[ad_1]
The judge emphasizes that “there is no scientific evidence of risks derived from the lack of administration of the second dose, except for the possible ineffectiveness of the vaccine.”
The judge emphasizes that “there is no scientific evidence of risks derived from the failure to administer the second dose, other than the possible ineffectiveness of the vaccine, an effect that would return applicants to the situation quo ante of that determined by having had access to the first dose, despite not having the right. “
In addition, the administrative judge considers that “there is no scientific evidence that the effect of the first vaccination dose can last over time, also taking into account that in the information related to the use of the drug published on the EMA website, even in the case of overdose and no adverse reactions have been reported. ” “In balancing the opposite interest – observes the TAR – which is not that of saving costs, as indicated in the appeal, but of guaranteeing the regular continuity of the vaccination campaign towards the headlines, taking into account the number quota of vaccine doses – concludes the administrative judge – the request for monochrome precautionary measures proposed by the applicants must be rejected ”.
[ad_2]
