Senkinek nem állt szándékában a tömeges oltás engedélyezése
Ezt légyszi idézd szó szerint (nem fog menni)
Ezzel ellentétben:
Finally, we take note of your call for immediate action to suspend the marketing authorisations of Comirnaty and Spikevax, including the authorisations of the adapted vaccines targeting the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant. EMA’s CHMP can only recommend suspensions of the marketing authorisations if the evidence shows that the risks outweigh the benefits. The evidence continues to show that the vaccines provide protection, which is particularly important for vulnerable people. Removing these vaccines as an option for EU Member States and for healthcare professionals without due regard to available data would therefore be a great disservice to the EU and to public health.
Egyéb valóban fontos dolgok az EMA válaszából, gondolom ezek nem érdekelnek majd.
The product information for COVID-19 vaccines clearly states that the vaccines are for active immunisation to prevent COVID-19.
A cél a COVID-19 immunizáció.
In response to your comments about the safety of the vaccines, we would like to point out that EMA and national authorities continuously monitor data on reported side effects. It is also important to clarify that a report of a suspected side effect is not in itself evidence that a vaccine caused the adverse event in question. Such adverse events can occur for other reasons in vaccinated people, as they do in unvaccinated people. With a large proportion of the general population having had the vaccines, we expect many reports of conditions occurring at or soon after vaccination. To determine whether a vaccine caused an event, authorities have to assess all the relevant data, including data that might indicate that the condition occurs at a higher rate in vaccinated or recently vaccinated people than in others. As shown in the product information for both vaccines, most side effects are mild, although more serious ones can occur. You note the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis, which EMA has assessed and described in the product information.
Ahogy bizonyára tudod, az összes országban az oltást saját kérésre adták be és minden vakcina beadás előtt ezeket a kérdéseket vizsgálták, kérdés volt az adott veszélyfaktor, és (tudom, mert a családban volt ilyen) ellenjavalták a vakcina beadását (amellett, hogy jelezték, hogy egy esetleges fertőzés is hasonló kockázatokkal jár a delikvens számára). Emellett az esetleges mellékhatás kialakulása miatt rövid távú megfigyelésre ott tartották a beoltottat.
You say that ‘a fundamental requirement for a vaccine is to stimulate long-term immunity’, noting that ‘if a vaccine only offers protection for less than a year, it falls short of this crucial criterion’. We take from your comment that no vaccine should be authorised without evidence of long-term protection. While long-term protection is always desirable, imposing such a requirement would have severe consequences for public health and put vulnerable people in danger. Establishing long-term protection may also not be feasible and, in the case of COVID-19, will be complicated by the evolution of SARS-CoV-2, a situation that we also observe with influenza.
Felállítani olyan kritériumokat laikusként nem szerencsés.