MHRA approves Pfizer jab for use in UK

[AuntieStella]

News just breaking on BBC

Sorry my mistake I thought that survey was UK based not US. I believe I did post a link earlier to a survey of 300~ UK doctors and it was a similar stat, around 4 in 10 would turn it down. If not, here it is:

“A poll has found that almost half of doctors would not take a rushed Covid vaccine. A poll of readers of Medscape UK found that of 308 UK doctors, 4 in 10 would not get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as one is approved by the MHRA. Medscape has the details.

Online polling took place 18th-23rd November after the positive Pfizer/BioNTech results but with most responses received before the positive news about the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.

Of those who wouldn’t have the jab at this stage 56% cited safety concerns.”

Link: www.medscape.com/viewarticle/941492

I’m really disappointed with all the “anti vaxxer” comments

It's a standard trope I'm afraid; it doesn't matter whether you're genuinely cautious, a rabid anti-vaxxer or just plain deranged - as so often with emotive subjects, if you dare to stray from the "accepted" script you'll be showered with insults

[quote purplefig]Sorry my mistake I thought that survey was UK based not US. I believe I did post a link earlier to a survey of 300~ UK doctors and it was a similar stat, around 4 in 10 would turn it down. If not, here it is:

“A poll has found that almost half of doctors would not take a rushed Covid vaccine. A poll of readers of Medscape UK found that of 308 UK doctors, 4 in 10 would not get a COVID-19 vaccine as soon as one is approved by the MHRA. Medscape has the details.

Online polling took place 18th-23rd November after the positive Pfizer/BioNTech results but with most responses received before the positive news about the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.

Of those who wouldn’t have the jab at this stage 56% cited safety concerns.”

Link: www.medscape.com/viewarticle/941492[/quote]
I can’t read it unfortunately but it is a reader poll. It may reflect true feeling as some will be more likely to respond.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I’m really disappointed with all the “anti vaxxer” comments

It's a standard trope I'm afraid; it doesn't matter whether you're genuinely cautious, a rabid anti-vaxxer or just plain deranged - as so often with emotive subjects, if you dare to stray from the "accepted" script you'll be showered with insults

But it's totally fine to mutter dark things about how the MHRA are corrupt, when your evidence is a) that they publicly declared their interests as they are required to do and b) someone at the MHRA has shares in a competing biotech company?

I don't think doing that that necessarily makes someone an antivaxxer, but it does seem a bit rude.

@Puzzledandpissedoff yes it’s been really bizarre to watch. It echos a more general observation I’ve had lately in that people seem less and less tolerant of others having opinions that differ from their own. I can look back and see how I’ve been part of that problem, too. I think, certainly in my case at least, it’s only when you suddenly have a view that isn’t shared by the majority that you see it.

@GoldenOmber yes you’re right it probably was a bit rude and in hindsight, I should have stuck to the clear facts (of which there are plenty). For what it’s worth, I was genuinely shocked that those with competing interests would be allowed on the board at all.

I find it more bizarre to watch people not be relieved we’re getting out of this mess. But we’re all different. And some look for issues everywhere.

Some prefer to stay as we are with economic demise.

There’s definitely a section of people who’d prefer a long lockdown .

@purplefig, that is only 300 NHS staff surveyed, it's not a big enough sample to be able to be in any way representative, plus I can't see the details of how it was carried out or the full text of the questions asked.

@pinkearedcow sure, I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to say that people who know NHS employees who don’t want the vaccine are all lying.

[quote purplefig]@pinkearedcow sure, I’m just saying it’s disingenuous to say that people who know NHS employees who don’t want the vaccine are all lying.[/quote]
Well there are going to be all sorts of people from all walks of life who will be against the vaccine, so there are bound to be some who work for the NHS. But I'd like to see some proper research before I believe that it is any more than a very very small %.

Plus I do think there are a lot of anti vaxxer trolls on these threads trying to spread fear. Not saying you are one of them!

@pinkearedcow ok, fair enough.

But it's totally fine to mutter dark things about how the MHRA are corrupt

It wouldn't be okay to state this as a fact - at least, without evidence - but unless I've missed it I didn't think anyone's done that

Certainly I expressed doubt about them being able to avoid political pressure, and the PP mentioned several members' financial links to the pharma industry, but rather than saying they are corrupt that seems to me simply to raise a few issues where caution might be wise - awareness if you like, rather than outright suspicion

@pinkearedcow last comment was to your first post. I haven’t seen any trolls on here, though I’m not sure Ive read every page.

[quote pinkearedcow]Why can’t you keep your overly cautiousness to yourself instead of repeatedly plopping absolutely unfounded scaremongering shite from irrelevant and downright dodgy sources? Exactly what is your agenda?

To be fair the CDC isn't dodgy, it's just that it's in the US and that link doesn't say what @purplefig says it does as far as I can tell!

Ironically CDC seems very much pro vaccine.

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/adults/for-patients/index.html[/quote]
S/he’s been posting links all day though, grossly misrepresenting what they say and some decidedly dodgy sources. It’s at the very least irresponsible, but more likely a concerted campaign.

Certainly I expressed doubt about them being able to avoid political pressure

Can you evidence this? Is this the same worldwide or just U.K.?

Equally I doubt it. But if you have information to back it up?

@Puzzledandpissedoff yes that’s exactly it. I may not have worded my post very well, but yes, I was just shocked that someone could be on that board and have competing interests. But there you go, I’ve learned something new today!

@MyPersona a concerted campaign? Could you explain what you mean?

@MyPersona also if you’re referring to me I was on here this morning and just now, so I most certainly haven’t been posting links all day.

[quote purplefig]@GoldenOmber yes you’re right it probably was a bit rude and in hindsight, I should have stuck to the clear facts (of which there are plenty). For what it’s worth, I was genuinely shocked that those with competing interests would be allowed on the board at all.[/quote]
You want people on the board with a lot of experience working in relevant fields. That means some of them are bound to have potential interests that might, at some point, overlap with what the agency's doing. That is why there's an interests register on gov.uk - because they have to publicly declare their interests, so that everyone is aware, and they will then be recused from any decisions that might benefit them personally. It really is absolutely standard practice.

Does knowing that make you feel any better?

@Puzzledandpissedoff

But it's totally fine to mutter dark things about how the MHRA are corrupt

It wouldn't be okay to state this as a fact - at least, without evidence - but unless I've missed it I didn't think anyone's done that

Certainly I expressed doubt about them being able to avoid political pressure, and the PP mentioned several members' financial links to the pharma industry, but rather than saying they are corrupt that seems to me simply to raise a few issues where caution might be wise - awareness if you like, rather than outright suspicion

No, it's been done by insinuation

Which as we know from Wagatha Christie counts the same as a direct accusation.

Posters have been insinuating theat MHRA (and others) are corrupt. But none will stand by their insinuations and explain who they think is corrupt and why.

Also it does not seem that any of the MHRA board have any shares in either Pfizer or BioNTech, so I don't know why you'd say they have competing interests about making any decisions about this particular vaccine?

It’s up to individuals whether they are vaccinated or not, but this vaccine hasn’t been rushed through. It has gone through all the necessary stages, but due to the urgency the long timelines for regulatory and ethical approvals have been shortened. Countries have collaborated closely and efficiently, not to mention the crazy hours everyone has put in.

I will certainly be having it as soon as it’s offered to me.

@GoldenOmber thanks for the calm response and yes it does make sense. It doesn’t make me any more likely to want the vaccine though ;)

I’m going to head off now as I think I’m only agitating people! Really not my intention to upset anyone (though I see how if you were very excited about this development you would feel that way), I just wanted to share my concerns with others and see if anyone else felt similarly. But I think I’ve contributed all I can now. Thanks for the chat!