For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
User avatar
By Jim Jones
#1797115
eltonioni wrote:
Jim Jones wrote:Track and Trace is SERCO, not NHS


Universities working with pharma are alreàdy large-scale manufacturing vaccines ‘under risk’ so they are ready to go when (if) they are approved. Thankfully this has little to do with government .


It's all PHE, or whatever it's called next week. Joe Public doesn't really care which particular healthcare branch of government is ****ing up today. You're right though Jim, so maybe I'm tilting at the wrong windmill, it's the private sector and their academia partners who will sort it out, or not if HMG / PHE have screwed up expectations. HMG will just have to send the police to fine the yummie mummie anti-vaxxers.



Universities are public sector. Pharmaceutical companies are collaborating and sharing information in a very socialist way, fully aware that the failed vaccine costs will be covered. That’s almost communist. :wink:
kanga, johnm liked this
By johnm
#1797118
Universities are public sector.


Not usually the case although most receive a good deal of funding from the public purse.
User avatar
By kanga
#1797126
Jim Jones wrote:..

Universities ... Pharmaceutical companies are collaborating and sharing information in a very socialist way, .. That’s almost communist. :wink:


.. and (unlike policy of current US administration) are committed to sharing the results of vaccine research freely with the world, rather than hogging any successes for private profit or national exclusivity. That's almost Fourth International :roll: :wink:
johnm liked this
User avatar
By kanga
#1797139
kanga wrote:
malcolmfrost wrote:and I wish they would stop covering all the countries in the UK news bulletins. ..


.. because BBC and other radio and TV news bulletins are on media which are read, seen and heard all over UK ? Those in other parts may reasonably complain that those same reports fail sufficiently to clarify at the outset of each item that the details which immediately follow apply only to England


Further to this: it has occurred to me that yesterday on BBC R4 'Today', which is broadcast UK-wide (and, via 198 KHz, even further afield), immediately after the 0800 news bulletin, there was a ~20 minute interview with the UK SoS for Health, who in this context was speaking only for England (although that was hardly mentioned). A former PM famously said once that 'Fermanagh is as British as Finchley'. Well, folks in Fermanagh (or Faslane, or Y Fflint) who listened to the SoS would have heard nothing of direct relevance to them in those 20 minutes. In these circumstances, I don't think it's unreasonably irksome for a listener/viewer of broadcast news in, say, Finchley occasionally to be told that the rules may be different in Scotland; indeed, it may even be of interest or use if he or she has pertinent family or travel plans (as may bits of the English details may be to someone in Fermanagh, of course).

The other thing which struck me is that the SoS said that municipal leaders in some places had 'requested him to impose' further lockdowns in their areas, because of locally rising infections, and he had complied. It occurred to me that in many (most ?) parts of Europe (and even elsewhere within UK: there is more localised devolution of powers within Scotland), or in US/Canada/Australia, some pertinent measures would have been within the purview of local elected officials(eg Mayors/Prefects/ ..) to take, without having to request Central Government help, and such local officials would also have the right and duty to have all pertinent data shared with them by their own Public Health officials; and indeed, without having unnecessarily overarching regulations imposed on them by Central Government, as we have also seen, as eg imposed on all of Leicester rather than on sensibly selected parts of it. Decades of tendency to overcentralisation especially in England, starting or noticeably strengthening in '80s, may not have helped the management of the pandemic either in prevention or in the related issue of public communication.
Smaragd liked this
User avatar
By Jim Jones
#1797141
johnm wrote:
Universities are public sector.


Not usually the case although most receive a good deal of funding from the public purse.



They work almost completely under the direction of central government. What other than public sector can they be defined?
User avatar
By eltonioni
#1797142
@Jim Jones @kanga I expect that a little digging will reveal that these "socialist" tendencies have less to do with socialism than the contractual requirements from HMG as funder of the research and purchaser of the developed product.

Clawback (if successful) will be through sales to 'Merkins et al. Seems positively capitalist to me, with HMG acting as gap funder with an eye on a nice ROI. A bit like a hedge fund really.
User avatar
By Propwash
#1797148
kanga wrote:
as we have also seen, as eg imposed on all of Leicester rather than on sensibly selected parts of it.

People are already complaining that they are confused, rightly or wrongly, by the myriad different restrictions being imposed by whichever authority is responsible for their area. Many people are using that as their excuse not to comply. Applying restrictions (whatever they may be) to a town, city or region, as considered appropriate, is one thing; getting people to differentiate between permitted behaviour in one street or postcode compared to another in the same town would be beyond impossible. It strikes me that much of the criticism being aired around the country, at which ever authority, and whether for being too authoritarian or not enough, is straying into the realms of the ridiculous. There isn't a perfect solution and sensible people should start to accept that.

PW
By ChrisRowland
#1797156
People seem to be neotiating with the wrong entity. There's no point in negotiating with the government, they don't control the virus.

It's the virus that we need to negotiate with.

Does anyone know how we can do that?
By profchrisreed
#1797160
Jim Jones wrote:
johnm wrote:
Universities are public sector.


Not usually the case although most receive a good deal of funding from the public purse.



They work almost completely under the direction of central government. What other than public sector can they be defined?


Not my university, except where funding by central government influences us. Don't confuse ministerial pronouncements (I will ensure ..) with their actual powers.

Student loans reduced goverment power substantially.

We're usually charities with Royal Charters, linked to the public sector in proportion to funding (which varies wildly). I'd say we're as public sector as Serco, though rather more competent :)
kanga liked this
User avatar
By Jim Jones
#1797200
The student loan just moved government money, most of which will not be repaid, to a different set of books. A graduate tax by another name.
By johnm
#1797202
UK universities are not controlled by HMG happily. Their funding comes from a wide range of sources. Overseas students, research funding from private sector and charities, endowments and gifts, uk student loans and uk research councils funded by HMG.

It is often the case that the exploitation of research output is to the benefit of the university and in some cases it’s agreed to be for the public good as with Covid vaccine etc.
By johnm
#1797217
Jim Jones wrote:The illusion continued I see.

(15 years as Senior Lecturer)

I suppose it depends on the University, I was working at Cambridge:-)
User avatar
By kanga
#1797221
profchrisreed wrote:..
Not my university, ..

We're usually charities with Royal Charters, linked to the public sector in proportion to funding (which varies wildly). I'd say we're as public sector as Serco, though rather more competent :)


Many universities have been around for several hundred years and presumably aspire to survive for a few hundred more.

Serco was created to serve the rush by UK (and others, imitating UK) governments to privatisation and outsourcing, a few years ago now. Their board are under no obligation to do anything other than keep short term dividends high, and the directors may well have incentive packages to do so. They have little incentive to think further ahead than the next few years.

Rather different flavours and motivations of 'public sector' :wink:
johnm, Smaragd liked this
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14