COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[twosips]

How is requiring more data than the USA, UK and 27 states of Europe not a roadblock?

There's a set of data that every vaccine needs to get approval by the MHRA, FDA and EMA, that's been provided, and they have decided it's not enough.

How do you know they require more data than others? You keep saying that but is there any implication that they do? I'm no expert but surely preexisting health conditions is a ridiculously normal thing to consider? Genuinely not trying to be awkward. Just confused by your assertion that the Swiss are putting up roadblocks based on...well, one very standard question.

Edit - given that the UK is the only one to approve it so far im not sure you can say the Swiss are being any different to other European countries. If that changes fair enough. Currently we're the outlier.

 

[domalino]

How do you know they require more data? You keep saying that but is there any implication that they do? I'm no expert but surely preexisting health conditions is a ridiculously normal thing to consider? Genuinely not trying to be awkward. Just confused by your assertion that the Swiss are putting up roadblocks based on...well, one very standard question.

They say they don't have the data they need. EMA, MHRA and FDA do have the data they need.

Which means either -

1) They are requiring more data than everyone else.

or

2) There's a global conspiracy by the Pharma companies to fuck over the Swiss by not giving them the data they gave to everyone else.

 

[twosips]

They say they don't have the data they need. EMA, MHRA and FDA do have the data they need.

Which means either -

1) They are requiring more data than everyone else.

or

2) There's a global conspiracy by the Pharma companies to fuck over the Swiss by not giving them the data they gave to everyone else.

Well, given only one country has approved it so far, we don't know if the Swiss are bucking the trend or not do we? So your basis for 1) is 'the UK have approved it', so you can't say they're requiring more data than anyone else. More data than possibly one country? Maybe. The rest? No idea of knowing. It's currently the UK's word vs the Swiss's word. If that changes, fair enough.

Also, once again. Pre-existing conditions is not an unreasonable request is it? Literally a key piece of data. Unless you think it isn't (which surely any thinks it is?) or that they do have it and they're in fact lying? Which would be bizarre.

 

[domalino]

Well, given only one country has approved it so far, we don't know if the Swiss are bucking the trend or not do we?

Yes we do.

Because the FDA and EMA aren't complaining they haven't got the data they need. They have it, and are just slightly behind the MHRA in processing the same data.

 

[twosips]

Yes we do.

Because the FDA and EMA aren't complaining they haven't got the data they need. They are just slightly behind in processing the same data.

Ah i guess you've been on the phone and had a chat? :)

We literally don't know yet. The fact is the FDA and EMA haven't yet approved them, so stop acting like they have. It's disengenuous. They probably will, I agree its likely - but we literally have no idea if they will or won't yet and there is no way you can say with 100% confidence that they have approved them or they have all the data they need...yet. By their own admission they're still reviewing things. Just because they haven't said anything yet it doesn't mean they wont ever. I have no idea why you're being so stubborn about this and making it out as if its the whole world vs the Swiss. It literally isn't. I know we all want this over but there's nothing wrong with being rigorous.

 

[domalino]

Ah i guess you've been on the phone and had a chat? :)

We literally don't know yet. The fact is the FDA and EMA haven't yet approved them, so stop acting like they have. It's disengenuous. They probably will, I agree its likely - but we literally have no idea if they will or won't yet and there is no way you can say with 100% confidence that they have approved them or they have all the data they need...yet. By their own admission they're still reviewing things. Just because they haven't said anything yet it doesn't mean they wont ever. I have no idea why you're being so stubborn about this and making it out as if its the whole world vs the Swiss. It literally isn't. I know we all want this over but there's nothing wrong with being rigorous.

The FDA and EMA have not publicly stated they don't have the data they need, have they? No.

So why are you pretending they fall in line with the Swiss? They don't.

We all get it, you don't trust the government anymore and now immediately want to undermine the results of any government organisation like the MHRA, no matter how little you know about the organisation or how they work. It's getting tedious. You don't have a clue what being rigorous means when it comes to authorising vaccines, and you don't have any qualification to question the MHRA approving it.

 

[M18CTID]

Ah i guess you've been on the phone and had a chat? :)

We literally don't know yet. The fact is the FDA and EMA haven't yet approved them, so stop acting like they have. It's disengenuous. They probably will, I agree its likely - but we literally have no idea if they will or won't yet and there is no way you can say with 100% confidence that they have approved them or they have all the data they need...yet. By their own admission they're still reviewing things. Just because they haven't said anything yet it doesn't mean they wont ever. I have no idea why you're being so stubborn about this and making it out as if its the whole world vs the Swiss. It literally isn't. I know we all want this over but there's nothing wrong with being rigorous.

Are you saying the MHRA haven’t been rigorous?

 

[Healdplace]

This cutting corners because this vaccine has been created and approved in record time does not take into account three things that are very different this time than has ever been true:

1: A GLOBAL pandemic that became one within weeks not months or years meant almost every wealthy nation put money into this to try to save their economy from tanking. Meaning a ginormous budget never seen before.

2: A GLOBAL market for any successful vaccine that meant drug companies had a huge incentive to invest too because the rewards from global sales were gigantic unlike with a Far East virus or an African one that might never go any further.

3: The very high infectiveness of this virus and how it spread so fast taking new countries almost daily made testing and trialling much easier than with most diseases because these trials require a base limit of cases you must wait to collate - possibly for years - and if you only have to wait weeks instead of months or years to collate that data then the process is sped up in ways that it usually is not.

Not a conspiracy or corner cutting. Just a very insidious disease with a global imperative to resolve asap.

 

[twosips]

The FDA and EMA have not publicly stated they don't have the data they need, have they? No.

So why are you pretending they fall in line with the Swiss? They don't.

I never once said they did. How are you interpreting it in that way? You're more intelligent than this. Don't be disingenuous man, it's unfair. I'm trying to judge based of what we categorically know, not presumptions.

My point was that they don't (currently) fall in line with the Swiss OR the UK. All we know is they're reviewing the data. They might decide they need more. They might not. Just because they haven't said anything yet it doesn't mean they have a stance either way. That's a pretty fair conclusion isn't it?

Simple question - do you think pre-existing conditions are unimportant?

 

[twosips]

Are you saying the MHRA haven’t been rigorous?

No. Not at all. I'm sure they are. I'm just wondering what's wrong with the Swiss asking for data on pre-existing conditions and how is that unreasonable? The MHRA hasn't yet published a full report. Looking forward to it so we can see why their view is possibly different than the Swiss.