Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, if a contract is agreed for the provision of equipment, presumably the contract says something about the requirements. That any company would consider just heading off and ordering stuff to find it is the wrong stuff is evidence that the company should never have had a contract in the first place. Any responsible company with a clue would agree the precise specs, and any responsible organisation issuing such a contract would have provided them. Sounds like a bake off to determine which party was the most incompetent and reckless.
 
Do you believe No 10 set out the specifications. Really!
Well if not, somebody's lying!
Are there actually people working in No 10 who make specifications for equipment, they must have a lot of people working there.
Almost certainly not. But nobody stated there was. Seems like you've misinterpreted some of the text n the article (actually, easily done in this case)! Try reading it again! Hint...Put a larger gap between 'had' and 'set out'!
Get your act together. Either No 10 made the spec or they didnt!
 
))0
Well, if a contract is agreed for the provision of equipment, presumably the contract says something about the requirements. That any company would consider just heading off and ordering stuff to find it is the wrong stuff is evidence that the company should never have had a contract in the first place. Any responsible company with a clue would agree the precise specs, and any responsible organisation issuing such a contract would have provided them. Sounds like a bake off to determine which party was the most incompetent and reckless.

The company says they supplied the item specified by NHS medics.
 
))0


The company says they supplied the item specified by NHS medics.

Cool. I am sure paperwork or pixels exist to verify it.

I am sure you agree it does seem odd spending such a lot of money on companies with no prior experience in supplying these sorts of goods and in some cases next to no infrastructure or staffing.
 

In reality, there are few medical conditions where wearing a mask is a genuine problem. Some autistic kids have a sensitivity to wearing one, but asthmatics and people with chest disease experience exactly 0% reduction in oxygenation with a mask. In fact the mask may help asthmatics by filtering allergens.

But more importantly, the mask is for the protection of others. It is one thing to decide you will accept a risk, quite another for you to decide others should accept one from you.
 
Cool. I am sure paperwork or pixels exist to verify it.

I am sure you agree it does seem odd spending such a lot of money on companies with no prior experience in supplying these sorts of goods and in some cases next to no infrastructure or staffing.

Yup a practise carried out over a few decades of GOCO etc by UK Governments of various colours, including the devolved administrations.
 
Meanwhile we learn of more £millions spent on masks not fit for use in the NHS...

The headline reads....
Safety concerns halt use of 50 million NHS masks

Where does it say not fit for use?
I gave blood this morning and all the nursing staff were wearing the over ear masks.
The two nurses I spoke to had no problems with their masks and neither had heard about any concerns
 
Getting a bit annoyed at the SNP increasingly using the daily Covid briefing to agitate for more constitutional reform. Really don’t think it’s the time and certainly not the place for that sort of politicking.
 
Getting a bit annoyed at the SNP increasingly using the daily Covid briefing to agitate for more constitutional reform. Really don’t think it’s the time and certainly not the place for that sort of politicking.
Though many Nats are p'd off with her for almost completely avoiding talking about independence these days.

That doesn't mean that she can't identify and raise areas of government where further developed powers - such as might have been delivered by Devo-Max - could give her and her government more autonomy and flexibility. I think that most Scots would want their government to be able to create answers to Scottish issues unhindered by constraints imposed by a Westminster government - constraints that may well be relevant to the majority of the wider UK, but perhaps not to Scotland. And I think it reasonable that she identifies to the Scots electorate aspects of what she may be having to do in response to the pandemic, that in different circumstances she might not otherwise do.

And in the end there is an election coming soon Scotland's way.
 
Last edited:
The headline reads....
Safety concerns halt use of 50 million NHS masks

Where does it say not fit for use?
I gave blood this morning and all the nursing staff were wearing the over ear masks.
The two nurses I spoke to had no problems with their masks and neither had heard about any concerns

Really.. no PPE problems? Must be a very good Trust. Well done.

Mrs just bought her PPE - a full head cover - because they struggle with inconsistent mask quality, availability and having to wear it for 8 hrs . The new one is like a hazmat headcover and pumps filtered air into it

Yet to meet a medico who has not had PPE challenges
 
Though many Nats are p'd off with her for almost completely avoiding talking about independence these days.

That doesn't mean that she can't identify and raise areas of government where further developed powers - such as might have been delivered by Devo-Max - could give her and her government more autonomy and flexibility. I think that most Scots would want their government to be able to create answers to Scottish issues unhindered by constraints imposed by a Westminster government that may well be relevant to the majority of the wider UK, but perhaps not to Scotland. And I think it reasonable that she identifies to the Scots electorate aspects of what she may be having to do in response to the pandemic, that in different circumstances she might not otherwise do.

And in the end there is an election coming soon Scotland's way.

I couldn’t disagree more. They can raise these issues in other settings. It’s wholly inappropriate to use these briefings as party political broadcasts.
 
Er...Here! As in SILH's post you quoted!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53672841

Just pasting a link to the site that I quoted from, doesn't tell me anything.
Can you show me any doctor/scientist/virologist who said these are unfit for use.
And if they are unfit, why are further tests on the masks being carried out?
From your link....

''Most have now been delivered but they have not yet been released for use in the NHS and are awaiting further testing.''
 
Just pasting a link to the site that I quoted from, doesn't tell me anything.
Can you show me any doctor/scientist/virologist who said these are unfit for use.
And if they are unfit, why are further tests on the masks being carried out?
From your link....

''Most have now been delivered but they have not yet been released for use in the NHS and are awaiting further testing.''
Read the entire article!
 
I couldn’t disagree more. They can raise these issues in other settings. It’s wholly inappropriate to use these briefings as party political broadcasts.
She has to explain why she is having to do what she is doing.

You might as well then say that no Westminster government minister can lay any blame or criticism, or point any finger, at the Labour Party or the Unions for any aspect of dealing with the pandemic. And when PMQs gets going again, Johnson best stop diverting as he does much of what he is asked by Kier Starmer back to Starmer as a criticism, complaint or question about Starmer, Labour or the unions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top