Marhay70 wrote: » Well that's not exactly to say that it will be approved on 23rd. I'd love to know what exactly the EMA need to know that's different from the US or Singapore or Canada. Early on I was inclined to think , " well they're being thorough" but now I'm thinking "get the finger out"
is_that_so wrote: » They organise flu' vaccines perfectly well every year, this year over 1m of them. It won't be a challenge until we get to the much larger numbers of general population. That's likely to be around summertime.
brisan wrote: » Do you honestly think elderly vulnerable people in care homes who have had no visitors for months ,or HCW who are at work would have an issue getting vaccinated on Christmas day
is_that_so wrote: » They already do it. Vaccines against the following diseases are mandatory for Italian schoolchildren: polio, diphtheria, tetanus, hepatitis B, haemophilus influenzae B, measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, and chickenpox.
is_that_so wrote: » Not if, as claimed, we will have limited supplies of vaccines for a few months. March or April are probably more realistic.
schmoo2k wrote: » I was assuming the limited numbers would cover the high risk folks? Once they are vaccinated the hospital admissions and ICU numbers will be reduced significantly.
Mitch Connor wrote: » UK approved for Emergency Authorization. US approved for Emergency Authorization. I don't know about Canada or Singapore. I would assume EMA don't approve for Emergency Authorization as that would be a country specific decison rathen than a Euro-Zone wide decision. Ireland could approve for Emergency Authorization just as the UK did, but have decided (rightly/wrongly) to wait for EMA approval.
Mitch Connor wrote: » I don't know. I just don't think it particularly likely. And if they did, I reckon you'd have a co-hort of people saying it is a disgrace that they are rushing the vaccine out for Christmas day PR reasons.
brisan wrote: » So there is no international law or Geneva ruling to stop any country in Europe (Ireland included ) from making the Covid vaccine mandatory unless on medical grounds ? Would that be correct ?
The ECtHR has reiterated in its established case-law that the notion of ‘necessity in a democratic society’ implies a pressing social need to which the interference at stake corresponds and, in particular, that this interference is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued
CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: » I'm reading the NPHET line The vaccine wont get us back to normal until the majority of the country has been vaccinated although I admit the italicised section is something I am adding in myself.
Marhay70 wrote: » What's to stop the EMA from approving for Emergency Authorisation for the EU and the individual countries deciding whether or not to approve for their own country? Makes more logical sense to me.
is_that_so wrote: » That I don't know but I've seen posters say that. The Italian law makes a lot of sense in the face of big falloffs in children being vaccinated. France have something similar. Here's a commentary on the Italian law.https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.26.1900371
hmmm wrote: » From what I've read that's the plan. The EMA will sign off on it, but each individual country has their own regulator who will also need to sign off (hopefully that's just a formality). Then the EU is talking about everyone starting vaccinations on the same day - I presume that's to avoid claims of favoritism or attempts to cut corners.
Irish Stones wrote: » Italy is planning to make the vaccine mandatory, so it won't matter whether people bother or not. If other European countries follow the example, there will be no big issue.
Mitch Connor wrote: » I don't know. But IMO it doesn't make sense that way around. Let the countries decide emergency level (As the UK did, within the Euro framework), let EMA approve for general usage at a euro-level. That makes sense to me as a process but I've its not like I've delved into the processes.
is_that_so wrote: » Here's a commentary on the Italian law.https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.26.1900371
ZX7R wrote: » Italian government have back tracked on making the vaccination mandatory. After there helth ministry carried out a survey trough SG. A higher uptake of the vaccination will acoure if its vaccination is voluntary
ACitizenErased wrote: » FDA says no specific safety concerned for Moderna vaccine. Looks like they’ll approve that one soon. Be fairly bad if the US have 2 approved vaccines and the entire EU none tbh
AdamD wrote: » Currently the UK are week 2 into rolling out the vaccine and we're still tendering (?) for the IT system we're going to use. Not great. Also they've mentioned the 29th as the date so many times our lot don't look like they'd be ready if it was pushed forward a week, despite the EU always stating it was 29th at the latest. Obviously wait and see how we actually do it before giving out but it certainly looks like it could go wrong. The IT system etc. could have been done months ago, and I don't think that's an exagerration.
eigrod wrote: » EMA meeting brought forward to 21st Dechttps://twitter.com/ema_news/status/1338837357034868736?s=21https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1338836944088948738?s=21
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0ec48fe92b0cf92f5cdae52d3485d794.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/8a022abb175d445f2b5b8a1c545f3d3f.svg)
