The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

Joe_ Public · 21-04-2020 06:20PM

Aegir wrote: »

A straight answer would be good. But I would imagine whatever the reason given will not be accepted on here.

Personally, I can’t see the value in a joint strategic exercise like this. Great if you are looking long term, but this is a relatively short term tactical requirement.

I've listened back to Hancock answer to Pippa Crerar and honestly can't figure whether he's saying they did sign up to the scheme or not.

I'd have thought you use every avenue possible to acquire all you can get. Did signing up mean their efforts to secure ppe by other means were hampered? Dont see any reason why they would anyway.

21-04-2020 06:24PM

PommieBast wrote: »

From what I've been told for deaths in care homes the certificate can be signed by a nurse rather than a doctor, and some have simply written down whatever the preexisting conditions were.

You were told wrong.

The MCCD can only be signed by a doctor.

Joe_ Public · 21-04-2020 06:26PM

Aegir wrote: »

Has any been delivered? I think that might be the point.

It would be interesting to hear who else decided against joining the scheme and why.

In part answer to your last point, it seems 2 out of 27 members did not sign up, but don't know which two.

"The first order placed by the EU, which will go to 25 of the 27 member states, covers “masks type 2 and 3, gloves, goggles, face-shields, surgical masks and overalls” – all of which are needed in the UK. Britain was invited to participate as it is still in the Brexit transition period and so is still being treated like a member state."

Enzokk · 21-04-2020 06:26PM

Aegir wrote: »

A straight answer would be good. But I would imagine whatever the reason given will not be accepted on here.

Personally, I can’t see the value in a joint strategic exercise like this. Great if you are looking long term, but this is a relatively short term tactical requirement.

Do we know the reason why they didn't join, before todays answer? Was it the emails they missed? Or was it the meetings that were missed? Why did the UK participate in meetings but then not follow up if they were interested and the only reason they haven't participated was the missing emails?

As for the scheme, if you can find me where joining this scheme meant countries stopped buying PPE themselves then the UK was right not to join. Seeing as we have sent numerous flights to China to pick up PPE while being part of this scheme, the fact that nothing has been delivered yet is not a good reason not to have joined. If you are struggling for PPE now, joining a scheme that will assist you in obtaining more is surely a good thing?

Right? Please tell me I am not losing my mind here, people seem to be suggesting that is is fine for the UK to not be in a scheme that will deliver PPE to those in the scheme in the next couple of weeks because it hasn't delivered anything as of today.

That is some mental gymnastics to get to that point.

Leroy42 · 21-04-2020 06:32PM

What does a testing capactity of 40k even mean? They have the kits, and the personal and the everything but they are not being used?

It is such an odd metric.

RobMc59 · 21-04-2020 06:34PM

Enzokk wrote: »

As we have seen with the UK trying to procure PPE from Turkey, these things take time and it is an unprecedented scenario where all countries are looking for PPE. So the fact it takes time should be understandable seeing as you cannot just announce on a Saturday that you will receive a bunch of items the next day.

Can we be sure the UK hasn't been competing with the EU to buy PPE?

As for Hancock's answer to Pippa Crear following this up, it seems like the scheme that isn't worth joining because it hasn't delivered anything, well the UK has joined this scheme. Now why would they do that?

Or did he want to join but his decision was overruled, seeing that this comes as a surprise to almost everyone that the UK has joined the scheme. Can someone who is from the UK tell me what is happening with this?

We only get the same news as many Irish posters discuss here as far as I'm aware.
Personally,I'd have preferred a united effort with the EU over PPE (but that's just me as I don't want to leave the EU!) imagine the flac Johnson and co would have got for not sticking to their guns by the brexiteers!

PommieBast · 21-04-2020 06:36PM

Aegir wrote: »

You were told wrong.

The MCCD can only be signed by a doctor.

I'll bring it up with my source next video call as they are someone who is up to speed with UK law. Might be cases of nurses drafting the certs and then doctor just signing them. Main point was under-reporting due to either inexperience or lack of motivation to recognise C19 cases.

Then again in the case of privatised care homes I suspect there is also a commercial incentive to under-report.

Enzokk · 21-04-2020 06:43PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

We only get the same news as many Irish posters discuss here as far as I'm aware.
Personally,I'd have preferred a united effort with the EU over PPE (but that's just me as I don't want to leave the EU!) imagine the flac Johnson and co would have got for not sticking to their guns by the brexiteers!

I hear you, but if Mark Francois got red in the face because the UK asked for help in a EU scheme to save lives, then he can go and jump off a cliff. There seemed very little opposition to the news that the German Army donated 60 ventilators to the UK, so taking part in a scheme and still paying for your items seems a no-brainer. I mean the UK also had no problem making use of the EU repatriation scheme for returning nationals that were stuck.

Seth Brundle · 21-04-2020 07:01PM

Cupatae wrote: »

hmmm, i dont think you quite understand what was said, and have now resorted to using adolescent emojis...

I understand what you were trying to say and the emoji reflected the emotional maturity to the post I was responding to.

Cupatae wrote: »

If the economy stays shut, how do the hospitals get funding? if the hospitals dont have funding what happens?

No the economy should be restarted and restrictions should be eased, we have no vaccine for the virus and cant stay on lockdown for the next 2 years....we must just learn to live with it guys!

...and how many people will needlessly die as a result?
A thriving economy is no use if everyone is sick or mourning!

Cupatae · 21-04-2020 07:11PM

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I understand what you were trying to say and the emoji reflected the emotional maturity to the post I was responding to.

...and how many people will needlessly die as a result?
A thriving economy is no use if everyone is sick or mourning!

You're grand relax another poster understood and made an educated reply. I haven't the time nor interest to explain it too you.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

21-04-2020 07:15PM

Enzokk wrote: »

As for the scheme, if you can find me where joining this scheme meant countries stopped buying PPE themselves then the UK was right not to join. Seeing as we have sent numerous flights to China to pick up PPE while being part of this scheme, the fact that nothing has been delivered yet is not a good reason not to have joined. If you are struggling for PPE now, joining a scheme that will assist you in obtaining more is surely a good thing?

Right? Please tell me I am not losing my mind here, people seem to be suggesting that is is fine for the UK to not be in a scheme that will deliver PPE to those in the scheme in the next couple of weeks because it hasn't delivered anything as of today.

That is some mental gymnastics to get to that point.

Can you tell me what led you to these questions, you seem a bit confused.

RobMc59 · 21-04-2020 07:20PM

Enzokk wrote: »

I hear you, but if Mark Francois got red in the face because the UK asked for help in a EU scheme to save lives, then he can go and jump off a cliff. There seemed very little opposition to the news that the German Army donated 60 ventilators to the UK, so taking part in a scheme and still paying for your items seems a no-brainer. I mean the UK also had no problem making use of the EU repatriation scheme for returning nationals that were stuck.

I agree about mark francois and welcomed the help from the German army,as regards the repatriation saga I believe the UK helped quite a few Europeans and there were Irish citizens in my local hospital Arrowe Park who were quarantined when all this first started,which is how it should be,we all help each other.

21-04-2020 07:20PM

PommieBast wrote: »

I'll bring it up with my source next video call as they are someone who is up to speed with UK law. Might be cases of nurses drafting the certs and then doctor just signing them. Main point was under-reporting due to either inexperience or lack of motivation to recognise C19 cases.

You can look these things up on line if you like.

The form is called the MCCD, Medical Certificate, Cause of Death and can only be signed by a doctor and even then there are certain conditions attached. It isn’t like signing a cheque.

PommieBast wrote: »

then again in the case of privatised care homes I suspect there is also a commercial incentive to under-report.

why? Having your customers die is bad for business no matter what the cause of death.

21-04-2020 07:22PM

Enzokk wrote: »

I hear you, but if Mark Francois got red in the face because the UK asked for help in a EU scheme to save lives, then he can go and jump off a cliff. There seemed very little opposition to the news that the German Army donated 60 ventilators to the UK, so taking part in a scheme and still paying for your items seems a no-brainer. I mean the UK also had no problem making use of the EU repatriation scheme for returning nationals that were stuck.

You mean the UK had no problem taking money out of a fund they had paid in to? The dastardly devils.

21-04-2020 07:24PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree about mark francois and welcomed the help from the German army,as regards the repatriation saga I believe the UK helped quite a few Europeans and there were Irish citizens in my local hospital Arrowe Park who were quarantined when all this first started,which is how it should be,we all help each other.

The British did nothing, it was all Simon Coveney apparently

https://mobile.twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1244343760953229314

Joe_ Public · 21-04-2020 07:32PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What does a testing capactity of 40k even mean? They have the kits, and the personal and the everything but they are not being used?

It is such an odd metric.

I suppose looking at it in a positive light it means that once they finally do get their sh!t together as regards testing, as belatedly they simply must, then the capacity will at least be there to cater for it. Some time next month would seem a fair target.

Enzokk · 21-04-2020 08:08PM

Aegir wrote: »

Can you tell me what led you to these questions, you seem a bit confused.

Well let's start with Thérèse Coffey, who seems to think the UK is in a better position than when joining the scheme.

EU scheme providing £1.3bn worth of PPE was described as ‘inadequate’ by government

The UK government has described the EU’s bulk-buying scheme for personal protective equipment (PPE) as ‘inadequate’, despite it delivering £1.3 billion of equipment to 25 EU countries.

Work and pensions secretary Thérèse Coffey told LBC’s Nick Ferrari that the country was in a “better state now” in regard to PPE than had it joined the programme.

The minster confirmed the government could have joined the EU’s bulk-buy personal protective equipment scheme on three separate occasions but chose not to.

When asked to explain the government’s logic for attending a meeting with its EU counterparts on March 19 concerning the procurement of PPE, despite dismissing the scheme andrefusing to join a gathering two weeks earlier, Coffey said: “The government had assessed that it would not have made any difference joining those schemes.

“We weren’t part of the first meeting. We were part of the second meeting. That does not change the basis for our assessment. It would not have made any difference to our procurement of PPE.”

So she seems to be saying that because nothing has been delivered it means the UK is better off.

And let's see what else we can find that corresponds to this point of view,

Aegir wrote: »

Has any been delivered? I think that might be the point.

Aegir wrote: »

A straight answer would be good. But I would imagine whatever the reason given will not be accepted on here.

Personally, I can’t see the value in a joint strategic exercise like this. Great if you are looking long term, but this is a relatively short term tactical requirement.

So please explain to me, without deflecting, why it is better not to be in this scheme once it start delivering PPE to the countries in the next couple of weeks while the UK is still searching for PPE?

Aegir wrote: »

You mean the UK had no problem taking money out of a fund they had paid in to? The dastardly devils.

The UK picks and chooses when they participate in EU schemes as it suits them. That is fine in principle, but we are talking about PPE and the UK is in need of PPE. The fact you see no problem with this, well it says a lot about you.

Enzokk · 21-04-2020 08:13PM

RobMc59 wrote: »

I agree about mark francois and welcomed the help from the German army,as regards the repatriation saga I believe the UK helped quite a few Europeans and there were Irish citizens in my local hospital Arrowe Park who were quarantined when all this first started,which is how it should be,we all help each other.

Yes, and quite a few UK citizens were helped by the same scheme. It is quite an effective scheme that promotes the cooperation between EU states. If you repatriate not just your own but other EU state citizens during the emergency then the EU civil protection mechanism will fund 75% of the cost of a government funded repatriation flight.

This way less flights are needed to repatriate citizens from all over the EU, win win.

BonnieSituation · 21-04-2020 08:23PM

Cupatae wrote: »

How many more will die because of the economic impact of the lockdown tho? they will have to start lifting em soon, as we have no cure and learning to live with it is the only option.

Unless you want a lockdown till vaccine?

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Who's dying because of the lockdown?

Cupatae wrote: »

I think you misunderstood what was wrote read it again.

I don't think I did.

Will I parse what you said for you?

---

How many more will die because of the economic impact of the lockdown tho?

"How many more will die": There is an indication here that there will be something in the future that will cause "more" deaths. This tells me that there has been an occurrence of "something" in the past that has affected "some".

The something that has affected some people is death. We have to find out what the cause is though.

"because of the economic impact": This seems to be the cause of death for the "some". And seemingly, that more will die if this continues.

of the lockdown tho?: Here we have the reason that there has been some "economic impact" that has caused "some" deaths and that if the lockdown continues it will cause more deaths.

---

So I read it again as you requested.

Who's dying because of the lockdown?

Cupatae · 21-04-2020 08:31PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I don't think I did.

Will I parse what you said for you?

---

How many more will die because of the economic impact of the lockdown tho?

"How many more will die": There is an indication here that there will be something in the future that will cause "more" deaths. This tells me that there has been an occurrence of "something" in the past that has affected "some".

The something that has affected some people is death. We have to find out what the cause is though.

"because of the economic impact": This seems to be the cause of death for the "some". And seemingly, that more will die if this continues.

of the lockdown tho?: Here we have the reason that there has been some "economic impact" that has caused "some" deaths and that if the lockdown continues it will cause more deaths.

---

So I read it again as you requested.

Who's dying because of the lockdown?

Again another long winded attempt at splitting hairs, another poster has shown you up by replying with an educated response, you are just spinning your wheels now. Other posters could clearly understand the point, but you cannot, its alright buddy just let it go.

(cant wait for you to completely misinterpret that and ask what wheels??!)

S.M.B. · 21-04-2020 08:32PM

devnull wrote: »

So let me get this right.

First you claim:

Then when I challenge you

You suddenly are unable to produce anything to back it up

devnull wrote: »

So a moment ago you said that you

Now, after I asked you to back your claims up by showing proof of the kind of tweets that you were talking about which you claimed existed, you admit that you didn't see them after all and you only saw her profile.

I appreciate your honesty, but it's still disingenuous with a capital D.

This escalated quickly. Seriously?

I posted a random opinion saying something is 'fair enough' and after two incoherent follow up posts, as evidenced by all the edits I made, I find myself in some antagonistic debate where every word is pulled apart and scrutinised.

I don't particularly appreciate being called disingenuous either.

BonnieSituation · 21-04-2020 08:37PM

Aegir wrote: »

A straight answer would be good. But I would imagine whatever the reason given will not be accepted on here.

Personally, I can’t see the value in a joint strategic exercise like this. Great if you are looking long term, but this is a relatively short term tactical requirement.

Of course it wouldn't be accepted, look at their form on only this story:

First they never got notified, then the email was sent to the wrong address, then they didn't need to partake, and sure they weren't in the EU anymore why would they, and now it was a political decision, but then it wasn't...

I'm sorry, why should we trust the UKGOV?

How can you just accept this without so much as a murmur of discontent?

Joe_ Public · 21-04-2020 08:41PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Of course it wouldn't be accepted, look at their form on only this story:

First they never got notified, then the email was sent to the wrong address, then they didn't need to partake, and sure they weren't in the EU anymore why would they, and now it was a political decision, but then it wasn't...

I'm sorry, why should we trust the UKGOV?

How can you just accept this without so much as a murmur of discontent?

And best of all, it seems, is that it turns out they actually are in the procurement scheme after all, just not from the start. But i wouldn't be sure that wont have changed again before the end of the day...

BonnieSituation · 21-04-2020 08:42PM

Enzokk wrote: »

I hear you, but if Mark Francois got red in the face because the UK asked for help in a EU scheme to save lives, then he can go and jump off a cliff. There seemed very little opposition to the news that the German Army donated 60 ventilators to the UK, so taking part in a scheme and still paying for your items seems a no-brainer. I mean the UK also had no problem making use of the EU repatriation scheme for returning nationals that were stuck.

Remember after the initial "wrong email" story broke and most of us here were aghast and confused why the UKGOV didn't get involved, but then Germany sent ventilators we were then told that it was a NATO scheme til they were blue in the face and there was nothing to see here. So it was "completely different".

Are we suddenly meant to believe that Brexiteers possess the nuance to work that difference out but are devoid to the ability to accept participation in a joint-EU PPE procurement scheme?

It's almost like people are being disingenuous.

BonnieSituation · 21-04-2020 08:46PM

Cupatae wrote: »

Again another long winded attempt at splitting hairs, another poster has shown you up by replying with an educated response, you are just spinning your wheels now. Other posters could clearly understand the point, but you cannot, its alright buddy just let it go.

(cant wait for you to completely misinterpret that and ask what wheels??!)

Yes. That's exactly what's happening here.

Good hustle "buddy". :rolleyes:

Cupatae · 21-04-2020 08:49PM

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Yes. That's exactly what's happening here.

Good hustle "buddy". :rolleyes:

Well as they say, the proof is in the pudden and another poster replied, with a detailed educated reply, meanwhile you are still stuck on trying to figure out what the post meant...:eek: im hoping deliberately in an attempt to muddy the waters because if you genuinely cant understand it then.... well thats not good... and i feel bad for you lol

Buddy :rolleyes::rolleyes:

BonnieSituation · 21-04-2020 08:59PM

Cupatae wrote: »

Well as they say, the proof is in the pudden and another poster replied, with a detailed educated reply, meanwhile you are still stuck on trying to figure out what the post meant...:eek: im hoping deliberately in an attempt to muddy the waters because if you genuinely cant understand it then.... well thats not good... and i feel bad for you lol

Buddy :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Grand yeah.

Water John · 21-04-2020 09:01PM

So with real figures in deaths from Covid 19, the UK is just behind Italy and will overtake them soon, which is behind the US.
Italy were caught early and unawares. Both the UK and US don't have that excuse. what they have in common are two egocentric incompetent leaders.
That's the price of poor democracy.

21-04-2020 09:12PM

Enzokk wrote: »

Well let's start with Thérèse Coffey, who seems to think the UK is in a better position than when joining the scheme.

EU scheme providing £1.3bn worth of PPE was described as ‘inadequate’ by government

So she seems to be saying that because nothing has been delivered it means the UK is better off.

I, like probably everyone else on this forum, am not aware of the full details of the tender so like everyone else, I can only speculate. However a bit about procurement, I can give what I expect is happening.

The NHS will have an entire category team with a category lead, who will have a Category Management Plan (CMP) for PPE. It may even be that the category is broken down in to several sub categories with a CMP for each one. Maybe one for clothing, one for respiratory protection.

This CMP will assess all the internal requirements and factors, such as specification, key stake holders, usage, annual spend etc. It will also assess the external factors. What are the key trends, who are the main manufacturers and players in the supply base, where is it all made, what are their peers doing in other countries.

Then there is the strategy, what are the one year goals, the five year goals and what does this look like in ten years.

Then Coronavirus comes along and all the above goes out of the window and the teams are forced to abandon all their strategic plans and manage this on a day to day basis because not only are they getting shouted at by their bosses, they are also getting grief from NHS trusts, care homes, GPs, the press and then, out of nowhere, some gob****e of a minister starts making promises so they are also under pressure from politicians as well.

Add in the minor issue of every country on the planet also looking for the same stuff and you have rather ****ty problem to deal with.

Then someone comes along and asks you to take people out of what they are doing and work on a project with 25 other countries on a combined effort to buy PPE, from the same people you have spent all day on the phone with. A project that involves issuing a tender with 25 other stakeholders and then when that tender is received, means you have to negotiatie a supply contract directly with the supplier that you probably know and may already have a contract with, the same one that you know full well cannot deliver what you want, when you want it currently.

Personally, I see very little benefit to that, it strikes me as being more a political effort by the EU wanting to be seen as doing something, than an actual productive use of time. When this is all over, or when you are back to working only ten hours a day maybe, but not at the moment.

Enzokk wrote: »

So please explain to me, without deflecting, why it is better not to be in this scheme once it start delivering PPE to the countries in the next couple of weeks while the UK is still searching for PPE?

that is why I asked if anything has actually been delivered yet or if there any actual confirmed dates for which deliveries of this PPE will start to take place.

If you know the answer to this, please share it with us.

CelticRambler · 21-04-2020 09:22PM

So, does anyone remember the much-hyped 4000-bed "Nightingale" hospital-in-a-shed? Can't remember if, at the time and on this thread, I made the comparison in writing between the ridiculously high number of promised beds and the French equivalent of providing for tens, not thousands, of overflow cases.

Well ...

The hospital has been unable to admit about 50 people with the disease and needing “life or death” care since its first patient arrived at the site, in the ExCeL exhibition centre, in London’s Docklands, on 7 April. Thirty of these people were rejected because of a lack of staff.

The planned transfer of more than 30 patients from established London hospitals to the Nightingale was “cancelled due to staffing issues”, according to NHS documents seen by the Guardian. All the patients had been intubated and were on a ventilator because they were so unwell.

The revelation raises questions about the role and future of the hospital, which up until Monday had only treated 41 patients, despite being designed to include almost 4,000 beds.

That means that the hospital has rejected more patients, owing to a combination of understaffing and the patients’ health, than it has treated. Of those 41 patients, four have died, seven have been discharged to a less critical level of care, and the other 30 were still being cared for at the Nightingale.

Much mumbling and shuffling of feet as government spokespeople try to explain away the problem, but the long and the short of is that it's yet another example of kneejerk reactionary decision making by an administration that has absolutely no experience of joined-up thinking. It doesn't bode well for any other pledges made that require "human resources" to turn the promise into reality.

The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

Comments