In what is rapidly becoming the Covid 19 forum, I thought I would share a little hope. This concerns research in Oxford, where they believe they could have a vaccine completed phase 3 trials as early as August (very best case scenario). This in combination with new manufacturing technology to enable mass production once approved. thelancet.com/journals/lanc..., would enable a vaccine to roll out in serious quantities in the autumn of this year.
I believe Pfizer's collaboration with Biontech anticipates a similar time frame, and potential for rapid up-scaling.
This situation we are in, won't last forever, and maybe some sort of normality will be possible again early next year.
Written by
WinnieThePoo
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
This is going to become a law that frees vaccine manufacturers from all liability if their product injures you. No matter how severe the damage, one is left alone without any help if that happens. The reason they ask for liability exemption is very simple: they know their vaccines will cause enough harm that they do not want to face the lawsuits. There is a window to send in our objections until 20 Sept, the email is provided in the text.
I don't live in the UK, but I will not have the vaccine. My mother had the flu shot a few years ago, but she got so sick in her late 80's, she almost died.
If the vaccines are safe, then the manufacturers should stand behind their product and accept full responsibility. They have the money. Leaving injured people to try to cope on their own is not fair business. And after doing more reading last night, these liability exemption laws seem to be in every country now. The US, EU, UK for sure.
Dead in the water. Not least because all of these petitions, even far better drafted ones receiving millions of signatures are routinely ignored (they get a sham one hour debate in parliament, and are then ignored)
I think you are misinterpreting, and revealing an agenda in the process. I am in the front of the queue to criticise the current UK government, but your conclusion that drug companies are demanding the protection because they know the product is unsafe is completely unsubstantiated, and false, and dangerously close to a report for promoting a consipiracy theory.
This is more about Brexit willy-waving. Currently UK medicines are licensed by the European Medicines Agency. After 31 December the UK will be proud and free and bold, and set up a new UK only medicines agency. If you are a drug company, looking at paying an essentially fixed cost to have your medicine licensed, you pay out for the biggest markets first. An EMA authorisation for £?? million gives a market of 450m people. A UK authorisation gives a market of 70m people at the same £?? million cost
So you get licensed in Europe first. There is an additional complication with Covid arriving mid-Brexit. The UK cannot start a UK licensing authority before 1 January 2021. Suppose a vaccine is developed, and completes all its testing , and submits the papers for a 6 week EMA licensing application on 15 October. It would get its EMA license on 31 December 2020 and by virtue of that be licensed in the UK from 31 December 2020
Now, suppose the testing isn't finished , until a day later, and the license application starts a day later. The EMA licenses the product on 1 January 2021 - and on the same date, if it chooses to, the UK 6 week licensing process begins. The new UK authority then licenses the product on 16 February. For 6 weeks in the covid crisis a vaccine which would have been licensed when the UK was in the EU, and will eventually be licensed is available in France but not the UK.
It's a cack , dangerous way of fixing the problem, but passing a rule that creates a transitional automatic adoption of EU licences in the interim isn't Brexity enough. That has nothing to do with drug companies knowing their product is dangerous and asking to evade liability. It is a bad technical fix for getting round a product which is licensed in the USA and the EU being not yet licensed in the UK - and it being illegal to sell or distribute an unlicensed product.
This does not address the liability exemption issue at all. A faulty product manufacturer must indemnify the victims full stop. No matter the country. There are no long term studies and that means no proof of safety long term. There are no human studies of what happens upon challenge with the pathogen. The studies in the UK are not conducted against a saline placebo to establish full safety profile. This is not cospiracy, but valid safety issues. So why then rush and everybody involved is exempt from liability?
What would you rather have - a vaccine available as soon as possible with liability exemption; or no vaccine for 3-5 years while the longer term safety studies are done? You can’t have it both ways.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
COVID-19---US White House to meet 03/02/2020 in afternoon with Major US Drug Company CEOs re: Vaccine development
Vaccine 
Parkinsons, DBS, Covid19 Pfizer Vaccine
Major Deal Pushes Parkinson's Vaccine Further in Testing
Promising early results from Parkinson’s vaccine study
