Jump to content

IOM Covid removing restrictions


Filippo

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, quilp said:

The farcical allegation in a letter (from the AG's office?) that Path Lab were unable to operate testing for a period because she'd repossessed the software she'd written for the "robot" saying she'd put lives at risk, and then contradicting that statement in the next paragraph of the same letter os ridiculous.

And of course, there's the circumstances surrounding the alleged pirating/copying of that software, before her very eyes, by a lab IT professional which if proven to be true would be a criminal act. She involved the Police, who then passed it on to OFT.

Hearing that statement in her own voice was very different to reading the transcript, when I first heard about all this it honestly sounded like she packed up her toys and stormed off, it was far more complex than that, hearing the emotion in her voice was really quite powerful.

I’d like to have known a little bit more about this, how much was Dr Glover planning to charge for the use of her code/software? Did she just want the recognition that it was hers or did she want to hold them to ransom? hearing her talk today I think she just wanted the recognition that it belonged to her and was designed by her, but it does sound like she had them by the balls at that point.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, quilp said:

So the possibility of an alleged deliberate deception by a minister or one of his team, and an overtly public attempt to discredit her role in this pandemic isn't worth "banging on about?"

 

No. Banging on about whether or not Rachel believes the letter's genuineness is not relevant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was also shenanigans about the supply of the reagents.

To be fair, and Dr Glover was open about this, if she was to do the genomic profiling it would be a great research project that would result in a paper.

But, imagine the treasure trove of information we would have very quickly and how we  could respond to new variants as they appear here, quickly and effectively. 

I have posted before a ridiculous scenario where a new variant emerged which is only treatable with blancmange.  Genomics would tell us who had this variant and allow tracing to show follow its progress and reveal missing links.  We could treat those affected with blancmange, rather than other ineffective treatments and so stifle it.  There may be another trait, such as it is mainly transmitted through sharing shoes, so you ban shoe sharing to slow transmission. 

It sounds outrageous, but Dr Glover pointed out that through genomics it had recently been found that ebola can lie dormant in people for many years.  This was shown when genomics established a recent outbreak of ebola was in fact just a resurfacing of the virus in an index case after 5 years; it had been lurking in their testes and so became a STD and the outbreak was treated as being transmitted in that way rather than through the previously accepted mode, which I think was blood components. 

Why wouldn’t you want that kind of perspective at a relatively low cost?

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

Hearing that statement in her own voice was very different to reading the transcript, when I first heard about all this it honestly sounded like she packed up her toys and stormed off, it was far more complex than that, hearing the emotion in her voice was really quite powerful.

I’d like to have known a little bit more about this, how much was Dr Glover planning to charge for the use of her code/software? Did she just want the recognition that it was hers or did she want to hold them to ransom? hearing her talk today I think she just wanted the recognition that it belonged to her and was designed by her, but it does sound like she had them by the balls at that point.

I suppose there was also an issue of dealing with liability which would have been covered in the licence.

Throughout her evidence, I heard two overriding requirements, recognition and limitation of liability.  At no point did she indicate that she was trying to financially exploit this, but she wanted her costs covered and to limit liability. Not a grasping or unreasonable position, and entirely consistent with a desire to help 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I suppose there was also an issue of dealing with liability which would have been covered in the licence.

Throughout her evidence, I heard two overriding requirements, recognition and limitation of liability.  At no point did she indicate that she was trying to financially exploit this, but she wanted her costs covered and to limit liability. Not a grasping or unreasonable position, and entirely consistent with a desire to help 

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Apple said:

Then she talked about being nominated for some sort of island person of interest award which had a glowing reference and then it was taken down from her Twitter account but by Who ?

It wasn't taken down from her Twitter account, it's still there, but she said the nomination itself had mysteriously disappeared from the website or Facebook.  It actually looks as if all the 'news' section has been deleted, which rather contradicts the whole 'we want to celebrate all these people' vibe. 

The 'Extraordinary People' awards were run by Isle of Man Advertising and they clearly didn't want anyone who did anything controversial going forward to the public vote and upsetting anyone.  So it's all rainbows and cupcakes and determinedly trying to avoid reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I suppose there was also an issue of dealing with liability which would have been covered in the licence.

Throughout her evidence, I heard two overriding requirements, recognition and limitation of liability.  At no point did she indicate that she was trying to financially exploit this, but she wanted her costs covered and to limit liability. Not a grasping or unreasonable position, and entirely consistent with a desire to help 

I think the limitation of liability was more about reacting to the obsession of the Government, and especially the AG's Office, about it.  If the the people you are dealing with are demanding you are responsible for everything, even stuff you have no control over or knowledge of, then you're going to get cautious very quickly.

Of course we've seen similar things with the vaccines.  I suspect it's as much about the government lawyers wanting to show they are doing their jobs by stopping other people doing theirs, as it is about protecting the government or making sure things operate properly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be right, but being aware of and limiting your liability is good commercial practice, IMHO  and my observation was in no way a criticism of Dr Glover.  It is a commercial reality. 

Also, I suspect the vaccine issue was about the indemnity from UKG and, again, I believe it was right to get it right.  They just should have got it right quicker.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing i did pick up on reading the transcript was that Dr Glover  at one point says that the AG's pushed back on her contract and she follows it up by saying words to the effect of that you don't negotiate with Apple. Therefore it may have been that some of the contract terms were considered onerous.

I would expect the AG's to question any contract terms it considers to be onerous and highlight them to it's client department.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Duck of Atholl said:

One thing i did pick up on reading the transcript was that Dr Glover  at one point says that the AG's pushed back on her contract and she follows it up by saying words to the effect of that you don't negotiate with Apple. Therefore it may have been that some of the contract terms were considered onerous.

I would expect the AG's to question any contract terms it considers to be onerous and highlight them to it's client department.

 

It would be ironic, if the first time in living memory financial terms were the stumbling block, and the AG's were concerned re public money. A bad time to become so imo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...