Comments for en-gb 30 Wed 03 Jun 2015 11:54:44 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at Cyril Erm, for the ill informed posters, the National health service of Angleterre went cap-in-hand to the devolved Scottish health service and begged for vaccines to make up the shortfall in the English semi-privatised health service supplies vital vaccines.Only in England were the rich paying customers prioritised over "AT RISK" patients. Only in England are we witnessing a further slip of the health service away from "NATIONAL" back towards the selective health service for the more wealthy Gentlemen and ladies!Thank you Scotland for bailing us out! Sun 27 Feb 2011 21:31:53 GMT+1 Adam The BBC should be ashamed of itself. The government would have been hung out to dry if the swine flu pandemic had been much more serious and they hadn't bought the jabs. Didn't turn out to be so serious so the BBC turns on the gov. The BBC wastes plenty of money too and its perhaps time to clip their wings a bit - how much are they paying "stars" etc with OUR money..? These alleged stars certainly dont have as much value as medicine... Fri 25 Feb 2011 23:56:42 GMT+1 doilookthatsilly Although it seems to be a lot of money the Department would have been crucified if it had ordered insufficient doses on cost grounds so - in the absence of any information to the contrary we have to assume that there was no profiteering involved, and that it was a competently managed transaction - if so, then why the virginal coyness to answer the question ? I am rather uneasy at the secretive ethos within this and other Government Departments -secrecy gives the impression that there must be something shameful going on ( does the "Iraq enquiry come to mind ? )- if there isn't then why the coyness ? We are now supposed to have "transparency" aren't we , so although commercial sensitivity must be respected , so should "Open Government" be respected without the need for recourse to lawyers all the time. Fri 18 Feb 2011 17:59:52 GMT+1 lifegrumpy I couldn't agree more with Mike Waller. Do journalists not realise that "government" is not easy. In many cases it is the adoption of the least bad of several very bad options. When the next problem arises overseas surely the prime Minister should hand over the reins to someone like John Simpson who seems to know all the answers. Sat 12 Feb 2011 18:13:00 GMT+1 LENOOSHKA This post has been Removed Fri 11 Feb 2011 21:22:40 GMT+1 FluGuy Or better yet, require every member of a goverment or self-regulatory body who has policy responsibilities (such as DOH, WHO, or CDC) to disclose all previous and current financial & employment ties to pharmaceutical companies. This way we would know if the guys who actually have to make the decisions are free from conflicts of interest. Fri 11 Feb 2011 20:30:47 GMT+1 Mike Waller Any fool can see that this was a "damned if you do, damned it you don't" situation i.e. if they had not spent the money and there had been a pandemic, they would have been crucified. If I had my way I would set up a body that would require journalist to fill out "what I would do in these circumstances" forms which would then be made public when the dust had settled. That is the only way in which we could level the playing field between journalists, with their infamous "power without responsibility" and the guys who actually have to take decisions. Fri 11 Feb 2011 16:16:37 GMT+1 mcjhn1 ~ 1/4 of a billion quid, blimey, but according to wikipedia ~ 11 million doses, I guess 20 quid is a fair price for life it'd had turned out to be as bad as 1918. Fri 11 Feb 2011 16:14:04 GMT+1 FluGuy Commercial confidentiality seems to be a rather flimsy excuse for not disclosing the spending. Perhaps the Department of Health is more concerned about appearing foolish in succumbing to the Flu Crazy hype surrounding the H1N1 swine flu "pandemic." Fri 11 Feb 2011 15:11:14 GMT+1