May 7, 2020 -- 10:24AM, Angoose wrote:
The key issue here is not that the gowns turned out not to be fit for purpose, but the way in which the government is attempting to manage the PPE narrative.This also applies to the magical 100,000 testing figure.The resources that are being deployed to managing the various government media campaigns would be better utilised in working towards the provision of real solutions that help patients and carers rather than engaging in clumsy propaganda.
This makes no sense whatsoever. The government was forced into holding a daily briefing by the media early into the crisis. It was all over the news that gowns were down to a critical level at the time. Do you think saying the NHS was doing it's best would have satisfied the baying media at this point?
May 7, 2020 -- 10:43AM, Angoose wrote:
I'm sure that the government would very much like that they were not subjected to scrutiny.
You're trying to claim that saying they were expecting a delivery of PPE from Turkey was propaganda. 1) it was factually correct and 2) the media forces them into giving some kind of commentary. It was political yes but not propaganda.
May 7, 2020 -- 10:50AM, Cider wrote:
What is the political cause or point of view then?
Even you can figure that one out, he was attempting to convince the public that the government was on top of the PPE issue.
May 7, 2020 -- 10:51AM, Angoose wrote:
May 7, 2020 -- 9:50AM, Cider wrote:What is the political cause or point of view then?Even you can figure that one out, he was attempting to convince the public that the government was on top of the PPE issue.
That's not a political cause or point of view, clearly. The political judgement was that they would need to provide more information than simply providing platitudes.
May 7, 2020 -- 10:59AM, Cider wrote:
At the time I thought to myself he was taking a major risk. For him, at the time he must have thought that was better than platitudes. He should have provided caveats.
What would those caveats looked like ?




May 7, 2020 -- 11:01AM, Angoose wrote:
May 7, 2020 -- 9:59AM, Cider wrote:At the time I thought to myself he was taking a major risk. For him, at the time he must have thought that was better than platitudes. He should have provided caveats.What would those caveats looked like ?
We've not been able to assess the quality? It's not yet taken off, so it's not guaranteed yet but we're very hopeful?
May 7, 2020 -- 10:48AM, Angoose wrote:
Indeed, if you were taking supplies from a supplier who wasn't already in your supply chain, it would have been prudent to have an inspector on the plane to perform a sample check prior to loading.
Cider, read my earlier post again, I know a little bit about supply chain management.




.


May 7, 2020 -- 11:29AM, Angoose wrote:
And you continue to display your ignorance in regard to sampling.
So you're going to reject an entire consignment of potentiality life saving PPE on the basis of sampling? And potentially leave behind something that could be used? With someone of your experience, that's very naive to the reality of this particular scenario.
May 7, 2020 -- 11:35AM, Cider wrote:
May 7, 2020 -- 10:29AM, Angoose wrote:And you continue to display your ignorance in regard to sampling.So you're going to reject an entire consignment of potentiality life saving PPE on the basis of sampling? And potentially leave behind something that could be used? With someone of your experience, that's very naive to the reality of this particular scenario.
What would testing a sample of gowns very quickly have told you in regard to this specific shipment ?
May 7, 2020 -- 11:43AM, Cider wrote:
That in a medical emergency I wouldn't reject an entire consignment on the basis of sampling. We're looking at this from an emergency perspective, obviously if it was just commercial considerations it would have been handled differently.
Can you explain why a failed random sample would not provide a strong mathematical probability of the remainder of the shipment also being faulty?
And remind us, how many of the gowns have now been cleared for use in the NHS ?
And tell us if you believe that each and every one was inspected or if sampling techniques were employed.
May 7, 2020 -- 11:58AM, Cider wrote:
I'm not answering questions you already know the answer to Angoose. It's simple really. The ONLY thing they could potentially lose by shipping it over first is money. If you're putting financial considerations in front of public health, I'm really doubting your socialist credentials. Or, probably more accurately you're forgoing your usual moralities to use it as another opportunity to attempt political point scoring.
Would it have been helpful to know at the earliest possible stage that the gowns you had already allocated to be distributed would not be distributed?
When they resort to posting about your forum name you can safely conclude to having gained some moderate success ;)

May 7, 2020 -- 12:35PM, John.W.Henry. wrote:
@ciderIf you think for one minute all of us posting give a flying fcuk about the continual punch and judy show which you refer to as politics then you need a fcuking barrel of the stuff not a crate
Given this, it's not clear why you felt inclined to post nonsense directed at me. Was is to demonstrate that you clearly don't give a flying fcuk> If so, it failed
In addition any politician that could make a difference either gets shot or gets shot so there it is. #100%conspiracytheorist
but i can laugh a myself as i do realise there is very little i can do personally about anything. just mount a soap box occasionally
May 7, 2020 -- 3:33PM, John.W.Henry. wrote:
@cider.I sensed you had dug yourself a deep enuff hole and tried to throw you a rope. You chose to hang yourself.... so be it
You're obsessed with holes. Not the right type I fear