The UK response - Part II - read OP

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1291396413327368202

950 infections

BonnieSituation

Aegir wrote: »

That sort of childishness pretty much sums up 90% of the posts on this thread.

Does "childishness" have a different definition in your dialect?

Aegir wrote: »

Without wishing to sound like Bonnie, is there anything to support this?

The difference being, unlike you, Celtic Rambler will likely respond to your request without getting snippy.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Does "childishness" have a different definition in your dialect?[/quite]

I don’t know. My version means belittling a very good and noble gesture by a very elderly gentleman to score a few rather pathetic political points.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The difference being, unlike you, Celtic Rambler will likely respond to your request without getting snippy.

Let’s see, shall we?

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

Without wishing to sound like Bonnie, is there anything to support this?

Support what? The fact that the UK government deliberately degraded its pandemic response after the publication of the pandemic response report? Yes, it's all been documented (links in the last UK-Covid thread)

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Support what? The fact that the UK government deliberately degraded its pandemic response after the publication of the pandemic response report? Yes, it's all been documented (links in the last UK-Covid thread)

The latter bit where you claim the French did not pay for faulty PPE but the British did.

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

The latter bit where you claim the French did not pay for faulty PPE but the British did.

We know that the British government paid for faulty PPE - it was widely reported at the time. You're the one who raised the point about the French. To my knowledge, the French government did not pay for any faulty PPE; several private companies decided to order directly from Chinese suppliers - instead of going through French/Euro-certified suppliers - and bought non-conforming PPE. If you can find a link that says the French government paid for faulty PPE, let's have it; in the meantime, I can only say that all of mine was perfectly correct.

What seems to have happened in the UK, based on the most recent revelations, is that the British government, instead of giving the work to people who knew what to look for in the products they were ordering, gave the contracts to every Tom, Dick and Harry with ties to the Tory party, regardless of the competence. That is a pattern of behaviour that has been repeated throughout the administration in respect of more than Covid; but this time they've taken it to extremes.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

We know that the British government paid for faulty PPE - it was widely reported at the time. You're the one who raised the point about the French. To my knowledge, the French government did not pay for any faulty PPE; several private companies decided to order directly from Chinese suppliers - instead of going through French/Euro-certified suppliers - and bought non-conforming PPE. If you can find a link that says the French government paid for faulty PPE, let's have it; in the meantime, I can only say that all of mine was perfectly correct.

What seems to have happened in the UK, based on the most recent revelations, is that the British government, instead of giving the work to people who knew what to look for in the products they were ordering, gave the contracts to every Tom, Dick and Harry with ties to the Tory party, regardless of the competence. That is a pattern of behaviour that has been repeated throughout the administration in respect of more than Covid; but this time they've taken it to extremes.

The only thing we know, is that the government paid £41m up front. We don’t know if they have paid for the faulty products. Unless you can show us otherwise.

You made an assertion that the French government did not pay for faulty PPE but you have not been able to support this.

There are a lot of assumptions being portrayed as fact here.

I think that if the British Government had withheld payment for faulty goods, it would have been trumpeted from the rooftops. The fact that nobody actually knows, and that all we have is a deafening silence, speaks volumes to me. If you see what I mean and my mixing of metaphors hasn’t screwed up the point I’m trying to make.

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

You made an assertion that the French government did not pay for faulty PPE but you have not been able to support this.

No, you're right. I cannot support my assertion that the French government didn't pay for the faulty PPE that you claim - but won't prove - they ordered.

Did you pay for that worm-infested Deliveroo order for 15 people you ordered last night?

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

We know that the British government paid for faulty PPE - it was widely reported at the time. You're the one who raised the point about the French. To my knowledge, the French government did not pay for any faulty PPE; several private companies decided to order directly from Chinese suppliers - instead of going through French/Euro-certified suppliers - and bought non-conforming PPE. If you can find a link that says the French government paid for faulty PPE, let's have it; in the meantime, I can only say that all of mine was perfectly correct.

What seems to have happened in the UK, based on the most recent revelations, is that the British government, instead of giving the work to people who knew what to look for in the products they were ordering, gave the contracts to every Tom, Dick and Harry with ties to the Tory party, regardless of the competence. That is a pattern of behaviour that has been repeated throughout the administration in respect of more than Covid; but this time they've taken it to extremes.

I suspect that many governments have bought faulty PPE at some stage during the pandemic. Including the Irish government.

This is the difficulty of having to buy large amounts of PPE quickly during a pandemic.

Aegir isn't objecting to the fact that faulty PPE was received, he is objecting to the fact that people are claiming that this is an issue specific to the UK when it is not.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

The only thing we know, is that the government paid £41m up front. We don’t know if they have paid for the faulty products. Unless you can show us otherwise.

You made an assertion that the French government did not pay for faulty PPE but you have not been able to support this.

There are a lot of assumptions being portrayed as fact here.

Ok as you are unable to search the internet, here you go -

The contract was awarded to Ayanda Capital

Two organisations are seeking judicial review of the decision to award the contract to Ayanda Capital, which describes itself as specialising in “currency trading, offshore property, private equity and trade financing”.

The article goes on that the government was approached by an "adviser" to Ayanda Andrew Mills who also just happens to be adviser to Liz Truss (International Trade minister).

And what was wrong with the masks -

government acknowledged that millions of masks were unsuitable because of concerns that they had ear-loops, rather than head-loops, meaning they cannot be fastened sufficiently tightly.


So it is all there - cronyism, incompetence, spaffing money against a wall.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/06/fifty-million-face-masks-bought-government-cannot-be-used-nhs

OldRio

Thanks to the corrupt UK government that poor old guy, who raised money for the NHS, will have to walk around his garden again.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

This is the difficulty of having to buy large amounts of PPE quickly during a pandemic.

Which is precisely why the pandemic response report highlighted the importance of having strategic stocks. The UK government ignored it and instead reduced their stocks to save money. And then gave the procurement contracts to people with no experience in procurement of medical supplies. Why?

seamus

CelticRambler wrote: »

And then gave the procurement contracts to people with no experience in procurement of medical supplies. Why?

The optimistic answer to this question is the fact that consulting companies and financial houses will take on absolutely any kind of work whatsoever if the contract is large enough. They don't restrict themselves to specific industries, they follow the Branson motto of "say yes and figure out how to do the job later". This is why you end up with the likes of Deloitte running large government software projects and making an absolute balls of it.

And it's possible that the people awarding the contracts didn't have the experience to know this and were impressed by nice graphs and big promises.

Of course, the pragmatic answer is that the person awarding the contract was in some way connected to the company who won it.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Which is precisely why the pandemic response report highlighted the importance of having strategic stocks. The UK government ignored it and instead reduced their stocks to save money. And then gave the procurement contracts to people with no experience in procurement of medical supplies. Why?

Again, Aegir's point seems to acknowledge the fact that there have been problems with procuring PPE. These problems are not unique to the UK however as I've pointed out.

bob mcbob

seamus wrote: »

The optimistic answer to this question is the fact that consulting companies and financial houses will take on absolutely any kind of work whatsoever if the contract is large enough. They don't restrict themselves to specific industries, they follow the Branson motto of "say yes and figure out how to do the job later". This is why you end up with the likes of Deloitte running large government software projects and making an absolute balls of it.

And it's possible that the people awarding the contracts didn't have the experience to know this and were impressed by nice graphs and big promises.

Of course, the pragmatic answer is that the person awarding the contract was in some way connected to the company who won it.

Exactly - who needs experts (so derided by Gove) when you have a lot of Del Boy's in suits for hire.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, you're right. I cannot support my assertion that the French government didn't pay for the faulty PPE that you claim - but won't prove - they ordered.

Did you pay for that worm-infested Deliveroo order for 15 people you ordered last night?

sorry, are you disputing that French health care workers were shipped faulty goods? They may disagree https://www.20minutes.fr/sante/2755787-20200406-video-coronavirus-marseille-surblouses-friables-comme-papier-distribuees-soignants-ap-hm

It aoears they suffered from shortages of PPE as well https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2020-07-02/french-medics-sue-over-mask-equipment-shortages-amid-virus

Which is surprising when you consider they stole PPE destined for other countries https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/coronavirus-european-solidarity-sidelined-as-french-interests-take-priority-1.4216184 you'd have thought they would have had enough.

None of this is isloated though, faulty PPE was being sent all over europe https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52092395

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/some-protection-equipment-from-china-not-ideal-hse-says-1.4219452

bob mcbob wrote: »

Ok as you are unable to search the internet, here you go -

The contract was awarded to Ayanda Capital

Two organisations are seeking judicial review of the decision to award the contract to Ayanda Capital, which describes itself as specialising in “currency trading, offshore property, private equity and trade financing”.

The article goes on that the government was approached by an "adviser" to Ayanda Andrew Mills who also just happens to be adviser to Liz Truss (International Trade minister).

And what was wrong with the masks -

government acknowledged that millions of masks were unsuitable because of concerns that they had ear-loops, rather than head-loops, meaning they cannot be fastened sufficiently tightly.


So it is all there - cronyism, incompetence, spaffing money against a wall.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/06/fifty-million-face-masks-bought-government-cannot-be-used-nhs

Hi Bob, do you know what "Payment Terms" are?

bob mcbob

theological wrote: »

Again, Aegir's point seems to acknowledge the fact that there have been problems with procuring PPE. These problems are not unique to the UK however as I've pointed out.

Yes but it is not just PPE that is the big problem -
- contract tracing app - cronyism, incompetence, money spaffed
- track and trace - cronyism, incompetence, money spaffed
- government messaging - cronyism, incompetence, money spaffed

there is a pattern emerging here.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

Hi Bob, do you know what "Payment Terms" are?

Yes I do.

Do yo know what PPE is used for?
I wonder if anybody died because of this contract being awarded?

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

Yes I do.

so you understand that although the NHS has taken deliery, it dos not necessarily follow that they have been paid for?

bob mcbob wrote: »

Do yo know what PPE is used for?
I wonder if anybody died because of this contract being awarded?

ooh, let me think, is it used for personal protection per chance?

none of the masks in question have been issued, according to the articles linked, so it is very unlikely.

I expect a few Guardian journalists suffered premature ejaculations after the story broke though.

A Dub in Glasgo

Aegir wrote: »

so you understand that although the NHS has taken deliery, it dos not necessarily follow that they have been paid for?

I would suggest it is more likely that the scope of the procurement did not specify the exact requirements rather than your suggestion which is the factory messed up and supplied the wrong PPE

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

so you understand that although the NHS has taken deliery, it dos not necessarily follow that they have been paid for?



ooh, let me think, is it used for personal protection per chance?

none of the masks in question have been issued, according to the articles linked, so it is very unlikely.

I expect a few Guardian journalists suffered premature ejaculations after the story broke though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841

According to legal papers seen by the BBC, the government says these masks will now not be used in the NHS because of a safety concern about whether they would fit adequately.

If the government is taking legal action against Ayanda then that suggests money has been paid - what do you think?

Do you know about logistics?

How about this scenario at the height of the crisis - where do stand on PPE?
-We are covered for masks for a month as Ayanda Capital are delivering 50 million in April so lets now focus on getting gowns immediately and more masks delivered for May.

Very Trumpian - shoot the messenger (Guardian)

RobMc59

bob mcbob wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841

According to legal papers seen by the BBC, the government says these masks will now not be used in the NHS because of a safety concern about whether they would fit adequately.

If the government is taking legal action against Ayanda then that suggests money has been paid - what do you think?

Do you know about logistics?

How about this scenario at the height of the crisis - where do stand on PPE?
-We are covered for masks for a month as Ayanda Capital are delivering 50 million in April so lets now focus on getting gowns immediately and more masks delivered for May.

Very Trumpian - shoot the messenger (Guardian)

Could have been worse,according to this link,Belgium found animal faeces in some masks they received.
https://euobserver.com/coronavirus/147958

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

sorry, are you disputing that French health care workers were shipped faulty goods? They may disagree https://www.20minutes.fr/sante/2755787-20200406-video-coronavirus-marseille-surblouses-friables-comme-papier-distribuees-soignants-ap-hm

On the basis of that quote, yes: 300 faulty coveralls in a lot of 20400 - 0.15% so quite a lot less than the 50% you were citing earlier. Oh, and these were drawn from stock ordered before the pandemic. In my experience, that'd be a reasonably typical failure rate for a disposable item in the healthcare environment. Oh, and the problem was identified as being due to a number of boxes having become damp during storage - in France.

Seeing as that's the standard at which you're debating, I'm off out to spend quality time with my tomatoes.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I would suggest it is more likely that the scope of the procurement did not specify the exact requirements rather than your suggestion which is the factory messed up and supplied the wrong PPE

It looks like the masks were ordered and delivered to the correct standard, but ear loops/head band fitting doesn’t fall in to the scope of the standard for some reason.

So I guess as we’ve probably all found out in the last few weeks, ear loop fittings are ok for some, not for others.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

On the basis of that quote, yes: 300 faulty coveralls in a lot of 20400 - 0.15% so quite a lot less than the 50% you were citing earlier. Oh, and these were drawn from stock ordered before the pandemic. In my experience, that'd be a reasonably typical failure rate for a disposable item in the healthcare environment. Oh, and the problem was identified as being due to a number of boxes having become damp during storage - in France.

Seeing as that's the standard at which you're debating, I'm off out to spend quality time with my tomatoes.

I find it almost comical that you are trying to deny there were problems with getting PPE and with some of the standard of PPE when it arrived?

good to know you have tomatoes with you in cloud cuckoo land.

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841

According to legal papers seen by the BBC, the government says these masks will now not be used in the NHS because of a safety concern about whether they would fit adequately.

If the government is taking legal action against Ayanda then that suggests money has been paid - what do you think?

Do you know about logistics?

How about this scenario at the height of the crisis - where do stand on PPE?
-We are covered for masks for a month as Ayanda Capital are delivering 50 million in April so lets now focus on getting gowns immediately and more masks delivered for May.

Very Trumpian - shoot the messenger (Guardian)

The legal papers were issued by The Good Law People, they do not relate to any disputes between Ayanda and the Government.

Enzokk

Aegir wrote: »

It looks like the masks were ordered and delivered to the correct standard, but ear loops/head band fitting doesn’t fall in to the scope of the standard for some reason.

So I guess as we’ve probably all found out in the last few weeks, ear loop fittings are ok for some, not for others.

We will have to see, but it seems like the standard was for head straps and not around the ear, which is what was delivered,

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1291251935564242944?s=20

Aegir wrote: »

The legal papers were issued by The Good Law People, they do not relate to any disputes between Ayanda and the Government.

You would have thought had a company not been paid for a contract that big they would have made a fuss about it to the Good Law Project (note the name, not Good Law People) to keep their name clear. But I don't know if they were paid on delivery or ahead of schedule or upon inspection of the goods and neither do you. What we do have is the UK government stating that 50 million masks cannot be used in the NHS and will not be used. But they do not say whether the masks will be returned or money be withheld from Ayanda Capital.

It is apparent again that you either haven't read the links provided on the contract. The information is there about the head straps or ear straps. This is not a case of it being okay for one and not for another, it just seems like a incompetent government was scrambling due to their own failures and as such they have now wasted money on items that are worthless for the NHS. The fact that the contract was going to go to an adviser of the DIT but he facilitated it with Ayanda instead because he wasn't set up for international payments yet with his company worth £100 is probably just some coincidence.

I will say again, it appears that the UK government was going to give a company that has nothing to its name and it seems only worth £100 a £252m contract to supply PPE.

bob mcbob

It seems that the "world beating" test and trace system isn't working.

Thousands are now being stood down in England with more of their work conducted by local staff with knowledge of their area. The Department of Health has said that this is to provide a "more tailored approach".
But critics will see it as the latest example of the government departing from its centralised approach to tackling the outbreak.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53723398

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

It seems that the "world beating" test and trace system isn't working.

Thousands are now being stood down in England with more of their work conducted by local staff with knowledge of their area. The Department of Health has said that this is to provide a "more tailored approach".
But critics will see it as the latest example of the government departing from its centralised approach to tackling the outbreak.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53723398

That doesn’t say anything about it not working. Reaching 90% of contacts seems pretty good. I’m not sure how that compares with other nations though.

It seemed pretty clear early on that they had too many people though, so a reduction in numbers seemed on the cards. It makes sense for this to be more local as well, especially when it needs to tackle local outbreaks in certain parts of the community.

bob mcbob

Aegir wrote: »

That doesn’t say anything about it not working. Reaching 90% of contacts seems pretty good. I’m not sure how that compares with other nations though.

It seemed pretty clear early on that they had too many people though, so a reduction in numbers seemed on the cards. It makes sense for this to be more local as well, especially when it needs to tackle local outbreaks in certain parts of the community.

Even the Tory supporting Telegraph says it is failing

The failing test and trace system will be scaled back under plans to replace thousands of call centre workers with council staff knocking on doors....

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/10/troubled-test-trace-system-scaled-back-local-authorities-told/

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

That doesn’t say anything about it not working. Reaching 90% of contacts seems pretty good. I’m not sure how that compares with other nations though.

Read again. It's the local public health teams who have been reaching 90% of known contacts. The centralised call centre teams reached a high of 70%, but their performance has fallen since then.

Aegir wrote: »

It seemed pretty clear early on that they had too many people though, so a reduction in numbers seemed on the cards. It makes sense for this to be more local as well, especially when it needs to tackle local outbreaks in certain parts of the community.

They put too many resources into the centralised call centres, and not enough into the (more old-fashioned, but more effective) local teams. The rebalancing does indeed make sense, and its based on the observation that, internationally, decntralised and locally-directed contract tracing efforts have generally been more successful than centralised and nationally-directed efforts.

Which means the reallocation of resources is a good decision, and should be applauded. But it does raise the question of why the original decision was the other way. That, with hindsight, was the wrong decision, and it is worth asking how the wrong decision came to be made, and whether there is anything to be learned from this.

There's perhaps a pattern here, because of course the UK government also made the wrong decision with respect to the contract tracing app, and the decision was again to prioritise centralisation of data rather than a distributed system. So there's possibly a systemic preference for centralisation that isnt' based on prioritising effective systems, but on something else (like an appetite for data harvesting and exploitation).

Joe_ Public

It makes no sense for contract tracing not to be conducted around localised networks. It never did. Contact tracing actually originated in England in the 19th century i believe, it's not exactly a recent discovery. The Salisbury poisonings are a recent example of how it works most efficiently. They didnt need 4/5 months to work that out and they were told repeatedly by many people that that was the case. They just never listened.

One of the most critical questions if or when an inquiry is launched is why they commited to such a strictly centralised approach, spaffing millions on bungling private operations to build systems from scratch, when there was already a huge amount of expertise in local labs and hospitals that was being shunted aside and basically ignored.

Why did they sign up to those data privacy laws when building the private labs? Both the welsh and northern ire admins refused to sign up to those privacy laws because they could see the problems that would ensue. England ploughed on regardless.

Last week or the week before they announced that people would have to quarantine for 10 days instead of 7. Why change that now? Why wasnt it 10 when the outbreak was at its worst 3 months ago? So much of it makes so little sense and it never will.

Seth Brundle

Joe_ Public wrote: »

One of the most critical questions if or when an inquiry is launched is why they commited to such a strictly centralised approach, spaffing millions on bungling private operations to build systems from scratch, when there was already a huge amount of expertise in local labs and hospitals that was being shunted aside and basically ignored.

I do not believe that there will ever be an inquiry into the UK government's response into the virus. Whatever about the crooked Tory MPs, at this stage there are far too many departmental seniors caught up in it by following decisions that went against the greater good or that were made primarily for self-interest purposes.
There may be a form of Widgery whitewash which will appease many of the tabloids and keep things quiet until the official papers are released in decades to come.

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I do not believe that there will ever be an inquiry into the UK government's response into the virus. Whatever about the crooked Tory MPs, at this stage there are far too many departmental seniors caught up in it by following decisions that went against the greater good or that were made primarily for self-interest purposes.
There may be a form of Widgery whitewash which will appease many of the tabloids and keep things quiet until the official papers are released in decades to come.

I think a lot of Tory MPs will also be calling for an inquiry. It is too simplistic to suggest that people are "crooked" just because you happen to dislike the Tories.

It would be ludicrous to think that there wouldn't be one because it is one of the biggest challenges the UK has faced since World War 2.

Every country should be considering this.

It is worth pointing out that at this stage the UK has one of the lower 14 day incidence rates in Europe.

Dave0301

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I do not believe that there will ever be an inquiry into the UK government's response into the virus. Whatever about the crooked Tory MPs, at this stage there are far too many departmental seniors caught up in it by following decisions that went against the greater good or that were made primarily for self-interest purposes.
There may be a form of Widgery whitewash which will appease many of the tabloids and keep things quiet until the official papers are released in decades to come.

Agreed. It would be a disaster for all involved.

Therefore, another day and another case of accusations of cronyism with regards to the Tories. Argar has been doing the rounds defending test & trace this morning, but was caught out in regards to his connections to Serco, whom have been accused of making a mess of the whole thing.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1293102650830073856

He also compared the fact that the UK has traced more contacts then New Zealand as a success.

Someone might need to sit him down and explain that having to trace thousands of contacts compared to hundreds is not a good thing :pac:

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

It would be ludicrous to think that there wouldn't be one because it is one of the biggest challenges the UK has faced since World War 2.

And yet the ludicrous awarding of contracts to allies of the Tories continues.
The UK is getting good at doing ludicrous things!

RobMc59

theological wrote: »

I think a lot of Tory MPs will also be calling for an inquiry. It is too simplistic to suggest that people are "crooked" just because you happen to dislike the Tories.

It would be ludicrous to think that there wouldn't be one because it is one of the biggest challenges the UK has faced since World War 2.

Every country should be considering this.

It is worth pointing out that at this stage the UK has one of the lower 14 day incidence rates in Europe.

I doubt the brit bashers will even acknowledge that link theo.

Dave0301

RobMc59 wrote: »

I doubt the brit bashers will even acknowledge that link theo.

Ireland's handling of the meat plant outbreaks has been less than satisfactory, and I know a lot of people back home have issues with how the Irish Govt have been dealing with things.

But as this is the thread on the UK response, do you have anything to offer apart from deflection?

theological

Dave0301 wrote: »

Ireland's handling of the meat plant outbreaks has been less than satisfactory, and I know a lot of people back home have issues with how the Irish Govt have been dealing with things.

But as this is the thread on the UK response, do you have anything to offer apart from deflection?

Providing the link wasn't deflection. It contains a table with 14 day incidence rates that I thought was helpful. The UK is actually doing rather well at the present time based on that criteria.

To the other post in respect to contracts. I can understand why lengthy procurement processes would have hindered getting urgently needed supplies, and I can see why in exceptional circumstances they may need to be hastened, or bypassed. It is pretty far down on my list of complaints about how the UK has handled the virus so far.

Dave0301

theological wrote: »

Providing the link wasn't deflection. It contains a table with 14 day incidence rates that I thought was helpful. The UK is actually doing rather well at the present time based on that criteria.

To the other post in respect to contracts. I can understand why lengthy procurement processes would have hindered getting urgently needed supplies, and I can see why in exceptional circumstances they may need to be hastened, or bypassed. It is pretty far down on my list of complaints about how the UK has handled the virus so far.

I wasn't referencing your link to the table as deflection, more so the other poster stating it wouldn't be taken into account. It is clear to see that UK daily cases are holding their own against other EU countries now.

As to the awarding of contracts without a proper tendering process, I can see the point you make. For me though, there have been too many awarded to friends of friends that have no real experience in the areas they have been awarded. This had then negatively impacted on the Covid-19 response. Or at the very least, given the perception that things could have been handled better.

theological

Dave0301 wrote: »

I wasn't referencing your link to the table as deflection, more so the other poster stating it wouldn't be taken into account. It is clear to see that UK daily cases are holding their own against other EU countries now.

As to the awarding of contracts without a proper tendering process, I can see the point you make. For me though, there have been too many awarded to friends of friends that have no real experience in the areas they have been awarded. This had then negatively impacted on the Covid-19 response. Or at the very least, given the perception that things could have been handled better.

What do you mean by the bolded comment? The linked content is based on a comparison of 14 day incidence and it shows the UK on the lower end of the table not much behind Ireland. The prevalence figures weight it by 100,000. This is the correct way to read the figures because obviously we should consider the incidence in proportion rather than absolutely.

The latest data from the KCL tracker shows that there are 1359 daily new cases which is lower than at the start of July. The R is now at 0.9 according to this data.

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

I doubt the brit bashers will even acknowledge that link theo.

Who are the brit bashers?
Surely if there is something against the rules, you should report it.
Or are you referring to those who criticise the efforts by the British government in response to the pandemic (and similarly those who oppose the economic armageddon that is Brexit)

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Read again. It's the local public health teams who have been reaching 90% of known contacts. The centralised call centre teams reached a high of 70%, but their performance has fallen since then.


They put too many resources into the centralised call centres, and not enough into the (more old-fashioned, but more effective) local teams. The rebalancing does indeed make sense, and its based on the observation that, internationally, decntralised and locally-directed contract tracing efforts have generally been more successful than centralised and nationally-directed efforts.

Which means the reallocation of resources is a good decision, and should be applauded. But it does raise the question of why the original decision was the other way. That, with hindsight, was the wrong decision, and it is worth asking how the wrong decision came to be made, and whether there is anything to be learned from this.

There's perhaps a pattern here, because of course the UK government also made the wrong decision with respect to the contract tracing app, and the decision was again to prioritise centralisation of data rather than a distributed system. So there's possibly a systemic preference for centralisation that isnt' based on prioritising effective systems, but on something else (like an appetite for data harvesting and exploitation).

We discussed contact tracing I believe when they were setting up their system and how there was a system in place already. The UK decided to bypass that system of using the local PHE expertise and expanding it and went with their new centralised system. The fact that one of the companies involved was one of those that a Health Minister used to work for is probably another coincidence
along with the DIT adviser almost getting a £252m contract for his £100 company.

Now when the problems are being laid bare of the failures of this we are told the millions being wasted is far down the list of priorities. The cost of these failures will be many times more the money people raised for Captain Tom, but it is not a priority.

Wait, look over there are people in dinghy's trying to get into the UK. Let's forget about what is happening elsewhere and focus on them instead!

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Who are the brit bashers?
Surely if there is something against the rules, you should report it.
Or are you referring to those who criticise the efforts by the British government in response to the pandemic (and similarly those who oppose the economic armageddon that is Brexit)

Just more deflection really. Anytime a story is posted about some new contract going to a company that has links to someone within the current government it will be considered Brit bashing.

You can also see it when there is a post about crowded beaches, our friend Aegir will ask about a beach in Ireland that was crowded as well. What that has to do with the "UK response" is a mystery, but it makes him feel better so there is that I suppose.

Enzokk

Here is a call from someone being contracted by Serco to the track and trace. There was links the other day to callers making 2 calls in total and another 4 calls since they were employed, but this person has not made a call in 4 months.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1293121293529776129?s=20

Now if I understand this correctly, he is not contracted by Serco but by an agency who has the contract with Serco. So if there is a investigation into employment practices at Track and Trace, Serco can claim none of their employees are involved as those are not employed by them. But the UK Government is paying Serco for the service and Serco is paying the agency. I doubt anyone is losing money from this contract as everyone will be taking their cut as well.

bob mcbob

theological wrote: »

Providing the link wasn't deflection. It contains a table with 14 day incidence rates that I thought was helpful. The UK is actually doing rather well at the present time based on that criteria.

To the other post in respect to contracts. I can understand why lengthy procurement processes would have hindered getting urgently needed supplies, and I can see why in exceptional circumstances they may need to be hastened, or bypassed. It is pretty far down on my list of complaints about how the UK has handled the virus so far.

Oh I agree.

However this is a story from April about actual UK PPE suppliers being ignored. Obviously they were not needed because there were a bunch of Tory cronies who could sort everything out

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/23/dozens-uk-firms-ppe-offers-ignored-supplies-set-sold-abroad-12599401/

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

The UK is actually doing rather well at the present time based on that criteria.

theological wrote: »

The linked content is based on a comparison of 14 day incidence and it shows the UK on the lower end of the table not much behind Ireland. The prevalence figures weight it by 100,000. This is the correct way to read the figures because obviously we should consider the incidence in proportion rather than absolutely.

From the same data set (today's edition):
- Ireland (and France and Italy) 0.2 deaths/100k
- UK 1.2 deaths/100k

How do you spin that as "doing rather well"? That puts the UK's life-saving efforts 4th on the list of worst performers, after Romania, Bulgaria and Luxembourg. Sixth place is held by Sweden, at 0.6/100k

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

From the same data set (today's edition):
- Ireland (and France and Italy) 0.2 deaths/100k
- UK 1.2 deaths/100k

How do you spin that as "doing rather well"? That puts the UK's life-saving efforts 4th on the list of worst performers, after Romania, Bulgaria and Luxembourg. Sixth place is held by Sweden, at 0.6/100k

I'm referring to new cases (we were speaking about the incidence of the virus) rather than deaths. Deaths tell us about the past, and reported deaths are often historical going back weeks. I agree the UK hasn't done well in respect to deaths.

I'm happy for you to change the topic if you'd like.

Dave0301

theological wrote: »

What do you mean by the bolded comment? The linked content is based on a comparison of 14 day incidence and it shows the UK on the lower end of the table not much behind Ireland. The prevalence figures weight it by 100,000. This is the correct way to read the figures because obviously we should consider the incidence in proportion rather than absolutely.

The latest data from the KCL tracker shows that there are 1359 daily new cases which is lower than at the start of July. The R is now at 0.9 according to this data.

I meant that I agreed with your point. As in the UK daily figures are in line or better than other EU countries.

bob mcbob

bob mcbob wrote: »

Oh I agree.

However this is a story from April about actual UK PPE suppliers being ignored. Obviously they were not needed because there were a bunch of Tory cronies who could sort everything out

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/23/dozens-uk-firms-ppe-offers-ignored-supplies-set-sold-abroad-12599401/

Or maybe they were part of the £5.5bn ordered at the end of April?