4 ms·

France for a start: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56252028 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56252028 Possibly worse situation in Germany where

France for a start: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56252028 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56252028 Possibly worse situation in Germany where blatent misinformation was published regarding the Oxford vaccine. Consider the gravity of this given Germany's population is far more "anti-vac" than say the UK. The EU and Germany/France in particular did a stellar job of destroying the Oxford vaccine's credibility.

jamesrr39 6y ago
I'm not sure if you read my comment? But like I said, on the national level (for example France in the link you posted) I remember hearing some negative comments, but on the EU commission level (the institution that sits in Brussels), I don't remember hearing anything explicitly negative. Happy to be proved wrong though.
- g_p 6y ago
  Not aware of having seen any statements from the EC itself on the topic (it was approved by the EMA for all ages), but I think it unlikely the EC itself would have said anything, if only for one simple self-centred reason: It would be shooting itself in the foot to admit the vaccines it had bought in a group-buy scheme were ineffective or in any way sub-standard. Member states would be furious, and Ursula would have been gone. This article has a summary of statements from different politicians - https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-eu-leaders-said-about-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-the-data-forcing-a-rethink-12233495 https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-eu-leaders-said-abo... The closest I can see for the EC is one from Ursula, with the article reporting: "She then suggested the UK had compromised on "safety and efficacy" by approving the jab so early, despite the EMA reaching the same conclusions as the UK's internationally-respected MHRA which approved the vaccine." (That is realistically just her attempts to excuse a slower approval process that ultimately reached exactly the same outcome)

jamesrr39 6y ago

I'm not sure if you read my comment? But like I said, on the national level (for example France in the link you posted) I remember hearing some negative comments, but on the EU commission level (the institution that sits in Brussels), I don't remember hearing anything explicitly negative. Happy to be proved wrong though.

g_p 6y ago
Not aware of having seen any statements from the EC itself on the topic (it was approved by the EMA for all ages), but I think it unlikely the EC itself would have said anything, if only for one simple self-centred reason: It would be shooting itself in the foot to admit the vaccines it had bought in a group-buy scheme were ineffective or in any way sub-standard. Member states would be furious, and Ursula would have been gone. This article has a summary of statements from different politicians - https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-eu-leaders-said-about-astrazeneca-vaccine-and-the-data-forcing-a-rethink-12233495 https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-what-eu-leaders-said-abo... The closest I can see for the EC is one from Ursula, with the article reporting: "She then suggested the UK had compromised on "safety and efficacy" by approving the jab so early, despite the EMA reaching the same conclusions as the UK's internationally-respected MHRA which approved the vaccine." (That is realistically just her attempts to excuse a slower approval process that ultimately reached exactly the same outcome)