Checking in on the Vaccine Scene (The Morning Brew) Oct 28, 2020

 

Hey, you. Looks like you’re making some cool, spiky shots in there. How’s it going? 

AstraZeneca: Better than it was. We had suspended our late-stage vaccine trial after a participant developed neurological symptoms. But this week we restarted it when independent monitoring committees and international regulators agreed that it was safe to resume. 

Johnson & Johnson: Same here; we’re back up and running after a reported stroke incident in a volunteer. Outside experts and the FDA sniffed around and said we’re good to go. 

• FYI, our vaccine is the only one being tested that involves a single dose.  

Pfizer: Optimistic. The current trial with BioNTech could reveal our vaccine's effectiveness by late November, which would be the first from any vaccine candidate. We could potentially get emergency authorization by the end of the year. 

• Still, we just barely beat Q3 earnings estimates yesterday. Our costs were down, but sales fell 4% thanks to people’s continued reluctance to go to the doctor—i.e. fewer prescriptions for our drugs. It’s not just us; they’re having the same problem over at Eli Lilly. 

Herd immunity: Stock is down. Doctors don’t know yet if antibodies = immunity, but it may not matter. A study published Monday showed the number of people with antibodies dropped significantly (27%) in a three-month period, indicating that any immunity could be temporary. 

• The study hasn’t been peer reviewed yet. 

Big picture: The U.S.’ vaccine game is high-stakes. Any slip-ups in the program—such as only four out of six candidates proving effective, or not enough people getting vaccinated—could mean we’ll be dealing with the virus well into 2023. But if everything goes smoothly, we could turn the tide by July of next year. 

+ FYI: On Monday, Dr. Anthony Fauci told Yahoo Finance that the “primary endpoint” of a vaccine is “to prevent clinically recognizable disease,” aka stamping out symptoms, rather than eliminating the virus entirely.

TRUST IN SCIENCE Has Trust in Science Become a Partisan Issue?

 

If there’s one thing the pandemic has brought to light, it’s the fact that scientific findings are no longer a currency everyone can agree on. While scientists should by definition be the most proven experts in their respective specialty, be it virology, epidemiology or any other field, choosing not to believe them has become a viable option in recent years. As our chart shows, trust in scientists appears to have turned into a partisan issue, and nowhere more so than in the United States.

Ανοικτή πληγή το brain drain Χάθηκαν 15 δισ. ευρώ από τη φυγή 450 χιλιάδων επιστημόνων

 

https://www.tanea.gr/2020/10/09/economy/xathikan-15-dis-eyro-apo-ti-fygi-450-xiliadon-epistimonon/

https://www.ethnos.gr/ellada/127359_brain-drain-elleipsi-axiokratias-kai-diafthora-diohnoyn-toys-neoys-sto-exoteriko

Finland sees promising results after nationwide experiment with universal basic income

 

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/coronavirus-leading-through-the-crisis/charting-the-path-to-the-next-normal/finland-sees-promising-results-after-nationwide-experiment-with-universal-basic-income?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck&hlkid=482d1c7362a74b9ba36bbeaf50e4af8a&hctky=2920544&hdpid=2c43482d-6b3e-4db6-bfaf-38a07b6e830d

Tweeter's Permanent work-from-home plans (www.washingtonpost.com)

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/01/twitter-work-from-home/?arc404=true

Waymo, Alphabet’s self-driving vehicle division to eventually roll out a fully fledged commercial service. (The morning Brew)

 

In a big milestone for the self-driving industry, Waymo said yesterday it will open up its autonomous ride-hailing service to the general public in metro Phoenix, AZ. 

That means in the next few weeks, people in the Phoenix area can a) hail a taxi like they would a Lyft or an Uber b) hop in a car that’ll know where they want to go and c) be taken to that destination. The only difference? The car will be driving itself. 

Now, we’re supposed to be detached business reporters, but we just have to say...

Great googly moogly that’s cool.

How we got here

Waymo, Alphabet’s self-driving vehicle division, has been testing its cars in the Phoenix area since 2016, slowly upgrading its tech and capacity to eventually roll out a fully fledged commercial service. 

Hundreds of human guinea pigs have been experimenting with the robotaxi service through the Waymo One app. The announcement yesterday expands the current program in two ways:

1. Existing customers of Waymo One can start taking their friends and family along for the ride.
2. By November, Waymo will make the app available to more people (aka the “general public”) in the Phoenix area.

We’ve managed to get through 200 words of a story without mentioning Covid-19, which unfortunately must make an appearance now. The pandemic has forced Waymo to limit the scope of its service by restricting it to fully driverless rides. It’s working on installing barriers in its vehicles so down the road it can plunk a human safety driver in the front seat and address a larger geographical market. 

Zoom out: Other car companies like Tesla and GM are racing to introduce driverless vehicles, but Waymo has recently separated itself from the pack. This spring, it raised $3 billion to accelerate the rollout of its commercial service, the first time it’s cashed a check from a company not associated with Google.

Are CEOs the Wrong Leaders for Stakeholder Capitalism? by James Heskett (Harvard Business Review Oct 2020)

 

01 OCT 2020WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Are CEOs the Wrong Leaders for Stakeholder Capitalism?

by James Heskett

A year after 181 CEOs pledged their companies to better serve social goals, critics find they have failed to do so during the pandemic. Is stakeholder capitalism in the wrong hands? asks James Heskett.

1

(iStock)iStock

The Business Roundtable, comprising 181 corporate leaders, issued last year its “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation,” regarded by some as a repudiation of the notion that a business is run primarily for its shareholders.

It was an endorsement of a tenet known as stakeholder capitalism, where the purpose of a business is seen as benefitting all of its stakeholders—customers, employees, and communities as well as shareholders. Some saw it as a tipping point for corporate governance. Others saw it as a public relations move.

Lest proponents of stakeholder capitalism celebrate too soon, a new study of recent corporate behavior in more than 600 organizations in the United States and Europe, financed by the Ford Foundation, concludes that since the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic, the adoption of the Statement “has failed to deliver fundamental shifts in corporate purpose in a moment of grave crisis when enlightened purpose should be paramount.”

While lauding the work of several organizations, its authors cited examples from Amazon, Salesforce.com, and Marriott International to bolster the conclusion that, under stress, leaders still turn to the same old priorities associated with short-term shareholder value.

"UNDER STRESS, LEADERS STILL TURN TO THE SAME OLD PRIORITIES ASSOCIATED WITH SHORT-TERM SHAREHOLDER VALUE."

Critics of the study have suggested that it was conducted too soon after adoption of the Statement. For example, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff suggested that the Statement was intended to foster long-term change. Other Statement supporters argued that short-term moves such as layoffs, interpreted by some as running counter to the Statement’s ideals, were balanced by concern for the long-term survival of the organization so important to other employees able to keep their jobs.

In the midst of this debate, Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw addressed again the question framed so eloquently 70 years ago by Milton Friedman in his famous article, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.” (Incidentally, Friedman made no reference to either short- or long-term profitability in the article.) Mankiw wrote recently that we may be expecting too much of corporate boards and CEOs if we put primary responsibility for stakeholder capitalism in their hands. Incentives influenced by market-based competition nudge them toward short-term optimums regardless of their good intentions.

Mankiw concludes that it is unrealistic to place responsibility for such things as the rule of law, property rights, the environment, and the more equal distribution of wealth in the hands of those guiding for-profit public corporations. That’s the role of public servants. As he puts it, “the world needs people to look out for the broad well-being of society. But those people are not corporate executives. They are elected leaders who are competent and trustworthy.”

Is Milton Friedman’s philosophy an invitation, ironicaslly, to more active public governance? Is stakeholder capitalism in the wrong hands? What do you think?

References:

Business Roundtable, Purpose of a Corporation: One Year Later , Businessroundtable.org, accessed September 28, 2020.

Peter S. Goodman, Stakeholder Capitalism Falters in Study , The New York Times, September 22, 2020, pp. B1 and B4.

N. Gregory Mankiw, A Balancing Act Many C.E.O.s Can’t Do , The New York Times, July 26, 2020, p. BU.

Bronagh Ward, Vittoria Bufalari, Mark Tulay, Sara E. Murphy, Richa Joshi, Nick Cohn Martin, COVID-19 and Inequality: A Test of Corporate Purpose , KKS Advisors and The Test of Corporate Purpose, September 23, 2020, accessed September 28, 2020.

The Covid Economy Carves Deep Divide Between Haves and Have-Nots ( The Wall street Journal)

 

No V- shaped rebound for the economy, nor U-shaped one. Rather a K-Shaped economy really.

y 

, 

 and 

Oct. 5, 2020 11:09 am ET

• SAVE
• SHARE
• TEXT
• 362 RESPONSES

Listen to this article

18 minutes

00:00 / 18:06

"A two-track recovery is emerging from the country’s pandemic-driven economic contraction. Some workers, companies and regions show signs of coming out fine or even stronger. The rest are mired in a deep decline with an uncertain path ahead.

Just months ago, economists were predicting a V-shaped recovery—a rapid rebound from a steep fall—or a U-shaped path—a prolonged downturn before healing began.

What has developed is more like a K. On the upper arm of the K are well-educated and well-off people, businesses tied to the digital economy or supplying domestic necessities, and regions such as tech-forward Western cities. By and large, they are prospering.

On the bottom arm are lower-wage workers with fewer credentials, old-line businesses and regions tied to tourism and public gatherings. They can expect to bear years-long scars from the crisis.

The divergence helps explain the striking disconnect of a stock market and household wealth near record highs, while lines stretch at food banks and applications for jobless benefits continue to grow.

In the latest example, consumer spending rose 1% in August but overall personal income fell 2.7% from July, in part because the unemployed received less government aid, according to Commerce Department figures reported Thursday."

US most likely to reach COVID-19 herd immunity in second half of 2021 (McKinsey)

 

US most likely to reach COVID-19 herd immunity in second half of 2021

See more

Why the huge spread? ( In Gallop polls) The New York Times Sept 30

 

By Nate Cohn

In the wake of Tuesday’s messy debate, we got a different kind of survey: a so-called instapoll. This is a survey of people who tell a pollster they will watch a debate and agree to take a poll after the debate is over. These surveys are quirky in some ways, but they do a decent enough job of helping us gauge the effect of a debate. This time, the news was generally good for Joe Biden.

Why the huge spread? Instant-reaction poll samples can be pretty biased. Often, you’re looking at respondents who have negotiated three steps: They agree to take a poll before a debate; they agree to take a poll after watching a debate; they actually follow through and participate in the poll after the debate. They’re also people who have watched a debate, who aren’t representative of the overall electorate.

On top of that, pollsters have to decide whether or how to undo those biases. All of this can lead to a huge spread in the results. You might be tempted to just discount these instant poll results altogether.