After you.
No, after you.
Please, I insist.
NO, I insist.
Etc.
Via Minister of State for Public Procurement and eGovernment Ossian Smyth
Sponsored Link
Everything. As It Happens.
After you.
No, after you.
Please, I insist.
NO, I insist.
Etc.
Via Minister of State for Public Procurement and eGovernment Ossian Smyth
Points 5 and 11 – So people aged 60 to 64 are never getting the jab
Brilliant.
I’m happy now that Ossian Smyth put his name to this.
How is he allowed to put his name on this table? Surely this plan is to be signed off by the Dept of Health.
so they have decided it’s safe for an unborn child with no testing ?
No one has decided it is safe but there is no evidence that it is not safe for a pregnant woman or the baby, and it is a personal choice for a woman to get it if pregnant.
How long does it take for the child to be born after getting pregnant? 9 months.
How long has this vaccine been in use? 1 month.
How can you gather such evidence within a month?
You are in principle correct, but there’s an interesting deviation between the EMA license and the FDA license (see below). I don’t have any especially informed insight into why it is so, but it’s one of the first times I’ve seen a new vaccine licensed where the label suggests ‘there is no evidence of harm in animals’ (interestingly, without referring to what species) (normally this type of wording is revised in years post licensure after there is a large enough real-world use in humans to support the statement). It probably partly reflects the more conservative nature of FDA vs. EMA.
> Pfizer FDA: “Available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to
pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”
> Pfizer ENA: “There is limited experience with use of Comirnaty in pregnant women. Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy, embryo/foetal development, parturition or post-natal development (see section 5.3). Administration of Comirnaty in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus.”
Do you know how the vaccine works? Its mechanics, anything at all about how it works? If yes, please tell us how it works and which part of the process you think might affect a pregnant woman or her child adversely, if not, shut up, thanks.
Indeed, it doesn’t strike me that they thought that bit all the way through. I don’t imagine manufacturers will be queueing up to submit supportive data, especially given the shortfall in supply for the forseable future and the apparent low risk (or at least, lack of evidence of heightened risk in pregnant women. I cannot see how a health authority therefore could make an evidence-driven decision in the timeline they suggest. Then again, some of the health authority decisions being made a thte moment are clearly not evidence driven.
And there unfortunately you have a key driver in why the manufacturers have insisted on indemnity. Manufacturer applies for license, gets license, health authority makes recomendations that are not compatible with license… sigh…
People under 18 who are pregnant… not just women, no?
Maxol sign: WOMEN ARE PEOPLE
A trans man could be pregnant and it would be correct to refer to that person as a man.
I am somewhat amused to see that if I wait until my birthday it would officially bring me two months ahead, but by waiting, I still need to hold for those two months. It’s like car insurance :-)
Amused Bemused
Charger’s Vax Fact # 17
3.2million vaccine first doses have now been administered in the UK.
Including 316,694 yesterday alone.
It’s reasonable to assume Boris is now very confident the UK will hit its target of vaccinating 15m people by mid-February.
Marvellous.
Did I hear Yosser Hughes just now?