Tonka
Well-known member
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/...14493-01-01-2006-2006/default_p001c002_es.htm
Spanish to English translation
Plenary meeting from 7 to March 10
The EU reaction to the flu, "disproportionate" for MEPs
A wave of fear swept the European Union in the winter of 2009 to 2010. Special vaccination programs, information campaigns, masks and instructions on how to wash their hands to minimize the chance of infection focused European reaction to the possibility of an epidemic of influenza A. Were adequate measures? The Environment Committee of the Parliament described as "disproportionate" in a resolution to be debated by the plenary of the Parliament on Monday.
We talked to the rapporteur of the text, the French MEP Group of the Greens Mich?le Rivasi.
Lord Rivasi, the report describes the EU's response "disproportionate, but is not it better to err on the default, taking into account deaths that occurred?
According to the data, influenza A resulted in the 2009 campaign a total of 2,900 deaths in Europe until the end of April 2010. These figures are low compared with official estimates of deaths caused by seasonal influenza, which the Commission puts in 40,000 deaths annually and 220,000 moderate in a particularly severe season. The moderate severity of H1N1 flu was officially recognized by the World Health Organization in May 2009, and despite that, a month later launched the highest level of "pandemic" for influenza A, based on the propagation of virus, not its severity.
This maximum level warning triggered the adoption of a series of measures in the EU, in particular very expensive vaccination campaigns in many Member States, the costs are estimated at 1,300 million euros in the UK, and between 700 and 760 million in France, compared to the 87 million that was spent to fight seasonal influenza in France.
Spend billions of euros in vaccines for the H1N1 virus seems wildly disproportionate to the real gravity, and known, influenza A.
What lessons can we draw from the experience?
Our evaluation of the management of influenza A in the 2009-2010 season in the EU shows that we need more cooperation, more independence and transparency. We asked for a review of future plans for the prevention of influenza epidemics in order to make them self sufficient and flexible.
The definition of a pandemic it must also be revised to include its severity. We support the joint purchase of vaccines, but we need to be certain of the responsibility for the quality, safety and efficacy for the approved applications for a pharmaceutical product is limited to the manufacturer.
Studies on vaccines and antiviral medications should be independent of drug companies. The accelerated clearance system highlighted the problem of availability of scientific evidence. We need full transparency on the evaluation of medical products recommended in case of health emergencies, and must publish all declarations of interests of experts involved in the evaluation.:applause:
Spanish to English translation
Plenary meeting from 7 to March 10
The EU reaction to the flu, "disproportionate" for MEPs
A wave of fear swept the European Union in the winter of 2009 to 2010. Special vaccination programs, information campaigns, masks and instructions on how to wash their hands to minimize the chance of infection focused European reaction to the possibility of an epidemic of influenza A. Were adequate measures? The Environment Committee of the Parliament described as "disproportionate" in a resolution to be debated by the plenary of the Parliament on Monday.
We talked to the rapporteur of the text, the French MEP Group of the Greens Mich?le Rivasi.
Lord Rivasi, the report describes the EU's response "disproportionate, but is not it better to err on the default, taking into account deaths that occurred?
According to the data, influenza A resulted in the 2009 campaign a total of 2,900 deaths in Europe until the end of April 2010. These figures are low compared with official estimates of deaths caused by seasonal influenza, which the Commission puts in 40,000 deaths annually and 220,000 moderate in a particularly severe season. The moderate severity of H1N1 flu was officially recognized by the World Health Organization in May 2009, and despite that, a month later launched the highest level of "pandemic" for influenza A, based on the propagation of virus, not its severity.
This maximum level warning triggered the adoption of a series of measures in the EU, in particular very expensive vaccination campaigns in many Member States, the costs are estimated at 1,300 million euros in the UK, and between 700 and 760 million in France, compared to the 87 million that was spent to fight seasonal influenza in France.
Spend billions of euros in vaccines for the H1N1 virus seems wildly disproportionate to the real gravity, and known, influenza A.
What lessons can we draw from the experience?
Our evaluation of the management of influenza A in the 2009-2010 season in the EU shows that we need more cooperation, more independence and transparency. We asked for a review of future plans for the prevention of influenza epidemics in order to make them self sufficient and flexible.
The definition of a pandemic it must also be revised to include its severity. We support the joint purchase of vaccines, but we need to be certain of the responsibility for the quality, safety and efficacy for the approved applications for a pharmaceutical product is limited to the manufacturer.
Studies on vaccines and antiviral medications should be independent of drug companies. The accelerated clearance system highlighted the problem of availability of scientific evidence. We need full transparency on the evaluation of medical products recommended in case of health emergencies, and must publish all declarations of interests of experts involved in the evaluation.:applause: