Re: But has
He wrote the plan, he is uniquely qualified to comment on this matter.
What part don't you understand?
His decision to try and score political points. But it's about the plan, and his contributions. So the contentious bit-
The pair first clashed on Monday on LBC radio when Nicholl challenged Rees-Mogg to say how many people he would accept could die because of a lack of access to drugs and radioactive isotopes.
Which is a bit of a rhetorical question, not to mention asking the wrong person. So the correct target would Matt Hancock, he being the Health Secretary. How many people could die is Dr Nicholl's area of expertise, and normal part of risk or sensitivity analysis. Produce a list of relevant drugs, minimum stock levels, then impact if X is unavailable for Y. Then probably input into prioritisation and/or rationing, so if supplies were unavailable, who'd get priority and outcomes for people that don't.
So simple example.. I'm prescribed a bunch of pain meds, and if those were unavailable, I wouldn't die, It'd just be rather uncomfortable. If I were undergoing radiotherapy & isotopes weren't available, then I could die.
But that's all down to IF, and why after 3 years, supply chains weren't scrutinised and plans drawn up to prevent supply disruption, along with how supples might be disrupted. So I get a prescription from my NHS doc, Boots fills that with drugs from Teva and others.
Why should that come to a crashing halt on Nov 1st? Prescriptions would still be valid, Boots would still be licenced to supply/manufacture/import, and Teva would presumably still be licenced.. If that part is currently under an 'EU' licence, it wouldn't seem hard to grandfather those approvals or issue UK M.A licences.