Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Have A Covid Jab And Don’t Die
Apparently that is not enough. We have to be told by a beloved celebrity.
So who would tip the balance for you to have the vaccine?
Is it Ant or is it Dec? Timmy Mallet or Macca Pacca?
Who would persuade you to be vaccinated ?
https:/
So who would tip the balance for you to have the vaccine?
Is it Ant or is it Dec? Timmy Mallet or Macca Pacca?
Who would persuade you to be vaccinated ?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sunk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
douglas "If ever there was a case for NOT including the churches, this is it."
I dunno....if Imams, Rabbis, Pastors and so on will get their congregations to line up and bare their arms then why not?
In parts of the world Jewish communities were dubious about not meeting in groups and staying home until their religious leaders declared them as Pikuach Nefesh which is the concept that concern for life overrrides the rules and practices of Judaism. https:/
I dunno....if Imams, Rabbis, Pastors and so on will get their congregations to line up and bare their arms then why not?
In parts of the world Jewish communities were dubious about not meeting in groups and staying home until their religious leaders declared them as Pikuach Nefesh which is the concept that concern for life overrrides the rules and practices of Judaism. https:/
I've heard 90% and 60%. I'm not sure what you mean by lazy approach ich? Do vaccines for entirely new viruses usually get found and ready to roll out in 8 months or whatever it is?
I'm hoping this will protect us as individuals, I was really commenting on mally "thoroughly sick of those who just won't do as they are asked and then put the rest of us at risk...." ie we should be told to have the vaccine to protect the rest...
I'm hoping this will protect us as individuals, I was really commenting on mally "thoroughly sick of those who just won't do as they are asked and then put the rest of us at risk...." ie we should be told to have the vaccine to protect the rest...
here's the link to the "will I protect others by having the vac?" thread
https:/
https:/
Prudie
This is an unprecedented emergency, and it is more important to cut corners in regulation rather than delay getting the medicine to the people in need.
So trials are shorter than normal, pressure to approve is greater and the drugs are being fast tracked.
Under the circumstances that is good, though there might be some side effects that have be missed in the rush.
This is an unprecedented emergency, and it is more important to cut corners in regulation rather than delay getting the medicine to the people in need.
So trials are shorter than normal, pressure to approve is greater and the drugs are being fast tracked.
Under the circumstances that is good, though there might be some side effects that have be missed in the rush.
// Do vaccines for entirely new viruses usually get found and ready to roll out in 8 months or whatever it is? //
No, but then there usually isn't such a serious global pandemic. That has clearly added the urgency needed to speed up the process beyond what many were anticipating. It's presumably also a testament to just how far medical research has come even in the last decade or so.
No, but then there usually isn't such a serious global pandemic. That has clearly added the urgency needed to speed up the process beyond what many were anticipating. It's presumably also a testament to just how far medical research has come even in the last decade or so.
hi itch
oxford have been very lax in supplying - talking heads and info on their great victory. stupidly so
what does seem to have come from nowhere is the idea that vaccination may protect the lucky jabbee but convert him into a carrier.
This doesnt happen in diphtheria on another thread which led to outraged squawks that it was bacterial and so obviously non applicable. Even tho you get carriers and they are impt in transmission and they carry in the throat and the vaccine is injected
and in a statement of the possibility in the Lancet - they cited a 1958 paper ( oo er mrs!) on polio, where they vaccinated the family ( wiv polio) of a paralysed child, and found the family as still excreting.....which since they had an affected child wasnt really about carriers excreting
It is testable - swab a whole load of people and vaccinate them and then look at the subgroup that you have found to be positive and have still been vaccinated. and see what happens
oxford have been very lax in supplying - talking heads and info on their great victory. stupidly so
what does seem to have come from nowhere is the idea that vaccination may protect the lucky jabbee but convert him into a carrier.
This doesnt happen in diphtheria on another thread which led to outraged squawks that it was bacterial and so obviously non applicable. Even tho you get carriers and they are impt in transmission and they carry in the throat and the vaccine is injected
and in a statement of the possibility in the Lancet - they cited a 1958 paper ( oo er mrs!) on polio, where they vaccinated the family ( wiv polio) of a paralysed child, and found the family as still excreting.....which since they had an affected child wasnt really about carriers excreting
It is testable - swab a whole load of people and vaccinate them and then look at the subgroup that you have found to be positive and have still been vaccinated. and see what happens
are corners being cut?
it boils down to - do the regulators do anything? (*)
sorry to be so anarchist about this - FDA ( foot draggers of america ) only spared the gtst republic on earth Thalidomide by being so slow. They then traded on this forever always being the last to approve. But with practolol for example (eventually withdrawn) it was so much better than propranolol - you cd measure the number of excess deaths from the continued use of propranolol
Clearly from above - I do not subscribe to regulation is good and twice as much regulation is even better !
(*) oh it does them a lot of good - mountains of paper, big wages enhanced pensions and trips to the palace
it boils down to - do the regulators do anything? (*)
sorry to be so anarchist about this - FDA ( foot draggers of america ) only spared the gtst republic on earth Thalidomide by being so slow. They then traded on this forever always being the last to approve. But with practolol for example (eventually withdrawn) it was so much better than propranolol - you cd measure the number of excess deaths from the continued use of propranolol
Clearly from above - I do not subscribe to regulation is good and twice as much regulation is even better !
(*) oh it does them a lot of good - mountains of paper, big wages enhanced pensions and trips to the palace
woofgang
Regulation which normally takes several months, is being done in weeks instead.
That might not mean corners are being cut, but it means there is less time for caution, and scrutiny.
Perhaps in future ALL drugs can come to market without less official interference.
But it is a gamble to rush through any drug on a eagerly wanted promise, without knowing its full medical consequences.
Regulation which normally takes several months, is being done in weeks instead.
That might not mean corners are being cut, but it means there is less time for caution, and scrutiny.
Perhaps in future ALL drugs can come to market without less official interference.
But it is a gamble to rush through any drug on a eagerly wanted promise, without knowing its full medical consequences.
Sunk "Regulation which normally takes several months, is being done in weeks instead.
That might not mean corners are being cut, but it means there is less time for caution, and scrutiny.
Perhaps in future ALL drugs can come to market without less official interference.
But it is a gamble to rush through any drug on a eagerly wanted promise, without knowing its full medical consequences. "
so you have no evidence of this?
That might not mean corners are being cut, but it means there is less time for caution, and scrutiny.
Perhaps in future ALL drugs can come to market without less official interference.
But it is a gamble to rush through any drug on a eagerly wanted promise, without knowing its full medical consequences. "
so you have no evidence of this?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.