Indeed. Principles schminciples 
1 Like
Maybe they could - I would expect there are significant risks to the employer from doing so though as they have a duty of care to customers and staff…and we can see even now how some people don’t take the precautions they are supposed to.
In addition to the health and safety aspect, I would imagine Insurance also plays a part here, as Insurance companies would want to limit their exposure so could refuse to cover Covid in their policy, refuse to accept firms that don’t take steps to ensure staff are vaccinated or simply hike the cost of their plans to highlight the added risk.
Then there is the customer aspect - if they know there is a greater risk from a company, they may choose to shop elsewhere.
2 Likes
I think this may have been one of the criticisms of the Oxford/AZ trials in that it wasn’t as forthcoming on the data on an ongoing basis.
1 Like
I won’t be taking a jab every 3 months. I am no fan of drip feeding aluminium hydroxide into myself.
It’s a real bummer that there hasn’t really been any intensive research to find other adjuvants. It’s not even known where the standard 0.85 milligrams per dose (USA federal regulation) comes from.
1 Like
If a vaccine works,has at most minor(in seriousness,not numbers) adverse effects and is reasonably priced(taxpayer will pay),then i have no problem with them making a profit.I do think that time limits on studies prior to pharma products being released are there for a reason and i wonder in this case has enough time been given.I don’t just believe pharma or governments because they tell me so.
2 Likes
On the other hand - let’s say there was a world wide pandemic, that’s killing millions. You’d probably want someone to look for a vaccine. Maybe that’s just me.
3 Likes
interesting. That wasn’t mentioned in the discussion I was listening to. Seems an odd decision by Oxford / AZ.
What was fascinating was that the first questions asked of Pfizer were apparently related to basics and its manufacture etc. These were taking place before the trials were really underway. As I understood it was only the actual trial results / findings that needed to be signed off in the end.
But that is the BBC’s version which will most certainly be on the money there may well be some spin on it.
1 Like
Yup, me neither. They are out for the big buck, and anyone having seen how they conduct themselves since a few decades will be wary of what they say or do.
If it can be secure and efficient enough, sure. They’ll still make mega-bucks though, which was my point, as it will end up being mandatory for everyone, including those who don’t need it.
2 Likes
BBC gets such a hard time. Those on the left say it’s right wing, those on the right say it’s run by a bunch of lefties. If it’s pissing off both sides equally I’d say it’s probably doing something right
5 Likes
A lot of the criticism on the BBC from the right isn’t really in good faith though.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Quite probably 
but when your right wing government shifts it’s own people into controlling positions and that leads to some of the nonsense they’ve spouted over the last couple of years (I give you Kuenssberg) then I feel it’s right top treat it as any other news outlet i.e. with at the very least some degree of caution.
1 Like
Liked for the excellent GIF choice.
1 Like
We must not forget that this pandemic is now completely a political ‘thing’ all decissions are political by politicians. The medical and scientific communities have been on the side lines for some time now.
There’s some quite viscious comments being made from some medical quarters here in France and yes they are political as that’s where their comments are aimed. Also some very guarded remarks about the vaccine which doesn’t spread confidence.
It’s a shame really France really fucked up big time over certain questions. The politicians should have done a better job at keeping the medical core onside.
1 Like
It seems Williamson only takes his foot out of his mouth so he can put the other one in there.
4 Likes
It’s certainly not the people who actually developed the vaccine who should get any praise, it’s those brilliant heroic regulators
8 Likes
The relationship between drug companies and regulatory agencies is poorly understood by the public. The brief of the agencies is not to be antagonistic gate keepers, but to be partners in the advancement in public health. There is no benefit to anyone for a drug company to wait until their study is done to be told they have questions their studies cannot answer, so they have created defined opportunities for companies with drugs in development to work with these agencies to get the necessary proactive guidance. The problem is these opportunities and how extensive they can be are limited by resources. However, for issues that are of significant Public Health importance, they will literally insert themselves in the development process in an effort to not send the development down blind alleys and waste time. EVERY drug company would welcome this lvel of involvement if it was made available. Moderna got it from the NIH and FDA in the US, and Pfizer seemingly got it from the MHRA, which is why it’s odd to hear AZ went solo.
5 Likes
Thankfully that’s a little different to what takes place in the construction industry at times.
Heaven forbid that we should praise a German vaccine effort led by two Turkish immigrants.
3 Likes
Exactly the response I’d expect from a bunch of sore losers
Sheesh, what a thing to grandstand about.
3 Likes