RugbyRebels

Donny osmond wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Panorama also investigated changes to the government guidance on what PPE NHS staff should wear.
In January this year, Covid-19 was officially designated a High Consequence Infectious Disease (HCID). The decision was made in consultation with a group of British experts.
A Health and Safety Executive evaluation of PPE published in 2019 had already recommended that all healthcare workers should wear a gown, FFP3 respirator mask and visor when dealing with HCIDs.
Those recommendations were in line with existing UK guidance.
An NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
Image caption
An NHS worker is pictured wearing a plastic bag as a hair cover
But on 13 March this year, the government downgraded its guidance on PPE and told NHS staff they were safe to wear less protective aprons and basic surgical masks in all but the most high risk circumstances.
Panorama understands that on the same day, the government took steps to remove Covid-19 from the list of HCIDs.
But the experts who had recommended the coronavirus be put on the list in the first place were not consulted. Instead, the government asked its Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP).
Panorama has discovered that the ACDP was only asked to consider the matter on the morning of its 13 March meeting. It was added to the committee's agenda under "any other business".
The committee backed the decision to remove Covid-19 from the HCID list, but sources on that committee have told Panorama that it had to be, in part, a pragmatic decision based on the availability of PPE.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52440641

With the caveat that the BBC news and current affairs output is shockingly sensationalistic (and I didn't see Panorama, don't watch it as its so untrustworthy), a valid criticism of the govts actions so far is the absence of effectively distributing PPE to front line staff. I would go so far as to say both UK and Scot govts seem to have been criminally negligent in this regard.

But it gives us a problem. Calling for heads to roll mid pandemic and when it looks like the original problems are being corrected is potentially a recipe for just creating further problems, but leaving it for a whitewash of an enquiry (at least) 12 months hence would let it get hidden in amongst all the other noise that will be around at that time. So what do we do?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

canta_brian wrote:Has anyone seen the panorama from last night? I have only read some of the reporting that goes alongside it (and posted a link in a previous post).

I will be watching this later on. Sounds damning.

Sandydragon wrote:AS I've written previously, more weight for the inevitable enquiry once this is resolved. Removing key people now is pointless. I don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to screw this up and if they have learnt lessons along the way then great. Swapping them out will cause disruption and we really don't need that.

And unfortunately Panorama lost its shit a long time ago and is now as sensationalist as any other media outlet.

The time and place is the aftermath and the inquiry where all the facts can be reviewed (hopefully with some sympathy that decision makers didn't necessarily have all the information they needed). If there is blame that requires someone to resign then fair enough, I suspect that we will identify a host of systemic failures that is no one person's fault and they will require improvement. I also have no doubt that there will be am media stores demanding hellfire and vengeance on anyone who didn't act perfectly throughout and sensible improvements will get lost in the hysteria.

fivepointer wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Has anyone seen the panorama from last night? I have only read some of the reporting that goes alongside it (and posted a link in a previous post).

I will be watching this later on. Sounds damning.

It is damning. Govt poorly prepared from the outset and slow to act when it became obvious the direction the virus was going in. Nothing we didnt know or suspected already but the health care workers testimony just added weight to that view.
The programme contained the rather startling revelation that on 19 March the Govt removed Covid19 from the HCID list (high consequence infectious diseases) after it had put it on there in January.

see here for more info - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-conseq ... eases-hcid

BTW Definition of HCID
In the UK, a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) is defined according to the following criteria:

acute infectious disease
typically has a high case-fatality rate
may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment
often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly
ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings
requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:AS I've written previously, more weight for the inevitable enquiry once this is resolved. Removing key people now is pointless. I don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to screw this up and if they have learnt lessons along the way then great. Swapping them out will cause disruption and we really don't need that.

And unfortunately Panorama lost its shit a long time ago and is now as sensationalist as any other media outlet.

The time and place is the aftermath and the inquiry where all the facts can be reviewed (hopefully with some sympathy that decision makers didn't necessarily have all the information they needed). If there is blame that requires someone to resign then fair enough, I suspect that we will identify a host of systemic failures that is no one person's fault and they will require improvement. I also have no doubt that there will be am media stores demanding hellfire and vengeance on anyone who didn't act perfectly throughout and sensible improvements will get lost in the hysteria.

Your faith is unwavering.

I would be more comfortable with an enquiry is there weren’t so many examples of them being buried by government. How’s that Russia report disclosure coming? The investigation into the Jennifer Acuri issue? How long did it take to get to the bottom of Hilsborough?

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:AS I've written previously, more weight for the inevitable enquiry once this is resolved. Removing key people now is pointless. I don't believe anyone is deliberately trying to screw this up and if they have learnt lessons along the way then great. Swapping them out will cause disruption and we really don't need that.

And unfortunately Panorama lost its shit a long time ago and is now as sensationalist as any other media outlet.

The time and place is the aftermath and the inquiry where all the facts can be reviewed (hopefully with some sympathy that decision makers didn't necessarily have all the information they needed). If there is blame that requires someone to resign then fair enough, I suspect that we will identify a host of systemic failures that is no one person's fault and they will require improvement. I also have no doubt that there will be am media stores demanding hellfire and vengeance on anyone who didn't act perfectly throughout and sensible improvements will get lost in the hysteria.

Your faith is unwavering.

I would be more comfortable with an enquiry is there weren’t so many examples of them being buried by government. How’s that Russia report disclosure coming? The investigation into the Jennifer Acuri issue? How long did it take to get to the bottom of Hilsborough?

It’s got nothing to do with faith. But I’m not daft enough to expect a major enquiry in the middle of a crisis, and without a major enquiry all of the facts won’t be available so anything else is just speculation. It’s about being practical.

If Starmer is even vaguely competent he will call for an enquiry immediately the crisis is over and keep the pressure on. He will have public interest on his side. Enquiries take a while to complete, and as frustrating as that is it’s better than reaching half arsed opinions based on media reports and rumour.

Again, nothing to do with faith or trust in this government. But an opinion based on the reality of the situation.

Donny osmond wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:To report back to the PM

I’m sure that’s the case. I’m also sure that there is nobody in government with a better understanding of medical science than Cummings and therefore nobody better placed to report back to the PM. I’m also sure Trump is a stable genius and that a UV lamp will sort this whole issue.

Fair point, I'm sure there are plenty who could understand the science better (although, again, that's conjecture on our part), and I'm certainly not promoting Cummings as someone I would have at those meetings, but the PM knows and trusts him and that's really what matters as far as communication goes.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

canta_brian wrote: I’m sure that’s the case. I’m also sure that there is nobody in government with a better understanding of medical science than Cummings and therefore nobody better placed to report back to the PM. I’m also sure Trump is a stable genius and that a UV lamp will sort this whole issue.

Fair point, I'm sure there are plenty who could understand the science better (although, again, that's conjecture on our part), and I'm certainly not promoting Cummings as someone I would have at those meetings, but the PM knows and trusts him and that's really what matters as far as communication goes.

No doubt the PM's trust in Cummings is the reason why he's in those meetings. But having a non-scientist try to convey scientific information to another non-scientist makes for pretty poor communication. If there are any misunderstandings or non-scientific biases on either side, there's no one to pick it up.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

canta_brian wrote: Your faith is unwavering.

I would be more comfortable with an enquiry is there weren’t so many examples of them being buried by government. How’s that Russia report disclosure coming? The investigation into the Jennifer Acuri issue? How long did it take to get to the bottom of Hilsborough?

It’s got nothing to do with faith. But I’m not daft enough to expect a major enquiry in the middle of a crisis, and without a major enquiry all of the facts won’t be available so anything else is just speculation. It’s about being practical.

If Starmer is even vaguely competent he will call for an enquiry immediately the crisis is over and keep the pressure on. He will have public interest on his side. Enquiries take a while to complete, and as frustrating as that is it’s better than reaching half arsed opinions based on media reports and rumour.

Again, nothing to do with faith or trust in this government. But an opinion based on the reality of the situation.

Well I guess that’s an improvement from suggesting I was projecting or engaging in hyperbole.

I “project” that we now know why Cummings needed to be on Sage. Having a legal requirement to protect staff was a problem for this government and it got sorted.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

canta_brian wrote: I’m sure that’s the case. I’m also sure that there is nobody in government with a better understanding of medical science than Cummings and therefore nobody better placed to report back to the PM. I’m also sure Trump is a stable genius and that a UV lamp will sort this whole issue.

Fair point, I'm sure there are plenty who could understand the science better (although, again, that's conjecture on our part), and I'm certainly not promoting Cummings as someone I would have at those meetings, but the PM knows and trusts him and that's really what matters as far as communication goes.

No doubt the PM's trust in Cummings is the reason why he's in those meetings. But having a non-scientist try to convey scientific information to another non-scientist makes for pretty poor communication. If there are any misunderstandings or non-scientific biases on either side, there's no one to pick it up.

Mellsblue wrote:Edit: What’s the point.

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Edit: What’s the point.

I know, I know.

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Edit: What’s the point.

I know, I know.

You two should get a room

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Donny osmond wrote: Fair point, I'm sure there are plenty who could understand the science better (although, again, that's conjecture on our part), and I'm certainly not promoting Cummings as someone I would have at those meetings, but the PM knows and trusts him and that's really what matters as far as communication goes.

No doubt the PM's trust in Cummings is the reason why he's in those meetings. But having a non-scientist try to convey scientific information to another non-scientist makes for pretty poor communication. If there are any misunderstandings or non-scientific biases on either side, there's no one to pick it up.

Except that the scientific advisers will attend COBRA (or at least the key players from Sage will represent the collective views there).

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I know, I know.

You two should get a room

We did but Dom was sat in the corner taking notes for Boris.

Donny osmond wrote:Couple of very interesting graphs from twitter on that very subject SoM...

From Ed Conway, Sky news editor who is usually good about checking his stuff, I don't know where he gets his figures, he just says they're from something called EuroMomo and there are replies saying the data on the UK govt site shows a different picture.

fivepointer wrote:Chris Giles (FT reporter) reckons its a bit more.

"Today, after shockingly high @ONS death figures, a cautious estimate of the number of UK people who have died directly or indirectly due to the coronavirus pandemic is 46,000"

see @chrisgiles_

Digby wrote:If people get blamed for an excess mortality now will they be praised for a mortality shortage in the months to come if being hopeful?