Government Covid 19 Consultation

[Thebreadsouth]

The government have asked for responses for the Covid 19 consultation.

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/distributing-vaccines-and-treatments-for-covid-19-and-flu/consultation-document-changes-to-human-medicine-regulations-to-support-the-rollout-of-covid-19-vaccines

Some of it makes me very uneasy, such as the approval of unlicensed vaccinations and removal of civil liability in the event of safety issues further down the line (does this apply to possible side effects of the vaccine?). It may all be standard stuff as I'm not very informed on this subject. Would be interested to hear from others with more knowledge on the subject.

Bumping this thread for you as I'm interested in what this means too (potentially forced vaccinations??)

It says it's the government are looking to speed up being able to give vaccines, only if the tests are fine and awaiting a paperwork exercise to confirm the licence, in order to reduce infections and deaths. The EMA licensing process can be slow, presumably they will be asked by the EU to speed up in this particular case, but the UK government is looking at options to go ahead early because they can't influence the EMA process.

The liability section also includes consideration of non-healthcare professionals being trained and able to give just this vaccine (soldiers? / vets? / no idea).

There is no suggestion of forced vaccination, so if you don't want to be vaccinated or want to wait, then just don't have it. What you won't be able to do is have it, then sue the government for it not having yet been licensed by the EMA. (But pragmatically you should expect there may be some restrictions in time e.g. not being allowed to work in care homes / hospitals, or travel to some countries.)

Isn’t it saying that the unlicensed part already exists in the current legislation, they are just clarifying what would be required to use that part of the regulations?

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay - they say the JCVI recommendation gives coverage and prevents anyone then providing it from being sued in a civil court, BUR they want the immunity to be better clarified (e.g. that the army can distribute even though they aren't technically a wholesaler), the ability to include it as part of national vaccination including promoting it for the population to take it, and to have a wider range of people able to vaccinate when it's a public health emergency. Allowing certain conditions to be attached by JCVI for safety also sounds sensible to fill a hole given that these vaccines have to be in very cold storage. It's a mix of lawyers filling immunity holes and hole-filling directly linked to the specific plans for whizzing tens of millions of vaccines around the country for innoculate everyone as quickly as possible.

(BUT not BUR, sorry)

@MRex

It says it's the government are looking to speed up being able to give vaccines, only if the tests are fine and awaiting a paperwork exercise to confirm the licence, in order to reduce infections and deaths. The EMA licensing process can be slow, presumably they will be asked by the EU to speed up in this particular case, but the UK government is looking at options to go ahead early because they can't influence the EMA process.

The liability section also includes consideration of non-healthcare professionals being trained and able to give just this vaccine (soldiers? / vets? / no idea).

There is no suggestion of forced vaccination, so if you don't want to be vaccinated or want to wait, then just don't have it. What you won't be able to do is have it, then sue the government for it not having yet been licensed by the EMA. (But pragmatically you should expect there may be some restrictions in time e.g. not being allowed to work in care homes / hospitals, or travel to some countries.)

This is such a good measured explanation - thank you!

If you wish to sign there is a petition regarding this.
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/549793