Investigation 1 (provisional plan)
Recap: What is Investigation 1?
Investigation 1 relates to the following question:
To what extent were there any clear, significant breaches of good practice risk management with respect to the development and roll-out of the Covid vaccines?
Important note: Investigation 1 does not question the safety outcome of the Covid vaccines but the robustness of the process behind their development/roll-out (the safety outcome has already been assessed and vindicated – see my presentation). It is conceivable that there may have been shortcomings in the development or roll-out process that could have caused issues, even if such hypothetical “near misses” did not manifest in the safety outcomes; indeed, my presentation highlights a couple of these. Investigation 1 is focused on assessing the extent to which there were any clear, significant mis-steps that we should learn from.
What is my provisional plan for approaching this investigation?
I plan to approach this investigation with the following steps:
Step 1: Articulate my own thoughts on where I have concerns about the development/roll-out process.
Step 2: Identify the most credible critics (“the Critics”) to consult in order to collate a comprehensive list of concerns.
Step 3: Invite the Critics to articulate their concerns about anything they considered to fall notably short of good practice in the development and roll-out of the vaccines.
Step 4: Review the information provided and identify the concerns which are to be considered closely (this number would be capped at five).
Step 5: Produce a detailed written articulation of the concerns identified in Step 4.
Step 6: Provide this articulation to the Critics and secure their agreement that it is an accurate description of their concerns, making amendments as appropriate.
Step 7: Identify the most credible apologists (“the Apologists”) of the vaccine development/roll-out process
Step 8: Provide the Apologists with the articulation of concerns and request written responses to each concern.
Step 9: Produce a consolidation of the written responses to the articulation of concerns and secure the agreement of the Apologists that it is an accurate reflection of their response, making amendments as appropriate.
Step 10: Provide the consolidated response to the Critics and request their written comments.
Step 11: Provide these comments to the Apologists and request a written reply to the comments.
Step 12: Produce a written report summarising the exercise. Produce a slide deck presentation reflecting the report and deliver a webinar covering this content.
Please note that this is a provisional plan and it is possible that I may make some minor amendments as things progress. However I do not intend to deviate significantly from this provisional plan and I judge that this commitment is important because this is what I will have a democratic mandate to pursue.
What difficulties do I anticipate and how will I tackle these?
I do not expect any insurmountable obstacles with this investigation. However I do anticipate that I may run into some challenges. I have detailed these below, together with how I intend to handle them:
Lack of co-operation from the Critics
It is conceivable that the Critics may choose not to engage with the process. If so I will interpret this as them having nothing worth saying. This is their opportunity to voice concerns and be given fair hearing in a structured format: if they choose not to take it, then I can proceed solely with the few concerns that I have identified.
Lack of co-operation from the Apologists
It is conceivable that the Apologists may choose not to engage with the process. In cases where this is due to conflicting commitments, I will endeavour to accommodate these and can also approach other Apologists to make the case instead. In the unlikely event of unreasonable disengagement, I will point out how the actuarial community has signalled the importance of this investigation and explain to the Apologists how badly their disengagement reflects on their side of the argument. Ultimately disengagement is its own response.
However I wish to note that I do not anticipate this problem arising. I am aware of a number of prominent Apologists who are already willing to set out their position in the public arena and so I do not see why they would be unwilling to assist with my investigation.
Criticisms which are highly technical in nature
I am aware that there are some criticisms of the vaccine development/roll-out process which are highly technical in nature.
I will omit these criticisms because their complexity makes them inappropriate for consideration. My investigation focuses on clear breaches: if something is so complex that only experts can readily understand a debate about the topic, I judge that it is not an obvious failing in the process and so it is not reasonable to be considered in this exercise.
It is possible that such technical concerns could be subsequently debated by the Critics/Apologists and this engagement may (or may not) prove fruitful; however this area will be outside the scope of my investigation.
What are the deliverables?
As with the other investigations, I will produce a report that consolidates the answer I have reached with respect to that specific question. Each report will be accompanied by a slide deck presentation that I will create and deliver in a webinar format.
I will try to be as transparent as possible. For Investigation 1 I hope to be fully transparent: the information underlying the report is expected to be email correspondence together with supporting documents. I do not anticipate that any of this will be confidential and so I hope to curate this correspondence and make it available for others to review, subject to any personal details (e.g. email addresses) being redacted. However it is possible that I may be provided with some confidential information, in which case I will necessarily refrain from making this available.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will make clear to all parties that my intention is to publish the correspondence and I will obtain their permission to do so.
What deadline will I work towards?
I am aiming to produce all deliverables for Investigation 1 during the first 12 months of my election. My expectation is that this is a deadline I should be able to meet. However I will be dependent on others providing their correspondence in good time and any delays from these third parties could lead to the delivery being pushed back.