To not want an unlicensed Covid vaccine that govt and pharma would have no liability for?

[colouringindoors]

This consultation closes tonight.

While I am totally pro vaccination, the govt are proposing to:

a) distribute an unlicensed vaccine (hasn't gone through full testing).
b) remove any liability for negative side effects from pharma companies and government.
c) let vaccine be administered by non healthcare professionals (scope unlimited).

These regulations will be put in place for Covid vaccine, but not limited to Covid.

Conspiracy nuts are all the same.

@Michaelschofield

The whole world isn’t desperate for a vaccine. Anyone who thinks a vaccine passport is a good idea needs to research a little deeper . The virus had a 99% survival rate. Why are people falling for the fear the media and government have projected?

Totally agree.

Davros there isn’t a weekly injection for diabetes that would help Parkinson’s? You must be confused? There has been some small cases where it has helped dementia sufferers but not Parkinson’s
The Op is trying to say that the government are pushing vaccines through without the usual proper testing prior. It can take several years to get a vaccine right and medication approved.

But they're not pushing it through without testing, it is being tested and it still has to pass through all of the testing stages as normal. The development process itself is unchanged, it's merely been expedited due to more or less unlimited funding and the removal of all the "wait around and wait for funding" stages.

All vaccines could be developed this quickly if they had this same level of funding and resources.

colouring I have encountered you on other threads, but you're wrong on this. The Oxford vaccine is going through all the normal rigorous processes for clinical trials. I have volunteered to take part in this trial - I have years of experience working in health research.

I share your concerns about the legislation per se, but not about the vaccine.

YABU and scaremongering

@colouringindoors

Here’s something I saw which I based mine on

Whether you are pro-vaccine or vaccine-hesitant this is important as they're trying to push through the ability to inject us with unlicensed products.

I'm not going to enter into any debates about this in the comments. There's enough division going on without the need to add more into the mix. It's purely to make you aware. If it resonates, take action. If not, scroll on by pls. 😉

Whatever your beliefs, getting this covid situation under control and making sure our loved ones are safe, I'd imagine is a priority.

The Government is planning to change the Law to:

• Allow unlicensed vaccinations to be administered to the public (remember thalidomide?)
• Allow these to be administered by anyone (not just doctors & nurses)
• Indemnify both Government and Manufacturers from ANY liability should illness/disability/death result
• Allow £millions to be pumped into advertising/promotion of said vaccinations ~ and for these to be sold privately for profit
• Allow the redistribution of vaccines from ‘all available sources’ to meet the demand so what might start out as a trusted ‘Oxford University’ creation (which has been paused as the first stage of trials has resulted in hospitalisation of a volunteer) could easily be switched into a nanotechnology concoction.

The idea that our government is trying to rush through, promote and change the law to allow unlicensed drugs and remove further liability is a concern.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/distributing-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19-and-flu

Despite this consultation closing on the 18 September 2020 I have seen no publicity made other than on people's social media pages.

These are the type of answers you need to give in the boxes. It's good to copy or adapt 👇👇👇👇

I agreed to answer all aspects of the consultation - so make sure you tick all the boxes.

1. Temporary Authorisation of the supply of unlicensed products:

It is totally unethical, I reject this proposal.

1. Civil Liability and Immunity:

Anyone involved in the distribution and manufacture of unlicensed medicines should be made fully liable. I reject this proposal.

1. Expansion to the workforce eligible to administer vaccinations:

Only medical professionals who are fully aware of the unlicensed medicine's actual ingredients, potential impacts on an individual's health, all side effects and that there is zero financial recompense for issuing the said medicine(s) should be considered. Only medical professionals should be eligible. I reject this proposal.

1. Vaccine Promotion:

I reject any promotion of unlicensed medicine or vaccines.

1. Provisions for wholesale dealing of vaccines:

No profit should be made from unlicensed medicines or vaccines. I reject this proposal.

1. On the following page: What can we do better?

Stop trying to rush through unlicensed medicines. There is little public awareness of what you are doing and a short deadline for response. It is unacceptable and I reject these methods.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/distributing-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19-and-flu

The EU plan to propose to stop us travelling from 2022 without Digital Vaccination Passports - this has been planned since 2018. See link in the first comment.

Oh dear, did you actually send that? I’m cringing a bit for you. Where’s your reasoning as to why you are opposed to the measures?

@HarlanWillYouStopNamingNuts

The OP is wrong abouut the government excluding its liability. What they are saying is that it is unfair to expect pharmaceutical companies to accept liability where governments are asking them for unlicensed products in response to a public health crisis. The government would still be liable, as now, and the consultation is asking in what circumstances the pharma companies should also still be liable (e.g. if the initial testing was negligent). So part of the consultation is actually about ensuring the public is still protected.

That was what I thought, the exclusion of liability relates to the specific regulations around vaccines/consumer protection which is a strict liability rather than excluding liability for negligence

"nanotechnology concoction"????

Really op, stop spreading nonsense.

Injections are not that hard to give I remember as a student nurse practicing on an orange ,for about an hour before i gave my first IM injection under supervision of course ,it would ,nt take long to teach someone how to give injections safely

To those who know about these things...

When we are 'invited' for our vaccine, how will we know if it's the Oxford one or another one?

I'm having the flu jab this year (first one ever) I'm T2 diabetic - I've never knowingly had flu and would rather not have an injection cocktail because I don't react well to a lot of medication, but the surgery/NHS asked us quite convincingly to consider getting it, even if we don't usually to help them keep all hospital admissions as low as possible so there are beds for those that need them. So, I'm doing my 'civic duty' more than getting it for me. I'm still worried about it.

However, I have (as I said) T2 diabetes and high blood pressure, I'm 51 & overweight, so covid would be bad! I'm willing to get a vaccine for both my own protection and to help others who can't get it. But only if it's a 'safe' one. One that those if you who know what's what would get.

Sadly, I don't trust Birus & his mates to care one bit as long as they're being seen to be rolling out some 'world beating vaccine'.

@colouringindoors

Thanks Butterer I wasnt aware of that.

In other words, you haven't actually read and understood the consultation to which you've submitted a response. Utterly ridiculous, but not at all surprising.

Your submission, along with all the similar ones who don't actually understand the consultation and its ramifications will be filed away under 'useless'. They're the equivalent of the people who respond to planning applications with comments such is "It will bring down the tone of the neighbourhood", "What about house prices?" and "We don't want that sort living round here."

bakebeans I am not confused. It's called Exenatide

Well people were called conspiracy nuts when they said smart meters will be used to give companies control to turn off your electricity....except wait it was reported this week that Ofgem is looking at reviewing changes to legislation to do exactly that...

A third generation smart meter to allow electricity companies to turn off electricity supply if the grid cannot cope because too many cars being charged for example

You'll have no recourse against companies for compensation and cannot legally sue them

.....hardly conspiracy nuts now are they.

So if people talk about the vaccine including a chip I wouldn't rule it out. They are trialling a chip in people in a company in Europe, thr chip acts as your key card and only gives you access to areas of the company you can have. Of course this use can be expanded to track you.

In China they are testing social points system where you lose points if you get arrested or protest meaning if you dont have enough points you cannt travel or do certain things.....noon thinks it'll happen here but yet there is talk of a health passport or being tested for covid and if your negative you can go to work and move about freely

So i wouldn't write off people as conspiracy nuts.

My god, it's just popped into the upper arm! It's not as if you have to search for a vein.

The Oxford vaccine (which is only one of many possible candidates, anyway) is up to its phase three trials, and will recruit around 30,000 people for that. It's not going to be rolled out untested! Worldwide, the process is being fast-tracked. Because, you know, global pandemic.

We'll be all out of tinfoil by Christmas, at this rate.

Oh dear.

You must realise that ‘I reject this proposal’ is in no way a reasoned argument.

I’m embarrassed for you too.

c) let vaccine be administered by non healthcare professionals (scope unlimited).

...should actually read

c) Look into potentially training people who aren't health care professionals to give vaccines safely, as we're going to have unprecedented demand, especially as ideally we'd like every man and his dog everyone who's eligible to also get the flu jab this year too, plus healthcare professionals might be a bit busy with a second wave and we already have a shortage of them as it is, it takes 2-3 years to train them and we'll be a bit fucked if we find a vaccine but have no way to actually give it on mass.

I'm a nurse and out of our whole uni course we probably had an hour lecture about injections and then practised on some oranges, and maybe some patients on placement if we got a chance. I don't think I've done an intramuscular injection since I qualified, but it's not hard. It's a clinical skill that could easily be taught to a none registered healthcare professional in a couple of hours. Lots of clinical skills like taking blood, putting cannulas in, doing ECGs, doing plaster casts, wound dressings etc are already done by none healthcare professionals who are trained to do them. They're not gonna pull people off the street and say "here, stick this in people". They will be trained.

@AmelieTaylor

When we are 'invited' for our vaccine, how will we know if it's the Oxford one or another one?

Find out what the name is of the Oxford vaccine, and ask the person who is doing your vaccine to show you the syringe/vial beforehand; the name of the vaccine will be printed on the label.

Gancanny

The Oxford vaccine trial is not currently paused. It was very briefly paused due to one volunteer becoming unwell. It was concluded that the illness was unlikely to have been caused by the vaccine and the trial resumed almost a week ago.“

Please don’t complicate the debate with facts, Gancanny

VestaTilley

Agree. I’m v pro vaccine, my DS is fully vaccinated, but no way would I or he have this - far too rushed out with insufficient testing.

You are simply wrong. It has been through every normal requirement.

@HarlanWillYouStopNamingNuts

The OP is wrong abouut the government excluding its liability. What they are saying is that it is unfair to expect pharmaceutical companies to accept liability where governments are asking them for unlicensed products in response to a public health crisis. The government would still be liable, as now, and the consultation is asking in what circumstances the pharma companies should also still be liable (e.g. if the initial testing was negligent). So part of the consultation is actually about ensuring the public is still protected.

Thanks for this clarification.

@bakebeans

Davros there isn’t a weekly injection for diabetes that would help Parkinson’s? You must be confused? There has been some small cases where it has helped dementia sufferers but not Parkinson’s The Op is trying to say that the government are pushing vaccines through without the usual proper testing prior. It can take several years to get a vaccine right and medication approved.

www.cureparkinsons.org.uk/glp-1-agonists-the-facts

Davros mentioned her husband uses exetanide

Exenatide*

We as dentists have been approached to help out with vaccine administration. Initially for flu, but potentially with Covid eventually as well.
Logistically I'm not sure it would work as it might interfere too much with our normal work, plus there's the issue of storage of vaccine.
However we are happy to help, and do everything we possibly can to put an end to this public health crisis.
We are highly trained in giving injections, albeit mostly in the mouth ! But have been trained to give emergency intramuscular sad well. And we've been trained to treat anaphylactic reactions,,,
We've been offered extra training and indemnity for those willing to help, and I honestly feel that patients would be safe getting vaccines in our hands.
Pharmacy workers and vets probably have similar thoughts.
I don't think the emergency powers to let other health care workers help out are dangerous or irresponsible at all, just an effective use of an increased, fully trained workforce to help with a mass vaccination programme.
And the unlicensed part doesn't mean untested!