The Times - UK (2020-12-03)

8 1GM Thursday December 3 2020 | the times

News

The European and British medicines
regulators were embroiled in an extra-
ordinary spat over the UK’s speedy ap-
proval of Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine
yesterday, foreshadowing post-Brexit
battles over regulatory differences.
As the milestone moment was
marred by another row over Brexit,
Boris Johnson backtracked last night
on claims by his cabinet ministers that
the approval had been an early benefit
of leaving the EU.
Asked at a Downing Street press
conference to confirm the claim, he
said: “These are global efforts, you’ve
got scientists around the world coming
together to make this possible. It’s a
truly international thing and very, very
moving to see.”
Yesterday morning Matt Hancock,
the health secretary, told Times Radio
that the vaccine had been approved so
quickly in the UK because of fast work
by the Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency (MHRA),
but added: “Because of Brexit we’ve
been able to make a decision to do this
based on the UK regulator... and not go
at the pace of the Europeans, who are
moving a little bit more slowly. We do
all the same safety checks and the same
processes, but we’ve been able to speed
up how they’re done because of Brexit.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of the Com-
mons, said: “We could only approve this
vaccine so quickly because we have left
the EU.”
They were quickly contradicted by
June Raine, chief executive of the
MHRA, who said: “We have been able
to authorise the supply of this vaccine
using provisions under European law,
which exist until the first of January.”
All European countries can issue
emergency authorisations for vaccines
and other medicines in a public health
crisis, under which individual batches
must be approved for specific groups.
However, the European Medicines
Agency suggested yesterday that this
was the wrong approach for mass vacci-
nation. It is considering a one-year
licence known as a conditional market
authorisation, and said in response to
the MHRA that this was “the most
appropriate regulatory mechanism for
use in the pandemic emergency... to
underpin mass vaccination”.
The European agency said tempo-
rary licensing was “a controlled and

Quentin Letts

Alas, there’s no cure for

puffed-up little Hancock

Y

ou may not be surprised

to hear that “the candle

of hope is now burning

brighter”. Matt Hancock

was telling the

Commons that the people in white

coats had approved the first Covid

vaccine. Throughout the purse-

lipped illiberalism of this

pandemic, Hancock’s soundbites

himself. Hearing his name, he went

a touch eggy-eyed and confessed

that it hadn’t been easy being the

man of destiny these recent months.

We heard praise for Big Pharma and

even for the capitalist gamblers —

the risk investment community,

Westminster might call them —

who take big punts on drug projects.

Labour has been slagging off the

private sector and there was an edge

as Mr Hancock said “if they do that

to make a profit, that’s fine by me”.

Again, this was Blairite territory

(Peter Mandelson’s being “intensely

relaxed about people getting filthy

rich”). I’m not sure Sir Keir Starmer

and Co quite understand the degree

to which they have been gazumped.

The enormously clever QC, since

you ask, had a subdued PMQs.

Having told his MPs to abstain from

Tuesday’s big vote, he seems to have

lost his nerve. After a string of

gentle exchanges with the PM, he

mentioned the collapse of Arcadia.

Ed Miliband, his predecessor-but-

one, had much more fun later when

he railed against Arcadia’s boss, Sir

Philip Green. Why on earth did

Starmer not attack that Piz Buin’d

grotesque?

Boris Johnson was itching to

have a swipe at the Labour leader

and looked disgruntled by the

conciliatory questions. In the end

he abandoned any justification and

had a biff at Sir Keir all the same,

producing some line about how

Tuesday’s abstention by Labour

proved that “Captain Hindsight is

rising rapidly up the ranks and has

become General Indecision”. This

pre-cooked gammon did not raise

the laugh he had been expecting.

There was an awkward lacuna. Er,

right. Next question, please.

PMQs was also notable for an

attempt by Ian Blackford of the

SNP to play politics with a clutch

of suicides. Classy. Mr Blackford

accused Mr Johnson of being

“missing in action”. That sort of

accusation is best avoided by a

Westminster party leader who,

once again, was speaking to the

chamber from his opulent lair

somewhere in the west of Scotland.

could not have wrung greater juice

from the moment. We had “fruits of

endeavour”, “precious”, “side by

side” and “resolve”. Hancock was in

colossus mode. He spoke of our

“loved ones”, that term Evelyn

Waugh thought sufficiently dreadful

to take for the title of a satirical

novel, yet now all officialdom uses.

And there was no end of “rolling

out”. Ruddy rolling out. What

happened to “dispense”?

“Today is a triumph... for me!”

Surprisingly, he didn’t quite say that.

Instead it was “a triumph for all

those who believe in science”.

Believe in science: odd thing to say.

Everyone “believes” in science.

What he probably meant was “those

who believe in science over all else”,

which is and will remain debatable.

So will Sage’s behaviour this year, no

matter how often Mr Hancock tells

us that “science has set us free”.

It became the “pay tribute”

Olympics. MPs competed to thanks

all those involved: the boffins, the

vaccines supremo Kate Bingham,

community volunteers, Mr Hancock

have made many of us want to box

our own ears. At this moment of

merciful news he was no less

annoying. His silhouette tilted to the

horizon. He sucked his molars and

paused just long enough to suggest a

statesman reaching into his gubbins

for an extempore pearl. It was,

aw-shucks, “a day to remember,

frankly, in a year to forget”. That

“frankly”: pure Blair.

Readers, your roasted Christmas

goose, after prolonged basting in

melted butter, will not glisten or

swell to the extent that little

Hancock did. Brian Blessed, playing

Ophelia in a gender-blind Hamlet,

Political Sketch

News Coronavirus

Rapid vaccine breakthrough is

Chris Smyth Whitehall Editor
Bruno Waterfield Brussels
Kat Lay Health Editor

robust framework” to ensure that safety

and monitoring were legally binding —

“essential elements to ensure a high

level of protection to citizens”.

The European Commission said that

the agency required “a higher level of

evidence to be submitted and checked

than a temporary use authorisation”

allowing the public “access to a safe and

effective vaccine before proceeding to

mass vaccination”.

Dr Raine said that “no corners have

been cut”, adding that her team had

worked night and day and that “the

public can be absolutely confident that

the standards we have worked to are

equivalent to those around the world”.

Both regulators had the same data

and independent scientists agreed that

the MHRA decision meant the vaccine

was safe. But as Britain and the EU con-

tinue to negotiate over how far the UK

must follow European rules, the dispute

could be a taste of battles to come.

Jens Spahn, the German health min-

ister, said that Germany and other EU

countries had taken a collective deci-

sion not to go for early, emergency

national authorisation. “We have

member states, including Germany,

who could have issued such an emer-

gency authorisation if we’d wanted to,”

he said after a video conference call

between health ministers. “We decided

against this and what we opted for was

a common European approach.”

He criticised British ministers’ re-

marks, saying: “Biontech is a European

development, from the EU. The fact

that this EU product is so good that

Britain approved it so quickly shows

that in this crisis European and inter-

national co-operation are best.”

Mr Spahn linked the decision to EU

procurement and distribution, saying:

“All 27 member states will have access

to vaccines at the same time.”

Andreas Michaelis, the German am-

bassador to London, responded with

dismay to a boast by Alok Sharma, the

business secretary, that Britain had

been the first both to sign a deal with

Pfizer-Biontech and to approve the vac-

cine. “Why is it so difficult to recognise

this important step forward as a great

international effort and success? I

really don’t think this is a national

story,” he said on Twitter. “In spite of

the German company Biontech having

made a crucial contribution, this is

European and transatlantic.”

Vaccination passports, letters, page 36

A great medical challenge of modern

times, leading article, page 37

Shops back open

but customers

don’t go wild

E

ngland’s shops,

gyms, hair

salons and pubs

reopened

yesterday as the

country emerged from

the second national

lockdown but it was far

from the “Wild

When will life

be normal?

Analysis

T

he paradox of the

vaccine’s approval is

that it makes social

distancing less needed

in the long term but all

the more necessary in the short

term (Chris Smyth writes).

Before we knew vaccines

would work, there was a case for

learning to live with the virus.

Now it makes more sense to save

as many lives as possible. This

gave ministers a difficult message

to deliver, welcoming the good

news while urging people not to

get their hopes up.

For all the feuding over whose

regulator is fastest, the question

is not when the first jab goes into

a nurse’s arm. It may not even be

how quickly the NHS can set up

vaccination centres. What we all

want to know now is, how many

people have to be vaccinated

before I can visit my family?

The biggest unknown here is

whether the vaccines prevent you

from passing the virus on, as well

as from getting ill. If they do,

they will protect everyone. Good

news here would give reasons to

think life could be more or less

back to normal by summer. The

NHS estimates that three

quarters of people will agree to

the jab, and this could well be

enough to create herd immunity.

Even without this, however,

protecting the vulnerable will

make a difference to everybody.

The need for tough regulations

arises from the risk of the NHS

being overwhelmed. Professor

Van Tam estimated that

vaccinating the 30 million on the

priority list could prevent 99 per

cent of virus deaths, and covering

only the two million most at risk

would prevent 75 per cent. It is

likely that those most in need

will be vaccinated by March.

Then, even if millions can still be

infected, the need for the rules

will start to melt away.