Vaccine- who will have it?

[Newbie]

23 minutes ago, Cambon said:

You go and buy a diesel car, drive it for a month, then fill it with petrol and see if you can claim on the warranty. You did not follow manufacturers instructions. Warranty void. How is that going to work with vaccines? 

It won't make any difference since the UK government has granted legal indemnity to Pfizer, protecting them from any civil lawsuits arising out any unforeseen complications of the vaccine. So whether they follow the manufacturer's recommendations or not makes no difference as no claim can be made against the company either way. Same applies to Astrazeneca

Edited March 7, 2021 by Newbie

[horatiotheturd]

21 minutes ago, Cambon said:

So has Iom on AZ. Not Pfizer, for good reasons. Same as USA. 

However, most of those publications rely on government funding in one form or another. 

You go and buy a diesel car, drive it for a month, then fill it with petrol and see if you can claim on the warranty. You did not follow manufacturers instructions. Warranty void. How is that going to work with vaccines? 

You might want a lie down?  Your analogies have gone a bit bonkers 

[Cambon]

19 minutes ago, Newbie said:

It won't make any difference since the UK government has granted legal indemnity to Pfizer, protecting them from any civil lawsuits arising out any unforeseen complications of the vaccine. So whether they follow the manufacturer's recommendations or not makes no difference as no claim can be made against the company either way. Same applies to Astrazeneca

Exactly. So, the claim goes against the government, who will make themselves untouchable. They are playing with people's lives, not necessarily in the people's best interests. 

I hope it all works out for them, but I think in a few weeks, the uk will be in lockdown more strict than previously seen. 

[CowMan]

5 minutes ago, Cambon said:

but I think in a few weeks, the uk will be in lockdown more strict than previously seen. 

On what basis could you possibly think that?

[Roger Mexico]

1 hour ago, Cambon said:

Sorry, but if they want the vaccination, they will pay for a taxi to take them there and back. I bet if it was a week in Lanzagrotty, they would be there in a heartbeat. Sorry Roger, I don't buy it! 

Well thank you for your psychic ability in knowing exactly what all of 5,000 people think and reassurance as to the ability of taxis to neutralise all infections.  But it doesn't matter, it's not what they want that is important, but what is safest.  The way the Manx Government have handled this latest outbreak has caused a public health disaster due to their laziness, stupidity and vanity and they are going ahead with actions that could make it worse for the same reasons.

Edited March 7, 2021 by Roger Mexico
Clarity

[Gladys]

48 minutes ago, Newbie said:

It won't make any difference since the UK government has granted legal indemnity to Pfizer, protecting them from any civil lawsuits arising out any unforeseen complications of the vaccine. So whether they follow the manufacturer's recommendations or not makes no difference as no claim can be made against the company either way. Same applies to Astrazeneca

It depends on the terms of the UK government indemnity to the IOM surely? If that says you are indemnified providing you follow these instructions, then changing the dosage intervals would have to be agreed in an amendment to the agreement.  There are three parties potentially exposed -  the manufacturer, the body authorising its use (UK) and the body actually administering it (IOM). 

[Cambon]

26 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

Well thank you for your psychic ability in knowing exactly what all of 5,000 people think and reassurance as to the ability of taxis to neutralise all infections.  But it doesn't matter, it's not what they want that is important, but what is safest.  The way the Manx Government have handled this latest outbreak has caused a public health disaster due to their laziness, stupidity and vanity and they are going ahead with actions that could make it worse for the same reasons.

It is safest for those people to be jabbed asap! Those people know that. 

[Peter Layman]

33 minutes ago, CowMan said:

On what basis could you possibly think that?

Schools opening up perhaps.

[CowMan]

Just now, Peter Layman said:

Schools opening up perhaps.

It has to happen some time unless you want to spend the next 20 years wearing a Tescos Direct tin hat 

[Apple]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

t depends on the terms of the UK government indemnity to the IOM surely? If that says you are indemnified providing you follow these instructions, then changing the dosage intervals would have to be agreed in an amendment to the agreement.  There are three parties potentially exposed -  the manufacturer, the body authorising its use (UK) and the body actually administering it (IOM). 

That raises the rare but real possibility that the person who actually administers the vaccine may also be culpable then doesn't it. ?

I must admit that aspect does concern me that those vaccinators who have only recently been trained to give injections can still get it wrong. If it is part and parcel of their professional training and everyday role then that would be comforting to know.

And with gloves on we can all be assured there is no possibility of posing any cross infection risk to those being vaccinated. Thats why they wear gloves in hospital.

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Apple said:

That raises the rare but real possibility that the person who actually administers the vaccine may also be culpable then doesn't it. ?

I must admit that aspect does concern me that those vaccinators who have only recently been trained to give injections can still get it wrong. If it is part and parcel of their professional training and everyday role then that would be comforting to know.

And with gloves on we can all be assured there is no possibility of posing any cross infection risk to those being vaccinated. Thats why they wear gloves in hospital.

Well, not really as it would be the employer who was liable, providing the employee was acting within the scope of their employment.  

As for the competence, I thought all vaccinators had a relevant background such as ex medical staff, dental nurses etc. and were given training including hygiene protocols.  They didn't just pull in any Tom, Dick or Harry and then give them a syringe to get on with it.

I really wouldn't like to set hares running on that one.

 

[Newbie]

7 hours ago, Cambon said:

Exactly. So, the claim goes against the government, who will make themselves untouchable. They are playing with people's lives, not necessarily in the people's best interests. 

The UK Government has added Covid-19 vaccines to the list of vaccines covered by the existing vaccine damages scheme, so to that extent they haven't made themselves untouchable as you claim. You are just scaremongering.

The reason they granted the legal indemnity to Pfizer was to enable them to apply for an emergency licence from the MHRA for the vaccine. That allowed them to start vaccinating people as quickly as possible. It was about saving lives, and as such was in the peoples' best interests. You only have to look at the vaccine rollout in UK compared to the EU to see that. Again you are scaremongering.

[Newbie]

7 hours ago, Gladys said:

It depends on the terms of the UK government indemnity to the IOM surely? If that says you are indemnified providing you follow these instructions, then changing the dosage intervals would have to be agreed in an amendment to the agreement.  There are three parties potentially exposed -  the manufacturer, the body authorising its use (UK) and the body actually administering it (IOM). 

I don't know what the terms of the indemnity provided to the IoM by the UK are, but presumably that is exactly what was being sorted out before the vaccine rollout started in the IoM. That delay to 'get the paperwork sorted' was heavily criticised by many people at the time, but it makes no sense to criticise the government for taking time to sort out any indemnity issues, and also criticise them for not sorting out those same indemnity issues. (I am not suggesting that you are, but others appear to be).

Ultimately, if there were to be a challenge to the indemnity provided by the UK, I suspect it would come down to what was provable in court. The UK would have a hard time arguing that the indemnity shouldn't apply if the 2nd dose of Pfizer vaccine hadn't been administered after 3 weeks given that they themselves are not doing that.

As things currently stand it is purely academic since the IoM hasn't changed the dosage schedule for the Pfizer vaccine, and the manufacturer's recommendation for the AZ vaccine is that the second dose is given between 4 and 12 weeks.

[horatiotheturd]

9 hours ago, Cambon said:

And doing pretty much fuck all! 

What is your definition of f**k all?

I am genuinely intrigued as to what recent research you have looked at that makes you think a single dose is no use, because everything I have seen says it is and that in fact there is growing evidence that a 3 month gap actually gives a better immune response than blindly following what they thought was the best thing to do before they had any real data to fall back on.

I am completely sold on dosing everyone once and then worrying about second doses so am interested to see what recent studies you have seen that say this is a risky strategy?

[Nom de plume]

Morning :0)

Here we go then, 1,000+

Do NOT let us down Mr. Ashford.