Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Your health minister, get it done within the UK.
WAC.
WAC.
Show More
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.
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.
They have 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".
Now, they are being guided by shortages, not best medical practice.
Now, they are being guided by shortages, not best medical practice.
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.
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.
Big deal, new guidance probably isn't out of line with whats happening in almost every health service in the World.
Are you sure, do you have any evidence to support your rather sweeping statement ?
Maybe if Britain was not still arguing about Brexit then there would have been time for other things these sustained and protracted attempts to foil Brexit have cost lives and some people should be ashamed of themselves
Oh dear, the UK resorting to third world standards is conformation that this is the norm in other developed countries.
You really do require to open your eyes and begin to think things through, engage in some critical thinking.
You really do require to open your eyes and begin to think things through, engage in some critical thinking.
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
potlis, answer these two simple questions
Q1. Does best medical practice state that you should use single use gowns on multiple occasions?
Q2. If sufficient quantities of single use gown were available, would these "exceptional" measures be required?
Q1. Does best medical practice state that you should use single use gowns on multiple occasions?
Q2. If sufficient quantities of single use gown were available, would these "exceptional" measures be required?
Angoose, answer this simple question
Is the whole World engaged in a medical crisis?
Is the whole World engaged in a medical crisis?
That's not an answer, that's a deflection.
Please answer the simple questions and also please read the full content of the post I made at 09:43 BST.
Please answer the simple questions and also please read the full content of the post I made at 09:43 BST.
That is the answer, if you don't get it then I'm wasting my time.
The answer to your deflective question is contained very early within the post I made at 09:43 BST.
Meanwhile, you continue not to answer my two very simple questions.
As such, I have just one more question for you.
Are you Matt Hancock ?
Meanwhile, you continue not to answer my two very simple questions.
As such, I have just one more question for you.
Are you Matt Hancock ?
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.
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
https://twitter.com/JMarkDodds/status/1251239510136049664?s=09
Apr 18, 2020 -- 11:18AM, Foinavon wrote:
AngooseAngoose18 Apr 20 08:40Joined: 18 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 14,779 | Blogger: Angoose's blogUncle Albert eh, CrazyClassic "ignore the message and shoot the messenger" as the message doesn't fit the party narrative.
Foinavon, similar to potlis, I refer you to the content of my 09:43 BST post.
For now, I'll refrain from throwing your lame claim back at you.
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.
Thanks, Potlis. You are right that we are very much in line with most other nations.
The NHS has highly paid executives and departments to manage supplies yet according to lefty activists posing as journalists, it's all the fault of the government. There is a worldwide shortage and companies here are trying to fill the gap for us. There is no magic wand, what can be laundered and sterilised should be recycled, surely that makes sense?
The NHS has highly paid executives and departments to manage supplies yet according to lefty activists posing as journalists, it's all the fault of the government. There is a worldwide shortage and companies here are trying to fill the gap for us. There is no magic wand, what can be laundered and sterilised should be recycled, surely that makes sense?
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.
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.
point is did any other countriues have health secs standing up in commons telling the country ,world theres no better health service in the world better prepared than the nhs , at the moment handjob spoke at the dispatch box he and the media had no idea would PPE stood for never mind if we had enough supplies of it, there,s no gongs,medals for the likes of handjob talking about gloves,aprons.masks before anyone had caught the virus in uk and handjob was grandstanding
So the people who got rid of Chamberlain in 1940 were whiners,whingers and Guardian readers ? Don't think so.
Just Checking, I'm still waiting for your answers on your PPE thread , whenever you're ready 
But you will continue to refuse to answer them.
Like potlis and Foinavaon, you will dismiss from your mind the very clear points that I have made in my 09:43 BST post that don't suit your narrative.
Who's denying reality now ?
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
You will not find any such statements for one simple reason.
They are not there.
You will, however, find numerous statements where I say precisely the opposite.
These comments are often accompanied with statements where I make it very clear that I expect the government to be operating with openness, honesty, and transparency.
These qualities are strikingly similar to the ones outlined by our Prime Minister at the onset of this crisis.
That you attack me for expressing such a view suggests that you believe there is no requirement for the government to be open, honest, and transparent.
Either that, or you simply wish to display prejudicial views towards an anonymous forum contributor for the crime of reading one particular media outlet.
Whichever it is, it likely says more about you than it does about me.
But you will continue to refuse to answer them.
Like potlis and Foinavaon, you will dismiss from your mind the very clear points that I have made in my 09:43 BST post that don't suit your narrative.
Who's denying reality now ?
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
You will not find any such statements for one simple reason.
They are not there.
You will, however, find numerous statements where I say precisely the opposite.
These comments are often accompanied with statements where I make it very clear that I expect the government to be operating with openness, honesty, and transparency.
These qualities are strikingly similar to the ones outlined by our Prime Minister at the onset of this crisis.
That you attack me for expressing such a view suggests that you believe there is no requirement for the government to be open, honest, and transparent.
Either that, or you simply wish to display prejudicial views towards an anonymous forum contributor for the crime of reading one particular media outlet.
Whichever it is, it likely says more about you than it does about me.
There is nothing to prevent you from reading The Daily Goebbels, just recognise it for what it is.
I take information from a variety of sources, applying critical thinking to all of them.
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
[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
So funny, you think that's an indication of your impartiality, when only a fool would say otherwise.
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?
And here is another question for you.
Should any government be immune from being subjected to scrutinty?
What was it intended to indicate then, why ask others to find posts if you're not trying to prove something?
Scrutinise all you like, but we are all free to decide what motivates others, it's not your concern for the NHS, it's politics.
Scrutinise all you like, but we are all free to decide what motivates others, it's not your concern for the NHS, it's politics.
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.
"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.
Whilst you are free to ponder what motivates others, you are clearly not free to decide.
That just doesn't make sense, does it.
That just doesn't make sense, does it.
Wow! A poster blaming time spent of Brexit for the state of the country regards Covid-19.
Exactly my point wasn't it, you were using it to indicate your impartiality.
I'm not interested in answering your questions, they are usually meaningless in the current situation and a diversionary tactic you regularly use when you are in a tight spot, I don't play by your rules.
As for scrutiny I told you to scrutinise all you like, if you don't consider that an answer that's too bad.
I'm not interested in answering your questions, they are usually meaningless in the current situation and a diversionary tactic you regularly use when you are in a tight spot, I don't play by your rules.
As for scrutiny I told you to scrutinise all you like, if you don't consider that an answer that's too bad.
As for diciding your motives, who should decide how I view them other than me? others can decide for themselves.
When politicians are in a "tight spot", would you agree that they often avoid answering questions ?
Plenty of occasions of you jumping in on my post, when they are not directed at you, if you can't handle the responses don't post.
Another diversionary question, seems to be a habit with you.
'Angoose' has a long history of moving the goalpost when losing an argument. Best to 'ignore'. A proven timewaster.
And here we go again, two individuals who don't like the expression of views that are different from their own join forces, imagining that somehow this makes their views more valid than those they are opposed to.
Please explain with some examples.
Or don't you do explanations either ?
Or don't you do explanations either ?
Sorry to keep you hanging around, i popped out, but you never seem to have anything else to do anyway.
So ....examples, recent one I recall was commenting on the end of the lockdown, I posted something along the lines of Europe already returning to work, got jumped on by N88uk? and who was the very next poster to "join forces" with him? well I think you will find it was you, of course you both quickly jogged on, because you had no argument to make, just couldn't keep your nose out.
No doubt you will conveniently have no memory of it, but I can dig it out when I have time, if you like.
That's just me, I dare say others have experiences of their own.
So ....examples, recent one I recall was commenting on the end of the lockdown, I posted something along the lines of Europe already returning to work, got jumped on by N88uk? and who was the very next poster to "join forces" with him? well I think you will find it was you, of course you both quickly jogged on, because you had no argument to make, just couldn't keep your nose out.
No doubt you will conveniently have no memory of it, but I can dig it out when I have time, if you like.
That's just me, I dare say others have experiences of their own.
Save you a job ......
potlis • April 17, 2020 10:10 AM BST
Boris won't be making the decision when we go back to work, reality will.
Most of Europe now heading back to work, America and the rest won't be far behind, together with those who never fully went for lockdown.
That will leave just the UK, sixth largest economy, sitting idle and continuing to rack up ever more £Billions of debt, while the rest of the World moves on, could see oceans of money moving out of sterling, and good luck selling those UK Government bonds needed to finance all that debt.
n88uk • April 17, 2020 11:27 AM BST
Most of Europe are not now heading back to work lol.
Angoose • April 17, 2020 11:34 AM BST
I resisted the temptation on that one, but am glad that someone else has picked up on it
potlis • April 17, 2020 10:10 AM BST
Boris won't be making the decision when we go back to work, reality will.
Most of Europe now heading back to work, America and the rest won't be far behind, together with those who never fully went for lockdown.
That will leave just the UK, sixth largest economy, sitting idle and continuing to rack up ever more £Billions of debt, while the rest of the World moves on, could see oceans of money moving out of sterling, and good luck selling those UK Government bonds needed to finance all that debt.
n88uk • April 17, 2020 11:27 AM BST
Most of Europe are not now heading back to work lol.
Angoose • April 17, 2020 11:34 AM BST
I resisted the temptation on that one, but am glad that someone else has picked up on it
Was a rather odd claim though, don't you think, to claim that most of Europe was heading back to work.
If you'd like to know more about what is happening in regards to lockdowns, I posted a useful guide on the forum earlier today.
Was prepared by Sky News, very comprehensive, and no evidence of most of Europe returning to work.
If you'd like to know more about what is happening in regards to lockdowns, I posted a useful guide on the forum earlier today.
Was prepared by Sky News, very comprehensive, and no evidence of most of Europe returning to work.
I love it when people are honest, I also love it when they answer simple questions.
More diversion ,try sticking to the point, you ask for example I've given it.
withholding vital information, putting lives at risk.
Apr 18, 2020 -- 8:28PM, potlis wrote:
More diversion ,try sticking to the point, you ask for example I've given it.
Which particular point would you like me to address once you've finished answering my basic questions ?
Your hypocrisy of course, accusing others of doing what you do yourself.
If you wish to consider me a hypocrite for agreeing that you made a somewhat foolish statement regarding Europe going back to work, feel free.
I don't have a particular problem with that.
But you still don't want to answer some basic questions and I'd hazard a guess that it is simply because you don't want to have to agree with what I have said.
The thought of you having to acknowledge that certain points I have made appears to be too much for you.
I don't have a particular problem with that.
But you still don't want to answer some basic questions and I'd hazard a guess that it is simply because you don't want to have to agree with what I have said.
The thought of you having to acknowledge that certain points I have made appears to be too much for you.
Poor swerve that won't fool anyone, your a hypocrite and it's plain for all to see.
Sorry, but there's no obligation on anyone to answer meaningless questions , simply to help get you off the hook by moving the debate on somewhere else.
Sorry, but there's no obligation on anyone to answer meaningless questions , simply to help get you off the hook by moving the debate on somewhere else.
As a reminder :
Q1. Does best medical practice state that you should use single use gowns on multiple occasions?
Q2. If sufficient quantities of single use gown were available, would these "exceptional" measures be required?
The Royal College of Nursing claims that the new guidance was developed without a full consultation. Meanwhile, the British Medical Association (BMA) - which represents doctors – said they felt any changes to recommendations had to be driven by scientific evidence rather than supply.
The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) said it was “deeply disturbed” by changes to official guidance, which now states healthcare professionals could be asked to reuse items when treating Covid-19 patients.
Professor Neil Mortensen, president-elect of the RCS, said the updated guidance implied that surgeons may not require adequate PPE, which he called “simply unacceptable”.
If you can't bring yourself to agree with me that reusing single use gowns is not best medical practice, then maybe you can find it more acceptable to agree with the Royal College of Nursing and The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
Q1. Does best medical practice state that you should use single use gowns on multiple occasions?
Q2. If sufficient quantities of single use gown were available, would these "exceptional" measures be required?
The Royal College of Nursing claims that the new guidance was developed without a full consultation. Meanwhile, the British Medical Association (BMA) - which represents doctors – said they felt any changes to recommendations had to be driven by scientific evidence rather than supply.
The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) said it was “deeply disturbed” by changes to official guidance, which now states healthcare professionals could be asked to reuse items when treating Covid-19 patients.
Professor Neil Mortensen, president-elect of the RCS, said the updated guidance implied that surgeons may not require adequate PPE, which he called “simply unacceptable”.
If you can't bring yourself to agree with me that reusing single use gowns is not best medical practice, then maybe you can find it more acceptable to agree with the Royal College of Nursing and The Royal College of Surgeons of England.
The debate on the PPE issue was in play long before you introduced the hypocrite defence.
The Royal College of Nursing and The Royal College of Surgeons of England don't consider those as meaningless questions and I suspect the families of medical staff who have lost their lives to COVID-19 don't find them as meaningless either.
When all else fails play the emotion card, sorry that won't work either.
Now about your hypocrisy.......
Now about your hypocrisy.......
So what is the truth regarding the reuse of single use gowns and why do you not wish to acknowledge it?
So single use plastic is acceptable now?!
Of course it's not best practice but you've got to be realistic and pragmatic.
A used gown that has been cleaned is surely better than nothing
There's no point stamping your feet and demanding things are not possible
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/41793575-war-doctor
Well worth a read to put things into perspective
Of course it's not best practice but you've got to be realistic and pragmatic.
A used gown that has been cleaned is surely better than nothing
There's no point stamping your feet and demanding things are not possible
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/41793575-war-doctor
Well worth a read to put things into perspective
jucel, if you’d seen my full post, you’d have seen that I accepted that innovative solutions were required.
My bone of contention was the management of the decision.
My bone of contention was the management of the decision.
And that’s kinda what the various doctor and nursing associations are saying.
When you have a decision to take that you can easily predict will be unpopular with the workforce, involved them, make them part of it.
But they didn’t, it was imposed.
But they didn’t, it was imposed.
The shortage of PPE faced by frontline staff has been underlined by an NHS worker in an intensive care unit at a major COVID-19 trauma centre in London.
Speaking on condition of anonymity to Sky News, he said: "It feels very much like it's reliant on how much stock they have as opposed to clinical guidance.
"Because if it was clinical guidance they would have set what the lowest, safest practice would be from the get go.
"If they're saying this is the standard we should be having in intensive care and then when it seems something becomes low they then say we don't actually need to be wearing that any more that then becomes very suspect.
"The problem is that it (the guidance) is constantly changing, because it is very much reliant on the stock, not on the evidence."
He added: "That doesn't fill you with confidence."
He was concerned staff safety was being put at risk because of the lack of proper clothing.
Speaking on condition of anonymity to Sky News, he said: "It feels very much like it's reliant on how much stock they have as opposed to clinical guidance.
"Because if it was clinical guidance they would have set what the lowest, safest practice would be from the get go.
"If they're saying this is the standard we should be having in intensive care and then when it seems something becomes low they then say we don't actually need to be wearing that any more that then becomes very suspect.
"The problem is that it (the guidance) is constantly changing, because it is very much reliant on the stock, not on the evidence."
He added: "That doesn't fill you with confidence."
He was concerned staff safety was being put at risk because of the lack of proper clothing.
These people find solutions every day, get their help and they’ll come up with better solutions than someone sitting at a desk will.
There is PPE around the country, some hospitals have 'too much' as they could apply for as much as they wanted
I blame the NHS CEO, he's had a stinker, and has so far gotten away with it
Hancock is getting shafted because he keeps getting wheeled out on tv every day
They should get Stevens out to explain his errors too
I blame the NHS CEO, he's had a stinker, and has so far gotten away with it
Hancock is getting shafted because he keeps getting wheeled out on tv every day
They should get Stevens out to explain his errors too
I used to get criticised by my staff for putting safety features in place that prevented them from putting themselves in harms way.
Long story, but we had a test cell where technicians would routinely expose themselves to up to 25,000 psi without realising it.
When I removed the potential for them to kill themselves they were upset.
Creating a strong safety culture is tough work and you should never take a backward step.
Long story, but we had a test cell where technicians would routinely expose themselves to up to 25,000 psi without realising it.
When I removed the potential for them to kill themselves they were upset.
Creating a strong safety culture is tough work and you should never take a backward step.
At the hospital, a nurse asked her where she git the mask a sit was better than the one that she had.
You made that story up didn't you angoose? Odds on it never happened
Every country is running out of PPE and since when was it Hancocks job to buy PPE? The NHS are stinking it up
You made that story up didn't you angoose? Odds on it never happened
Every country is running out of PPE and since when was it Hancocks job to buy PPE? The NHS are stinking it up
No, I didn’t make it up.
You can ask my father directly if you wish.
You can ask my father directly if you wish.
Meanwhile, the latest on the PPE shortages plaguing Germany, courtesy of Die Welt newspaper:
MILLIARDEN STÜCK BENÖTIGT
Das Masken-Problem
... Dass nun viele Unternehmen ihre Produktion umstellen, kann zumindest Abhilfe schaffen. Ob der rasant steigende Bedarf an Schutzausrüstung dadurch gedeckt wird, ist aber fraglich.
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article207325601/Masken-Kann-Deutschland-den-Bedarf-decken.html?wtrid=socialmedia.socialflow....socialflow_twitter
Billions of items needed
The mask problem
... The fact that a number of firms are being converted to production might at least offer help. But it is questionable whether this will be enough to cover the rapidly rising requirement for protective equipment.
MILLIARDEN STÜCK BENÖTIGT
Das Masken-Problem
... Dass nun viele Unternehmen ihre Produktion umstellen, kann zumindest Abhilfe schaffen. Ob der rasant steigende Bedarf an Schutzausrüstung dadurch gedeckt wird, ist aber fraglich.
https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article207325601/Masken-Kann-Deutschland-den-Bedarf-decken.html?wtrid=socialmedia.socialflow....socialflow_twitter
Billions of items needed
The mask problem
... The fact that a number of firms are being converted to production might at least offer help. But it is questionable whether this will be enough to cover the rapidly rising requirement for protective equipment.
Apr 18, 2020 -- 11:03PM, Racingqueen wrote:
At the hospital, a nurse asked her where she git the mask a sit was better than the one that she had.You made that story up didn't you angoose? Odds on it never happenedEvery country is running out of PPE and since when was it Hancocks job to buy PPE? The NHS are stinking it up
Also it's amazing how it’s only the Labour Activist NHS staff that don’t have PPE. What a coincidence
Look through twitter bios and tweets, it's uncanny!
A 'nurse' from Southend is doing the rounds in the media, saying her 8 year old daughter begs her not to go to work due to the lack of PPE. She was quickly outed as a Labour activist. Another nurse at the same hospital tweeted a picture of a mass of PPE-containing-boxes they'd had delivered.
The BBC has an uncanny knack of getting government-criticising doctors and scientists on their programmes who turn out to be politically active Labourites. The latest one was a GP who by chance also happened to be the Labour candidate for the Police & Crime Commissioner role in Cleveland. Nothing remains secret in the social media age.
The BBC has an uncanny knack of getting government-criticising doctors and scientists on their programmes who turn out to be politically active Labourites. The latest one was a GP who by chance also happened to be the Labour candidate for the Police & Crime Commissioner role in Cleveland. Nothing remains secret in the social media age.
Rate reply:
| report block user
Angoose
Angoose 18 Apr 20 20:47 Joined: 18 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 14,867 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
So what is the truth regarding the reuse of single use gowns and why do you not wish to acknowledge it?
-------------------
The truth is new guidance have been issued, which probably isn't out of line with what is happening elsewhere in the World ,which was my original point and what you took exception to, posting some nonsense about "third World Standard" when it's reality dictating what we have to do.
Interesting that you now acknowledge the "need for innovation" which is the point I was making, we are not living in normal times, which makes asking questions based on what we would expect in normal times meaningless.
| report block user
Angoose
Angoose 18 Apr 20 20:47 Joined: 18 Jul 02 | Topic/replies: 14,867 | Blogger: Angoose's blog
So what is the truth regarding the reuse of single use gowns and why do you not wish to acknowledge it?
-------------------
The truth is new guidance have been issued, which probably isn't out of line with what is happening elsewhere in the World ,which was my original point and what you took exception to, posting some nonsense about "third World Standard" when it's reality dictating what we have to do.
Interesting that you now acknowledge the "need for innovation" which is the point I was making, we are not living in normal times, which makes asking questions based on what we would expect in normal times meaningless.
Can you please find evidence to support your assertion that other western countries are providing similar advice on the reuse of single use gowns.
I have noted that, given the shortage in supplies, innovation is required.
This point was made very early in my posts.
My main bone of contention throughout has been the manner in which the revised guidance was issued.
All you have to do in order to confirm this is to read this and other threads.
The people best placed to determine the innovative measures are those on the front line, they make such decisions every day.
Instead, the guidance was issued without consulting these people, by people who will clearly have medical experience but are not sat behind a desk.
This is a sure fire recipe to end up with a disgruntled workforce, and that is what we now have.
No need to take my word for, just read the comments made by senior representatives of nurses, doctors, and surgeons.
This anger and frustration could have been avoided.
All that was required was quality leadership within the decision making process.
Sadly, it wasn't there.
I have noted that, given the shortage in supplies, innovation is required.
This point was made very early in my posts.
My main bone of contention throughout has been the manner in which the revised guidance was issued.
All you have to do in order to confirm this is to read this and other threads.
The people best placed to determine the innovative measures are those on the front line, they make such decisions every day.
Instead, the guidance was issued without consulting these people, by people who will clearly have medical experience but are not sat behind a desk.
This is a sure fire recipe to end up with a disgruntled workforce, and that is what we now have.
No need to take my word for, just read the comments made by senior representatives of nurses, doctors, and surgeons.
This anger and frustration could have been avoided.
All that was required was quality leadership within the decision making process.
Sadly, it wasn't there.
At least the German PPE shortages illustrate the foresight our government showed in not joining the EU PPE scheme.
If we had, we'd be having to send our PPE over there now.
If we had, we'd be having to send our PPE over there now.
no ppe from turkey today another handjob/jenrick promise goes belly up
I'll say this for him, when tedious trolls might use 6 words, he'll use 600.
It lasts from pre dawn to way after the end of natural light. It might even be called a work ethic.
It lasts from pre dawn to way after the end of natural light. It might even be called a work ethic.
Evidence? you seem to be going round in circles mate, you asked me that at the outset, my answer was " no more than you can show its not the case"
You seem to be under the impression this is a court of law with you as the prosecuter.
You seem to be under the impression this is a court of law with you as the prosecuter.
Apr 19, 2020 -- 10:43AM, potlis wrote:
Evidence? you seem to be going round in circles mate, you asked me that at the outset, my answer was " no more than you can show its not the case" You seem to be under the impression this is a court of law with you as the prosecuter.
potlis,
you are effectively saying anything at all and claiming it is true, without anything to back it up but then saying it must be true unless it can be disproved?
your really only showing your knuckledragging ,herd mentality if you cant admit doris,handjob are in charge of one of the biggest political shoiteshows in uk history ,even the right wing media have turned on their own
No I'm not saying " anything at all" I simply said that in my OPINION the new guidance was no big deal as it's probably whats happening elsewhere.
I wasn't commenting on how the decision was made or announced.
I wasn't commenting on how the decision was made or announced.
Take your insults and politics elsewhere if you have nothing sensible to say, 1st time.
Anyway I thought your side didn't hunt in packs, don't have to go far back to find Angoose whining about such tactics.
after andy Coulson,no deal Brexit the knuckledrggers on here,trying to defend the biggest shoite show in uk politics for 75 years as a non story, 
,
one ended in jail
one ended in annexing northern island
and this shoite show looks like resulting in 40,000 plus deaths
but its a non story
,one ended in jail
one ended in annexing northern island
and this shoite show looks like resulting in 40,000 plus deaths
but its a non story
handjobs test promise must be a resigning job if he fails again
21 tests yesterday,today sunday so unlikely any great increase maybe lower
sat and sun next week,
so basically got 5 days to add 16,000 a fay and keep the numbers up over next weekend with no drop off,
dozey kooont couldn't even pick a month with 31 days in
whats the odds
scientists saying because handjob has turned it in to a numbers game the data is virtually useless, no groups,workers,family,friends tested together just a random list of negative and positives, some tested once some tested 2,3 times,
21 tests yesterday,today sunday so unlikely any great increase maybe lower
sat and sun next week,
so basically got 5 days to add 16,000 a fay and keep the numbers up over next weekend with no drop off,
dozey kooont couldn't even pick a month with 31 days in
whats the odds
scientists saying because handjob has turned it in to a numbers game the data is virtually useless, no groups,workers,family,friends tested together just a random list of negative and positives, some tested once some tested 2,3 times,
gove doubled down on handjobs target this morning,seems the brexiteers in cabinet have got their scapegoat and hanging him out to dry
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539