Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[Angelo]

I'm only noticing Spain on that list from What I put up, have you a link for the 23 countries that have suspended it

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/15/which-countries-have-halted-use-of-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine

Think that's still short

You only counted 6, there's 17 there - including the 4 biggest countries in the EU.

The 4 biggest countries in the EU have stopped it. The biggest nation in Europe never approved it to begin with.

[johnnycool]

Got a call from the GP there and am booked in next wednesday..

Happy days

[maddog]

Booked in on Friday morning. Glad to be getting it

[Evil Genius]

From earlier this afternoon:

The EU's medicines regulator has said it remains "firmly convinced" that the benefits of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 jab outweigh the risks.

It reiterated that there was "no indication" the vaccine causes blood clots, after several leading EU states paused their rollouts.

European Medicines Agency (EMA) head Emer Cooke said the body stood by its decision to approve the vaccine.

More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56411561

I await with interest Angelo's explanation of how (Irishwoman) Ms. Cooke and the other scientists at the EMA are speaking from "a vested interest".

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/emer-cooke-takes-office-head-ema

[Milltown Row2]

I'm only noticing Spain on that list from What I put up, have you a link for the 23 countries that have suspended it

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/15/which-countries-have-halted-use-of-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine

Think that's still short

You only counted 6, there's 17 there - including the 4 biggest countries in the EU.

The 4 biggest countries in the EU have stopped it. The biggest nation in Europe never approved it to begin with.

You're still short, you said the majority, if there are 44 countries...

[Angelo]

Where have they liability?

Go on, tell me.

It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else

So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.

So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.

So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.

After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).

So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.

It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.

Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.

[Angelo]

The coincidence theorists are in full flow here.

[Evil Genius]

Where have they liability?

Go on, tell me.

It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else

So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.

So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.

So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.

After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).

So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.

It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.

Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.

So.

You are unable to back up the claim which you introduced to this thread (general immunity from prosecution for all companies in all jurisdictions).

You are unable or unwilling to address the valid reasons why Pharmaceutical companies might seek - and be granted - immunity.

You have failed to specify how and why (unspecified) "vested interests" have caused the world's scientists to mislead us over vaccine safety and in what circumstances.

And further to that last point, you are ignoring the solid, up-to-the minute defence by the European Medicines Agency of its authorisation of the AZ vaccine, even in the face of major member governments like France and Germany expressing reservations.

Seeing as most people on here seem to be favourable towards vaccination, it remains for those who, like you, insist on  claiming otherwise to back up your claims.

P.S. A bit of specificity would be nice, rather than blithely relying on vague generalisations like "Big Pharma", "vested interests" and "the majority of Europe" etc.

[Angelo]

Where have they liability?

Go on, tell me.

It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else

So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.

So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.

So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.

After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).

So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.

It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.

Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.

So.

You are unable to back up the claim which you introduced to this thread (general immunity from prosecution for all companies in all jurisdictions).

You are unable or unwilling to address the valid reasons why Pharmaceutical companies might seek - and be granted - immunity.

You have failed to specify how and why (unspecified) "vested interests" have caused the world's scientists to mislead us over vaccine safety and in what circumstances.

And further to that last point, you are ignoring the solid, up-to-the minute defence by the European Medicines Agency of its authorisation of the AZ vaccine, even in the face of major member governments like France and Germany expressing reservations.

Seeing as most people on here seem to be favourable towards vaccination, it remains for those who, like you, insist on  claiming otherwise to back up your claims.

P.S. A bit of specificity would be nice, rather than blithely relying on vague generalisations like "Big Pharma", "vested interests" and "the majority of Europe" etc.

I have given you examples.

You have given none.

It's a slam dunk for you to disprove me but you can't. I've won this one pretty easily. All you need is one example in one jurisdiction but you decided to contend something on a point of ignorance.

Telling.

[Evil Genius]

Where have they liability?

Go on, tell me.

It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else

So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.

So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.

So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.

After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).

So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.

It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.

Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.

So.

You are unable to back up the claim which you introduced to this thread (general immunity from prosecution for all companies in all jurisdictions).

You are unable or unwilling to address the valid reasons why Pharmaceutical companies might seek - and be granted - immunity.

You have failed to specify how and why (unspecified) "vested interests" have caused the world's scientists to mislead us over vaccine safety and in what circumstances.

And further to that last point, you are ignoring the solid, up-to-the minute defence by the European Medicines Agency of its authorisation of the AZ vaccine, even in the face of major member governments like France and Germany expressing reservations.

Seeing as most people on here seem to be favourable towards vaccination, it remains for those who, like you, insist on  claiming otherwise to back up your claims.

P.S. A bit of specificity would be nice, rather than blithely relying on vague generalisations like "Big Pharma", "vested interests" and "the majority of Europe" etc.

I have given you examples.

You have given none.

It's a slam dunk for you to disprove me but you can't. I've won this one pretty easily. All you need is one example in one jurisdiction but you decided to contend something on a point of ignorance.

Telling.

You have given one isolated example of two companies in one jurisdiction who are exempt from liability. This excludes the dozens of companies who have developed vaccines (fully or in part), or which are working on it, in numerous other countries.

Yet still you claim "Big Pharma" (i.e. all of them, everywhere) are relying on this, without anything more to back it up.

And that's before you address the valid reasons I outlined why companies would require such immunity and why governments might grant it.

The ball is in your court.

[Angelo]

Where have they liability?

Go on, tell me.

It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else

So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.

So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.

So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.

After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).

So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.

It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.

Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.

So.

You are unable to back up the claim which you introduced to this thread (general immunity from prosecution for all companies in all jurisdictions).

You are unable or unwilling to address the valid reasons why Pharmaceutical companies might seek - and be granted - immunity.

You have failed to specify how and why (unspecified) "vested interests" have caused the world's scientists to mislead us over vaccine safety and in what circumstances.

And further to that last point, you are ignoring the solid, up-to-the minute defence by the European Medicines Agency of its authorisation of the AZ vaccine, even in the face of major member governments like France and Germany expressing reservations.

Seeing as most people on here seem to be favourable towards vaccination, it remains for those who, like you, insist on  claiming otherwise to back up your claims.

P.S. A bit of specificity would be nice, rather than blithely relying on vague generalisations like "Big Pharma", "vested interests" and "the majority of Europe" etc.

I have given you examples.

You have given none.

It's a slam dunk for you to disprove me but you can't. I've won this one pretty easily. All you need is one example in one jurisdiction but you decided to contend something on a point of ignorance.

Telling.

You have given one isolated example of two companies in one jurisdiction who are exempt from liability. This excludes the dozens of companies who have developed vaccines (fully or in part), or which are working on it, in numerous other countries.

Yet still you claim "Big Pharma" (i.e. all of them, everywhere) are relying on this, without anything more to back it up.

And that's before you address the valid reasons I outlined why companies would require such immunity and why governments might grant it.

The ball is in your court.

And you have given no examples or liability on any Covid vaccine manufacturer in any jurisdiction.

I make that 1-0 to me. Do you want to concede defeat now?

[GAABoardMod5]

Evil Genius and Angelo...this is a discussion board, not a point-scoring exercise.

Unless you both cease, I think Rule 9 will be brought into play:

9. 'Feuds'.
    On occasion, two or more posters become fixated with annoying each other, without necessarily descending into personal abuse per se. However this behaviour is very disruptive to whatever thread it breaks out it, and causes threads to be taken over by tit for tat insults. In a case such as this, a moderator may post a public and private    warning for both posters to completely ignore the other, refraining from referring to, directing comments at, or answering the other poster. Disregarding this warning will    result in a ban.

   Penalties - 1st offence after warning - 2 Days, 2nd Offence - 10 Days, Subsequent Offences - Recurring 15 Day bans.

Next move is up to you...

[Angelo]

Evil Genius and Angelo...this is a discussion board, not a point-scoring exercise.

Unless you both cease, I think Rule 9 will be brought into play:

9. 'Feuds'.
    On occasion, two or more posters become fixated with annoying each other, without necessarily descending into personal abuse per se. However this behaviour is very disruptive to whatever thread it breaks out it, and causes threads to be taken over by tit for tat insults. In a case such as this, a moderator may post a public and private    warning for both posters to completely ignore the other, refraining from referring to, directing comments at, or answering the other poster. Disregarding this warning will    result in a ban.

   Penalties - 1st offence after warning - 2 Days, 2nd Offence - 10 Days, Subsequent Offences - Recurring 15 Day bans.

Next move is up to you...

Aye.

A discussion board and are you going to do anything else about posters highjacking every thread with their political prejudices?

Or do you just decide to curtail debate but facilitate people spam every thread with their political bias.

Serious question here.

[Milltown Row2]

Angelo you e lost the plot lad. Toys out of pram!

1-0? Wtf

[Angelo]

Angelo you e lost the plot lad. Toys out of pram!

1-0? Wtf

It's a fair question.

The moderator seems to like applying his rules selectively.

We have two posters here discussing the subject matter and he's threatening them with bans.

Meanwhile we have trailer, Sid, Rossfan and Dublin7 running across multiple threads and bringing their political bias into it. We have a few one policy posters who bring that policy into every single thread they post on, spamming the thread with matters not relating to it.

Maybe that should be worth more moderation that two posters who are actually discussing the subject matter of the topic.

The again he banned me the last time because another posters was stalking me making false accusations that I said he was a rapist.