COVID-19: UK government negotiating with AstraZeneca to secure South African variant vaccine

[fentribal]

Doesn't matter where it came from, my point is the 100 day target is absolutely nothing new and in this respect - along with most of the others - it's meaningless. Just gives the media something to help fill the 24 hr news cycle. The big pharmaceutical companies are not state owned. Boris and his G7 pals can say whatever they like. Sounds nice to some, not so nice to others, but it ain't worth a damn when all is said and done.



As I just posted above; big pharma isn't state owned. Hancock isn't chairman of board. BJ&Co don't dictate drug development time frames which is incredibly unpredictable. They can certainly help fund it but big pharma will pay an enormous financial and reputational price if they were to let political considerations dictate their agendas.

IMHO.

I'm not sure that not being the chairman of the board necessarily means you can't have vested interest and the point about risking damage to the brand, whether it be financial or reputationally, has been taken out of the equation when you have been told that there is no legal responsibility for any detrimental effects and to just get it out and into the population double-quick. So in effect, If your product works, you are the savior of mankind and you make shed loads of money and on the flip side if it doesn't work and has any sort of negative effect, no damage to reputation because at least have had a go working in the boundaries you had been given, and so you still make shed loads lot of money. The stories that surface like the one about Matt Hancock and his sister's company, and the large stake he owns in it, are only ever I fear going to be the tip of the iceberg.
I too, with all my heart, would love to honestly believe that every decision currently being made and action that is being taken, is for the good of humanity and for no other reason, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

 

[Mitz]

I'm not sure that not being the chairman of the board necessarily means you can't have vested interest and the point about risking damage to the brand, whether it be financial or reputationally, has been taken out of the equation when you have been told that there is no legal responsibility for any detrimental effects and to just get it out and into the population double-quick. So in effect, If your product works, you are the savior of mankind and you make shed loads of money and on the flip side if it doesn't work and has any sort of negative effect, no damage to reputation because at least have had a go working in the boundaries you had been given, and so you still make shed loads lot of money. The stories that surface like the one about Matt Hancock and his sister's company, and the large stake he owns in it, are only ever I fear going to be the tip of the iceberg.
I too, with all my heart, would love to honestly believe that every decision currently being made and action that is being taken, is for the good of humanity and for no other reason, but I just can't bring myself to do it.

You can never totally exclude vested interests, especially where big money or power is involved, but seeing as neither Hancock - nor any other government official - is chairman of the board with any pharmaceutical company, they have no direct control over what said company does. Politicians don't dictate the direction or speed in which a publicly traded big pharma company goes in - the board does, with the support of major shareholders. Their goal is to make big profits, so they can all receive nice annual dividends.

Just because financial liability is waved in certain emergency situations and instead picked up by the government doesn't mean those companies have nothing to lose financially. A big pharma's stock price is based on its meds - past, present, and potential - and its reputation. Start pumping out questionable drugs in questionable time with questionable effects on the recipients simply to satisfy political gamesmanship and see what effect that has on shareholder confidence and share price.

I just don't accept that negative side effects from rushed drugs have no impact on reputation. Big pharma's rep is based on its drugs and its profitability. They don't have to be legally liable for those side effects to suffer serious reputational and financial damage.

I do fully agree that vested interests are a serious issue. If Hancock's sister had won a contract via formal and offical rules then I'd have no problem with that. When those rules are suspended because of an emergency situation, then giving contracts to family or friends isn't just questionable but possibly criminal, IMHO. That long-established PPE suppliers were passed up and ignored in favour of giving multi-hundred million pound contracts to companies that had literally sprung up over-night with zero experience in acquiring hospital grade PPE is also, IMHO, criminal. Unfortunately, it seems the "emergency" card much like the "national security" card gives governments carte blanche to do as they please. Hopefully when this is all over there will be a serious investigation in to the awarding of contracts and more safeguards will be implemented to limit the abuse of emergency situations, tho I seriously doubt anybody will ever be held accountable for what's already happened.