Second pass at: Cross-border purchase within the EU: the actual rules

On post #6 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

I read the earlier replies on Cross-border purchase within twice before writing this, because I had assumed the opposite and wanted to be sure I was disagreeing with what was said rather than what I expected.

Building on post #35 rather than restating it.

Temperature-controlled material and long-haul travel is a practical problem with practical solutions, none of which are on the packaging.

The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.

Adding the measurement that post #40 says would settle it.

What would change my mind on Cross-border purchase within is a second dataset collected by someone with no stake in the first. Until then I hold it loosely and I would rather say so than pretend to more.

Before the thread moves on from Cross-border purchase within — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.

Building on post #57 rather than restating it.

Customs practice varies between entry points within the same country, which is why two people in the same jurisdiction report different experiences honestly.

The number people quote for Cross-border purchase within is a central estimate presented without its interval, and the interval is wide enough that the estimate is nearly uninformative on its own.

Building on post #76 rather than restating it.

Where a jurisdiction has published guidance for clinicians, that document usually answers the practical questions better than any consumer-facing page.

Customs practice varies between entry points within the same country, which is why two people in the same jurisdiction report different experiences honestly.

Adding what did not work for me on Cross-border purchase within, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.