Norwegian is looking into Covid-19 vaccine requirement

[ace2542]

7 hours ago, sanger727 said:

true. I still don’t think 200 million doses will be enough though. Apparently the vaccine is only approved for ages 16 and over now. There are roughly 255 million adults in the US. If 50% are undecided; let’s say half of those end up taking it. That is still close to 200 million people which would need 400 million doses. So to get to the point where everyone who wants one can get one, we will still need to secure a substantial number of extra doses

You have option to by 400 million more moderna in that signed contract. A contract which is probably unaffected by the so called america first vaccine executive order of outgoing president Trump.

[nomad098]

3 hours ago, graphicguy said:

There will be some who are excluded from cruising, either because of their inability or lack of want to comply.  I don't doubt the cruise lines have taken that into account.  They won't sail full...probably far from it, as a result.  Those who won't comply probably will have a time frame put on their tercet contract.  If at the end of that time frame, they continue with non-compliance, they'll probably lose their deposit, FCC, or their cruise fare.

 

If you've booked and given the cruise line(s) money, you are subject to their contract, whether you know it or not.  If you don't comply, you lose your money.

 

Most don't read the contract.  But, it's all spelled out there.

 

 

"Carrier’s COVID-19 Policies and Procedures are subject to guidance and directives of established health authorities in the U.S. and other destinations where the Vessel visits, including the CDC and other international, national and local health agencies when the Vessel is within those agencies’ jurisdiction. Passenger acknowledges that these directives may change from time to time and that Carrier’s COVID-19 Policies and Procedures may therefore change. Passenger expressly agrees to comply not only with the COVID-19 Policies and Procedures as they are described herein, but also as they are set forth on Carrier’s website"

 

I do not know what the situation is in the US but in the UK and EU it is illegal to alter the terms and conditions of a contract without both sides agreeing.

 

Anyone in the UK & EU who paid a deposit before this amendment came into effect is entitled to a full cash refund if they choose not to have the vaccine and it's a requirement.

 

The passage in bold is obviously the cruise line covering all bases in case they want to implement a vaccine requirement without the need to refer to national authorities.

 

I have no issue with only vaccinated cruises it's their business, but market forces will dictate their policies moving forward if national authorities do not implement a vaccine requirement. 

 

2 hours ago, Charles4515 said:

 

They have no customers now. I don't think it will be a difficult decision for cruise lines to require vaccination to restart cruises.

 

I do not have a problem with a vaccination requirement to cruise I just do not think it's as simple as some believe it is to make it a requirement without Governmental support. No one knows what will happen when cruising restarts in earnest around the world, it may well be people flock back to cruising if a vaccine is required or it may be that they can not get the numbers and will alter policy accordingly.

[graphicguy]

Terms of the cruise contract would be intact and have not changed.  The contract states that requirements are at the discretion of local  norms and those of the cruise line. and that the passenger agrees to any changes that may or may not be made.  So, if you paid your fare, you agreed to the fluidity of the terms as that’s stipulated in the contract.

 

If you disagree with something like vaccine requirements to sail, you can choose not to cruise, but you won’t get a refund.

[All-ready2cruise]

12 minutes ago, graphicguy said:

If you disagree with something like vaccine requirements to sail, you can choose not to cruise, but you won’t get a refund.

I have an idea it's not going to just relate to cruising as far as the vaccine is concerned.  I've looked at a few vacay resorts and some suggest that there will be additional requirements with regards to Covid-19. 

 

I so wish it would just go away... MAKE IT SO!!!

[Wedgie23]

You cannot compare compulsory mask wearing during a pandemic to forced vaccinations. There are zero side affects to wearing a mask. You aren't injecting a mask into your body, wearing a mask isn't part of, what is supposed to be confidential, medical records and virtually everyone can wear a mask.

 

If the vaccine works as well as it claims, 95% and the 5% who do get it only get a mild illness then anyone who wishes to and is healthy enough for the vaccine can take it and not worry about who around them hasn't. 

 

The people they would be excluding from travel however would be pregnant women, women who wish to become pregnant, women who are breast feeding, children under 16, anyone with allergies, anyone who already had the virus, anyone who is partaking in the study and received the placebo, anyone with an auto immune condition and those are just the current list of people the vaccine is not currently recommended for or who cannot receive it. 

 

Personally I have 2 of the above issues which would put me in the not recommended category and the decision on if it's worth the risk for me considering my own medical history with vaccines should be between me and my doctor, not me and NCL because they have already taken my money for a cruise booked in June. I don't see how it's anything but discriminatory when there is a laundry list of people who we already know cannot take it for medical reasons and unlike other restrictions it would be done simply to make other people feel better when all they actually need to be safe is to vaccinate themselves. 

 

You're talking about them cutting down their potential customer base by millions of people along with the cruising partners of those millions. I haven't heard of any country authorizing it for anyone under 16 so every cruise going forward would be child free? Norwegian has made a huge push, designed their entire ships for family entertainment only to decide to be adult only? 

 

And this is all just based around the people who can't get it when I'm sure there are going to be many more who don't want it or don't trust it. I could certainly understand signing a waiver that you're aware cruising without a vaccine could be risky and you cannot hold them liable if you catch the virus but anyone who is lining up for the vaccine shouldn't be concerning themselves policing the people who aren't. 

[ziggyuk]

39 minutes ago, Wedgie23 said:

The people they would be excluding from travel however would be pregnant women, women who wish to become pregnant, women who are breast feeding, children under 16, anyone with allergies, anyone who already had the virus, anyone who is partaking in the study and received the placebo, anyone with an auto immune condition and those are just the current list of people the vaccine is not currently recommended for or who cannot receive it. 

 

People who are taking part in trials are not excluded that would be unethical, I have personally been told the trial will be unblinded to those offered a vaccine, those on the Pfizer vaccine have been told the same but also that the company are working towards giving those who had the placebo a Pfizer vaccine so they can stay on the trial rather than taking a competitors and leaving the trial.

 

The Immunosuppressed are not excluded in the UK and it won't be long before the enough evidence is available for that to to be lifted elsewhere.

 

Children are on the trial groups right now, I personally know AstraZeneca have been recruiting for some time, again these groups will likely be added very soon.

 

Pregnant women, women who wish to become pregnant, women who are breast feeding, as above I would expect these groups to be added if/when it's proven safe.

The point being it will be months before NCL start sailing and probably 6 months before enough people have been vaccinated for NCL to introduce these measures, most of the groups you mention will not be excluded by this time. Until this happens the ships will be half full with masks in full swing. 

[nomad098]

6 hours ago, graphicguy said:

Terms of the cruise contract would be intact and have not changed.  The contract states that requirements are at the discretion of local  norms and those of the cruise line. and that the passenger agrees to any changes that may or may not be made.  So, if you paid your fare, you agreed to the fluidity of the terms as that’s stipulated in the contract.

 

If you disagree with something like vaccine requirements to sail, you can choose not to cruise, but you won’t get a refund.

 

I do not disagree with a vaccine requirement, I disagree with your interpretation of the facts based upon your bias. Are you aware that in the UK & EU brochures and online advertising information forms part of the contract, What applies in the US does not necessarily apply elsewhere in the world. If it was not a stipulation when you booked it cannot be retroactively be included without agreement from both parties. Governmental agencies though can make it a legal requirement to enter a country.

 

It's a long document but here is an extract, schedule 1 provides the need to provide relevant health information and the document

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/634/regulation/5/made

 

3) Before a traveller is bound by a package of the kind described in regulation 2(5)(b)(v)—

(a)the relevant person and the trader to whom the data are transmitted must ensure that each of them provides the information specified in Schedule 1, in so far as it is relevant for the respective travel services they offer; and

(b)the relevant person must provide, at the same time, the information in Schedule 4, using the form and wording set out in that Schedule.

(4) Any information provided to the traveller under this regulation must be provided—

(a)in a clear, comprehensible and prominent manner; and

(b)where the information is provided in writing, in a legible form.

(5) Where the relevant person fails to provide information to the traveller in accordance with this regulation, the organiser or, where the package travel contract is sold through a retailer, both the organiser and the retailer, commit an offence and are liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to a fine in England and Wales, or in Scotland and Northern Ireland to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

 

 

 

[nomad098]

11 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

 

People who are taking part in trials are not excluded that would be unethical, I have personally been told the trial will be unblinded to those offered a vaccine, those on the Pfizer vaccine have been told the same but also that the company are working towards giving those who had the placebo a Pfizer vaccine so they can stay on the trial rather than taking a competitors and leaving the trial.

 

The Immunosuppressed are not excluded in the UK and it won't be long before the enough evidence is available for that to to be lifted elsewhere.

 

Children are on the trial groups right now, I personally know AstraZeneca have been recruiting for some time, again these groups will likely be added very soon.

 

Pregnant women, women who wish to become pregnant, women who are breast feeding, as above I would expect these groups to be added if/when it's proven safe.

The point being it will be months before NCL start sailing and probably 6 months before enough people have been vaccinated for NCL to introduce these measures, most of the groups you mention will not be excluded by this time. Until this happens the ships will be half full with masks in full swing. 

 

It is really a hodgepodge of information some on immunosuppressants are being told to get the vaccine like Crohn's patients others are being told to wait like MS suffers and cancer patients.

 

Some Governmental scientists are recommending the vaccine for certain groups other Governmental scientists are not, it is quite confusing for some groups.

 

Professor Van Tam stated in an interview that healthy under 50's may only be offered the vaccine dependent on the results from the initial roll out. Which makes sound scientific sense in case the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk from covid in a population study.

 

There is still so much to learn about the disease and the vaccines.

 

Market forces and governmental policies will be the driving forces behind what cruise lines decide to do.

[ziggyuk]

5 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

It is really a hodgepodge of information some on immunosuppressants are being told to get the vaccine like Crohn's patients others are being told to wait like MS suffers and cancer patients.

 

Some Governmental scientists are recommending the vaccine for certain groups other Governmental scientists are not, it is quite confusing for some groups.

 

Professor Van Tam stated in an interview that healthy under 50's may only be offered the vaccine dependent on the results from the initial roll out. Which makes sound scientific sense in case the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk from covid in a population study.

 

There is still so much to learn about the disease and the vaccines.

 

Market forces and governmental policies will be the driving forces behind what cruise lines decide to do.

 

Agreed, the world is learning about the vaccines, we are all in the early stages with lots to learn and while they are learning there is no lack of people to vaccinate, it therefore makes sense to tread cautiously with some groups.
I personally believe in six months hardly anyone will be excluded and it will be six months before the cruise lines can introduce measures like these.

[Trimone]

3 hours ago, nomad098 said:

 

It is really a hodgepodge of information some on immunosuppressants are being told to get the vaccine like Crohn's patients others are being told to wait like MS suffers and cancer patients.

 

Some Governmental scientists are recommending the vaccine for certain groups other Governmental scientists are not, it is quite confusing for some groups.

 

Professor Van Tam stated in an interview that healthy under 50's may only be offered the vaccine dependent on the results from the initial roll out. Which makes sound scientific sense in case the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk from covid in a population study.

 

There is still so much to learn about the disease and the vaccines.

 

Market forces and governmental policies will be the driving forces behind what cruise lines decide to do.

Hi Nomad, I’ve got Crohns, after three surgeries I now take Vedolizumab by infusion every 8 weeks, I also take azathioprine, therefore I have no immunity, I’ve been informed already to get prepared for the vaccine, I was in shielding before and after the first lockdown, however now I get letters from Matt Hancock just to be careful??

[Doubt It]

Then there is the issue of there being no evidence that a vaccine will stop transmission of the virus from one person to another. 

 

Then there is the expiry horizon of a vaccine, so if your vaccine horizon expires just before your cruise or on a cruise - what is one to do? Think of the consequences.......locked in your cabin until arrival at port then get delayed flying home and on and on, delays at boarding....

 

I have the impression that the public seems to believe that the vaccines will solve everything immediately and there is no evidence to indicate this.

 

 

[nomad098]

2 minutes ago, Trimone said:

Hi Nomad, I’ve got Crohns, after three surgeries I now take Vedolizumab by infusion every 8 weeks, I also take azathioprine, therefore I have no immunity, I’ve been informed already to get prepared for the vaccine, I was in shielding before and after the first lockdown, however now I get letters from Matt Hancock just to be careful??

 

I am really sorry to hear that and hope things improve for you soon with the covid vaccination. 

My wife is undergoing chemo at the moment and has been told that she will have to wait a while for the vaccine.

Mixed messaging from the Government and scientists has certainly not been helpful.

 

 

[Wedgie23]

3 hours ago, ziggyuk said:

People who are taking part in trials are not excluded that would be unethical, I have personally been told the trial will be unblinded to those offered a vaccine, those on the Pfizer vaccine have been told the same but also that the company are working towards giving those who had the placebo a Pfizer vaccine so they can stay on the trial rather than taking a competitors and leaving the trial.

Then who would be the control group for further study or any study on longer term affects? My basic understanding (and some light googling to verify) is clinical trials typically span 2-6 years in testing and monitoring. I would have assumed that anyone in the trial would have been told upon agreeing to participate they cannot get a vaccine for X amount of time. 

 

Based on your experience apparently that isn't the case but that means any further study on it's affects wont be as accurate as they are not using controls. Which to me just furthers my understanding on why so many healthy people have concerns about taking this vaccine, along with the news our current president threatened to fire the head of the FDA if it didn't get authorized. 

 

3 hours ago, ziggyuk said:

Pregnant women, women who wish to become pregnant, women who are breast feeding, as above I would expect these groups to be added if/when it's proven safe.

 

Pregnancy takes 9 months and unlike this vaccine it can't be rushed. Developmental delays in children could take years to be noticed. There is simply no way to determine the affects of this on a fetus without years of testing. Telling women who are trying to get pregnant (which can take years in and of itself) to sequester herself away from society for as long as it takes her to conceive as well as her entire pregnancy and breast feeding term or risk the life of her child is completely unethical and inhumane. 

 

This vaccine is being marketed as safe and 90-95% effective at preventing infection with the other 5-10% of cases resulting in a mild case. If people believe in the science enough to feel safe enough to take it then why don't they believe the science enough to realize it doesn't put them at risk if others don't?

 

The way this is sounding more and more those of us who can't/shouldn't take it are going to be under house arrest unless we risk ourselves all for the sake of making healthy people who could take it feel safer without actually making them any more so. This isn't just a new vaccine it's a completely new technology that has never been approved for any use anywhere in the world. When talking about autoimmune conditions it's not as simple as giving someone a shot and watching them for a couple weeks. Side affects for people whose immune systems already do not function properly could take years to show themselves. 

 

This is absolutely nothing like mask wearing. I wear a mask to protect you and me. This vaccine only prevents the person who got it from getting sick, they don't know if a vaccinated person could still spread it so you aren't getting this to protect anyone else. Someone not getting vaccinated is risking themselves, not you.  

[ziggyuk]

21 minutes ago, Wedgie23 said:

Then who would be the control group for further study or any study on longer term affects? My basic understanding (and some light googling to verify) is clinical trials typically span 2-6 years in testing and monitoring. I would have assumed that anyone in the trial would have been told upon agreeing to participate they cannot get a vaccine for X amount of time. 

 

Based on your experience apparently that isn't the case but that means any further study on it's affects wont be as accurate as they are not using controls. Which to me just furthers my understanding on why so many healthy people have concerns about taking this vaccine, along with the news our current president threatened to fire the head of the FDA if it didn't get authorized. 

 

I have no idea perhaps you can email Pfizer (as I have done with AstraZeneca when I need accurate information) and let us all know. You can flame everyone else's information to suit you own views as much as you want however:

@zdcatc12 is on the trial and shared the information (see link below) as I have shared information from the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine I am trailing.

For your information Oxford/AstraZeneca have emailed me a similar response after I posed that question to them:
Moving forwards, I am sure there will be discussion around offering oxford vaccine to those already on the study that have not yet received it – but this will depend a lot on timing and how many of our ‘placebo’ volunteers have received the Pfizer vaccine in the meantime.

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2020 by ziggyuk

[nomad098]

15 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

 

I have no idea perhaps you can email Pfizer and let us all know. You can flame everyone else's information to suit you own views as much as you want however:

@zdcatc12 is on the trial and shared the information (see link below) as I have shared information from the AstraZeneca I am trailing.

For your information Oxford/AstraZeneca have emailed me a similar response after I posed that question to them:
Moving forwards, I am sure there will be discussion around offering oxford vaccine to those already on the study that have not yet received it – but this will depend a lot on timing and how many of our ‘placebo’ volunteers have received the Pfizer vaccine in the meantime.

 

 

 

 

It's certainly a difficult decision for individuals and vaccine makers. i have read information that they may change the studies to comparing vaccines to see which is the most effective in different population groups if they do not have enough people for the placebo groups.

 

I am rooting for Astrazeneca as having looked at mRNA based treatments over the last 15 or so years, understanding the issues with autoimmunity at the very beginning and how they overcame the problem and later in cancer trials where autoimmunity was still a risk factor before the pandemic and seeing the questions and no answers from scientists and doctors about autoimmunity in the short and long term now, I would certainly be more confident in the Astrazeneca vaccine. 

[ziggyuk]

7 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

It's certainly a difficult decision for individuals and vaccine makers. i have read information that they may change the studies to comparing vaccines to see which is the most effective in different population groups if they do not have enough people for the placebo groups.

 

I am rooting for Astrazeneca as having looked at mRNA based treatments over the last 15 or so years, understanding the issues with autoimmunity at the very beginning and how they overcame the problem and later in cancer trials where autoimmunity was still a risk factor before the pandemic and seeing the questions and no answers from scientists and doctors about autoimmunity in the short and long term now, I would certainly be more confident in the Astrazeneca vaccine. 

 

Agreed, AstraZeneca tout themselves as a world vaccine and if/when it's approved that is exactly what it is, it is very low cost, needs no unusual storage and is a conventional style vaccine.
It will be extremely easy to deploy in third world countries and at minimal cost.

Even better AstraZeneca reported months ago they were manufacturing and stockpiling the vaccine (at their own risk) so it could be distributed quickly, I can't find any information on the current size of that stockpile but I imagine it's sizable now.

With it's approval decision imminent there is a BBC documentary on it tonight at 21:05GMT (Race for a vaccine) that looks really interesting.

[sanger727]

1 hour ago, Wedgie23 said:

Then who would be the control group for further study or any study on longer term affects? My basic understanding (and some light googling to verify) is clinical trials typically span 2-6 years in testing and monitoring. I would have assumed that anyone in the trial would have been told upon agreeing to participate they cannot get a vaccine for X amount of time. 

 

Based on your experience apparently that isn't the case but that means any further study on it's affects wont be as accurate as they are not using controls. Which to me just furthers my understanding on why so many healthy people have concerns about taking this vaccine, along with the news our current president threatened to fire the head of the FDA if it didn't get authorized. 

 

 

Pregnancy takes 9 months and unlike this vaccine it can't be rushed. Developmental delays in children could take years to be noticed. There is simply no way to determine the affects of this on a fetus without years of testing. Telling women who are trying to get pregnant (which can take years in and of itself) to sequester herself away from society for as long as it takes her to conceive as well as her entire pregnancy and breast feeding term or risk the life of her child is completely unethical and inhumane. 

 

This vaccine is being marketed as safe and 90-95% effective at preventing infection with the other 5-10% of cases resulting in a mild case. If people believe in the science enough to feel safe enough to take it then why don't they believe the science enough to realize it doesn't put them at risk if others don't?

 

The way this is sounding more and more those of us who can't/shouldn't take it are going to be under house arrest unless we risk ourselves all for the sake of making healthy people who could take it feel safer without actually making them any more so. This isn't just a new vaccine it's a completely new technology that has never been approved for any use anywhere in the world. When talking about autoimmune conditions it's not as simple as giving someone a shot and watching them for a couple weeks. Side affects for people whose immune systems already do not function properly could take years to show themselves. 

 

This is absolutely nothing like mask wearing. I wear a mask to protect you and me. This vaccine only prevents the person who got it from getting sick, they don't know if a vaccinated person could still spread it so you aren't getting this to protect anyone else. Someone not getting vaccinated is risking themselves, not you.  

 

It is true that these vaccine studies are being run differently than vaccine studies are normally run since there was a rush to get emergency approval early. And yes, they did not require the people in the study to commit to being in it for years. I have a family member in Pfizers and he was told that he was free to withdraw at any point if he wanted to get the vaccine officially. However, if they do break the blind and tell the people who received the vaccine that they received the vaccine, it will keep people in the study. This will at least allow them to get longer term results than they would otherwise.

 

Do we know for sure at this point if there are side effects or if it affects the fetus when a pregnant mother catches covid mid-pregnancy. As you said, this data would be impossible to collect at this point due to the limited amount of time researchers have had to study covid. Is the vaccine during pregnancy more or less safe than catching covid during pregnancy? I don't know that anyone would speculate. But I would agree that both likely carry some risks so short of self-quarantining for 10  months there isn't an easy answer.

[graphicguy]

I've got no dog in this hunt regarding what can/can't be stipulated on a cruise contract.  I do know for a fact, being Platinum on NCL, and sailing out of Barcelona (Med cruise) a couple of years ago, that the cruise contract read, as a stipulation of cruising on their ship, they reserved the right to make requirements based on differing circumstances.  That IS one of the stipulations of the contract you accepted once you pay your fare, regardless of geographic locale.

 

I suppose you could fight it in court...might even get some relief.  But, short of that, you refuse the vaccine requirement, you are subject to the contract you accepted upon paying your fare.  

 

My guess is you might get a remedy based on a future cruise credit sometime in the future when the vaccine will not be required.

[CruiseMH]

2 hours ago, graphicguy said:

 

 

I suppose you could fight it in court...might even get some relief.  But, short of that, you refuse the vaccine requirement, you are subject to the contract you accepted upon paying your fare.  

 

 

Every contract is subject to the national laws and regulations. And if there is a lw in whichever country that clearly prohibits that such things as a vaccine are mandatory to get on board then the contract you sign with NCL is worthless.

this does not mean that you will get on board without vaccination but at least you will get back all your money.(of course only if you booked the cruise before the mandatory vaccination was published by NCL)

 

[BirdTravels]

2 hours ago, CruiseMH said:

Every contract is subject to the national laws and regulations. And if there is a lw in whichever country that clearly prohibits that such things as a vaccine are mandatory to get on board then the contract you sign with NCL is worthless.

this does not mean that you will get on board without vaccination but at least you will get back all your money.(of course only if you booked the cruise before the mandatory vaccination was published by NCL)

 

If you “sign” the contract, it is enforceable. 

[nomad098]

1 hour ago, BirdTravels said:

If you “sign” the contract, it is enforceable. 

 

I signed my contract with no covid-19 vaccine mandate does that mean I can enforce my right to not cruise with a vaccine if the cruise line introduces one, of course not.  

 

What it does mean is that the contract is unenforceable and I am entitled to a full cash refund or a FCC if I so wish or I can agree to the change in terms at which point the contract once again becomes enforceable again.

 

There are many reasons why a contract can not be enforced by either party

 

This is under UK & EU law I posted earlier other countries may vary.

 

 

 

 

[nomad098]

7 hours ago, ziggyuk said:

With it's approval decision imminent there is a BBC documentary on it tonight at 21:05GMT (Race for a vaccine) that looks really interesting.

 

Just watched it extremely interesting documentary, it put to bed the rumors about the 1/2 dose full dose questions the, MRHA were aware of why and how as soon as possible after the incident before any results were in and gave the OK to proceed. The hard work and dedication was awe inspiring, the step by step explanation certainly eased any concerns I have and the hope they have that the vaccine will help right the world and hopefully break transmission was plainly obvious. All for a £2 vaccine 

[ziggyuk]

19 minutes ago, nomad098 said:

 

Just watched it extremely interesting documentary, it put to bed the rumors about the 1/2 dose full dose questions the, MRHA were aware of why and how as soon as possible after the incident before any results were in and gave the OK to proceed. The hard work and dedication was awe inspiring, the step by step explanation certainly eased any concerns I have and the hope they have that the vaccine will help right the world and hopefully break transmission was plainly obvious. All for a £2 vaccine 

 

Totally agree, it's certainly an eye opener, as you say the dedication and aspirations are awe inspiring, their biggest mistake was the way it was announced, it left more questions than answers.

[hamrag]

3 minutes ago, ziggyuk said:

 

Totally agree, it's certainly an eye opener, as you say the dedication and aspirations are awe inspiring, their biggest mistake was the way it was announced, it left more questions than answers.

 

Absolutely, it was crazy, I was gobsmacked and somewhat confused initially!

[zdcatc12]

10 hours ago, Wedgie23 said:

Then who would be the control group for further study or any study on longer term affects? My basic understanding (and some light googling to verify) is clinical trials typically span 2-6 years in testing and monitoring. I would have assumed that anyone in the trial would have been told upon agreeing to participate they cannot get a vaccine for X amount of time. 

As @ziggyuk pointed out in his post about my post, that is not correct. We were told on the first day that we could withdraw from the study at anytime. Also, that when a vaccine was available that Pfizer would not have to tell the placebos that they were on a placebo, that it would be unethical for them not you. Also, ziggy posted the link to the letter that I received last week saying that their hope is for the placebos to continue in the trial as a vaccine participant if they decide to get the Pfizer vaccine.

 

9 hours ago, sanger727 said:

 

It is true that these vaccine studies are being run differently than vaccine studies are normally run since there was a rush to get emergency approval early. And yes, they did not require the people in the study to commit to being in it for years. I have a family member in Pfizers and he was told that he was free to withdraw at any point if he wanted to get the vaccine officially. However, if they do break the blind and tell the people who received the vaccine that they received the vaccine, it will keep people in the study. This will at least allow them to get longer term results than they would otherwise.

 

 

The above is correct, at least for Pfizer as I was told the same.