Could I first clarify the point about the timing?
I think the idea was—and Dr. Butler-Jones can help me with this one—that we didn't want to say we were going to be able to have a vaccine available in mid-October when we weren't really sure we would be. The conservative approach was to say November. However, the data that we were waiting for—some quality data and some early data in terms of the actual efficacy—came in early from GSK, so we could actually look at those data early on, much earlier than we had expected. There was no point, then, in waiting another month or so to move forward. Basically, the data were in early, we could evaluate those data, and everything looked fine.
As to the data you're asking for on the safety, as with all vaccines and all drugs, usually the manufacturer conducts all these activities. There are other activities now going to take place with already licensed vaccines, and the Public Health Agency will be doing some of these studies. Usually these are not done prior. It's usually the manufacturer that does these particular studies, because it's not a publicly available product, essentially.
Do you want to comment on that, Paul?