You're missing the point. Yes a very good argument against them. But until the vaccine/s have been defeated in court, their harm versus good. That data, what access. Anybody authorising them suggestively acted within their powers, emergency, granting them. Emergency, the state of the nation, pandemic offered a wider spectrum of power, decisions, also away from the courts at the time of an emergency. There's no real debate until the pandemic has ended. But before there's a debate, the vaccine has to be reviewed in court. Anybody else as an oppositional government could have also used them with the power, decisions, and advice available.

You're missing the point. Yes a very good argument against them. But until the vaccine/s have been defeated in court, their harm versus good. That data, what access. Anybody authorising them suggestively acted within their powers, emergency, granting them. Emergency, the state of the nation, pandemic offered a wider spectrum of power, decisions, also away from the courts at the time of an emergency. There's no real debate until the pandemic has ended. But before there's is a debate, the vaccine has to be reviewed in court. Anybody else as an oppositional government could have also used them with the power, decisions, and advice available.