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.

My first one and my husband's first one (different days at different clinics) had the Indian batch number. It's a bit demoralising as we would really like to travel abroad when we can.

@lop124 demoralised is exactly how I feel. I don’t want to go far, but I would like a break, and have found a lovely one in France that is very substantially cheaper than the same sort of thing here.

I just need a break. I’m very sorry if that makes me selfish, but i just do.

It's a political point rather than a health one

That thing the EU haven't been doing, well they are not doing it again!

Please don't be silly.
Drugs are highly regulated, where and how they are made matters, the Indian batch haven't been approved by the EMA, they are independent from the EU, just as the MHRA is from our Government.

If it were political, it would be AZ not approved & anyway, thought the EU needs UK tourists?

We chose to keep the MHRA and EMA separate after Brexit, this is the price of that separation, different drugs and batches get approved at different times.

[quote MyDcAreMarvel]@ShameCloud I hope you aren’t planning on flying to a holiday destination as that’s more of a blood clot risk also the pill.[/quote]
There’s a tangible benefit to the individual for both flying and the pill though.

For the majority of individuals, the costs of the vaccine (side effects) vastly outweigh the benefits.

@kimlo

one of mine is, but both show on the app as astrazeneca.

If you click on the bit where it says astrazeneca it will tell you the batch number you had

@GreenWillow no the risks are minuscule of cause the benefits are higher. Even if you are not concerned about the personal health implications of Covid , the economic affects, affects in the nhs and the restrictions that would occur in an unvaccinated nation affect individuals greatly.

Thankfully and luckily I had both University of Oxford AstraZeneca vaccinations. As far as I am aware from my NHS vaccination card/“passport” both vaccinations administered at St Thomas’ Hospital overlooking Parliament is developed by Oxford University and Anglo Swedish pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca headquartered in Cambridge and manufactured and bottled within the EU (Belgium) or UK. My double dose is not made under license by the Indian based manufacturer. I suspect there is no if even any extremely minimal quality control difference. I will be curious if the Indian variant is problematic for prospective freedoms of international mixing more than efficacy?

One of mine is from these batches

@ShameCloud

The risk of getting a blood clot from the pill is 1 in 1000.

The risk of getting a blood clot from AZ covid vaccine is 1 in 250,000

@TheGenealogist

I’m in Scotland too.

The batch number is on the paper copy you request for travel.

vacs.nhs.scot/csp

“Request paper copy” under vaccination status, although they ask you only do so if travelling within the next 14 days.

@thecatsatonthewall

It's a political point rather than a health one

That thing the EU haven't been doing, well they are not doing it again!

Please don't be silly.
Drugs are highly regulated, where and how they are made matters, the Indian batch haven't been approved by the EMA, they are independent from the EU, just as the MHRA is from our Government.

If it were political, it would be AZ not approved & anyway, thought the EU needs UK tourists?

We chose to keep the MHRA and EMA separate after Brexit, this is the price of that separation, different drugs and batches get approved at different times.

Countries don't have to decide that only countries authorised by the EMA are to be trusted though. Considering that they were quite happy to accept decisions by the MHRA before Brexit I think it is entirely political and nothing to do with safety to not accept them now.

@Belladonna12 - Countries don't have to decide that only countries authorised by the EMA are to be trusted though. Considering that they were quite happy to accept decisions by the MHRA before Brexit I think it is entirely political and nothing to do with safety to not accept them now.

The conspiracy theories on here are insane.

Prior to brexit, the MHRA had to comply with, or exceed, the minimum standards set down by the EU so of course they could be trusted to be compliant. That is no longer the case and decisions made by the MHRA are quite rightly being treated as decisions made by a 3rd country.

@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.

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

So how do you explain EU member states using vaccines that are not recommended by the EMA on their citizens?

My first one was an Indian batch, the second wasn't.

I was pleased initally, because the Serum Institute in India is known globally for making vaccines.

It seems a bit racist of them not to recognise the Indian batches does't it? I mean, they weren't made by an inexperienced company - it produces a lot of the world's vaccines for other diseases.

@daisypond so there are two routes to approval.

When the EC permits for use “in any member states” (the important part) the member state thereafter can further restrict. This is the centralised route.

Memberstates can also approve themselves. This is the nationalised route.

As you see member states do have a lot of sovereignty.

So this batch not being approved in some countries isn’t some “EU bad” monolithic decision, it cannot be approved via centralised route because they never applied to, and it thereafter in the hands of the MS to decide.

Once the manufacture apply to the EMA they’ll likely recommend approval to the EC, and then we’re go for show.

I've checked mine, and my first dose wasn't from India- if it had been I'd be fucking furious- I was ill for a month, I'm still sleeping vey deeply (that might be a good thing!) but to find out I wasn't being offered the same freedom as others would infuriate me. I'm not even a "I need a week in the sun" type of person, I just want to be able to go to other countries should I want to.

Countries don't have to decide that only countries authorised by the EMA are to be trusted though. Considering that they were quite happy to accept decisions by the MHRA before Brexit I think it is entirely political and nothing to do with safety to not accept them now

Your logic is unbelievable!

If you had a car accident the day after your insurance renewal date, would they acknowledge your claim? Nope!
Your argument that they insured you the previous day would fall on deaf ears.

What the EMA accepted whilst we were in the EU is now null and void, we have left the orbit of the EU.

My first was from a batch from India (as I mentioned in a previous post) but I have dual nationality with a EU country. Will that make any difference?

@daisypond

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

So how do you explain EU member states using vaccines that are not recommended by the EMA on their citizens?

The same way the UK went off and did their own thing with the vaccines during the transition period. Member states can approve their own or they can rely on EMA approval.

@MrsKypp

My first one was an Indian batch, the second wasn't.

I was pleased initally, because the Serum Institute in India is known globally for making vaccines.

It seems a bit racist of them not to recognise the Indian batches does't it? I mean, they weren't made by an inexperienced company - it produces a lot of the world's vaccines for other diseases.

Of course it's racist. No other reason for them not to approve it.

Oh, wait, they never applied for approval in the EU. Do you think that might have something to do with it?

Also, would you really want a medical approvals system that decided to approve something simply because the company has experience or would you rather they analysed the data from each and every product in order to make sure it complied with safety and production standards? I know which I would prefer.

@daisypond

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

So how do you explain EU member states using vaccines that are not recommended by the EMA on their citizens?

Member states can approve medicines via their own regulator, its what the UK did to get emergency approval of AZ, we used EU rules whilst in the transition period.

But we are now talking about an EU initiative, the vaccine passport, certain batches have not been approved and what we approved in the EU is now irrelevant.

Sorry x post @OchonAgusOchonOh

Member states can approve their own or they can rely on EMA approval.

I must be missing something, but I don’t see how this squares with the statement “The medicine has to be recommended by the EMA before the European Commission permits for use in any member state.”

@daisypond

Member states can approve their own or they can rely on EMA approval.

I must be missing something, but I don’t see how this squares with the statement “The medicine has to be recommended by the EMA before the European Commission permits for use in any member state.”

Approval can happen in two ways:

1. EMA approval leads to the Commission authorising its use in any and all EU states
2. Countries can authorise its use in their own country but that does not allow its use elsewhere in the EU.