UK med regulators have said that's bollocks. They say the med was approved under existing EU regs.
MHRA say that no corners were cut. They claim the rapidity of the decision was because all parties were in alignment: they want a safe vaccine, so all funding was available when it needed to be and all evidence was rapidly assessed.
https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1334078198318059520?...
Taking a more charitable approach... is it possible those suggesting Brexit has allowed a quicker rollout aren't referring to regulations?
Perhaps the early rollout is facilitated by UK doing their own deals with vaccine manufacturers, rather than as as a package deal with EU (and thus having to wait for their slower and safer process). Is that it?
UK is getting this vaccine first because MHRA approved it before EMA did (and any EU country is allowed to use this shortcut that MHRA is so far the only one to have used), not because we have a deal to get it first.
"They are rushing!"
"No we are not rushing, we are going a good job"
"No! Too fast! We are being more thorough than you because we are waiting for more data."
"We are being rigorous"
The closest we get to any kinds of concrete statements about the review process is:
"The EMA started a rolling review of preliminary data from Pfizer trials on Oct. 6, an emergency procedure aimed at speeding up possible approval, which usually takes at least seven months from reception of full data. The UK regulator launched its own rolling review on Oct. 30, and analysed less data than made available to the EMA."
It's still not clear what "the data" is, what a "rolling review" is and what any of this means from a practical decision-making standpoint. Should UK citizens take the vaccine? What issues could be missed given the UK regulator "analysed less data"?
> This was done using a regulatory process known as a ‘rolling review’. A ‘rolling review’ can be used to complete the assessment of a promising medicine or vaccine during a public health emergency in the shortest time possible. This is done as the packages of data become available from ongoing studies on a staggered basis.
> The MHRA expert scientists and clinicians reviewed data from the laboratory pre-clinical studies, clinical trials, manufacturing and quality controls, product sampling and testing of the final vaccine and also considered the conditions for its safe supply and distribution.
> The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, part of the agency, has been and will continue doing, independent laboratory testing so that every batch of the vaccine meets the expected standards of safety and quality.
The information sheet for doctors gives a long list of "we don't know yet" about safety and efficacy for certain populations[2].
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-medicines-regulator-gi...
[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
The head of the regulatory agency refers to a "rolling review". Perhaps they are confident enough so far that they are willing to roll this out to the most vulnerable, if they've found that their risk of side effects (even with high error bars) is lower than their risk of getting coronavirus.
That would then buy more data which will inform continued rollout to the less at-risk population.
Given Johnson and his government's inconsistent, perhaps even lackadaisical, response to the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic, it's not unusual that this emergency rushing be treated with skepticism — is it a good faith move to help immunise Britain or a way to save face for failing to properly implement lockdown quickly and early?
Any agency from around the world, not just in the EU, might hold the same skepticism and provide such criticism. It's only due to Brexit and modern Britain's tenuous relationship with the EU that such a knee-jerk rejection of such criticism might occur — but, given the actual topic of discussion should not be world politics but world health, it does seem inappropriately off-topic.
