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

Dave0301 · 21-04-2020 09:37PM

Enzokk wrote: »

I am honestly lost for words on this,

https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1252619849228079104?s=20

The choice not to join the EU procurement scheme was a political decision.

So Sir Simon has had to retract the statement he made in the clip above.

Later on Tuesday evening Sir Simon wrote to the committee to “clarify” and retract his original claim, saying he had “inadvertently and wrongly” told MPs it had been a political decision.

Text in this tweet:

https://twitter.com/TomTugendhat/status/1252679936768344070

21-04-2020 09:45PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

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 ...

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.

You have to love the Guardian, they never miss an opportunity. Shame they contradict themselves though

Despite this, the Nightingale’s inability to admit patients has left established London hospitals unable to relieve the pressure on their overcrowded intensive care units by transferring people suffering from the coronavirus.

later in the same article, but not quoted by our Rambling friend:

A senior official at a London trust said: “It’s a white elephant. When it was conceived a month ago we were facing the prospect of hospitals in London being overrun and mass burial sites like in New York. We thought that London would be Italy and there would be more patients needing level 3 intensive care treatment by this stage.

“But the expected doubling every three days in the number of patients needing to be admitted to ICU didn’t happen. London hospitals doubled, tripled and in some cases quadrupled the capacity of their ICUs, so still have spare capacity, which means the Nightingale hasn’t been needed.”

And at the end of the article-

An NHS London spokesperson said: “The most important point about staff at the Nightingale is that thanks to their care and expertise, patients in that hospital are being successfully treated, discharged and ultimately having their life saved.

“There remains spare capacity in the critical care network across the capital to look after all coronavirus patients and others who need our care, and while it is incredibly reassuring for both staff and patients to have backup capacity at the Nightingale to alleviate pressure on ICU departments where needed, patients can be transferred to other hospitals in the city if they are better placed to receive them at that time – as is always the case.”

I guess now it looks like London is over the worst, they can start to accuse the gubberment of over planning rather than under planning.

Joe_ Public · 21-04-2020 10:13PM

Remember how all this palaver about the eu procurement scheme started. When questions were first raised why uk wasnt part of it on March 26, a downing st spokesperson said it was because they were no longer part of the eu. When that was queried, they then changed to the missed email/broken chain of communication story. But then, Matt Hancock had actually appeared on QT a week before admitting they'd been invited and were considering the invitation.

So now after a bit of toing and froing we're back to the email story and a top civil servant has made a complete fool of himself. Whether ppe has been delivered or not is a red herring. If they're going to argue the scheme was never worth it anyway, then why subsequently sign up when they got the chance? They're a gas crowd really.

Professor Moriarty · 21-04-2020 10:55PM

declanflynn wrote: »

The uk and US look like they will be joined by Russia and Brazil at the top of that unfortunate table, the four leaders of these countries will surely have questions to answer

Trump, Bolsonaro and Putin. Mr Johnson is in august company there.

CelticRambler · 21-04-2020 11:18PM

Aegir wrote: »

I guess now it looks like London is over the worst, they can start to accuse the gubberment of over planning rather than under planning.

"Over planning" can hardly be an appropriate term to describe a facility that couldn't handle more than 40 patients due to understaffing. Also, given that it is not designed to handle the really critically ill, a death rate of 10% of its patients is not a great measure of achievement either.

For what it's worth, I criticised that particular measure as being inappropriate while it was being put together, aswell as the hyping up of what it really was - a temporary treatment room in a shed. It now looks like the government was so caught up in their own spin that they forgot they'd need nurses to run it.

Fann Linn · 21-04-2020 11:20PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Trump, Bolsonaro and Putin. Mr Johnson is in august company there.

That's some quartet in fairness.

timetogo1 · 22-04-2020 03:04AM

Aegir wrote: »

I guess now it looks like London is over the worst, they can start to accuse the gubberment of over planning rather than under planning.

I doubt the Tories will ever have to defend themselves against overplanning anything.
Or was that a joke?

22-04-2020 06:28AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

"Over planning" can hardly be an appropriate term to describe a facility that couldn't handle more than 40 patients due to understaffing. Also, given that it is not designed to handle the really critically ill, a death rate of 10% of its patients is not a great measure of achievement either.

For what it's worth, I criticised that particular measure as being inappropriate while it was being put together, aswell as the hyping up of what it really was - a temporary treatment room in a shed. It now looks like the government was so caught up in their own spin that they forgot they'd need nurses to run it.

So they should have not built it?

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 06:49AM

Aegir wrote: »

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.

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.

So because you think it works in a certain way you think it may have caused people in the NHS to work twice as hard to buy items they are already buying from the same suppliers, something like that?

But this is a EU project, so you will have your EU bureaucrats doing the work with the information they asked for from those participating. Those needs were asked for at a certain date and then the EU went forward with the scheme to purchase the stock. I don't see where the NHS is doing extra work other to pass up on the chain where they have a shortage, which if the system is working they would know already as you have put out someone would be in charge of this area. But all they would do now is tell them we require gowns as our supply is running short. You can do this while you are on the phone to the supplier as well.

That is the point of this, it takes the pressure off the EU countries and the EU tries to use the clout of 25 countries order together to try and secure the items. What you seemed to try and describe was the NHS having to work twice, once for the EU and once for themselves.

If you can find me a link where it says this scheme takes people from where they are to work on this scheme then I will concede it isn't a great system. But so far all I have seen is that the UK was asked if they participate and if they do, what items do they require. There has been no suggestion of staff having to leave their jobs to work on this.

Timeline of UK's coronavirus PPE shortage

24 February
A meeting of officials, to which the UK was invited, hears an update from the European commission on the joint procurement of PPE. Commission officials call on countries to confirm “their exact needs latest today … to move forward with next steps”. No representative from the UK attends the meeting.

Aegir wrote: »

So they should have not built it?

Well in hindsight, with spare capacity all over the country it seems like there was no need. But that is with 20/20 hindsight. The problem I see is that even if there was more patients than the NHS can handle, these new hospitals cannot take them because there isn't nursing staff at the locations. So while the extra beds are great, are they useful?

This sounds eerily familiar to the testing capacity and tests taken debate. Are they counting the 4000 beds when looking at the capacity to care for people when it seems like there isn't the staff to actually use those beds?

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 07:21AM

So the clarification letter seems to not have clarified anything.

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1252686495296651266?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1252694214011428865?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1252699362838396929?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1252827880586792963?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1252840183646449664?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1252841867466534912?s=20

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1252842674458988544?s=20

So many more questions it seems.

Joe_ Public · 22-04-2020 07:44AM

Have been wondering that too - are the ventilator and ppe both different schemes or are they lumped together? Not sure.

And surely impossible for them to try to claim ministers could not have been aware of the scheme given Hancock had been talking publicly about it before the closing date for applications. Obfuscation a better alternative.

A Dub in Glasgo · 22-04-2020 07:57AM

I believe there were two schemes, one for ventilators and one for PPE. It would not surprise me if the UK Govt is conflating them to confuse

CelticRambler · 22-04-2020 08:02AM

Aegir wrote: »

So they should have not built it?

No, they should not. It was always too big - just an attempt to out-China China for the likes, and another example of not learning (or refusing to learn?) from more relevant European experience.

The next débacle-in-the-making is the rush to promise a vaccine without going through the enhanced "due care and attention" process that coronaviruses need. Pushing any coronavirus vaccine into human clinical trials is always a delicate process, and doing so with SARS-CoV-2 at this stage is not being led by science, it's being done for purely political reasons.

Joe_ Public · 22-04-2020 08:05AM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I believe there were two schemes, one for ventilators and one for PPE. It would not surprise me if the UK Govt is conflating them to confuse

I thought so too but also that when you signed up for one you signed up for the other. But dont know really. But while McDonald's letter specifies ventilators, Hancock was clearly talking about ppe. They'd wreck your head trying to work out their spin and myriad obfuscations sometimes.

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 08:18AM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I believe there were two schemes, one for ventilators and one for PPE. It would not surprise me if the UK Govt is conflating them to confuse

The letter mentions 4 schemes that the UK wasn't invited to join. But the letterhead talks only of the EU Ventilator scheme. So does he mean they were invited 4 times for the one scheme? Or is it 4 different schemes? I know there is the ventilator scheme and then the PPE scheme that we are waiting for the items to be delivered, but what are the other 2?

Also, can anyone make sense of this sentence?

The Health Secretary has set out the Government's position on this going forward.

So the UK will be joining these schemes as Hancock said yesterday? So the "extra" work for a scheme that isn't delivering ant items as yet is now worth joining from now on. Talk about mixed messaging.

Joe_ Public · 22-04-2020 08:33AM

Its definitely ppe being referred to. I think it's either just pure carelessness or deliberate confusion and, as pointed out, neither are usually the domain of life long civil servants.

As the link below points out, there were 4 sign up dates. 28 Feb, 15, 17, 19 March. They supposedly missed first 3 because of email (despite hancock talking about the scheme on Question Time 13 March) but were present on 19 March and apparently signed up (which Hancock appeared to acknowledge yesterday).

But then - this saga never ends - there was a further meeting of health ministers on 25 March to discuss orders of ppe and it does seem the uk wasnt present. So who knows whether they're in the scheme, or half in it, or just sometimes in it, depending on who you're talking to and on what day.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/uk-missed-three-chances-to-join-eu-scheme-to-bulk-buy-ppe

Zubeneschamali · 22-04-2020 08:51AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Also, can anyone make sense of this sentence?

The Health Secretary has set out the Government's position on this going forward.

I think this means The Health Secretary has told me to stop telling the plain truth or no knighthood

I would guess that his original statement is true, he was directed by the Minister to deny it, so each sentence in the letter is technically true while giving the impression he is denying his original remark.

Leroy42 · 22-04-2020 09:00AM

I think they clearly knew about the scheme but it was decided to opt out coz Brexit.

But Hancock knew it was wrong and as health minister it was his neck on the block so he tried to explain it away in a way that made both the government not look like they put ideology ahead of practicality but also gave him cover.

In most cases the brush off works, example the lack of follow up on Johnson missing Cobra, and that should have been it, but for some reason this issue has stuck and people keep digging.

The answer is either Hancock department choose not to apply or it was taken at cabinet level.

Which 'truth' will they opt for as their story makes no sense.

S.M.B. · 22-04-2020 09:09AM

Enzokk wrote: »

The letter mentions 4 schemes that the UK wasn't invited to join. But the letterhead talks only of the EU Ventilator scheme. So does he mean they were invited 4 times for the one scheme? Or is it 4 different schemes? I know there is the ventilator scheme and then the PPE scheme that we are waiting for the items to be delivered, but what are the other 2?
.

It's more confusing because they are using the term scheme to refer to the over arching agreement which the UK is automatically a part of along with the 4 procurement schemes which member states have to opt in to. One of the other schemes is lab equipment, I'm not sure what the fourth is as I've not heard it mentioned.

No idea why they lead with 'the EU Ventilator scheme'. Not sure if this is how the question was originally framed yesterday when he made the 'political decision' admission.

FTA69 · 22-04-2020 09:15AM

Well over a thousand people a day dying, a government that failed to prepare at key stages and ignored the example of Italy which was staring them in the face.

Still though, they did a good job I suppose, managing to make the UK the worst hit country in Europe.

TheCitizen · 22-04-2020 09:16AM

Water John wrote: »

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.

This. There were many cogent criticisms of Johnson in the thread about his own Covid case also before that thread got closed. When this is over Johnson should be hung drawn and quartered for his gambling with the Covid crisis that bears direct responsibility for deaths in the UK. Ultimately the British electorate elected the Trump wannabe buffoon and you reap what you sew, but like Trump in the US Johnson shouldn’t get away with it.

Water John · 22-04-2020 09:29AM

Since some here are throwing shade on The Guardian, perhaps the FT might be considered a paper of record.
The FT have estimated that the deaths are double what is announced as hospital deaths. They have tracked the death toll over time to verify their figures. There putting UK deaths at 41,000.
https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=283ad07f37-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_04_22_06_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-283ad07f37-189754181

theological · 22-04-2020 09:33AM

Per capita the deaths in the UK are lower than Spain, Italy and France and they have peaked.

Nobody is saying that this isn't tragic but it's not accurate to say that the UK is the worst hit in Europe on this measurement.

Professor Moriarty · 22-04-2020 09:38AM

Water John wrote: »

Since some here are throwing shade on The Guardian, perhaps the FT might be considered a paper of record.
The FT have estimated that the deaths are double what is announced as hospital deaths. They have tracked the death toll over time to verify their figures. There putting UK deaths at 41,000.
https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=283ad07f37-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_04_22_06_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-283ad07f37-189754181

From this organisation showing that the Guardian is the most trusted newspaper in both hardcopy and digital formats.:

Today Pamco has also released for the first time data showing the level of trust in each of the national newspapers in print and online, based on 35,000 face-to-face interviews conducted each year by Ipsos Mori.

Of the national daily print newspapers, 89 per cent of people who said they read the Guardian trust what they read in the title, followed by 84 per cent who trust the i.

The Observer was the most trusted Sunday paper (89 per cent) while the Daily Star Sunday and the Sun on Sunday were the least trusted print newspapers (48 and 49 per cent respectively).

The Guardian and the i were also the most trusted digital newsbrands by their visitors, on 84 per cent and 83 per cent respectively, followed by the Independent and the Times (82 per cent and 81 per cent).

The Sun was the least trusted national newsbrand online (39 per cent) followed by Mail Online, trusted by 46 per cent of its readers.

Joe_ Public · 22-04-2020 09:39AM

Water John wrote: »

Since some here are throwing shade on The Guardian, perhaps the FT might be considered a paper of record.
The FT have estimated that the deaths are double what is announced as hospital deaths. They have tracked the death toll over time to verify their figures. There putting UK deaths at 41,000.
https://www.ft.com/content/67e6a4ee-3d05-43bc-ba03-e239799fa6ab?utm_source=POLITICO.EU&utm_campaign=283ad07f37-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_04_22_06_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_10959edeb5-283ad07f37-189754181

To be exact those 41,000 are excess deaths so not necessarily all down to the virus. But fair to say majority would be i think. In fact i doubt we will ever get an exact figure on the number of deaths.

Enzokk · 22-04-2020 09:41AM

theological wrote: »

Per capita the deaths in the UK are lower than Spain, Italy and France and they have peaked.

Nobody is saying that this isn't tragic but it's not accurate to say that the UK is the worst hit in Europe on this measurement.

Is that on the hospital death only? Are you comparing hospital deaths when looking at France as well? How does that look then?

As for the FT link, here is a couple of charts they have in their story,

https%3A%2F%2Fd6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net%2Fprod%2F08a18580-83f9-11ea-a405-5dea3536f58c-standard.png?fit=scale-down&quality=highest&source=next&width=700

https%3A%2F%2Fd6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net%2Fprod%2Fb82c6ec0-83f4-11ea-8d9b-3ddaa1e421ff-standard.png?fit=scale-down&quality=highest&source=next&width=700

The first one shows their estimation for the actual deaths so far in the UK due to the virus. The second chart shows the extra deaths they have for the same week as compared to previous years.

From the article,

Using this calculation, a conservative estimate of UK excess deaths by April 21 was 41,102.

Joe_ Public · 22-04-2020 09:42AM

theological wrote: »

Per capita the deaths in the UK are lower than Spain, Italy and France and they have peaked.

Nobody is saying that this isn't tragic but it's not accurate to say that the UK is the worst hit in Europe on this measurement.

They are lower than france if you compare "apples and pears" as Jonathan Van Tam referred to it yesterday. France count non hospital deaths and the uk doesnt.

TheCitizen · 22-04-2020 09:45AM

theological wrote: »

Per capita the deaths in the UK are lower than Spain, Italy and France and they have peaked.

Nobody is saying that this isn't tragic but it's not accurate to say that the UK is the worst hit in Europe on this measurement.

Your comment above is invalid. Testing hasn’t been the same across those countries, which of them include deaths in the community outside hospitals etc. We know the UK don’t

theological · 22-04-2020 09:47AM

TheCitizen wrote: »

Your comment above is invalid. Testing hasn’t been the same across those countries, which of them include deaths in the community outside hospitals etc. We know the UK don’t

I'm referring to deaths. Not cases.

You can look at the graph I linked to. Lots of options there for drilling down.

22-04-2020 09:48AM

Enzokk wrote: »

So because you think it works in a certain way you think it may have caused people in the NHS to work twice as hard to buy items they are already buying from the same suppliers, something like that?

But this is a EU project, so you will have your EU bureaucrats doing the work with the information they asked for from those participating. Those needs were asked for at a certain date and then the EU went forward with the scheme to purchase the stock. I don't see where the NHS is doing extra work other to pass up on the chain where they have a shortage, which if the system is working they would know already as you have put out someone would be in charge of this area. But all they would do now is tell them we require gowns as our supply is running short. You can do this while you are on the phone to the supplier as well.

I gave my opinion on how it would work. I would be very very surprised if "EU Bureaucrats" were running this, becuase they wold not have the expertise to do so. They certainly would not be able to manage the contract negotiation and award on behalf of each country.

Enzokk wrote: »

That is the point of this, it takes the pressure off the EU countries and the EU tries to use the clout of 25 countries order together to try and secure the items. What you seemed to try and describe was the NHS having to work twice, once for the EU and once for themselves.

If you can find me a link where it says this scheme takes people from where they are to work on this scheme then I will concede it isn't a great system. But so far all I have seen is that the UK was asked if they participate and if they do, what items do they require. There has been no suggestion of staff having to leave their jobs to work on this.

there is no information on this at all, anywhere. the only thing I have been able to find is something from Estonia saying it is dragging on (after the first tender failed) and something from the EU saying it was a great succes.

zero detail on who was involved and the timelines though.

Enzokk wrote: »

Well in hindsight, with spare capacity all over the country it seems like there was no need. But that is with 20/20 hindsight. The problem I see is that even if there was more patients than the NHS can handle, these new hospitals cannot take them because there isn't nursing staff at the locations. So while the extra beds are great, are they useful?

This sounds eerily familiar to the testing capacity and tests taken debate. Are they counting the 4000 beds when looking at the capacity to care for people when it seems like there isn't the staff to actually use those beds?

why put nurses in a temporary hospital that is being barely used, when the permanent hospitals are working within capacity. Surely it is better to have the staff there than sat around idle waiting for patients to turn up?

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

Comments