To cry because one my my jabs is the unregistered AZ Indian one...

[Oxonschools]

And we are supposed to be going as a whole family, with the grandparents, to France on Sunday.

Does anyone know how I can find out if I will be let into France.

Having just flown to the Balearics I can tell you they're not even looking at this. All they want to see is your PLF.

Why does it even matter when you can still be a carrier of covid and pass it on even when you have been fully vaccinated? Plenty of double jabbed are in hospital now or contracting the Delta variant.
They should be testing travellers entering countries, not looking at their vaccinated status.

@oblada maybe get yourself informed before making out you know it all. I live in France, it’s essential travel only at the moment.

The uk left the EU some time ago, have you been living under a rock?

[quote MollyMinniesMum]@oblada maybe get yourself informed before making out you know it all. I live in France, it’s essential travel only at the moment.

The uk left the EU some time ago, have you been living under a rock?[/quote]
What the hell are you on about? French nationals are allowed to come to France from the UK I can assure you. I'm French, well aware of the Brexit implications but under 'motif imperieux' is being French/EU nationals.

Plenty of double jabbed are in hospital now or contracting the Delta variant.

Of course, people still need to be vigilant. A cohort of the young, active population is not vaccinated; there are these new variants and people are able to travel a bit in and out. However, it would be interesting to see the data on numbers of people who have been fully vaccinated (long enough for full effect to have taken place) getting the Delta variant/ hospitalised because of Delta variant, in context. i.e. what percentage, have they immunosuppression etc.

@gamerchick

I don't understand the batches. Mine are PW40037 and similar for my second but PV and 5 numbers. Why are mine different to other peoples.

I've got the unapproved batch for my first and PV*** for my 2nd.

Plenty of double jabbed are in hospital now or contracting the Delta variant.

Not plenty. Just a very tiny proportion.

If you go to travel, then the page with your qr code, it lists the two vaccinations and the dates and each has a drop-down arrow that gives full details of each vaccine.

I wasn't sure the batch numbers were there in mine, but it's just that they are a completely different format from the ones on the list that aren't accepted.

Mine is one of these too....just looked at my card .

Im sure your batch number is registered on your med records so can look up online.

Ah. In Scotland we don’t have the blue card - and I can’t get logged into the NHS portal to check. I’m supposed to be going to Greece (ill family member, not a holiday) on Wednesday. Grr.

[quote Whyo]@Belladonna12

“Countries don't have to decide that only countries authorised by the EMA are to be trusted though.”

Jesus Christ. That’s simply not how medical product regulation works.

The medicine has to be recommended by the EMA before the European Commission permits for use in any member state.

Thereafter the member state can restrict further if they so choose. You know, sovereignty.

This specific batch hasn’t even reached the stage of EMA yet, do you know why? Because they never applied to! There’s not some big bad EU conspiracy a manufacture omitted a fairly giant piece of admin and now is consequences.

It would also be a pretty shitty conspiracy considering the vast majority of AstraZeneca are approved this is just one Indian-produced batch which is very likely to be approved once they bother to apply.[/quote]
Firstly the fact that the batches haven't been licensed by the EMA just means they won't be used in the EU. It doesn't mean that countries can't accept travellers who have been vaccinated by those batches.
Secondly, most medicines do not have to be licensed by the EMA before member states can use them. Individual countries can license most drugs themselves. It's just easier for drug companies to go via the EMA rather than each individual country.

[quote OchonAgusOchonOh]**@Belladonna12* - No, the MHRA didn't have to comply with EU rules when we were in the EU.*

I'm not saying they had to be compliant with the EMA but there are standards that apply throughout the EU that member countries need to comply with. If a drug is authorised in one member state, the company can apply to have this authorisation recognised in other EU countries. Member states can rely on one anothers assessment of drugs because they are recognised to meet minimum standards of assessment.[/quote]
The standards in the EU member standards aren't superior to other licensing authority standards and the MHRA certainly won't have dropped their standards since leaving the EU. The EMA was in London until a couple of years ago and the two agencies employed many of the same people.

@HollaHolla it doesn't matter. Greece are accepting that batch. As far as I can see, the only EU country being awkward about it are France.

[quote chocolatesaltyballs22]@HollaHolla it doesn't matter. Greece are accepting that batch. As far as I can see, the only EU country being awkward about it are France.[/quote]
Thank you! One less stress to deal with just now.

The standards in the EU member standards aren't superior to other licensing authority standards and the MHRA certainly won't have dropped their standards since leaving the EU. The EMA was in London until a couple of years ago and the two agencies employed many of the same people.

It doesn't matter whether standards have dropped or diverged. The point is that, as a third country, they can diverge so are treated differently. Same way the EMA treat any authorising agency from other countries.

MHRA are simply rubber-stamping marketing authorisations decided by the EMA at the moment. They only changed from 'emergency use' for AZ in the UK, to full marketing authorization by adopting the EMA decision. This is expected to continue for a year or two. This is just for centrally authorised products; as they are the ones the EMA approve.

The issue with the Indian manufactured AZ batches is probably the manufacturing site. The product has to be approved, but also the manufacturing plants which make the product has to be approved by the regulatory authority. So the MHRA just adopted the EMA decision for the product marketing authorisation, but have approved the Indian manufacturing site themselves. The approval of the manufacturing site in India which produced some AZ batches is probably the crux here.

I presume no batches of AZ from India were used in the EU. There were four plants referred to in 'that' contract, none being in India.

@OchonAgusOchonOh

The standards in the EU member standards aren't superior to other licensing authority standards and the MHRA certainly won't have dropped their standards since leaving the EU. The EMA was in London until a couple of years ago and the two agencies employed many of the same people.

It doesn't matter whether standards have dropped or diverged. The point is that, as a third country, they can diverge so are treated differently. Same way the EMA treat any authorising agency from other countries.

The fact that they could diverge is not relevant if they haven't! The processes used are not a secret; they are fully published and if a country's licensing authority has the same standards or higher than those of the EMA it is ridiculous to not let those who have been vaccinated with vaccines that have been authorised by them into an EU country.

Same way the EMA treat any authorising agency from other countries.

The EMA make the decisions on what vaccines should be used in the EU. They aren' tinvolved in deciding who should and shouldn;t be allowed into the EU based on which vaccines they have had. That is a policital decision.

@Belladonna12

Same way the EMA treat any authorising agency from other countries.

The EMA make the decisions on what vaccines should be used in the EU. They aren' tinvolved in deciding who should and shouldn;t be allowed into the EU based on which vaccines they have had. That is a policital decision.

The EU have made a decision that the only vaccines approved for people entering into the EU are those approved by the EMA. It's a public health decision. It applies to all vaccines not approved by the EMA. Why would one third country's approval process be treated any differently that of another third country?

@Cailleach1

MHRA are simply rubber-stamping marketing authorisations decided by the EMA at the moment. They only changed from 'emergency use' for AZ in the UK, to full marketing authorization by adopting the EMA decision. This is expected to continue for a year or two. This is just for centrally authorised products; as they are the ones the EMA approve.

The issue with the Indian manufactured AZ batches is probably the manufacturing site. The product has to be approved, but also the manufacturing plants which make the product has to be approved by the regulatory authority. So the MHRA just adopted the EMA decision for the product marketing authorisation, but have approved the Indian manufacturing site themselves. The approval of the manufacturing site in India which produced some AZ batches is probably the crux here.

I presume no batches of AZ from India were used in the EU. There were four plants referred to in 'that' contract, none being in India.

Yes, the MHRA approved the manufactuing plant in India themselves. There is nothing to say that the EMA wouldn't have rubber stamped and approved the site following the MHRA decision but they didn't need to as those batches weren't used in the EU.

The fact that they could diverge is not relevant if they haven't!

Of course it is.

The processes used are not a secret; they are fully published and if a country's licensing authority has the same standards or higher than those of the EMA it is ridiculous to not let those who have been vaccinated with vaccines that have been authorised by them into an EU country.

The processes used may not be a secret but in order to ensure they are compliant, they would have to be checked. If they are checked for one third country, other third countries would reasonably expect the same treatment.

You are either a member of the EU or you are not. The UK is a third country. They are being treated the exact same as other third countries. That is fair and transparent. If you start making exceptions, it becomes an administrative nightmare.

The EU have made a decision that the only vaccines approved for people entering into the EU are those approved by the EMA. It's a public health decision. It applies to all vaccines not approved by the EMA. Why would one third country's approval process be treated any differently that of another third country?

I havn't said that "one country" should be treated differently. I would say the same thing if people from the US who were vaccinated with a Pfizer vaccine weren't let into EU countries because a batch had been made in a US factory that had not been inspected by the EMA even though it had been inspected and authorised by the FDA.

There may be a memorandum of understanding between the US and the EU. There are different layers of cooperation which may be relevant. Not saying there is, but there could be.

@OchonAgusOchonOh

The fact that they could diverge is not relevant if they haven't!

Of course it is.

The processes used are not a secret; they are fully published and if a country's licensing authority has the same standards or higher than those of the EMA it is ridiculous to not let those who have been vaccinated with vaccines that have been authorised by them into an EU country.

The processes used may not be a secret but in order to ensure they are compliant, they would have to be checked. If they are checked for one third country, other third countries would reasonably expect the same treatment.

You are either a member of the EU or you are not. The UK is a third country. They are being treated the exact same as other third countries. That is fair and transparent. If you start making exceptions, it becomes an administrative nightmare.

As I said, I don't think we should be treated differently to other "third" countries. It would be equally ridiculous not not accept people who had been vaccinated with Pfizer batches from factories authorised by the FDA because the EMA hadn't inspected the factory.