O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[MadAmster]

Geoff I suspect it makes you very naive . This government are spending money like water on things that have not even been proven to work or even exist . Ordered and paid for 60,000 jabs for a vaccine that hopefully works from BioTech Pfizer, Valnever, 100,000 jabs for Astra Zeneca . Despite the PM saying they might not be a positive vaccine by this time next year . Obviously it takes time and money to develop one but the government have already given these companies and universities over £1billion to develop one . So surely they should not be paying in advance for something that may not work . Good job they don't run businesses , suppose it's easier with tax payers money

Don't know about the UK government on this but I can tell you what has happened here in NL. The Dutch government has ordered vaccines from 3 or 4 different sources. They have made a "down payment", non refundable, to help pay for the R&D of the vaccine. Once one is proven both safe and effective they will verify their order with the successful manufacturer by paying the balance. Other countries have also ordered from the same manufacturers and also paid their non-refundable "deposit". Companies who either don't come up with a safe and effective vaccine won't have made a loss on the exercise and the governments will have spread their risks. All common sense.

[ramAnag]

Don't know about the UK government on this but I can tell you what has happened here in NL. The Dutch government has ordered vaccines from 3 or 4 different sources. They have made a "down payment", non refundable, to help pay for the R&D of the vaccine. Once one is proven both safe and effective they will verify their order with the successful manufacturer by paying the balance. Other countries have also ordered from the same manufacturers and also paid their non-refundable "deposit". Companies who either don't come up with a safe and effective vaccine won't have made a loss on the exercise and the governments will have spread their risks. All common sense.

All sounds very sound and sensible on the part of the Dutch authorities.

Just out of interest, MA...do you happen to know if the Dutch government’s most senior scientific adviser is allowed to hold a vast number of shares in one of these ‘3 or 4 different sources’?

[Ram59]

All sounds very sound and sensible on the part of the Dutch authorities.

Just out of interest, MA...do you happen to know if the Dutch government’s most senior scientific adviser is allowed to hold a vast number of shares in one of these ‘3 or 4 different sources’?

Not very surprising that an expert on viruses, is involved in companies developing vaccines.

I would imagine that some labour mps, when they were in power, were ex trade unionists and were involved in drawing up new trade union rules.

[ramAnag]

Not very surprising that an expert on viruses, is involved in companies developing vaccines.

I would imagine that some labour mps, when they were in power, were ex trade unionists and were involved in drawing up new trade union rules.

No it isn’t, not at all...and yes, I’m sure they were.

Doesn’t really justify the guy who has been the government’s ‘Chief Scientific Adviser’ throughout this pandemic having a huge personal financial interest in one particular pharma company though...does it?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I know what, let's ask the other 3 or 4 big pharma companies to give him some shares in their companied as well, thus levelling the playing field. Does that work for you rA

[ramAnag]

I know what, let's ask the other 3 or 4 big pharma companies to give him some shares in their companied as well, thus levelling the playing field. Does that work for you rA

Nope...it’s just the sort of inane bollux you resort to when you attempt to defend the indefensible.

How about...if individuals are going to accept such positions within government or advising government strategy then they should be prepared to surrender their relevant investments beforehand...at an entirely fair price of course? Then there will be no possible conflict of interest.
Seems a tad more sensible and reasoned to me.

Look at it this way...in a previous existence I had a big say, as a manager and a governor, in who got what contracts at the school I worked in. This covered such aspects as furnishings, building work, equipment suppliers, surveillance cameras, cleaning contracts etc.
Had I had shares in specific furniture, building, equipment, CCTV and cleaning companies might my decisions/input not have appeared compromised?

[Ram59]

No it isn’t, not at all...and yes, I’m sure they were.

Doesn’t really justify the guy who has been the government’s ‘Chief Scientific Adviser’ throughout this pandemic having a huge personal financial interest in one particular pharma company though...does it?

I would think that that's where the government headhunted him from last year.

So you're saying that when you take the job, you've got to get rid of all your investments, just in case we have a pandemic and we might need to purchase a vaccine from your old company that you have investments in?

There's always going to be conflicts of interest in government, partners and relatives are regularly going to be involved in companies dealing with the government.

[ramAnag]

I would think that that's where the government headhunted him from last year.

So you're saying that when you take the job, you've got to get rid of all your investments, just in case we have a pandemic and we might need to purchase a vaccine from your old company that you have investments in?

There's always going to be conflicts of interest in government, partners and relatives are regularly going to be involved in companies dealing with the government.

He wasn’t ‘headhunted last year’. He’s been in post since March 2018...and I’m saying that it doesn’t fit well with me for those most influential in the area of government decision making to have obvious possible vested interests.

Perhaps you don’t recognise the possibility of a clear conflict of interest, but you’re an intelligent guy so I really don’t understand why.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I recognise when I will never win against stubborn ignorance, so I will close my thoughts on the matter with this: if you have ever tried to award / get a government contract, you might have more confidence on the existing controls, systems and reams of red tape that address this specific question.

But if you don't want a vaccine on a point of principle that there is an off chance that someone associated with approving it might make a few quid on the side, then fine. Lets not have one. Alternativley, welcome to the real world away from the ivory tower of academia.

If you want to have a go at this topic, focus on all the backhanders paid by British and global companies in doing trade deals to buy and sell stuff to the middle east. Specifically oil companies, arms companies, major construction firms etc. And think again next time you fill your car up with fuel...... In the real world there is blatant pocket lining going on which people turn convenient blind eyes to all the time and which even I find offensive. But it keeps the system churning and lets us live the lifestyle we enjoy of high standards of living, cars, holidays abroad etc.

Set against the context of blatant bribery, having a few shares in a company that might be chosen as the most effective supplier of a vaccine
fades into insignificance. Now if, some time down the road, we discover that he has used his position to recommend a totally ineffective drug in preference to one that would have worked made by, say, Pfizer, and has thus hyped up the price of his shares and he has then sold them before its discovered that that the vaccine doesn't work causing the share price to crash and burn after he has got out, I will concede you have a point.

But you are burying the corpse before it is even dead

[ramAnag]

Two wrongs do not make a right...GP.
I’m sure your comments about ‘oil companies, arms companies and major construction firms’ are well founded. I’m also sure there is ‘blatant pocket lining’ taking place.
I do not expect someone as influential - or in such a position of trust - as Vallance has been over the last six months to be in the position he appears to be in, and I find it deeply concerning that our Health Secretary claims to have only known about these financial ‘interests’ of the chief scientific adviser via the newspapers.

I’m not actually saying PV has done anything wrong. I’m saying there is a clear case for people to identify a possible conflict of interest.
That shouldn’t be happening and the only thing that appears to be being ‘buried’ is the truth...but then, as I recall, you were more than happy for that to be the case with Cummings back in April.