Jump to content

Vaccine- who will have it?


Recommended Posts

That whole interview was insensitive. The entire conversation seemed to be a many pronged effort to distance themselves and the vaccine being the reason for death. There comes a time when evidence should be given. Now is not the time.

Maybe he’s just got so used to arse covering with every statement that he just can’t stop. Whatever the reason, I would have preferred 90% sympathy and 10% arse covering - not the other way round. 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Who is talking about setting up in a cowshed?  There are plenty of nice, warm venues large enough to do this on the IOM without OTT adaptations.  

It was quite revealing when at one of the briefings last week he spent quite a while explaining how the IOM's clinicians had debated whether to extend the period between doses, and it was a consensus

Timeout. You were given a gentle hint earlier. 

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

I see that the comment about the Crown Indemnity has now been removed from MR report. Which doesn't surprise me because when I read it I thought how fucking insensitive it was to even mention it!

It's still there as far as I can seeHe also said the Island's crown indemnity would be used if the death is confirmed to be directly linked to the vaccine by the Coroner of Inquests.

And it's also referred to in the associated sound clip.  To be fair to Ashford it was actually raised by Edge in her question (also in the clip).  But then the obsession with indemnity seems to be from Ashford and the DHSC in the first place - I can't think of another jurisdiction that makes such a big thing about it.  Another example of how the main driver of civil service decisions seems to be the avoidance of responsibility.

Edited by Roger Mexico
Forgot italics for quote.
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

I suspect it happened well after leaving the hub.

Would agree if there was an issue at one of the vaccination no doubt there would have been loads on social media about it

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's still there as far as I can see: He also said the Island's crown indemnity would be used if the death is confirmed to be directly linked to the vaccine by the Coroner of Inquests.

And it's also referred to in the associated sound clip.  To be fair to Ashford it was actually raised by Edge in her question (also in the clip).  But then the obsession with indemnity seems to be from Ashford and the DHSC in the first place - I can't think of another jurisdiction that makes such a big thing about it.  Another example of how the main driver of civil service decisions seems to be the avoidance of responsibility.

That is simply rubbish.

Have you actually listened to the clip?  It's got nothing to do with "avoiding responsibility ".  What are you on about?

It is quite clear what Ashford was saying.   It's typical of Julie Edge really.  A question or statement made when the actual facts are not to hand.    

It's insensitive at this stage to be brining it up.  Ashford answered it exactly as he should.   What do you expect him to say?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TerryFuchwit said:

I suspect it happened well after leaving the hub.

We do need to know though and also what vaccine it was: 15 minutes supervision is required for Pfizer - should we be doing the same for AZ? 

In the clip Ashford also dismisses concerns about blood clots simply because they were 'the wrong sort'.  Now it may be true that the incidence of blood clots was no more than would be expected in the relevant population, but it still needs checking and reassurance offered appropriately.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

We do need to know though and also what vaccine it was: 15 minutes supervision is required for Pfizer - should we be doing the same for AZ? 

In the clip Ashford also dismisses concerns about blood clots simply because they were 'the wrong sort'.  Now it may be true that the incidence of blood clots was no more than would be expected in the relevant population, but it still needs checking and reassurance offered appropriately.

He has offered reassurance.  You said so yourself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

It's still there as far as I can seeHe also said the Island's crown indemnity would be used if the death is confirmed to be directly linked to the vaccine by the Coroner of Inquests.

And it's also referred to in the associated sound clip.  To be fair to Ashford it was actually raised by Edge in her question (also in the clip).  But then the obsession with indemnity seems to be from Ashford and the DHSC in the first place - I can't think of another jurisdiction that makes such a big thing about it.  Another example of how the main driver of civil service decisions seems to be the avoidance of responsibility.

The first MR post didn't include the audio clip but did report the indemnity issue.

After that they included the audio clip but the indemnity issue had been removed.

Subsequent to both of the above the indemnity issue is now back with the audio clip.

They got there eventually... but probably still an unnecessary subject to discuss at this time.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr. Grumpy said:

I wonder if disregarding manufacturers' instructions will void any liability on their part

As I understand it, indemnity is being provided by the UK Government, and we are following them in regard the dosing.

Furthermore, if it was the AZ vaccine we are following the manufacturer's recommendation which is second dose between 4 and 12 weeks. 

If it was the first dose of either, then I don't see how they could argue that because the second dose wasn't going to be given until 12 weeks, liability was voided in any way.

If the post about it being an anaphylactic reaction is correct, it is unlikely to be a second dose. It would be unusual to have no reaction at all to the first dose and then a fatal allergic reaction to the second

Having said all of that, indemnity issues are not the top priority at the moment

Edited by Newbie
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, KERED said:

I am finding Ashie's rising inflection at the end of each sentence becoming more and more irritating.

That and the lecturing tone. Oh and the whining voice. And the absolute certainty that he’s never wrong. And the fact that he’s a doctor, microbiologist, PR and GDPR expert. Apart from that he’s perfect. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Newbie said:

As I understand it, indemnity is being provided by the UK Government, and we are following them in regard the dosing.

Furthermore, if it was the AZ vaccine we are following the manufacturer's recommendation which is second dose between 4 and 12 weeks. 

If it was the first dose of either, then I don't see how they could argue that because the second dose wasn't going to be given until 12 weeks, liability was voided in any way.

If the post about it being an anaphylactic reaction is correct, it is unlikely to be a second dose. It would be unusual to have no reaction at all to the first dose and then a fatal allergic reaction to the second

Having said all of that, indemnity issues are not the top priority at the moment

Are you sure that the UK Government is providing indemnity for the covid vaccines? Contrary to what the minister seems to think, UK Crown indemnity is not available here. The DHSC 'self insures' 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Itsmeee said:

That and the lecturing tone. Oh and the whining voice. And the absolute certainty that he’s never wrong. And the fact that he’s a doctor, microbiologist, PR and GDPR expert. Apart from that he’s perfect. 

You need to bear in mind that thos is a guy who insists on calling the Pfizer vaccine pfifezer even though he is well aware by now that he pronounced it wrong to start with. Even when people in the same conversation pronounce it pfizer. Rather than admit to a meaningless mistake he's going to plough on and call it pfifezer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...