No vaccinations for the under 50s!!!!!

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am not making it personal and I am only pointing to the flaws of your reasoning. In addition you have made a range of arguments that are not correct like conflating emergency authorisation with vaccine safety and misunderstanding the number of infections as number of deaths

Your not attempting to make it personnal, Really? Then why do you keep repeating it? You wouldn't be trying to make yourself appear less dumb would you?

Like I stated, I had a hangover and posted the wrong figure. If you feel thats the only way you can prove your point then I feel sorry for you.

I said politics played ball together with politicians which of course you keep misrepresenting. As if I don't know who takes decisions. Politicians were influencing these decisions. That's what has happened. Do you get it now?

I think you'll find politics and politicians are inseparable, you can't really have one without the other? Or did you mean something else?

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am not making it personal and I am only pointing to the flaws of your reasoning. In addition you have made a range of arguments that are not correct like conflating emergency authorisation with vaccine safety and misunderstanding the number of infections as number of deaths

Your not attempting to make it personnal, Really? Then why do you keep repeating it? You wouldn't be trying to make yourself appear less dumb would you?

Like I stated, I had a hangover and posted the wrong figure. If you feel thats the only way you can prove your point then I feel sorry for you.

I said politics played ball together with politicians which of course you keep misrepresenting. As if I don't know who takes decisions. Politicians were influencing these decisions. That's what has happened. Do you get it now?

I think you'll find politics and politicians are inseparable, you can't really have one without the other? Or did you mean something else?

Politics can be exercised by a variety of groups and not just politicians. In this case you can have politicians pressuring for mass vaccinations, part of the medical establishment i.e other scientists, and political pressure civilian groups. Hence science can be replaced by politics on occasions.

Bypassing the JCVI can't happen without politics that play ball.

Bypassing the vaccine task force needs severe pressure from many directions. According to the initial plan the Covid vaccines were only made for the adults over the age of 50. Not to forget this most important detail.

www.ft.com...

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You keep posting the same article and not understanding that this was a Prioritisation of the avalible injections, and that the priority was the elderly but that didn't rule out those younger than 50 as I posted at the start of the thread.

1.older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
2.all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
3.all those 75 years of age and over
4.all those 70 years of age and over
5.all those 65 years of age and over
6.high-risk adults under 65 years of age
7.moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
8.all those 60 years of age and over
9.all those 55 years of age and over
10.all those 50 years of age and over
11.rest of the population(priority to be determined)

From the Green Book.

Trials have now been concluded in children aged 5-11 years, using a 10 microgram dose of the vaccine formulated for children. These trials have shown equivalent antibody response and slightly lower reactogenicity than the full adult/adolescent dose (30 micrograms) in those aged 16-25 years. In December 2021, MHRA approved the paediatric formulation of the 10 microgram dose for primary vaccination of children aged 5-11 years

a reply to: Kurokage

I often find that after the third or fourth time of saying something and it being point blank ignored its usually time to give it up as a bad job.

You can't change an opinion that's already locked into a fixed state with any amount of discussion or evidence.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You keep posting the same article and not understanding that this was a Prioritisation of the avalible injections, and that the priority was the elderly but that didn't rule out those younger than 50 as I posted at the start of the thread.

1.older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers
2.all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers
3.all those 75 years of age and over
4.all those 70 years of age and over
5.all those 65 years of age and over
6.high-risk adults under 65 years of age
7.moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age
8.all those 60 years of age and over
9.all those 55 years of age and over
10.all those 50 years of age and over
11.rest of the population (priority to be determined)

From the Green Book.

Trials have now been concluded in children aged 5-11 years, using a 10 microgram dose of the vaccine formulated for children. These trials have shown equivalent antibody response and slightly lower reactogenicity than the full adult/adolescent dose (30 micrograms) in those aged 16-25 years. In December 2021, MHRA approved the paediatric formulation of the 10 microgram dose for primary vaccination of children aged 5-11 years

I understand very well the prioritization when vaccines are rolled out. But according to the standards of vaccine safety they should have not been rolled out to the young and healthy populations regardless of the approval by the MHRA as politics played ball.


Here is why

www.ft.com...

People keep talking about ‘time to vaccinate the whole population’, but that is misguided,” she said. “There’s going to be no vaccination of people under 18. It’s an adult-only vaccine, for people over 50, focusing on health workers and care home workers and the vulnerable.”

Ms Bingham said vaccination policy would be aimed at those “most at risk” and noted that vaccinating healthy people, who are much less likely to have severe outcomes from Covid-19, “could cause them some freak harm”, potentially tipping the scales in terms of the risk-benefit analysis.

You seem to keep conflating emergency authorisation and vaccine safety. Vaccine safety is established over several years before rolled out to the population. Here vaccine safety hasn't been established and won't be established until many years to come.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Kurokage

I often find that after the third or fourth time of saying something and it being point blank ignored its usually time to give it up as a bad job.

You can't change an opinion that's already locked into a fixed state with any amount of discussion or evidence.

There is a difference between opinion and knowledge. Some people have opinions that are unsubstantiated and or/are driven by beliefs and misunderstandings and others have knowledge and not just an opinion.

In the case of vaccine safety what Kate Bingham said i.e that vaccines are meant for the over 50s was what they were planning to do given the absence of evidence for vaccine safety and efficacy. It takes years to be established and THEN it is rolled out in the population.

A bit of basic knowledge also helps.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

You seem to keep conflating emergency authorisation and vaccine safety. Vaccine safety is established over several years before rolled out to the population. Here vaccine safety hasn't been established and won't be established until many years to come.

I completely understand how they work. I think it's you who doesn't understand the way the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and MHRA work. These groups having nothing to do with politics

a reply to: Asmodeus3

A bit of basic knowledge also helps.

A bit of basic knowledge can be dangerous. People think they understand the procedures and make assumptions, which is what your doing here.

a reply to: Kurokage

When combined with the Dunning-Kruger effect it most certainly is.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

You seem to keep conflating emergency authorisation and vaccine safety. Vaccine safety is established over several years before rolled out to the population. Here vaccine safety hasn't been established and won't be established until many years to come.

I completely understand how they work. I think it's you who doesn't understand the way the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and MHRA work. These groups having nothing to do with politics

I do understand it very well. I have given you several examples and one recently where the JCVI didn't recommend jabs for the 12-15 but was bypassed by politics.

If no politics were involved and no pressure from various groups the JCVI would have done exactly what was decided by the vaccine task force, i.e not to recommend vaccines for anyone under the age of 50 with the possible exception of those with compromised immune systems.

You last statement shows exactly why we have this conversation and why I have to repeat what I say. But repetition is key for learning!



www.google.com...

Since 1989, when the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, took drug regulation out of the hands of the Department of Health, the MHRA has been 100% funded by the pharmaceutical companies.

As you see the MHRA isn't that independent when it is funded 100% by the Pharmaceutical Companies....

Scandalous I would say especially when vaccine safety was compromised for political and financial reasons.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I was replying to the poster who called the JCVI "junk science" and posted the actual source.

Is all.

You'll have to address the points I made regarding the junk science; a list of the members is hardly a refutation.

a reply to: zosimov

It wasn't just a list.

It is the JCVI official website.

You claim it's all "junk science", your claim so it's up to you to prove it.

Which you haven't.