not helpful at all, and not at all the neutral open-minded approach you think it is.

 

[twosips]

Yesterday you started getting worked up and questioning why the MHRA hadn't taken what was in your view "totally normal steps" before approving the vaccine like the Swiss had, and falsely claimed the UK was a massive outlier in their processes.

I told you that it was stupid to question the work of an organisation with a fantastic reputation that's given you no reason to question their ability, and that the Swiss were the outliers because neither the FDA or the EMA had taken the Swiss position that more information was needed.

Then someone who worked in vaccines told you the MHRA did everything they should, like I had, but their apparent authority calmed you down enough to stop questioning the integrity of the MHRA.

I didn't get worked up at all, stop this emotive language. It's totally unfair and literally not true. I asked a question as I was genuinely curious. Then you went at me. Each time I replied to you I was polite, as I was to the others who replied and I didn't have any issues with anyone else. No one else was rude to me.

I didn't once question the MHRA's integrity or imply they'd cut corners. I didn't. I simply asked a question out of curiosity as to why the Swiss and the UK saw it differently, cos there's zero wrong with that. Some people just like to have their gaps in their knowledge plugged. Thankfully someone else replied, politely and considerably more informatively with no attacks. There is NEVER anything wrong with asking a question as long as it's politely done and genuinely curious. I did fuck all wrong.

Anyway, I cba man, please just stop being a dick. I'm not perfect, but I will always apologise to someone if I think ive been rude or i've misconstrued their words. I think it's the least I can do. Have a little humility. I'm a decent person, and I know I did zero wrong yesterday, other than ask a question that you'd decided I wasn't allowed to ask. It's unfair. It isn't just me noticing that you're being needlessly prickly with people.

 

[AlgarveBlu]

Yesterday you started getting worked up and questioning why the MHRA hadn't taken what was in your view "totally normal steps" before approving the vaccine like the Swiss had, and falsely claimed the UK was a massive outlier in their processes.

I told you that it was stupid to question the work of an organisation with a fantastic reputation that's given you no reason to question their ability when you have no idea what is and isn't "totally normal steps" and that the Swiss were the outliers because neither the FDA or the EMA had taken the Swiss position that more information was needed. That's something I completely stand by.

Then someone who worked in vaccines told you the MHRA did everything they should, like I had, but their apparent authority calmed you down enough to stop questioning the integrity of the MHRA for a day or two.

I also will maintain that people implying that the MHRA has done something wrong and skirted corners by asking almost comically loaded questions is not helpful at all, and not at all the neutral open-minded approach you think it is.

You also disagreed with one of my posts back in March and I will have my vengeance in this life or the next!

 

[Lee1983]

Tolmie you're the reason I finally made an account. Been following your ITK stuff for god knows how long. Now I find myself treading a fine line as to what I can and cannot say, à la you.


I think our little -70c/ supply issue might just go away.

Will the Oxford Vaccine be approved on that day? just a wild guess on my end.