I agree.
Although Adam's post is well presented it is written in hindsight.

It's a tough decision to budget for disasters.
Yes it's down to money but if we'd had enough ventilators ready and waiting for this pandemic we would probably have a substandard A&E or not enough beds etc. The likelihood of this happening was low so you go with the priority items.

The test is to be able to react, like getting F1 teams building ventilators or manufacturers of other stuff making gowns etc.

It's no different to insurance. I'm pretty sure you don't have every item in your house insured, along with plumbing and white goods, along with maximum health insurance etc.
You choose what you think is likely against what you can afford and what you can afford to react to if the worse happens.

That sounds like trying to let the Government off the hook...

Of course it's about profit. That 1m can be spent producing something that is in demand where a PROFIT can be made. Of course production can be increased. How many businesses are in the clothing manufacturing business? You only have to look at the example of WW2 to see how businesses can adapt to produce what is needed but the point is that it is a short term reaction to a long term problem. Are you suggesting to me that it is absolutely impossible to maintain a surplus of gear for a pandemic? Of course it isn't impossible but it is against financial interests. Again what your post does is support my argument - market principles and the system as it is hinders our ability to plan for a catastrophe.

I'm not sure if you think I'm saying something different to what I am but the fact that the very system as it is is what is blocking our ability to safeguard lives as you acknolwedge by saying "They can't increase production". You are arguing my point for me. You were doing the same thing by saying it doesn't make business sense to spend say "1 million on surplus gear" or however it was worded. You either spend that 1 million on something so that you are prepared for a pandemic - or you don't - but then the public and people's health pay the price but that is very much a conscious decision make no bones about it.



My post may be written in hindsight but the information governments and scientists have about coronaviruses and pandemics is not, Poptart. As you can see from the information in my previous post there's a certain level of naivety to think that governments have been in the dark about the dangers of an animal coronavirus transmitting to humans. If we just take the SARS pandemic then you have 17 year's worth of preparation and planning to implement should another coronavirus make the leap. This isn't hindsight. It's a well-known consensus amongst the scientific community and more importantly the government. You are letting the government off the hook by trying to infer that it is all well and good saying these things with hindsight. Governments have been planning and preparing for pandemics ever since the discovery of the germ theory to pretend this came from nowhere and nothing could be done except adapt in the short term is an interesting notion. The Sunday Times has today blown wide apart the assertion that nothing could be done. There have been catastrophic failures from the government and an unwillingness to do what had to be done from an early stage. This is in part because we have a government that was more concerned about the short term effect locking down would have on the economy than it was about saving lives and dealing with a pandemic.

With regards to your insurance analogy. If you're referring to a business - a business can produce more if the government is interested in procuring the goods in case of a pandemic. Therefore the demand is created for the business to produce the goods. This requires your government to have its citizens' best interests at heart and a long term strategy. Oh wait.

But let's go right back to the start in China, mid November certain individuals basically 'gagged,' probably literally given who we are talking about. This was inevitable because it was made so by the likes of ourselves and the USA and most other countries by continually getting into bed with China and turning a blind eye to everything that goes on there, it's almost as bad as governments funding middle eastern countries to produce missiles and weaponry, etc, etc, the list is endless. The WHO when finally told in probably mid January also failed to act accordingly, and now Trump has flexed his muscles and cut off funding?! Would be funny if not so tragic eh......

I'm pretty sure a few days ago, Mr. Hancock said it wasn't about supply & demand, it was about distribution and the speed of it actually getting where it needs to be?

I agree with some of this from what I can interpret. Again, why would our government and the USA be "getting into bed with China" as you put it? Market principles. It's in their financial interest. Everyone is well aware of China's emerging role in the world economy. You try and control what you can control as a government and what is in your power to do. It's easy to point fingers at China but it was fast emerging as early as December that it was obvious this would cause major problems worldwide, not just China. This was common knowledge where it matters - the government and the scientific community. The virus first appeared in the UK on 31st January but we were aware of the virus itself and how devastatting it could be in China even earlier. It wasn't until 12th March risk was raised from moderate to high. It wasn't until 20th March that social places were closed and "lockdown" commenced. Operation Cygnus in 2016 underlined severe shortcomings in the health system in the event of a pandemic. It was brushed under the rug and its findings were buried. I'd argue that when you are responsible for public health that is criminally negligible.

I don't think anyone would dispute China have to hold some responsibility here but the whole point is you have contingencies in place. The fact that China delayed alerting the correct authorities does not then absolve the government of a multitude of failings. In fact, some might say that is the major role of the government - to protect and have contigencies when something does go wrong. Until people realise that most crises are rooted in the economic system that they preside over then crises will continue in cycles until the biggest of the lot reaches its conclusion: the climate crisis. When that reaches its conclusion then we can all wave goodbye to each other but I suppose in the short term some people will be ecstatic: they'll have made a few bucks and that's the most important thing.

But Adam, my point is, knowing it could happen again is not the same as spending money in case it does.
If we had empty wards and unused ventilators over the past 17 years I'm pretty sure the Times would also blow that story open too.
There is always an alternative. You have to pick one and go.

I'm pretty sure it is.
As I have mentioned I work in the supply chain.
It has to be "supply and demand" Everyone wants PPE. Not everyone will get it.

All this hindsight stuff is naivety at best - Google 'Operation Cygnus' and educate yourself; all the lessons and warnings were there - including very specifically that the NHS did not have enough ventilators - but the Govt chose to ignore the report; it's not a huge leap to work out that the reason they did that, is entirely what Adam is trying to explain - cost.

That, and the murderous 'herd immunity' strategy, have caused thousands of needless and avoidable deaths, particularly of the most vulnerable people in society; so to say this is not political, and to excuse the current administration because "now is not the time" suggests a level of subservience that is pretty much exactly what they are relying on to avoid being held to account.

Yawn

Not heard anybody say that we have run out of ventilators

Wasn't OP Cygnus to test the response the NHS to a UK pandemic of influenza?

Covid whilst a member of the Corona family is a much wider test of the NHS as this is a world pandemic with every country struggling did you see the miles of ambulances in Moscow unable to get into hospitals with patients, the Japanese Health service at break point I could go on.
I am not defending the Govt I have lost my father law to this it's a mucher bigger problem than the one you highlighted in my humble opinion.

Your post is naive.
The Hospitals/ITU's around the country had enough vents. This is the part of the industry that I work in.
But [uno[/u country had enough vents for Covid-19.
If you feel the need for me to go through the in's and out's re Ventilators, drop me a pm I would be happy to go through it with you.

Well you are obviously closer to the actual reality of this than him? He has been ill advised and his comments are either blatant lies or what then?! The interview took place on the 11th April I think, then 3 or 4 days later it's 'common' knowledge there simply aren't enough?! I don't know, all I do is, stop this at source and it doesn't ever reach this stage, easier said than done i'm sure, but as you mentioned in a previous post about SARS, surely that was some kind of a red flag, some warning that something far worse was just a matter of time, until something was done in the far east. The origin of this outbreak if you like could only have occurred in a certain part of the world because they just don't adhere to hygienic practices and rules? They get away with it and now we are paying the price.

He is closer to the reality of it, plus he isn't trying to influence the debate politically either.

The issues I’ve found with the ventilators is that we have been using anaesthetic machine ventilation quite a lot , which is primarily used for parlayed patient through muscle relaxant drugs, so not advanced enough like the critical care ones for sedated patients who are trying to breath to ween off drugs, or have other advanced breathing needs. Not come across any other ventilator but I wouldn’t want my loved one on something that hasn’t been tried and tested.

What Supplychain do you work in BG?

I can`t really comment on Ventilators as I have not had any involvement in those and If I am honest I don`t know the supply chain well enough to comment on that, but I work for the NHS in a national procurement role so I am relatively close to the the action on this on PPE. I will not share anything that is not already in the public domain, instead just re-iterate the problems that have led us to the so called crisis.

The dedicated channel for the PPE has not been as successful as it should of been in terms of the distribution, IMO down to the management by Clipper in the first instance, an introduction that was made to ease the pressure on Unipart who have come in for some stick in there own part, this has just led to another cog to go through in the chain, another company not familiar with the NHS Procurement landscape so there has been an issue with distribution yes.

There were contingency stock, a great deal of contingency stock actually of PPE, but the increase in demand on some lines far outweigh what could of ever been planned for, believe me if you saw the uptake, you would think exactly the same thing - Lets not forget that Trusts have there own procurement teams so there is no control so to speak on limiting product going into the trust, in essence this means 200+ trusts in England alone acting as separate organisations and not singing from the same hymn sheet - Not only is there a massive demand of PPE going into the Nightingale hospitals in London, Harrogate, Birmingham, Manchester etc the actual issue itself is with the trusts stock piling PPE, panic buying in the first instance, not to mention the various different routes to market for a trust to procure product is massively diluting an already small pool of production in some areas, distributors bringing product in and product sitting there on a shelf until a trust decides that they have no other option other than to be pay through the roof to obtain this product and are willing to explain later down the line compliant routes to market.

Ohh you have woken up have you?! Not that long ago you found this debate tiresome, unless you were yawning for some other reason?! I couldn't care less whether the current health secretary was Tory, Labour, SNP, Monster raving loony party, I was pointing out his comments, which then were at odds with what he and others said just days later, but that's hypocritical, condescending, patronising, egotistical politicians for you.......

Come back when you have got something sensible to say instead of the rubbish you usually talk, and when the likes of you catch me asleep you can pee in my ear, and fwiw the yawn was for bren2k who not for the first time used this thread for political gain, and finally for someone who has no political agenda your not doing bad criticising the government of the day, I don't have a solution but with all the talking your doing perhaps you have, it would be interesting to hear them instead of the moans. HTH

When we cut through the politics and point scoring, I find this debate interesting. Especially from those who are part of the process.
My supply chain knowledge is through retail and technology.
The main thing to realise when planning is knowing what you need and getting what you need is not an easy or quick transition. Looking back and calling out the time things took very rarely come down to effort or lies or poor practise. It's usually a new thing that someone is learning or an extraordinary event that wasn't expected.
It's just the way it is.
The best people don't do it faster, they have contingencies for if it doesn't go fast enough. But when it's this new, you probably don't have much option.

I work for a medical equipment company HV.
As you have said, I will also not go into details re procurement etc.
I don't have the knowledge of PPE currently, but worked for a medical company in 2015-16 in which PPE was the lead product range.

The issue with PPE from my perspective, as a private provider, is that the Govt told us they would be making drops at every service in the early days of this crisis - and that simply didn't happen; some got a delivery, but it was a pathetically small amount - but most didn't. The procurement helpline they provided us either rings out, or has no stock. And to be clear - I'm not looking for freebies - I was quite happy to pay market rates - but they just didn't have it in the way they described - and having spoken to other providers, they have had the same experience. So on that basis, the whole care sector was behind the curve with PPE, because the Govt made early commitments that it couldn't meet - and still hasn't.

More recently, they've partnered with Ebay to provide the NHS PPE website - which is meant to be our one stop shop for all things PPE; 10 days post-launch, it's an absolute shambles. It doesn't work properly and just puts you in an infinite loop of registering - placing an order - registering - placing an order and never actually getting to confirmation. It's a joke.

I'm now buying PPE directly from a supplier who is shipping it in from China - and I'm paying about 4x what I would usually pay; my PPE bill is currently at £100k, and that will continue to rise at c£30k per month for as long as this goes on. The Govt claim to have provided £1.7 billion to LA's for 'resilience payments' to care providers to offset some of this cost - not a penny has reached the front line yet, and some LA's are offering just 1%; others are offering payment on production of fully evidenced accounts to demonstrate our additional costs - which is of course just what we need at a time like this.

Meanwhile, the Govt looks us in the eye and lies about the EU procurement scheme - with some 'missing email' cockamamy story that you would expect from the work experience kid at the office, but not from a Govt Minister.

Party politics aside, we've handled this really badly - our death toll per head of population will be amongst the highest in the world, and even now, we're still not accounting properly for deaths in non-hospital settings; care homes alone will probably add 20% to the total in one go when they finally get around to including them - and significant numbers of those deaths were unnecessary and preventable; we lost 2 weeks of preparedness due to the 'herd immunity' strategy, which is fast being revealed as a eugenicist fantasy with no basis in scientific fact, particularly given that there is still no evidence that immunity comes post-infection.

It's a tragedy - and for those of us on the front line, the sharp end is way worse than the daily press briefings would have you believe.

I presume the eBay system you are referring to is the one highlighted by the Army in today’s update however, he appeared to suggest it was a major success. I guess like most things coming out of these daily reports it will be disproved shortly after it finishes, like the Turkey supplies that were to arrive before they were ordered or why we claimed to have 30,000 respirators to arrive in the next few days that actually turned out to be about 30.
I guess we can see why they would not want a judge lead investigation into their actions. We know that a full test of the impact of a pandemic was undertaken in 2016 unfortunately the report produced was not released.
With regards the daily reports I presume they are aware of the journalist’s questions because they both appeared very knowledgable on the subject of Bristol in relation to the virus.

For someone who supposedly have facts on these accusations you make, you seem to be doing a lot of guessing, I'm sure the government have made mistakes just like the rest of the worlds governing bodies have, but now is not the time for recriminations, why not try and get behind them for once and play the blame game when it's all over.

I think now when people are dying is the time to hold the Government to account. Be a pointless otherwise when the population has been decimated to their favour.