'Cider', the bloke is always one-step behind - totally reactive. I'd like to see him putting one foot forward and not dragging two feet forward.

Can you really see Mr Hancock retaining this department in the next reshuffle? 1.000000000000000000000001 toast!

Absolutely no way that he wasn't heavily involved.
As for the decision, they have no bloody choice, they don't have enough gowns to get through the weekend.

It is a shocking way to manage staff who are under extreme stress.
Go and speak to them, tell them you have a shortage, can they think of a way to get through the next few days whilst new supplies are sourced.

They'll be hacked off but will understand and come up with better solutions than "the suits" will.

Instead, a management memo issued late on a Friday just as the suits slope off home for the weekend.
It looks terrible.

That's because it is, very poor staff management and they are very lucky that the staff are so dedicated to saving lives.

https://twitter.com/Uncle_Albert_/status/1249238956400574464

This issue is as much, if not more, about how the guidance and supply of PPE is being managed as it is about the shortages.

Yes, there is a pandemic, all countries are scrambling to secure the huge volumes that they require.
But let's just look at how yesterdays change in guidance was managed.

Hancock appeared in front of the health select committee in the morning.
At this meeting, he was specifically asked if there would be enough gowns for staff to get through the weekend.

He accepted that the supply of gowns was "a pinch point", but that 55,000 units were being received on Friday.

What he didn't go on to discuss with the committee was that revised guidance on PPE use would be issued later that afternoon.

Given the nature of the topic and its high profile in the media, only a fool would believe that Hancock was not already aware that revised guidance was being worked on, and that it was likely to be issued later that day as it was very likely that shortages would be faced over the course of the weekend.

He decided not to reveal this information to the select committee, deciding that he would avoid the very scrutiny that these committees are created to provide.

As for the decision that resulted in the revised guidance, they have no bloody choice, they don't have enough gowns to get through the weekend.
But how was it managed.

Was the situation discussed with the Royal College of Nursing ?

Did someone go to them and say "look, we're struggling to get sufficient supplies for this weekend, we've got some coming and there are more on the way but we need your help to find a solution to get through the weekend, what can we do, what do you suggest?".

No, that did not happen.

Instead, a memo was issued late on a Friday afternoon that effectively states that best medical practice may be unable to be followed as a result of a shortage of supplies.

And those issuing the memo, "the suits", then slope off home for the weekend.

It is very poor management of staff, staff who are under extreme stress, at the frontline in a horrible battle against a pandemic.

They deserve to be treated to be much better than this, they deserve to be consulted prior to such potentially life threating decisions being imposed on them.

And that's the immediate problem that can be easily resolved, consult with those on the frontline, do not impose.

We can all fully appreciate the extreme difficulties that are being experienced in trying to secure supplies.
And I have no doubt that many people are working very long hours to resolve these difficult problems.

But don't run away from the problem by issuing guidance late on a Friday afternoon that flies in the face of previous guidance and statements without first consulting with the people who are going to have to deal with it at the front line.

They are professionals, and they deserve "the suits" to equally act professionally.

Hancock has made a big issue on several occasions regarding changing PPE specs, each time saying that they have been "guided by the science and medical advice".

This latest shabby revision in guidance has been guided by shortages, not best medical practice.
Simply not good enough, extremely badly handled.

Q. Does best medical practice state that you should use single use gowns on multiple occasions?
Q. If sufficient quantities of single use gown were available, would these "exceptional" measures be required?

Statement from the Royal College of Nursing on English PPE changes :

"The guidance was developed without full and formal consultation with the Royal College of Nursing. It is unacceptable that any healthcare setting in the UK does not provide PPE as required by HSE and set out in existing guidance. Only sound scientific evidence or safety concerns should change the guidance. We have written to the HSE in the strongest terms to voice our concerns. Nursing staff need to be afforded proper protection full stop."

Consult with the staff, they are intelligent people, they will initially be frustrated with the news, but they will are in the best position to find innovative temporary solutions, they do it every day of the week.

Are you sure, do you have any evidence to support your rather sweeping statement ?

No more than you can prove its wrong.

Prove its just "third World Standards" and not the norm and you might have a point.

during the Jeremy hunt pandemic exercise back in the day,as regards ppe ,rather than decide on a costly stockpile programme as the exercise advised,they decided to go on a supply programme of listing firms,finding out where the firms that did ppe were located,obviously no one had the nounce to pipe up and say everyone in the world would be contacting them companies at the same time

Angoose, answer this simple question

Is the whole World engaged in a medical crisis?

That is the answer, if you don't get it then I'm wasting my time.

Angoose
Angoose18 Apr 20 08:40Joined: 18 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 14,779 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
Uncle Albert eh, Crazy

Classic "ignore the message and shoot the messenger" as the message doesn't fit the party narrative.

Fair play to hand job, at least he knows it:

https://twitter.com/JMarkDodds/status/1251239510136049664?s=09

Don't bother to read that post Foinavon, I made that mistake, and found nothing to prove that the new guidance is out of line with what's currently the practice in other health authorities during this crises, though I was assured it did.

There are two types of people in this world. The doers. The people who look at reality as it is, accept it, and deal with the job at hand best they can. If this is a "war" as it is sometimes said, it's these sort of people who win them. The knuckle down and get the job done types.

Then there are the whiners, the finger pointers, the snipers, the what-abouters, the people who use every difficulty as an excuse to score petty points, the "real life is so unfair" types, the people who don't care about reality or the task at hand.
In a "war" these are exactly the sort of useless ****wits you would't want to be serving beside.

I think this crisis very much shows up the two types. I doubt there are many Guardian readers in the SAS.

So the people who got rid of Chamberlain in 1940 were whiners,whingers and Guardian readers ? Don't think so.

There is nothing to prevent you from reading The Daily Goebbels, just recognise it for what it is.

Applying critical thinking ?  Applying political dogma would be more accurate.

Find a post on this forum where I have stated any of the following:

[1] The outbreak of COVID-19 is the fault of the UK government
[2] Obtaining supplies for the NHS, including PPE, is a simple task

Where have I stated that this represents an indication of my impartiality ?

And here is another question for you.
Should any government be immune from being subjected to scrutinty?

You appear not to like answering questions, do you.

"What was it intended to indicate then"
The responses to my post by several forum contributors implicitly suggest that my posts are purely made to attack the government.
You will also notice that I clearly indicated that I had made statements contrary to what I am being accused of. You choose not to refer to those.

Regarding scrutiny, I asked you a direct question regarding this subject.
Once again, you decline to answer, instead continuing with your tactic of deflection.

Of course, you continue to be free to respond in any manner that you choose.