Jump to content

Spat between Chief Minister and Dr Glover


Recommended Posts

Unfortunately for them, as soon as Dr Glover gets her hands on those samples she’ll prove exactly what she can do and more crucially what impact it would’ve had if they had the information earlier, I wonder how many hours of track and trace could’ve been saved.

Edited by Annoymouse
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ouch, this thread is back. Not unexpected I suppose. 

Have you never heard the term whistle-blowing? Dr G. tried every avenue and was well aware of what was at risk on her island. She isn't doing this for publicity, she's been offered far better gigs tha

With respect, you are. Without @rachomics on island PCR testing for covid would not have happened when it did, if at all. Of course, Rizwan Khan and Steve Doyle were vital too - sorry don’t know Dr Sh

Posted Images

51 minutes ago, Annoymouse said:

All they had to do was provide Dr Glover with the samples and tell her to prove what she could do. She was offering her help for free for goodness sake, instead they formed the opinion that genomics was only useful as a past snapshot in time and that it would serve no purpose, they made their minds up before they had even seen the evidence.

They have indeed (surely we can trust Mr Harmer's expertise...)

"Policy and Reform Minister Ray Harmer said rapid genomic sequencing simply confirms what is already known though the usual methods including contact tracing. He said the New Year cluster and the current Steam Packet one could clearly be linked back to a single travel related event. ’It simply would not stop the spread,’ he told Tynwald. The situation in the UK was different, he said, as there are a large number of cases which might be sporadic. He said the potential role of rapid genomic sequencing as part of the public health response was currently subject to an ongoing trial in the UK. Health Minister David Ashford pointed out that by the time the first case has generally been identified it will already have spread regardless of what the variant is. ’Knowing what variant it is at the moment does not necessarily prevent the seeding that will have already taken place in the community,’ he said. Mr Ashford said it was like a large jigsaw puzzle where not all the pieces are present, and genomic sequencing can only give a picture of the cases you know about."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boris Johnson said:

Not very plausible in my opinion, I have very specialised software with my own modifications.

I have it on the main PC in the office but I also have several copies backed up in different locations inc the cloud.

Who doesn't do that?

Presumably, the replacement robot was supplied with software to allow it to function. Dr Glover did say (in her testimony, if I remember correctly) that she had deleted several copies of the software, and presumably, having set the whole thing up, she would have known where the back ups were. Whatever, the new robot was left inoperative, so something happened to the software it would have been supplied with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Newbie said:

Presumably, the replacement robot was supplied with software to allow it to function. Dr Glover did say (in her testimony, if I remember correctly) that she had deleted several copies of the software, and presumably, having set the whole thing up, she would have known where the back ups were. Whatever, the new robot was left inoperative, so something happened to the software it would have been supplied with.

As I remember from PAC, it was supplied with software that made it work, but you had to provide bespoke coding to make it pick up the particular  test tubes etc that you were testing.  A bit like a microwave -  it comes with the software to make it work, timer, set programmes etc.  but you have to set parameters when putting something that doesn't fall within the set programmes.  

It was that software that RG had written for her own robot that she invited the lab to licence and that she said was being copied by the staff member.  She also said that the AG's letter gave three different scenarios for that- she had given permission, that the path lab had written their own software and that the supplier had provided it. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Gladys said:

As I remember from PAC, it was supplied with software that made it work, but you had to provide bespoke coding to make it pick up the particular  test tubes etc that you were testing.  A bit like a microwave -  it comes with the software to make it work, timer, set programmes etc.  but you have to set parameters when putting something that doesn't fall within the set programmes.  

It was that software that RG had written for her own robot that she invited the lab to licence and that she said was being copied by the staff member.  She also said that the AG's letter gave three different scenarios for that- she had given permission, that the path lab had written their own software and that the supplier had provided it. 

Thanks, that makes sense.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, rachomics said:

thus they are claiming that I deliberately deleted "their" code to stop on-Island testing, which is an appalling claim to make and I hope they provide their evidence rather quickly.

Wow. This says all we need to know I think. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, rachomics said:

They say it took 3 weeks for them to re-write their own code and that ultimately they also had to ask the robot manufacturer to write it for them. None of that suggests that they had written the code themselves in the first place.

Indeed. It all sounds like the level of deception you'd expect from an average five year old. Also, if there weren't off-site backups, whoever was responsible for business continuity really ought to be looking for a new job by now.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all becoming very serious, and deeply disturbing. The DHSC - and its Minister - have many questions to answer. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

This is all becoming very serious, and deeply disturbing. The DHSC - and its Minister - have many questions to answer. 

It is, as is the dismissive attitude throughout. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, rachomics said:

Ouch, this thread is back. Not unexpected I suppose. 

To clarify the issues that I discussed at PAC on Thursday here's the overview seeing as this is now all public because of the PAC recording. Obviously theres significantly more detail around this but here's the potted overview as I said to PAC:

1. I provided Bob (our robot) on loan last April and told the hospital to order one asap. They ordered end of June and Bob's replacement Rona arrived late August. 

2. "The Software" as it's known in all the legal letters comprises two things. Firstly a set of protocol files which ran the specific RNA isolation procedure from swabs. I wrote a different one to start with last April (we initially used a different method) but then loaned our Canine swab protocol software (written pre-COVID) a few weeks later once the method switched to something called magbeads. The second part of "The Software" was something called plasticware/labware definitions. These are specific files which have precise and validated measurements for disposable plasticware used in the protocols.Which labware definitions are needed are specified in the protocol code. We spent a lot of time getting those measurements right when we first got the robot in Jan 2020 so they formed part of the intellectual property.

3. We sent a letter to the path lab after I resigned saying that Bob really needed to be returned by the 30th Nov and we'd be charging a daily rental rate until his return as an incentive for them to not dilly dally (we've never invoiced them for this). The letter also said that if they wanted to use "The Software" they'd have to license it going forward.

4. They ignored the letter, we gave them extra time and ultimately we had to send them an action notice that we were coming to remove the robot and the intellectual property (protocol and labware files). 

5. I can't go into the details of who did what on the removal day otherwise I'll get a nasty letter from the DHSC. However, I deleted all copies of "The Software". I found it on the laptop I expected it to be on but I also found the labware definitions had been copied to the replacement robot (Rona) in addition to multiple copies being made of the back-ups while I was in the lab that afternoon. The copyright issue arises because copies of the Taxa protocol scripts had been changed to show different authorship, even though the code remained unchanged, and they tried to hide the amended files from me while I was in the lab. I deleted the amended Taxa code, the labware definitions and the original Taxa code as none of it had been licensed. We were there to execute a notice to remove Taxa property: the robot and the intellectual property they had failed to license. 

6. The DHSC have claimed a lot since then as I stated to PAC. They've changed their story multiple times in the legal correspondence and they're now trying to say that the amended Taxa code I deleted (which was identifiably our code) was not our code at all but completely unique and distinct code written by another DHSC employee. However, while they have stated that they were able to reinstate back-ups of the Taxa code they appear to have not taken any back-ups of their own DHSC code and thus they are claiming that I deliberately deleted "their" code to stop on-Island testing, which is an appalling claim to make and I hope they provide their evidence rather quickly. They say it took 3 weeks for them to re-write their own code and that ultimately they also had to ask the robot manufacturer to write it for them. None of that suggests that they had written the code themselves in the first place. Needless to say our lawyers are in posession of the proof of our claims and we've invited the DHSC to send an appropriately qualified individual to inspect it and to provide us with the same ability to inspect their proof. 

I hope that clears it up a little. It's a rather complex issue (at least to me). 

Loving the fact that the Robot is called “Rona”

Link to post
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...