Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

[RJRB 688]

10 minutes ago, L00b said:

You concern is very kind, but unfounded. Honestly, don't worry. Just get those vaccinations going.

 

The more and the sooner the UK does, the sooner the FDA and the EMA have the extra test data needed for their own respective approval procedures.

 

Everybody wins, which surely is the best outcome. Well, where Covid is concerned. Which has sod all to do with Brexit, least of all after 1st January of course.

 

It does of course speak volumes for the value of the widest possible cooperation in medicine and numerous other fields which Brexit supporters appear happy to put at some risk.

[Baron99 779]

28 minutes ago, L00b said:

You concern is very kind, but unfounded. Honestly, don't worry. Just get those vaccinations going.

 

The more and the sooner the UK does, the sooner the FDA and the EMA have the extra test data needed for their own respective approval procedures.

 

Everybody wins, which surely is the best outcome. Well, where Covid is concerned. Which has sod all to do with Brexit, least of all after 1st January of course.

 

My bold. 

 

As you say, it has sod all to do with Brexit but as I stated earlier, go back to the pages when agencies were starting to come together to begin the prep work on a vaccine & you'll find that it was Remainers who were jumping back on the 'Project Fear' bandwagon, trying to link vaccine manufacturing in the EU with the UK having left the EU & the UK being at the back of a mythological queue for any vaccine manufactured in the EU. 

 

Scare tactics once again.  Makes me wonder will 'Project Fear' be finally wound up in 28 days? 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Baron99

[L00b 441]

 

32 minutes ago, RJRB said:

It does of course speak volumes for the value of the widest possible cooperation in medicine and numerous other fields which Brexit supporters appear happy to put at some risk.

Certainly. But that notion is completely academic by now.

22 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

My bold. 

 

As you say, it has sod all to do with Brexit but as I stated earlier, go back to the pages when agencies were starting to come together to begin the prep work on a vaccine & you'll find that it was Remainers who were jumping back on the 'Project Fear' bandwagon, trying to link vaccine manufacturing in the EU with the UK having left the EU & the UK being at the back of a mythological queue for any vaccine manufactured in the EU. 

 

Scare tactics once again.  Makes me wonder will 'Project Fear' be finally wound up in 28 days? 

I guess we'll all find out soon enough, not long to wait now 

[whiteowl 54]

45 minutes ago, RJRB said:

It does of course speak volumes for the value of the widest possible cooperation in medicine and numerous other fields which Brexit supporters appear happy to put at some risk.

It does raise an interesting question of what happens if the EMA rejects the Pfizer vaccine after the MHRA has approved it. Can't see it happening but it would create a few fireworks.

[L00b 441]

12 minutes ago, whiteowl said:

It does raise an interesting question of what happens if the EMA rejects the Pfizer vaccine after the MHRA has approved it. Can't see it happening but it would create a few fireworks.

Nothing would happen. The MHRA approved Pfizer's vaccine early, under a national emergency prerogative independently of the EMA (moreover, from which it becomes fully and permanently decoupled -in statutory and jurisdictional terms- in 28 days' time when the WA and its effects cease).

[whiteowl 54]

Just now, L00b said:

Nothing would happen. The MHRA approved Pfizer's vaccine early, under a national emergency prerogative independently of the EMA (moreover, from which it becomes fully and permanently decoupled -in statutory and jurisdictional terms- in 28 days' time when the WA and its effects cease).

I appreciate that legally, I was thinking more of the reaction of the British population, many of which have already expressed scepticism over any vaccine.

[L00b 441]

38 minutes ago, whiteowl said:

I appreciate that legally, I was thinking more of the reaction of the British population, many of which have already expressed scepticism over any vaccine.

Would the British population (at large) even understand the significance of that disconnect betwern the MHRA and the EMA, if it happened?

 

And even if it did, with the volumes of snake oil that the British population has been ingesting for over 5 years, still without any heads rolling anywhere...

 

....I really don't think you have anything to fear about a hypothetical reaction of the British population: all divided that it stands, and notwithstanding how knowledgeable much/most of it may well be, it's still as apathetic as ever.

 

I really don't mean any disrespect here. But after the past few years, between Greenfell, Windrush, Brexit, Covid mismanagement, PPE cronyism, Parliament abuse, outright lying to the Queen, explosion in food banks, UC fiasco, <etc, etc, etc> I genuinely have no idea what it would take to provoke a reaction of any significance amongst the British.

Edited December 3, 2020 by L00b

[L00b 441]

4 minutes ago, West 77 said:

The EMA won't have any extra data to look at. The  MHRA started analysing the data available much earlier than the EMA.  Less  bureaucracy and the MHRA being the first regulator out of the starting block are the main reasons why the UK regulators have made their decision  quicker than the EU (EMA) and the US.

Why? Because the UK won't share it?

 

That's OK, Pfizer will.

[altus 538]

17 minutes ago, West 77 said:

The EMA won't have any extra data to look at. The  MHRA started analysing the data available much earlier than the EMA.  Less  bureaucracy and the MHRA being the first regulator out of the starting block are the main reasons why the UK regulators have made their decision  quicker than the EU (EMA) and the US.

You're missing the point. Once the UK starts prescribing the vaccine, the other regulators will have data about the effects of that on the UK population to inform their own decisions.

[altus 538]

12 minutes ago, West 77 said:

A weak point if I am being generous. Of course the effects of prescribing a vaccine on the general population will be known much better after it has been widely giving out. This will be helpful  to determine how long a Covid vaccine gives protection for.  The UK population at this time look to be closer getting protection from Covid-19 than the EU population in the 27 bloc. 

How is it a weak point? You said the EMA would have no additional data and I pointed out it will from the results of UK prescribing, which you accept. Even then, that's ignoring the fact that Pfizer are going to monitor the participants in their trial for another two years:

Quote

The Phase 3 clinical trial of BNT162b2 began on July 27 and has enrolled 43,661 participants to date, 41,135 of whom have received a second dose of the vaccine candidate as of November 13, 2020. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of U.S. participants have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds, and 41% of global and 45% of U.S. participants are 56-85 years of age. A breakdown of the diversity of clinical trial participants can be found here from approximately 150 clinical trials sites in United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. The trial will continue to collect efficacy and safety data in participants for an additional two years.

So that's even more data that will be available to other regulators.

[altus 538]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

The EMA aren't going to wait another two years before approving the Pfizer vaccine for use. The EMA intend to give approval by the end of the year and their decision won't be influenced by what happens in the UK during the next 3 weeks.  Other countries including the EU bloc of 27 will benefit from seeing how the UK copes with the logistics involved in storing and administrating the Pfizer vaccine. 

And Pfizer aren't going to wait another two years before updating the regulators on what's been happening. It's not even about them reporting lots of people suddenly dropping dead after being vaccinated. Them stating "None of the participants of our trial have had adverse effects from the vaccine during the last month" is still more data - it's an extra month of everything going OK and would add confidence to a regulator's decision to approve the vaccine.

[Mister M 1,608]

3 hours ago, West 77 said:

A weak point if I am being generous. Of course the effects of prescribing a vaccine on the general population will be known much better after it has been widely giving out. This will be helpful  to determine how long a Covid vaccine gives protection for.  The UK population at this time look to be closer getting protection from Covid-19 than the EU population in the 27 bloc. 

And given that it's ben revealed today that shamefully Britain has the highest death toll in Europe from COVID-19 we need that protection!

I hope when Williamson was gloating about Britain being the greatest country in Europe with regards to covid, he wasn't including colleagues in his government.

I think most reasonable people would agree that the UK government response has been lamentable

Edited December 3, 2020 by Mister M