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.