Coronavirus

[SydneyRover]

The rebuilding of NHS procurement (a good thing) whereby all things NHS procured would be listed and recorded and known.

Why then when the pandemic struck was there out of date PPE in the system?

Why was the virtually brand new procurement system by-passed?

Policy paper
NHS e-procurement strategy
Actions on e-procurement to be taken by the NHS and the government under the NHS Procurement Development Programme.

Department of Health and Social Care
7 May 2014

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-e-procurement-strategy

''Revealed: value of UK pandemic stockpile fell by 40% in six years
This article is more than 1 year old
£325m wiped off value of health department’s emergency stockpile including PPE''

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/revealed-value-of-uk-pandemic-stockpile-fell-by-40-in-six-years

I can't imagine what those (800+ died of covid) working in health care went through during the pandemic, knowing that the people they were caring for were dying from an extremely contagious disease and they didn't have the protective equipment to keep them safe, but they kept turning up.

[Axholme Lion]

I can't imagine what those (800+ died of covid) working in health care went through during the pandemic, knowing that the people they were caring for were dying from an extremely contagious disease and they didn't have the protective equipment to keep them safe, but they kept turning up.

It was their choice of career, they weren't forced into it at gunpoint.

[Belle_Vue]

I can't imagine what those (800+ died of covid) working in health care went through during the pandemic, knowing that the people they were caring for were dying from an extremely contagious disease and they didn't have the protective equipment to keep them safe, but they kept turning up.

It was their choice of career, they weren't forced into it at gunpoint.

New low for you...do us a favour..

[Colin C No.3]

I can't imagine what those (800+ died of covid) working in health care went through during the pandemic, knowing that the people they were caring for were dying from an extremely contagious disease and they didn't have the protective equipment to keep them safe, but they kept turning up.

It was their choice of career, they weren't forced into it at gunpoint.

What a crass comment.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

I can't imagine what those (800+ died of covid) working in health care went through during the pandemic, knowing that the people they were caring for were dying from an extremely contagious disease and they didn't have the protective equipment to keep them safe, but they kept turning up.

It was their choice of career, they weren't forced into it at gunpoint.

What a crass comment.

It could be seen as that but if the emotion is taken away, it is factually correct. Just like servicemen who joined up since the war. Their choice, although their bravery and heroism is commendable.

It must have crossed some NHS workers minds when the pandemic hit to just not turn up for work and jack it in to save their own skins, but they didn't and this is from where the real bravery and heroism comes and i for one haven't always recognised this.

[SydneyRover]

But would you send them into battle with a helmet and a rifle?

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

But would you send them into battle with a helmet and a rifle?

Absolutely no idea what this means.

[SydneyRover]

If you go back to the start of this latest round of discussions there is an implication that it's ok to have out of date stock of ppe on hand in the event of a pandemic, even though the government were implicitly warned about the risks.

''Revealed: PPE stockpile was out-of-date when coronavirus hit UK
By Channel 4 News Investigations Team
Channel 4 News obtains full inventory of the national pandemic stockpile – revealing vital safety gear was years out of date''

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-ppe-stockpile-was-out-of-date-when-coronavirus-hit-uk

''The government was warned four years before the covid-19 pandemic of the need to stockpile personal protective equipment, screen international travellers, and set up a contact tracing system in the event of a major outbreak of a coronavirus, a previously unpublished report has revealed.1

The report, which summarises key action points for a future pandemic after a simulation exercise, called exercise Alice, of a “large scale outbreak” of Middle East respiratory syndrome in February 2016, was commissioned by England’s former chief medical officer, Sally Davies, who attended with officials from the Department of Health for England, Public Health England, and NHS England''

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2475

and to protect their position, that no one else could have done better.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Ah. Thanks for the explanation SR.

[drfchound]

But can SR provide evidence that a different government could have done better?

[SydneyRover]

When you look back the seeds were sown for a catastrophic response to covid way before the pandemic hit with a government totally absorbed in itself and its own survival. As is is now, the UK is about to take a huge economic hit and the government yet again is in chaos with itself.

[drfchound]

Agreed that the government is in chaos but the economic hit was inevitable after the events of the last couple of years.

[SydneyRover]

talk to bb about it he'll explain it all

[drfchound]

talk to bb about it he'll explain it all

I don’t need to SR.
It is fairly obvious to those of us in the UK.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Agreed that the government is in chaos but the economic hit was inevitable after the events of the last couple of years.

Disagree totally hound.

[BillyStubbsTears]

There's a standard way of dealing with massive economic shocks like this.

Government borrows money to smooth out the shock. It's paid back over decades through the proceeds of economic growth. This basically means you deal with the cost of the current problem by taking money from income into the far future.

Many of us have direct experience of something similar.

If you buy a house in your 20s, that's a massive cost to you. If you were told you had to pay the entire cost there and then, for the great majority of us, that would be crippling. It would be a massive shock to your finances and you wouldn't be able to continue anything like normal economic activity. You'd not be able to afford to eat or clothe yourself.

So instead, we borrow and we pay that back over years of future income. Effectively we smooth out that shock by reducing our future income by a manageable amount. If our income grows nicely, in 20 or 30 years time the amount we have to pay becomes relatively small compared to our income.

The major current rift between broadly right wing and left wing economics revolves around how Govts manage that process. Moderate left wingers believe that it is right to borrow even large amounts against future growth. Right wingers believe we should greatly limit current borrowing even if that means great pain immediately.

The reason I personally stand on the left wing side is that, historically it has proved the less problematic approach. Because, as Austerity demonstrated, the problem with trying to cut back borrowing too quickly is that it results in a reduction in economic growth. Just as if you tried to pay your mortgage off in 5 years instead of 25 years, you wouldn't be able to pay for the tools you need to do your job, or the transport costs you need to pay to get to work. Unfortunately, we have a current Chancellor who fervently believes in reducing borrowing as quickly as possible. And the result is that every economic forecast says our growth, will be pitiful throughout this decade.

Contrast with America, where they have a much more open policy to Govt borrowing at the moment. Their economic growth is forecast to be way ahead of ours throughout the 20s. Meaning they will be in a far better position in decades to come to deal with the economic costs of COVID. Whereas our costs will remain high compared to the COVID debt we have had to incur.

[SydneyRover]

But can SR provide evidence that a different government could have done better?

Only an idiot would try and claim either, wouldn't you agree hound?

[drfchound]

But can SR provide evidence that a different government could have done better?

Only an idiot would try and claim either, wouldn't you agree hound?

You were asked the first question.

[drfchound]

Agreed that the government is in chaos but the economic hit was inevitable after the events of the last couple of years.

Disagree totally hound.

I’m not sure which point you are disagreeing with CDH, but either way, that’s fine.
We don’t have to agree.
Sydney might come up with some evidence yet, so hang fire.

[SydneyRover]

But can SR provide evidence that a different government could have done better?

Only an idiot would try and claim either, wouldn't you agree hound?

You were asked the first question.

what?

[Lindsey]

There's a standard way of dealing with massive economic shocks like this.

Government borrows money to smooth out the shock. It's paid back over decades through the proceeds of economic growth. This basically means you deal with the cost of the current problem by taking money from income into the far future.

Many of us have direct experience of something similar.

If you buy a house in your 20s, that's a massive cost to you. If you were told you had to pay the entire cost there and then, for the great majority of us, that would be crippling. It would be a massive shock to your finances and you wouldn't be able to continue anything like normal economic activity. You'd not be able to afford to eat or clothe yourself.

So instead, we borrow and we pay that back over years of future income. Effectively we smooth out that shock by reducing our future income by a manageable amount. If our income grows nicely, in 20 or 30 years time the amount we have to pay becomes relatively small compared to our income.

The major current rift between broadly right wing and left wing economics revolves around how Govts manage that process. Moderate left wingers believe that it is right to borrow even large amounts against future growth. Right wingers believe we should greatly limit current borrowing even if that means great pain immediately.

The reason I personally stand on the left wing side is that, historically it has proved the less problematic approach. Because, as Austerity demonstrated, the problem with trying to cut back borrowing too quickly is that it results in a reduction in economic growth. Just as if you tried to pay your mortgage off in 5 years instead of 25 years, you wouldn't be able to pay for the tools you need to do your job, or the transport costs you need to pay to get to work. Unfortunately, we have a current Chancellor who fervently believes in reducing borrowing as quickly as possible. And the result is that every economic forecast says our growth, will be pitiful throughout this decade.

Contrast with America, where they have a much more open policy to Govt borrowing at the moment. Their economic growth is forecast to be way ahead of ours throughout the 20s. Meaning they will be in a far better position in decades to come to deal with the economic costs of COVID. Whereas our costs will remain high compared to the COVID debt we have had to incur.

The cost of locking down is starting to take hold.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Agreed that the government is in chaos but the economic hit was inevitable after the events of the last couple of years.

Disagree totally hound.

I’m not sure which point you are disagreeing with CDH, but either way, that’s fine.
We don’t have to agree.
Sydney might come up with some evidence yet, so hang fire.

Sorry hound. I meant that the economic hit that you said was inevitable after the last two years didn't need to be inevitable had the pandemic been managed more sensibly and proportionately. Which it quite easily could have done. The financial shit show from the pandemic is largely as a result of massively exaggerated and over reacting Government policy restricting everyone's lives and ability to work, rather than anything else.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Still shocked at the number of people still wearing masks in shops and even out alone on the street.

Had a right go at the lady from Specsavers this morning on the phone.

Kid due an eye test later and this lady rang me to confirm the appointment and then proceeded to say that Specsavers ask you to wear a facemask, unless exempt.

I told her that the way she delivered that information was inaccurate, potentially discriminatory thus should be changed to something like, 'we ask that you wear a face covering, however it is personal choice'.

These companies and organizations obsessed with over reach need to be told their legal duty and where they are going wrong. Masks are no longer needed anywhere in England, yet businesses like Specsavers think they can still tell people what to do. How about f**k you Specsavers and just focus on testing eyes instead of your own perception of infection control? That would be a start, thank you.

[selby]

  Try and get a job in the NHS, if you don't know or are not related to someone you start with a disadvantage, Nice warm places to work, steady numbers and not being pushed too hard.
  For every worker on the front line in the emergency department and on the front line there are more where that is the reality, and for some an emergency would be if the coffee machine broke down.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Gary Lineker. What a f**king bell.

Posting a pic of his positive LFT on his social media after a flight.

NOBODY GIVES A SHIT YOU VIRTUE SIGNALLING RUBBER FACE!

Then going on to say, 'Thanks too to the brilliant scientists for the vaccines that should mean i won't be seriously ill and clog up our brilliant NHS'

Pass me the sick bag someone.

What an absolute fadge.

Whilst i'm on the subject of pathethic BBC lovelies. We watched Question Time last night as it's hilarious and we like to take the piss out of the politically correct virtue signalling nonsense.

Audience members sat wearing masks, despite there being no need or law. Sat socially distanced of about a metre and a half. Again. No need.

The panel aren't wearing masks though and have perspex screens between them, despite there being no need and screens being known to be a load of b*llocks anyway.

The audience take their masks off to ask questions and then put them back on again but the panelists don't wear masks at all.

The whole show is utterly hilarious.

[Lindsey]

I see the BBC are starting to say that no all death are because of covid-19. Why take so long ?

[bpoolrover]

I see the BBC are starting to say that no all death are because of covid-19. Why take so long ?

my local trust recorded 9 in the last week and none of them died of anything to do
With covid they just had it, in the OST with the other variants I think was different t but they need to stop with the numbers now

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

I wonder how many elderly people who were saved from Covid will die of not being able to heat their houses due to the stupid energy prices? Swings and roundabouts.

[Nudga]

I wonder how many elderly people who were saved from Covid will die of not being able to heat their houses due to the stupid energy prices? Swings and roundabouts.

Died within 28 days of the gas bill

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Not much about Covid recently in the media or on here.

See how easy it is to let go of Covid when it's not covered 24/7 on MSM?

If MSM didn't mention Covid for a few months, most will have forgotten about it. As they should have done over a year ago.