Re: Corona Virus : Sat Apr 18, 2020 2:07 pm  

BarnsleyGull wrote:

Its not down profit - its down to demand.
There would be no point in a company having 50 vents on the shelf as the money tied into that - around £1m - may not be recouped through sales.
A totally understandable business outlook.

You're kind of making my point for me. You're correct in what you are saying. That 1m is seen as a waste in a business sense. No one disputes that. But because it is seen as a waste in a business sense when you have a pandemic like such it hampers your ability to fight it as businesses have not prepared for it and nor are they interested in preparing for it. There is no long term planning - only a focus on the short term (you don't want me to call it profit or profitability) so we can call it whatever you like - the principle remains the same. This is due to how society has been structured by those whose interests it serves as a priority.

Re: Corona Virus : Sat Apr 18, 2020 3:45 pm  

Willzay wrote:

“ NHS are preparing to ask doctors and nurses to work without full-length gowns and to reuse single-use gowns when treating #COVID19 patients, as hospitals across England are set to run out of supplies within hours.”
.

What's the solution in a world pandemic then? Just a question that was asked to the shadow health secretary today who couldn't give an answer. 84 tons coming fro Turkey tomorrow Burberry's retooled their factory at CAS every country vying for PPE so what's the answer? Loads of people are making scrubs etc a massive amount is needed an amount clearly outstripping supply on a global basis. I am no expert on gowns scrubs etc but the rate this kit is being used it's inevitable supply chains will be strained.

Re: Corona Virus : Sat Apr 18, 2020 4:22 pm  

Well said, RWB...as I said on a previous thread a few weeks ago, it is time for us all to pull together now the chips are well and truly down, not try and gain political brownie points just for the hell of it...#POINTLESS

Re: Corona Virus : Sat Apr 18, 2020 4:36 pm  

Adam_Harrison9 wrote:

You're kind of making my point for me. You're correct in what you are saying. That 1m is seen as a waste in a business sense. No one disputes that. But because it is seen as a waste in a business sense when you have a pandemic like such it hampers your ability to fight it as businesses have not prepared for it and nor are they interested in preparing for it. There is no long term planning - only a focus on the short term (you don't want me to call it profit or profitability) so we can call it whatever you like - the principle remains the same. This is due to how society has been structured by those whose interests it serves as a priority.

TBH it doesnt matter what product it is regarding the NHS. Whether it be Vents, Gowns, Masks, etc.
For example, there are around 6 companies that sell surgical gowns. Due to the current situation there aren't any.
They cant increase production.
They are made in China.
It will always be "supply and demand" having worked in this for 20yrs that's how it always has been and always will.

[PopTart]

Re: Corona Virus : Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:33 am  

BarnsleyGull wrote:

Its not down profit - its down to demand.
There would be no point in a company having 50 vents on the shelf as the money tied into that - around £1m - may not be recouped through sales.
A totally understandable business outlook.

I agree.
Although Adam's post is well presented it is written in hindsight.

It's a tough decision to budget for disasters.
Yes it's down to money but if we'd had enough ventilators ready and waiting for this pandemic we would probably have a substandard A&E or not enough beds etc. The likelihood of this happening was low so you go with the priority items.

The test is to be able to react, like getting F1 teams building ventilators or manufacturers of other stuff making gowns etc.

It's no different to insurance. I'm pretty sure you don't have every item in your house insured, along with plumbing and white goods, along with maximum health insurance etc.
You choose what you think is likely against what you can afford and what you can afford to react to if the worse happens.

Re: Corona Virus : Sun Apr 19, 2020 8:38 am  

FIL wrote:

Well said, RWB...as I said on a previous thread a few weeks ago, it is time for us all to pull together now the chips are well and truly down, not try and gain political brownie points just for the hell of it...#POINTLESS

That sounds like trying to let the Government off the hook...

Re: Corona Virus : Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:02 am  

BarnsleyGull wrote:

TBH it doesnt matter what product it is regarding the NHS. Whether it be Vents, Gowns, Masks, etc.
For example, there are around 6 companies that sell surgical gowns. Due to the current situation there aren't any.
They cant increase production.
They are made in China.
It will always be "supply and demand" having worked in this for 20yrs that's how it always has been and always will.

Of course it's about profit. That 1m can be spent producing something that is in demand where a PROFIT can be made. Of course production can be increased. How many businesses are in the clothing manufacturing business? You only have to look at the example of WW2 to see how businesses can adapt to produce what is needed but the point is that it is a short term reaction to a long term problem. Are you suggesting to me that it is absolutely impossible to maintain a surplus of gear for a pandemic? Of course it isn't impossible but it is against financial interests. Again what your post does is support my argument - market principles and the system as it is hinders our ability to plan for a catastrophe.

I'm not sure if you think I'm saying something different to what I am but the fact that the very system as it is is what is blocking our ability to safeguard lives as you acknolwedge by saying "They can't increase production". You are arguing my point for me. You were doing the same thing by saying it doesn't make business sense to spend say "1 million on surplus gear" or however it was worded. You either spend that 1 million on something so that you are prepared for a pandemic - or you don't - but then the public and people's health pay the price but that is very much a conscious decision make no bones about it.

PopTart wrote:

I agree.
Although Adam's post is well presented it is written in hindsight.

It's a tough decision to budget for disasters.
Yes it's down to money but if we'd had enough ventilators ready and waiting for this pandemic we would probably have a substandard A&E or not enough beds etc. The likelihood of this happening was low so you go with the priority items.

The test is to be able to react, like getting F1 teams building ventilators or manufacturers of other stuff making gowns etc.

It's no different to insurance. I'm pretty sure you don't have every item in your house insured, along with plumbing and white goods, along with maximum health insurance etc.
You choose what you think is likely against what you can afford and what you can afford to react to if the worse happens.

My post may be written in hindsight but the information governments and scientists have about coronaviruses and pandemics is not, Poptart. As you can see from the information in my previous post there's a certain level of naivety to think that governments have been in the dark about the dangers of an animal coronavirus transmitting to humans. If we just take the SARS pandemic then you have 17 year's worth of preparation and planning to implement should another coronavirus make the leap. This isn't hindsight. It's a well-known consensus amongst the scientific community and more importantly the government. You are letting the government off the hook by trying to infer that it is all well and good saying these things with hindsight. Governments have been planning and preparing for pandemics ever since the discovery of the germ theory to pretend this came from nowhere and nothing could be done except adapt in the short term is an interesting notion. The Sunday Times has today blown wide apart the assertion that nothing could be done. There have been catastrophic failures from the government and an unwillingness to do what had to be done from an early stage. This is in part because we have a government that was more concerned about the short term effect locking down would have on the economy than it was about saving lives and dealing with a pandemic.

With regards to your insurance analogy. If you're referring to a business - a business can produce more if the government is interested in procuring the goods in case of a pandemic. Therefore the demand is created for the business to produce the goods. This requires your government to have its citizens' best interests at heart and a long term strategy. Oh wait.

Re: Corona Virus : Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:56 am  

Adam_Harrison9 wrote:

Of course it's about profit. That 1m can be spent producing something that is in demand where a PROFIT can be made. Of course production can be increased. How many businesses are in the clothing manufacturing business? You only have to look at the example of WW2 to see how businesses can adapt to produce what is needed but the point is that it is a short term reaction to a long term problem. Are you suggesting to me that it is absolutely impossible to maintain a surplus of gear for a pandemic? Of course it isn't impossible but it is against financial interests. Again what your post does is support my argument - market principles and the system as it is hinders our ability to plan for a catastrophe.

I'm not sure if you think I'm saying something different to what I am but the fact that the very system as it is is what is blocking our ability to safeguard lives as you acknolwedge by saying "They can't increase production". You are arguing my point for me. You were doing the same thing by saying it doesn't make business sense to spend say "1 million on surplus gear" or however it was worded. You either spend that 1 million on something so that you are prepared for a pandemic - or you don't - but then the public and people's health pay the price but that is very much a conscious decision make no bones about it.

My post may be written in hindsight but the information governments and scientists have about coronaviruses and pandemics is not, Poptart. As you can see from the information in my previous post there's a certain level of naivety to think that governments have been in the dark about the dangers of an animal coronavirus transmitting to humans. If we just take the SARS pandemic then you have 17 year's worth of preparation and planning to implement should another coronavirus make the leap. This isn't hindsight. It's a well-known consensus amongst the scientific community and more importantly the government. You are letting the government off the hook by trying to infer that it is all well and good saying these things with hindsight. Governments have been planning and preparing for pandemics ever since the discovery of the germ theory to pretend this came from nowhere and nothing could be done except adapt in the short term is an interesting notion. The Sunday Times has today blown wide apart the assertion that nothing could be done. There have been catastrophic failures from the government and an unwillingness to do what had to be done from an early stage. This is in part because we have a government that was more concerned about the short term effect locking down would have on the economy than it was about saving lives and dealing with a pandemic.

With regards to your insurance analogy. If you're referring to a business - a business can produce more if the government is interested in procuring the goods in case of a pandemic. Therefore the demand is created for the business to produce the goods. This requires your government to have its citizens' best interests at heart and a long term strategy. Oh wait.

But let's go right back to the start in China, mid November certain individuals basically 'gagged,' probably literally given who we are talking about. This was inevitable because it was made so by the likes of ourselves and the USA and most other countries by continually getting into bed with China and turning a blind eye to everything that goes on there, it's almost as bad as governments funding middle eastern countries to produce missiles and weaponry, etc, etc, the list is endless. The WHO when finally told in probably mid January also failed to act accordingly, and now Trump has flexed his muscles and cut off funding?! Would be funny if not so tragic eh......

Re: Corona Virus : Sun Apr 19, 2020 11:09 am  

BarnsleyGull wrote:

Its not down profit - its down to demand.
There would be no point in a company having 50 vents on the shelf as the money tied into that - around £1m - may not be recouped through sales.
A totally understandable business outlook.

I'm pretty sure a few days ago, Mr. Hancock said it wasn't about supply & demand, it was about distribution and the speed of it actually getting where it needs to be?

Re: Corona Virus : Sun Apr 19, 2020 12:11 pm  

Wildmoggy wrote:

But let's go right back to the start in China, mid November certain individuals basically 'gagged,' probably literally given who we are talking about. This was inevitable because it was made so by the likes of ourselves and the USA and most other countries by continually getting into bed with China and turning a blind eye to everything that goes on there, it's almost as bad as governments funding middle eastern countries to produce missiles and weaponry, etc, etc, the list is endless. The WHO when finally told in probably mid January also failed to act accordingly, and now Trump has flexed his muscles and cut off funding?! Would be funny if not so tragic eh......

I agree with some of this from what I can interpret. Again, why would our government and the USA be "getting into bed with China" as you put it? Market principles. It's in their financial interest. Everyone is well aware of China's emerging role in the world economy. You try and control what you can control as a government and what is in your power to do. It's easy to point fingers at China but it was fast emerging as early as December that it was obvious this would cause major problems worldwide, not just China. This was common knowledge where it matters - the government and the scientific community. The virus first appeared in the UK on 31st January but we were aware of the virus itself and how devastatting it could be in China even earlier. It wasn't until 12th March risk was raised from moderate to high. It wasn't until 20th March that social places were closed and "lockdown" commenced. Operation Cygnus in 2016 underlined severe shortcomings in the health system in the event of a pandemic. It was brushed under the rug and its findings were buried. I'd argue that when you are responsible for public health that is criminally negligible.

I don't think anyone would dispute China have to hold some responsibility here but the whole point is you have contingencies in place. The fact that China delayed alerting the correct authorities does not then absolve the government of a multitude of failings. In fact, some might say that is the major role of the government - to protect and have contigencies when something does go wrong. Until people realise that most crises are rooted in the economic system that they preside over then crises will continue in cycles until the biggest of the lot reaches its conclusion: the climate crisis. When that reaches its conclusion then we can all wave goodbye to each other but I suppose in the short term some people will be ecstatic: they'll have made a few bucks and that's the most important thing.