I responded to the consultation. I wanted to know what the actual benefit of not licensing is - if a medication meets the criteria for licensing it should be licensed and used, if it doesn't then it shouldn't, simple as that.
The whole consultation was bizarre - it was talking about ways to circumvent long-standing and necessary laws that are there for a reason. One example was making sure civil liability was clear for HCPs delivering an unlicensed vaccine (ie they couldn't be sued personally for any adverse effect). That protection is already in place for licensed vaccines and also exists in limited terms in cases where HCPs use already licensed medications in ways that fall beyond the license (eg using an anti-depressant as a long-term analgesic). So why go around that law? Why not license the fucking thing and then have all the normal laws apply to it?
Another part of the consultation was about allowing HCPs not normally trained to administer vaccines, such as midwives and paramedics, to get trained to administer the covid vaccine. So you'd potentially have newly-trained HCPs without the medical background to fully understand contraindications and side effects, administering an unlicensed vaccine with the law nailed down to say they're not in any way liable for that.
I don't think there's anything evil or nefarious behind it, it's just pure stupidity. It's the exam algorithms all over again - so many obvious problems, created completely unnecessarily. I expect it'll pass. I hope it never has to be used.