The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
The guy from ARCO who are indeed a bone-fide legitimate CE marked PPE provider, stuff like visors, claimed yesterday that companies like ARCO were overlooked in favour of individuals with no prior experience of PPE procurement.
I am surprised you can't see that this story looks like a parody of "Only Fools and Horses".
It has been said explicitly that volume was a key metric that suppliers were judged and prioritised by, quite reasonably. So far all suppliers that had offered stocks but weren't prioritised that I have seen had only offered thousands of products while the criticised and chosen suppliers were offering millions of products.
Given the volumes that were required I can well understand why suppliers offering millions were put before suppliers offering thousands, do you not understand that simple concept?
So the UK's biggest manufacturers/suppliers were side-lined in favour of Delboy!
BBC have a round up of state of play across Europe with no mention of Poland. There seems a huge blind spot among the media to what clearly is a terrible situation.
What was it the man said - "A far off country of which we know little" ?
Or as another man said - "Just because you speak Catalan doesn't mean you know anything about Europe."
The problem with people jumping on the outrage bus over this Christmas song censoring a word that has been offensive for ages is it then conflates it with genuine over the top "cancel culture", like the Netflix exec getting sacked for using the n word in a meeting to discuss the use of the n world in shows produced by Netflix. And of course we have had a Guardian writer forced out this week over trans issues.
Can I dip my toe in the choppy waters of "who should get the vaccine first"?
Seems to be taken as red that it should be the very oldest people first, particularly those in care homes.
"Who is most vulnerable for covid" should be a prime driver for sure. But there are other drivers surely? Can we agree that not all lives are of equal value? Controversial I know.
Seems obvious to me that a 18 year old life is of more value than a 80 year old life, and gradients in-between. If you overlaid scales of "who is most vulnerable from catching the virus" with "who has most to lose from catching the virus" the answer wouldn`t be "vaccinate old folk in care homes first".
I have my hard hat on to protect against the incoming.
You have to first define how you value a life.
For example who's life was more valuable out of a 65 year old stephen Hawking and an 18 year old drug pusher. Age or longetivity obviously aren't the only measures
Can we please stop battering poor Miss QUALY?
It's getting as bad as the way people treat Magna Carta. She never did nuffink to no-one. no how, and look what they do to her....
'QALY', though given how scientists normally abuse acronyms to get something that looks/sounds nice I am surprised it's not 'QUALY'
Re the earlier posters, you also have to consider risk. So your elderly person would would have died may have only 5-10 QALYs saved by a vaccine, compared to a teenager who would have died getting 80 from a vaccine, but that difference is easily outweighed if your elderly person is, say, 100 times more likely to die. QALYs gained from vaccinating 10 million elderly people very likely outweighs those from vaccinating 10 million young people.
Of course, there are other things to think about, such as who spreads the virus. It may be that you could get a better return in QALYs by vaccinating a group that wasn't highest risk, but most likely to spread the virus, but that's a different and much more complicated question. for which I don't think we yet have the data. A younger, more spreading group also has less personal gain from taking the vaccine, so uptake could be lower.
Looking at the Q part of the calculation, ought one not also to take into account the risks of long Covid ? Though admittedly the longer term figures for that are pretty well unknown at this point.
“ Most of these products came via the grey market which has always been a murky place with long chains of multiple people taking a cut.
One I was told about the other days: US pharma sells to Turkish hospital. Hospital sells to mate down the road. Mate sells to Turkish wholesaler. Turkish is wholesaler sells to Romanian parallel importer. Romanian parallel importer sells to Dutch agent. Dutch agent sells to legitimate clinical trial supply company. Clinical trial supply company provides to big pharma company for use in a clinical trial.”
There is quite a big difference between that and Party A reaching an agreement with Party B who then says “BTW before we finalise this you need to pay Intermediary C a large amount of money because he arranged this deal” even though as far as you can tell Intermediary C’s work consists mainly of inserting himself in the middle in order to get paid.
A lot of these companies seem to be wholly unaware of the provisions of the UK’s Bribery Act, which apply not just to operations in the U.K. but overseas as well and to anyone acting on their behalf. If the SFO were not so terminally useless they’d have enough work to keep them going for years. As it is, if there has been any wrongdoing, the wrongdoers are probably safe from justice.
What was more important in the first half of this year?
1. Strict adherence to procurement practices, with extensive due diligence and only purchasing from primary sources of manufacturing?
or
2. By any means necessary, keeping healthcare professionals provided with protective equipment?
At the start of the pandemic, this was the binary choice faced by those in charge of PPE procurement. Of course mistakes will have been made, but that is the nature of a pandemic.
Of course, if there is any evidence of actual fraud this should be investigated, but the vast majority of people involved acted in good faith to an open "Does anyone know anyone anywhere who can get this stuff?" request from the NHS.
I don’t have any problem at all with the government paying over the odds for equipment needed urgently. It does raise the important question of why there appeared to be no plan for getting equipment necessary in a crisis - perhaps that was another part of Project Cygnus that was ditched.
I do have a big problem with doing so in a way which appears to have facilitated some very apparently dodgy behaviour. The Bribery Act does not have a defence of “I needed to do it speedily because I was unprepared.” I also question the claim of “good faith” because of my actual knowledge of some of the people involved.
There has been a persistent response that normal due diligence would take 6 months etc so obviously would need to be ditched. This is simply not true. You can do even basic due diligence very quickly - in hours if need be. It takes minutes to put in contracts clauses allowing clawback of monies paid and yet the ineffably incompetent Helen Whately was claiming that such things did not exist.
When banks were rescued in autumn 2008 this was pretty much done over a weekend. The idea that things cannot be done well and speedily is simply not true. The idea that speed is an excuse for simply abandoning any attempt at some form of control is a nonsense.
What’s more this abandonment of any sort of good practice seems to have continued long after the initial emergency. It seems to have infested all sorts of other contracts and appointments which had nothing to do with getting equipment to doctors on the front line. It seems to be the government’s MO and this should concern us all, however much slack we may be willing to cut the government for what it necessarily had to do back in February/March.
I think that any evidence of fraud should be passed to the relevant authorities, I've been consistent in that. I also think that the lack of preparedness should be investigated thoroughly, so that everyone is ready for the next emergency.
As @Charles mentioned earlier, attempts at due diligence would have difficult back in March - many of these potential suppliers had no prior experience in the field but did know someone further along the grey-market supply chain. Most of them did indeed deliver the PPE that was paid for, even if it wasn't the best possible value for money. The NHS procurement team had little choice if they didn't want to run out of the stuff.
The difference with the bank rescue was that it was just numbers on computers and spreadsheets, rather than having to physically manufacture and distribute stuff that the whole world was looking for at the same time.
The concern was the fast track process for mates and the dodgy broker payments. One suspects cronyism and corruption.
If Sir Kneel Starmer makes the same tax promise that Joe Biden made he'll get in.
Yes - if there were a "PM after next GE" market I would make SKS the favourite.
They keep re-writing the bible, would you believe, to adapt parts that are old fashioned and offensive and make them more modern and accessible to future generations!
Apparently this process has been going on for centuries! When will this WOKERY ever stop?
The Bible? Is that series still running? And with the original cast too!
It was never the same once they translated it from Aramaic....
None of the text of the Bible (apart from the odd word) is written in Aramaic.
Was, surely. Although I believe there are Aramaic texts. Moses probably wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics, surely?
NT was in Greek was it not?
NT all Greek, OT all Hebrew; all apart from the occasional odd word. Moses: actual existence unproved; Hebrew texts from many centuries after his putative existence.
Is Andrew Neil's intentional/ignorant misuse of numbers in respect to Sweden and Covid-19 more or less problematic than Diane Abbott's problems with numbers?
Which do we think will receive the most criticism and mockery for this?
I think there is a trend of targeting women with accusations of innumeracy. I've seen it targeted at Abbott, Patel, and Cherry, way out of proportion of any perceived mistakes. Can't prove it of course, but I have the distinct sense of an underlying "girls can't do maffs, innit" attitude.
I'd normally scoff at that as an excuse, and Abbot certainly has plenty of examples, but it does feel as though it happens more.
Tobes is doing his bit to help redress the balance. For which he deserves loud and repeated credit.
Can I dip my toe in the choppy waters of "who should get the vaccine first"?
Seems to be taken as red that it should be the very oldest people first, particularly those in care homes.
"Who is most vulnerable for covid" should be a prime driver for sure. But there are other drivers surely? Can we agree that not all lives are of equal value? Controversial I know.
Seems obvious to me that a 18 year old life is of more value than a 80 year old life, and gradients in-between. If you overlaid scales of "who is most vulnerable from catching the virus" with "who has most to lose from catching the virus" the answer wouldn`t be "vaccinate old folk in care homes first".
I have my hard hat on to protect against the incoming.
You ignore the fact that 18 year old is almost 100% unlikely to be impacted. Hopefully it is not your older family members that die as a result of your callous selfishness.
Sorry, my original post seems to have misled. I was making a general philosophical point that a 18 year old has more value than a 80 year old - I wasn`t suggesting that we should be vaccinating 18 year olds!
Stating 18 year olds are more valuable than 80 year olds is classic QUALY abuse.
It's the basic "Gotcha" that everyone who comes across the concept comes up with.
Bit like the one about all economists being sociopaths because they expect everyone to behave with perfect economic rationality and not take into account non-monetary factors.
Can you define what you mean by "QUALY abuse"? This is a new one on me.
It`s obvious to me that the death of an 18 year old is more tragic than the death of a 80 year old. So obvious it hardly needs saying.
BBC have a round up of state of play across Europe with no mention of Poland. There seems a huge blind spot among the media to what clearly is a terrible situation.
What was it the man said - "A far off country of which we know little" ?
Or as another man said - "Just because you speak Catalan doesn't mean you know anything about Europe."
There are 3 million Poles in the UK. I believe they are the largest group of immigrants. I am sure they know what is going on in their homeland, just seems a bit odd not to get a mention at all.
Can I dip my toe in the choppy waters of "who should get the vaccine first"?
Seems to be taken as red that it should be the very oldest people first, particularly those in care homes.
"Who is most vulnerable for covid" should be a prime driver for sure. But there are other drivers surely? Can we agree that not all lives are of equal value? Controversial I know.
Seems obvious to me that a 18 year old life is of more value than a 80 year old life, and gradients in-between. If you overlaid scales of "who is most vulnerable from catching the virus" with "who has most to lose from catching the virus" the answer wouldn`t be "vaccinate old folk in care homes first".
I have my hard hat on to protect against the incoming.
You ignore the fact that 18 year old is almost 100% unlikely to be impacted. Hopefully it is not your older family members that die as a result of your callous selfishness.
Sorry, my original post seems to have misled. I was making a general philosophical point that a 18 year old has more value than a 80 year old - I wasn`t suggesting that we should be vaccinating 18 year olds!
Then I withdraw my chastisement. In may case I have no elderly relatives and could selfishly suggest I am a prime candidate, but will wait my turn which unfortunately will be well before 18 year olds. If only you could swap ages and place in vaccine queue.
Gabriel Debenedetti of the "New York Magazine" gives a fascinating insight into the data analytics of the Biden campaign as the election loomed, November 3rd and the days following :
A very good read. Two standouts. The extraordinary amount of information they have on who will vote how and where and a question that isn't addressed but is relevant to the results. Why do uneducated whites vote overwhelmingly for Trump when other uneducated people don't and what is it about Trump that attracts them?
I found it dull. The first three quarters describes comparing actual with expected results, which is what happens on pb every election night (the difference is we want to bet, whereas the campaign wants to update its spin teams for American television). The last quarter, which jumps back in time but was too mundane to lead the piece, has our hero doing the reverse: comparing opinion polls with the swing needed on the night in order to inform strategy. With no technical detail, it is a long statement of the bleeding obvious and it is not even very well written.
I'm sure we don't have that sort of data about backgrounds where people live and who they'll vote for' ....'7 uneducated anti semites in 7 mile Bottom ....Do we put them in the Johnson column or Corbyn's?'
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Is this a second April's fools day or are we now really being governed by a bunch of idiots who will judge a treaty they wont read on the number of pages in it? Can't we just give them a version in font size 6?
Great post. Its nonsensical, same as those who would reject an agreement because the EU would agree it, thus showing it must favour the EU.
How is it possible to be so interested in the EU-UK relationship, and arrogant enough to decide they should be in charge of it, yet not be willing to read the document that will define that relationship? It is beyond my comprehension that this reflects perhaps a quarter of our parliament.
BBC have a round up of state of play across Europe with no mention of Poland. There seems a huge blind spot among the media to what clearly is a terrible situation.
Too foreign for the BBC, France , Germany, Italy an odd time and then just USA and Australia for them, they have a stinted view of world news.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Come now, you are letting facts get in the way of the narrative!
FPT Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson "Landmark Danish study shows face masks have no significant effect"
Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.
Concludes: And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.
1) they are misstating what the study says 2) more importantly -> the idea behind masks is not primarily to protect the wearer, but to protect others from the wearer if the wearer is infectious.
The actual study says: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection." https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Correct - unwarranted hype imo.
It's almost like they've a square hypothesis that they want to ram into any round holes going.
Yup, the square hypothesis relates to how masks affect the wearer's susceptibility to infection, which misses the point about it being to protect others. More difficult to set up a randomised control trial for that though.
There's that. There's also that the study doesn't even successfully demonstrate what it claims to demonstrate.
Yep, not sure if it's been covered elsewhere, but at best it's a trial of whether it is useful to issue a supply of masks to people (and even then it only tests protection of the wearer). Many of those issued masks admit to not using them/using them as directed all the time and it's likely that some of those not issued masks may have used masks anyway, at least at times. Then you get in to potential behavioural differences between those issued and not issued with masks, those with masks maybe being less careful in other ways.
This is one of those questions where an individualised RCT is probably not the best design. You could randomise areas with mandated mask wearing or not (which would be a form of cluster randomised trial, although imperfect), but observational, particularly quasi-experimental studies are probably most useful here.
I've got to add that I've always thought quite highly of Heneghan, but this makes me revise my opinion somewhat. He should be aware of the limitations and that it's actually not even the same question people are asking, so he either has a much lower understanding of this that I would expect or appears to be being deliberately disingenuous.
Looking at the actual paper (which Henegan's article links to), it states its limitations right at the top: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.
Reading the article, though, I entirely agree with his general point - governments, and ours in particular, ought to have committed significantly more resources to determining the efficacy of masks. A couple of well designed citywide studies might have had sufficient power to do so fairly rapidly, I think ?
Having spent the first two or three months of the pandemic decrying their use, I guess they didn't see much priority in potentially embarrassing themselves.
An interesting question, but not an easy study, at least in any kind of trial format: - If you mandate masks in one area but not in another, does mask use in the other area increase anyway?(particularly if neighbouring areas, but even more distantly as masks get into the news). Maybe you can gauge this by having people out/using CCTV to assess proportions wearing masks - How do you disentangle mask wearing from other factors? (particularly if distant areas - we know there have been big variations by geography)
I think observational studies might actually be stronger here, but they'll all have their own issues, although overall probably with randomish effects on results, so we'll need lots of studies and then a good review to really suss this out. There should be enough out there with different countries mandating mask use at different points to get these estimates.
PS: I still think the article authors are a bit disingenuous in the final paragraph, although the basic argument that we need more study of this I can wholeheartedly agree with.
BBC have a round up of state of play across Europe with no mention of Poland. There seems a huge blind spot among the media to what clearly is a terrible situation.
Too foreign for the BBC, France , Germany, Italy an odd time and then just USA and Australia for them, they have a stinted view of world news.
Its not just them. Nobody is mentioning it. Countless hours talking about Sweden, Germany, Italy, South Korea...I only know of the Poland situation because of that twitter account, with no further info on what on the surface looks a disaster.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
You just know the whole deal was crooked. How did anyone think a jewellery designer would get them decent PPE. There will be others in the middle for certain. You just know the whole thing was a feeding frenzy for the Tories.
Can I dip my toe in the choppy waters of "who should get the vaccine first"?
Seems to be taken as red that it should be the very oldest people first, particularly those in care homes.
"Who is most vulnerable for covid" should be a prime driver for sure. But there are other drivers surely? Can we agree that not all lives are of equal value? Controversial I know.
Seems obvious to me that a 18 year old life is of more value than a 80 year old life, and gradients in-between. If you overlaid scales of "who is most vulnerable from catching the virus" with "who has most to lose from catching the virus" the answer wouldn`t be "vaccinate old folk in care homes first".
I have my hard hat on to protect against the incoming.
You ignore the fact that 18 year old is almost 100% unlikely to be impacted. Hopefully it is not your older family members that die as a result of your callous selfishness.
Sorry, my original post seems to have misled. I was making a general philosophical point that a 18 year old has more value than a 80 year old - I wasn`t suggesting that we should be vaccinating 18 year olds!
Stating 18 year olds are more valuable than 80 year olds is classic QUALY abuse.
It's the basic "Gotcha" that everyone who comes across the concept comes up with.
Bit like the one about all economists being sociopaths because they expect everyone to behave with perfect economic rationality and not take into account non-monetary factors.
Can you define what you mean by "QUALY abuse"? This is a new one on me.
It`s obvious to me that the death of an 18 year old is more tragic than the death of a 80 year old. So obvious it hardly needs saying.
Yes it doesn't seem like a controversial point at all, just common sense. 18yo has their whole adult life ahead of them, 80yo has already lived a full life. Doesn't matter for the Covid vaccine issue because almost all 18yos have near zero risk, of course.
Interesting he's taken a leaf, sorry tree, out of Baroness Davidson's playbook. The Rishi Sunak Party to Say No, or rather Yes, to Twoforone Dinners, or whatever.
The Tories on nere will have to call themselves the Rishi's Dishies at this rate.
They keep re-writing the bible, would you believe, to adapt parts that are old fashioned and offensive and make them more modern and accessible to future generations!
Apparently this process has been going on for centuries! When will this WOKERY ever stop?
The Bible? Is that series still running? And with the original cast too!
It was never the same once they translated it from Aramaic....
None of the text of the Bible (apart from the odd word) is written in Aramaic.
Was, surely. Although I believe there are Aramaic texts. Moses probably wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics, surely?
Gabriel Debenedetti of the "New York Magazine" gives a fascinating insight into the data analytics of the Biden campaign as the election loomed, November 3rd and the days following :
A very good read. Two standouts. The extraordinary amount of information they have on who will vote how and where and a question that isn't addressed but is relevant to the results. Why do uneducated whites vote overwhelmingly for Trump when other uneducated people don't and what is it about Trump that attracts them?
I found it dull. The first three quarters describes comparing actual with expected results, which is what happens on pb every election night (the difference is we want to bet, whereas the campaign wants to update its spin teams for American television). The last quarter, which jumps back in time but was too mundane to lead the piece, has our hero doing the reverse: comparing opinion polls with the swing needed on the night in order to inform strategy. With no technical detail, it is a long statement of the bleeding obvious and it is not even very well written.
I'm sure we don't have that sort of data about backgrounds where people live and who they'll vote for' ....'7 uneducated anti semites in 7 mile Bottom ....Do we put them in the Johnson column or Corbyn's?'
I still cannot get my head round all this anti -semitism thing. I don't even know what being anti-semetic would involve and why people would have such shallow lives that they would be doing it anyway.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
You mean like virtually every other country which was similarly unprepared presumably?
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
FPT Prof Carl Heneghan & Tom Jefferson "Landmark Danish study shows face masks have no significant effect"
Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.
Concludes: And now that we have properly rigorous scientific research we can rely on, the evidence shows that wearing masks in the community does not significantly reduce the rates of infection.
1) they are misstating what the study says 2) more importantly -> the idea behind masks is not primarily to protect the wearer, but to protect others from the wearer if the wearer is infectious.
The actual study says: "The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection." https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
Correct - unwarranted hype imo.
It's almost like they've a square hypothesis that they want to ram into any round holes going.
Yup, the square hypothesis relates to how masks affect the wearer's susceptibility to infection, which misses the point about it being to protect others. More difficult to set up a randomised control trial for that though.
There's that. There's also that the study doesn't even successfully demonstrate what it claims to demonstrate.
Yep, not sure if it's been covered elsewhere, but at best it's a trial of whether it is useful to issue a supply of masks to people (and even then it only tests protection of the wearer). Many of those issued masks admit to not using them/using them as directed all the time and it's likely that some of those not issued masks may have used masks anyway, at least at times. Then you get in to potential behavioural differences between those issued and not issued with masks, those with masks maybe being less careful in other ways.
This is one of those questions where an individualised RCT is probably not the best design. You could randomise areas with mandated mask wearing or not (which would be a form of cluster randomised trial, although imperfect), but observational, particularly quasi-experimental studies are probably most useful here.
I've got to add that I've always thought quite highly of Heneghan, but this makes me revise my opinion somewhat. He should be aware of the limitations and that it's actually not even the same question people are asking, so he either has a much lower understanding of this that I would expect or appears to be being deliberately disingenuous.
Looking at the actual paper (which Henegan's article links to), it states its limitations right at the top: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.
Reading the article, though, I entirely agree with his general point - governments, and ours in particular, ought to have committed significantly more resources to determining the efficacy of masks. A couple of well designed citywide studies might have had sufficient power to do so fairly rapidly, I think ?
Having spent the first two or three months of the pandemic decrying their use, I guess they didn't see much priority in potentially embarrassing themselves.
An interesting question, but not an easy study, at least in any kind of trial format: - If you mandate masks in one area but not in another, does mask use in the other area increase anyway?(particularly if neighbouring areas, but even more distantly as masks get into the news). Maybe you can gauge this by having people out/using CCTV to assess proportions wearing masks - How do you disentangle mask wearing from other factors? (particularly if distant areas - we know there have been big variations by geography)
I think observational studies might actually be stronger here, but they'll all have their own issues, although overall probably with randomish effects on results, so we'll need lots of studies and then a good review to really suss this out. There should be enough out there with different countries mandating mask use at different points to get these estimates.
PS: I still think the article authors are a bit disingenuous in the final paragraph, although the basic argument that we need more study of this I can wholeheartedly agree with.
Regarding area studies, there's bound to be some overlap, and confounding factors - but I would have though if earlier on in the pandemic you'd taken (for example) a number of Lancashire towns and provided households in half of them with two months' supply of masks along with use instructions, and continuing local messaging encouraging their use, while leaving the others with he same treatment as the rest of the country, you'd have got some sort of usable result. And after all, it's the public health effect of such measures that in the end matters.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Come now, you are letting facts get in the way of the narrative!
I know! Very dull of me. If only I’d spent my life making up bullshit and sucking up to Oxbridge twits, I could now be running the health service and be on charity boards and have a title.
I am finding the outrage over using grey market for PPE some what double standards, when at the time Labour produced a whole dossier of even less qualified people* and the media paraded them as people we should be buying from.
* People not only not in the business, but had no stock nor could produce any documents relating to origin of the factories where their stock would come from.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
The guy from ARCO who are indeed a bone-fide legitimate CE marked PPE provider, stuff like visors, claimed yesterday that companies like ARCO were overlooked in favour of individuals with no prior experience of PPE procurement.
I am surprised you can't see that this story looks like a parody of "Only Fools and Horses".
It has been said explicitly that volume was a key metric that suppliers were judged and prioritised by, quite reasonably. So far all suppliers that had offered stocks but weren't prioritised that I have seen had only offered thousands of products while the criticised and chosen suppliers were offering millions of products.
Given the volumes that were required I can well understand why suppliers offering millions were put before suppliers offering thousands, do you not understand that simple concept?
So the UK's biggest manufacturers/suppliers were side-lined in favour of Delboy!
Jewellery designer from Florida , unbelievable. Bet he has friends and made the hotline.
1992. Kirsty McColl sang different lyrics on top of the pops
Almost 30 years ago now.
1992 almost 30 years ago you say?! Wow!!
Faggot was always a pejorative borderline swear word anyway, so it’s not a surprise it’s been edited previously, more surprising if it hadn’t
As a kid, faggot meant to me either a spicy sausage type food or firewood. The other meaning came later but was rarely heard.
Was always an English food thing for me or as you say firewood, not used in Scotland that I ever heard.
The butchers here (or at least in the SE of Scotland) used to sell something round and similar but I can't remember the name of it. Like a haggis made of mince etc.
Defence seems among the worst choice spending department to lavish with cash. We've just been laid low by a flu-like virus, not a foreign army.
Bozza would be better off giving that case the hospitality industry to rebuild a sector which is dear and of fundamental importance to the UK economy and way of life.
Is Andrew Neil's intentional/ignorant misuse of numbers in respect to Sweden and Covid-19 more or less problematic than Diane Abbott's problems with numbers?
Which do we think will receive the most criticism and mockery for this?
I think there is a trend of targeting women with accusations of innumeracy. I've seen it targeted at Abbott, Patel, and Cherry, way out of proportion of any perceived mistakes. Can't prove it of course, but I have the distinct sense of an underlying "girls can't do maffs, innit" attitude.
Yet the most famous mathematician on TV is a woman. As was her predecessor. In fact, they went out of their way to open the selection only to women.
Diane Abbot, on the other hand, said that 10,000 police recruits would cost £30,000, or was it £80m, if we recruit 25,000 police.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Come now, you are letting facts get in the way of the narrative!
I know! Very dull of me. If only I’d spent my life making up bullshit and sucking up to Oxbridge twits, I could now be running the health service and be on charity boards and have a title.
Ah well ....
Marrying a Conservative MP would have helped immeasurably too.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
There speaks a true Tory, snout snuffling at the thought of all the freebies
Defence seems among the worst choice spending department to lavish with cash. We've just been laid low by a flu-like virus, not a foreign army.
Bozza would be better off giving that case the hospitality industry to rebuild a sector which is dear and of fundamental importance to the UK economy and way of life.
Not sure how it levels up the naaarrrfffth either. Things like sensible infrastructure spending and increase in R&D is what we need, especially if we are all going to have to drive around in electric golf carts in a few years.
I am finding the outrage over using grey market for PPE some what double standards, when at the time Labour produced a whole dossier of even less qualified people* and the media paraded them as people we should be buying from.
* People not only not in the business, but had no stock nor could produce any documents relating to origin of the factories where their stock would come from.
I am not sure most of the critics posting on procurement on pb.com are natural or committed Labour supporters, rather they are concerned citizens who would hold any flavour of government to account.
I'm amazed the bombshell BMJ editorial hasn't had more traction. Liam Halligan at Telegraph reckons it's because it was published the day Cummings fell, so media were distracted.
Here's a link if anyone has missed it:
When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die
BBC have a round up of state of play across Europe with no mention of Poland. There seems a huge blind spot among the media to what clearly is a terrible situation.
Too foreign for the BBC, France , Germany, Italy an odd time and then just USA and Australia for them, they have a stinted view of world news.
Its not just them. Nobody is mentioning it. Countless hours talking about Sweden, Germany, Italy, South Korea...I only know of the Poland situation because of that twitter account, with no further info on what on the surface looks a disaster.
Al Jazeera and RT have better World news coverage than any UK outlet
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
That’s why I asked the questions and why I hope these matters will be properly looked at in a robust inquiry.
Requisitioning of scarce goods during emergencies is not an unforseeable event. Given that a pandemic was deemed by our government to be one of the highest risks we faced, did it really have no plans in place for such a scenario?
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
There speaks a true Tory, snout snuffling at the thought of all the freebies
No just someone who has experience of business, I have nothing to do with government contracts.
I'm curious if a 10% margin is noteworthy in all walks of life?
It a bottle of beer costs £12 for 24 in the supermarket then do you think a pub and restaurant charging over 55 pence for a bottle of the same beer is outrageous?
I am finding the outrage over using grey market for PPE some what double standards, when at the time Labour produced a whole dossier of even less qualified people* and the media paraded them as people we should be buying from.
* People not only not in the business, but had no stock nor could produce any documents relating to origin of the factories where their stock would come from.
F all to do with Labour , it is the Tories lining their chums pockets that is outraging people.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
That’s why I asked the questions and why I hope these matters will be properly looked at in a robust inquiry.
Requisitioning of scarce goods during emergencies is not an unforseeable event. Given that a pandemic was deemed by our government to be one of the highest risks we faced, did it really have no plans in place for such a scenario?
The honest answer is I don't know but just hazarding a guess might not "all hands to deck, do what is required to secure supplies" be one of the possible plans to put in place?
“Foremost” - “world-beating”. All this endless boasting. You’d think Boris had worries about some deficiency somewhere the way he always has to big everything up.
Some basic competence would be a pleasant surprise at this point.
1992. Kirsty McColl sang different lyrics on top of the pops
Almost 30 years ago now.
1992 almost 30 years ago you say?! Wow!!
Faggot was always a pejorative borderline swear word anyway, so it’s not a surprise it’s been edited previously, more surprising if it hadn’t
As a kid, faggot meant to me either a spicy sausage type food or firewood. The other meaning came later but was rarely heard.
What I find shocking looking back is that when I was at school in the 60s there were no gay or lesbian school children (nonsense obviously). The only place where it was apparent were camp entertainers.
I'm also pretty sure this never struck us as odd either. I can only assume we thought homosexuals were a very small minority.
It does make me wonder how many really troubled kids there were having to hide their sexuality for fear of bullying.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
But these generalities cannot and should not be rolled out to defend the indefensible.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
But these generalities cannot and should not be rolled out to defend the indefensible.
Indeed.
But we're not talking about defending the indefensible, we're talking (again) about the government succeeeding completely in securing supplies of PPE for doctors and nurses during a pandemic.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
There speaks a true Tory, snout snuffling at the thought of all the freebies
No just someone who has experience of business, I have nothing to do with government contracts.
I'm curious if a 10% margin is noteworthy in all walks of life?
It a bottle of beer costs £12 for 24 in the supermarket then do you think a pub and restaurant charging over 55 pence for a bottle of the same beer is outrageous?
As "... someone who has experience of business ..." you should know that the standard rule of thumb for markup is 40% or 2.5 times, depending which way around you are running the calculation.
So if I buy a widget at 10p I should sell it for at least 25p to cover all my costs. If I want to sell at 25p then my buy price needs to be below 25p x 40% = 10p
Can I dip my toe in the choppy waters of "who should get the vaccine first"?
Seems to be taken as red that it should be the very oldest people first, particularly those in care homes.
"Who is most vulnerable for covid" should be a prime driver for sure. But there are other drivers surely? Can we agree that not all lives are of equal value? Controversial I know.
Seems obvious to me that a 18 year old life is of more value than a 80 year old life, and gradients in-between. If you overlaid scales of "who is most vulnerable from catching the virus" with "who has most to lose from catching the virus" the answer wouldn`t be "vaccinate old folk in care homes first".
I have my hard hat on to protect against the incoming.
1) older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers 2) all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers 3) all those 75 years of age and over 4) all those 70 years of age and over 5) all those 65 years of age and over 6) high-risk adults under 65 years of age 7) moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age 8) all those 60 years of age and over 9) all those 55 years of age and over 10) all those 50 years of age and over 11) rest of the population (priority to be determined)
1-5) would be something in the order of 13-14 million people, I believe.
Nearly all the deaths have been in the 1-9 groups.
I went through the numbers for these a while back. My best estimates were: 1) older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers - 418,000 + 295,000 2) all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers - 3,218,000 + 2,700,000 3) all those 75 years of age and over - 2,235,000 4) all those 70 years of age and over - 3,252,000 5) all those 65 years of age and over - 3,396,000 6) high-risk adults under 65 years of age - 1,500,000 (estimated) 7) moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age - COULD NOT ESTIMATE RELIABLY, probably c. 7,500,000 ?? 8) all those 60 years of age and over - 3,674,000 9) all those 55 years of age and over - 4,300,000 10) all those 50 years of age and over - 4,675,000 11) rest of the population (priority to be determined)
Will HMG take into account the logistics of vaccinating these groups?
People in care homes are easy because they are in the same place and you just need to send the pinstickers in; likewise students at university or children at school. 80-year-olds living at home will be harder to reach; you could ask them to visit their GP but that presents its own problems and compliance would likely be moderate at best.
Unless Matt Hancock plans to send nurses door-to-door, the current list looks impracticable. Maybe it should concentrate on locations instead, like care homes or schools, but then look at the places people will go to for vaccination (a bit like the flu jab): GPs, pharmacists, even supermarkets, but also workplaces.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
There speaks a true Tory, snout snuffling at the thought of all the freebies
No just someone who has experience of business, I have nothing to do with government contracts.
I'm curious if a 10% margin is noteworthy in all walks of life?
It a bottle of beer costs £12 for 24 in the supermarket then do you think a pub and restaurant charging over 55 pence for a bottle of the same beer is outrageous?
As "... someone who has experience of business ..." you should know that the standard rule of thumb for markup is 40% or 2.5 times, depending which way around you are running the calculation.
So if I buy a widget at 10p I should sell it for at least 25p to cover all my costs. If I want to sell at 25p then my buy price needs to be below 25p x 40% = 10p
Well indeed though it depends upon the sector or industry and the volume being discussed, some sectors rely upon thicker volumes but thinner margins while others rely upon thinner volumes but thicker margins but indeed that is entirely reasonable!
Yet here we have mock outrage and horror at a 10% markup. Why is that?
Can I dip my toe in the choppy waters of "who should get the vaccine first"?
Seems to be taken as red that it should be the very oldest people first, particularly those in care homes.
"Who is most vulnerable for covid" should be a prime driver for sure. But there are other drivers surely? Can we agree that not all lives are of equal value? Controversial I know.
Seems obvious to me that a 18 year old life is of more value than a 80 year old life, and gradients in-between. If you overlaid scales of "who is most vulnerable from catching the virus" with "who has most to lose from catching the virus" the answer wouldn`t be "vaccinate old folk in care homes first".
I have my hard hat on to protect against the incoming.
1) older adults’ resident in a care home and care home workers 2) all those 80 years of age and over and health and social care workers 3) all those 75 years of age and over 4) all those 70 years of age and over 5) all those 65 years of age and over 6) high-risk adults under 65 years of age 7) moderate-risk adults under 65 years of age 8) all those 60 years of age and over 9) all those 55 years of age and over 10) all those 50 years of age and over 11) rest of the population (priority to be determined)
1-5) would be something in the order of 13-14 million people, I believe.
Nearly all the deaths have been in the 1-9 groups.
You mean JackW is first in the queue? Sorry, mate, there's something wrong here....
No, he's not in a care home. He's in the second batch, with Big G and myself. Although as C comes before G and W, it's me, me, me first.
The only reason he's not in a care home is noone will have him.
How long before they get down to me, do you think? When will they start taking the Ps?
In my Care Home Inspection days I came across a resident whom the Matron said they were going 'to ask his son to remove him.' Can't imagine Jack being accused of what he was guilty of, though.
Hilarious. I believe in Jack's case the problem is his attitude towards other residents thought to be LDs.
Mrs Jack W and I will not require the Coviid vaccine as we have already been vaccinated with the "Winning Here" injection - a totally incredible potion of the essence of former Scottish Liberal Democrats that is known to kill 99.9% of bacteria and election prospects ...
1992. Kirsty McColl sang different lyrics on top of the pops
Almost 30 years ago now.
1992 almost 30 years ago you say?! Wow!!
Faggot was always a pejorative borderline swear word anyway, so it’s not a surprise it’s been edited previously, more surprising if it hadn’t
As a kid, faggot meant to me either a spicy sausage type food or firewood. The other meaning came later but was rarely heard.
What I find shocking looking back is that when I was at school in the 60s there were no gay or lesbian school children (nonsense obviously). The only place where it was apparent were camp entertainers.
I'm also pretty sure this never struck us as odd either. I can only assume we thought homosexuals were a very small minority.
It does make me wonder how many really troubled kids there were having to hide their sexuality for fear of bullying.
The answer is "a lot". The kids these days seem to be a lot more tolerant than their elders. Well done modern kids
[edit: I was going to add an additional sentence, but it sounded too "Dura_ace" so I skipped it ]
I am finding the outrage over using grey market for PPE some what double standards, when at the time Labour produced a whole dossier of even less qualified people* and the media paraded them as people we should be buying from.
* People not only not in the business, but had no stock nor could produce any documents relating to origin of the factories where their stock would come from.
Labour's ideas may or may not have been ridiculous, they were irrelevant, for good or for bad.
The problem you have is the Conservatives are holding the purse strings and their PPE procurement policy wreaks. If a Labour government had overseen this fiasco, you would quite rightly be outraged.
1992. Kirsty McColl sang different lyrics on top of the pops
Almost 30 years ago now.
1992 almost 30 years ago you say?! Wow!!
Faggot was always a pejorative borderline swear word anyway, so it’s not a surprise it’s been edited previously, more surprising if it hadn’t
As a kid, faggot meant to me either a spicy sausage type food or firewood. The other meaning came later but was rarely heard.
What I find shocking looking back is that when I was at school in the 60s there were no gay or lesbian school children (nonsense obviously). The only place where it was apparent were camp entertainers.
I'm also pretty sure this never struck us as odd either. I can only assume we thought homosexuals were a very small minority.
It does make me wonder how many really troubled kids there were having to hide their sexuality for fear of bullying.
Loads. Was the same in the 80s. It was only on moving to Canada that I first encountered out school kids. There was one boy and one girl in a cohort of 100.
Those happy with legacy media will still tune into the BBC, where as those of us looking for better quality / more in depth analysis watch dedicated YouTube channels. Not sure where this idea fits into that.
Can I dip my toe in the choppy waters of "who should get the vaccine first"?
Seems to be taken as red that it should be the very oldest people first, particularly those in care homes.
"Who is most vulnerable for covid" should be a prime driver for sure. But there are other drivers surely? Can we agree that not all lives are of equal value? Controversial I know.
Seems obvious to me that a 18 year old life is of more value than a 80 year old life, and gradients in-between. If you overlaid scales of "who is most vulnerable from catching the virus" with "who has most to lose from catching the virus" the answer wouldn`t be "vaccinate old folk in care homes first".
I have my hard hat on to protect against the incoming.
You ignore the fact that 18 year old is almost 100% unlikely to be impacted. Hopefully it is not your older family members that die as a result of your callous selfishness.
Sorry, my original post seems to have misled. I was making a general philosophical point that a 18 year old has more value than a 80 year old - I wasn`t suggesting that we should be vaccinating 18 year olds!
Stating 18 year olds are more valuable than 80 year olds is classic QUALY abuse.
It's the basic "Gotcha" that everyone who comes across the concept comes up with.
Bit like the one about all economists being sociopaths because they expect everyone to behave with perfect economic rationality and not take into account non-monetary factors.
Can you define what you mean by "QUALY abuse"? This is a new one on me.
It`s obvious to me that the death of an 18 year old is more tragic than the death of a 80 year old. So obvious it hardly needs saying.
Isn't it just pretending that numbers of QALYs are a reason for devaluing some peoples' lives?
Remember the quantity of rather repugnant commentary on PB earlier in the year along the lines "They are going to die soon anyway, so let them die."
“Foremost” - “world-beating”. All this endless boasting. You’d think Boris had worries about some deficiency somewhere the way he always has to big everything up.
Some basic competence would be a pleasant surprise at this point.
Boris is also here (as I might have mentioned before) implicitly running not against Labour but against his Conservative predecessors (especially Cameron) who cut the armed forces to ribbons in the first place.
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
But these generalities cannot and should not be rolled out to defend the indefensible.
Indeed.
But we're not talking about defending the indefensible, we're talking (again) about the government succeeeding completely in securing supplies of PPE for doctors and nurses during a pandemic.
Well done them! Great competence.
That was not the response I was looking for. The risk here - now compounded - is that you come across as someone on the Johnson payroll rather than as a fiercely independent internet blogger who calls out suspected wrongdoing without fear or favour.
“ Most of these products came via the grey market which has always been a murky place with long chains of multiple people taking a cut.
One I was told about the other days: US pharma sells to Turkish hospital. Hospital sells to mate down the road. Mate sells to Turkish wholesaler. Turkish is wholesaler sells to Romanian parallel importer. Romanian parallel importer sells to Dutch agent. Dutch agent sells to legitimate clinical trial supply company. Clinical trial supply company provides to big pharma company for use in a clinical trial.”
There is quite a big difference between that and Party A reaching an agreement with Party B who then says “BTW before we finalise this you need to pay Intermediary C a large amount of money because he arranged this deal” even though as far as you can tell Intermediary C’s work consists mainly of inserting himself in the middle in order to get paid.
A lot of these companies seem to be wholly unaware of the provisions of the UK’s Bribery Act, which apply not just to operations in the U.K. but overseas as well and to anyone acting on their behalf. If the SFO were not so terminally useless they’d have enough work to keep them going for years. As it is, if there has been any wrongdoing, the wrongdoers are probably safe from justice.
What was more important in the first half of this year?
1. Strict adherence to procurement practices, with extensive due diligence and only purchasing from primary sources of manufacturing?
or
2. By any means necessary, keeping healthcare professionals provided with protective equipment?
At the start of the pandemic, this was the binary choice faced by those in charge of PPE procurement. Of course mistakes will have been made, but that is the nature of a pandemic.
Of course, if there is any evidence of actual fraud this should be investigated, but the vast majority of people involved acted in good faith to an open "Does anyone know anyone anywhere who can get this stuff?" request from the NHS.
I don’t have any problem at all with the government paying over the odds for equipment needed urgently. It does raise the important question of why there appeared to be no plan for getting equipment necessary in a crisis - perhaps that was another part of Project Cygnus that was ditched.
I do have a big problem with doing so in a way which appears to have facilitated some very apparently dodgy behaviour. The Bribery Act does not have a defence of “I needed to do it speedily because I was unprepared.” I also question the claim of “good faith” because of my actual knowledge of some of the people involved.
There has been a persistent response that normal due diligence would take 6 months etc so obviously would need to be ditched. This is simply not true. You can do even basic due diligence very quickly - in hours if need be. It takes minutes to put in contracts clauses allowing clawback of monies paid and yet the ineffably incompetent Helen Whately was claiming that such things did not exist.
When banks were rescued in autumn 2008 this was pretty much done over a weekend. The idea that things cannot be done well and speedily is simply not true. The idea that speed is an excuse for simply abandoning any attempt at some form of control is a nonsense.
What’s more this abandonment of any sort of good practice seems to have continued long after the initial emergency. It seems to have infested all sorts of other contracts and appointments which had nothing to do with getting equipment to doctors on the front line. It seems to be the government’s MO and this should concern us all, however much slack we may be willing to cut the government for what it necessarily had to do back in February/March.
I think that any evidence of fraud should be passed to the relevant authorities, I've been consistent in that. I also think that the lack of preparedness should be investigated thoroughly, so that everyone is ready for the next emergency.
As @Charles mentioned earlier, attempts at due diligence would have difficult back in March - many of these potential suppliers had no prior experience in the field but did know someone further along the grey-market supply chain. Most of them did indeed deliver the PPE that was paid for, even if it wasn't the best possible value for money. The NHS procurement team had little choice if they didn't want to run out of the stuff.
The difference with the bank rescue was that it was just numbers on computers and spreadsheets, rather than having to physically manufacture and distribute stuff that the whole world was looking for at the same time.
The concern was the fast track process for mates and the dodgy broker payments. One suspects cronyism and corruption.
If Sir Kneel Starmer makes the same tax promise that Joe Biden made he'll get in.
Yes - if there were a "PM after next GE" market I would make SKS the favourite.
Starmer probably won't win the next election. Labour is too structurally weak in the Midlands and Scotland and with the over 65 vote. That's not even an anti Starmer point more to do with the solidity of the Tory voter coalition.
The only arguments in Labour's favour are Wales looking better for the party now and Starmer being more actively popular with LD>Lab switchers who weren't actively keen on Miliband or Corbyn even if a lot of them voted tactically Lab in 2017.
I just can't see many Tory voters who have not already switched to Lab (over e.g. Cummings etc), switch between now and 2024.
PIERS MORGAN: William is right, the BBC needs to come clean and if its alleged lies, deceit and fraud over Diana's Panorama interview are proven - then all those responsible have her blood on their hands and must be held to account
The so-called "jewellery designer" was actually an "importer" and he assisted in using contacts in China to "import" goods.
"Importer paid to import goods" is such a slow news day story.
That’s not quite accurate though is it. There was the company set up by a jewellery designer who agreed to provide the goods to the NHS and then another individual who was used by him to help source the goods in China. It’s the latter who was paid £21 million by the former. Whether it was out out of the £197 million paid by the NHS to the supplier or on top of, is not clear but it ultimately came from the NHS.
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
Businesses seek to make a profit shouldn't be a shocker, that is why people go into business. If the contracted supplier pays subcontractors to honour the contract, then so long as the contract is honoured then that is a supply chain working.
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
There speaks a true Tory, snout snuffling at the thought of all the freebies
No just someone who has experience of business, I have nothing to do with government contracts.
I'm curious if a 10% margin is noteworthy in all walks of life?
It a bottle of beer costs £12 for 24 in the supermarket then do you think a pub and restaurant charging over 55 pence for a bottle of the same beer is outrageous?
As "... someone who has experience of business ..." you should know that the standard rule of thumb for markup is 40% or 2.5 times, depending which way around you are running the calculation.
So if I buy a widget at 10p I should sell it for at least 25p to cover all my costs. If I want to sell at 25p then my buy price needs to be below 25p x 40% = 10p
But if your widgets were destined for an overseas health service, but a dodgy contact who managed customs at an appropriate overseas port, in the very same overseas country, inadvertently diverted them to Felixtowe for a $50,000 bung into a Cayman Islands bank account and a new C Class Mercedes- Benz, would that also be a standard rule of thumb?
Comments
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1329402072563937286?s=20
Or as another man said - "Just because you speak Catalan doesn't mean you know anything about Europe."
Though admittedly the longer term figures for that are pretty well unknown at this point.
It was not Kirsty McColl, in case you were wondering, which you weren't.
For which he deserves loud and repeated credit.
It`s obvious to me that the death of an 18 year old is more tragic than the death of a 80 year old. So obvious it hardly needs saying.
Now I'm hungry....
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1329401938341994497?s=20
No idea whether a 10.65% commission charge is normal. Whether the whole contract was value for money for the NHS who knows. Why the NHS and the government were so unprepared and so lacking in secure and robust contacts with actual suppliers and manufacturers and what lessons should be learned from all this will be one for any inquiry, if we get one.
- If you mandate masks in one area but not in another, does mask use in the other area increase anyway?(particularly if neighbouring areas, but even more distantly as masks get into the news). Maybe you can gauge this by having people out/using CCTV to assess proportions wearing masks
- How do you disentangle mask wearing from other factors? (particularly if distant areas - we know there have been big variations by geography)
I think observational studies might actually be stronger here, but they'll all have their own issues, although overall probably with randomish effects on results, so we'll need lots of studies and then a good review to really suss this out. There should be enough out there with different countries mandating mask use at different points to get these estimates.
PS: I still think the article authors are a bit disingenuous in the final paragraph, although the basic argument that we need more study of this I can wholeheartedly agree with.
Sorry, not sorry.
The Tories on nere will have to call themselves the Rishi's Dishies at this rate.
£62 million bet at 1.05.
I find these numbers simply incredible.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1329386411309604871?s=20
That ain't workin', that's the way you do it
Money for nothin,' when procuring PPE.
Of all the frame to end up as the title frame...
10.65% commission doesn't sound to me to be extortionate under the circumstances, especially if that includes shipping or handling charges. Many businesses operate using thicker margins than that and quite reasonably too - a bottle of beer at the supermarket can cost as little as 50p but that same bottle sold in a pub can be measured in pounds not pennies. Does that make every landlord or landlady in the country a rip off? Or are there costs and factors involved in operating businesses that need to be factored into considerations?
Secure and robust contracts don't exist when we're in a pandemic situation and goods are being demanded in volumes that aren't normally and formerly reliable suppliers are seeing their stockpiles requisitioned by foreign states.
https://twitter.com/dungeekin/status/1329400715144523778
Still no House Sparrow.
A red-legged partridge popped by on Tuesday, but we've seen one before.
And after all, it's the public health effect of such measures that in the end matters.
Ah well ....
* People not only not in the business, but had no stock nor could produce any documents relating to origin of the factories where their stock would come from.
Bozza would be better off giving that case the hospitality industry to rebuild a sector which is dear and of fundamental importance to the UK economy and way of life.
Diane Abbot, on the other hand, said that 10,000 police recruits would cost £30,000, or was it £80m, if we recruit 25,000 police.
Here's a link if anyone has missed it:
When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=hootsuite&utm_content=sme&utm_campaign=usage
https://scottishwildlifetrust.org.uk/2014/04/goldcrest-or-firecrest/
Requisitioning of scarce goods during emergencies is not an unforseeable event. Given that a pandemic was deemed by our government to be one of the highest risks we faced, did it really have no plans in place for such a scenario?
I'm curious if a 10% margin is noteworthy in all walks of life?
It a bottle of beer costs £12 for 24 in the supermarket then do you think a pub and restaurant charging over 55 pence for a bottle of the same beer is outrageous?
Here in urban Wolverhampton we have a huge flock of house sparrows which the previous owner said had always been around for years before us.
Yet in our previous home just half a mile away we didn't see a house sparrow for a decade.
Some basic competence would be a pleasant surprise at this point.
I'm also pretty sure this never struck us as odd either. I can only assume we thought homosexuals were a very small minority.
It does make me wonder how many really troubled kids there were having to hide their sexuality for fear of bullying.
But we're not talking about defending the indefensible, we're talking (again) about the government succeeeding completely in securing supplies of PPE for doctors and nurses during a pandemic.
Well done them! Great competence.
So if I buy a widget at 10p I should sell it for at least 25p to cover all my costs. If I want to sell at 25p then my buy price needs to be below 25p x 40% = 10p
People in care homes are easy because they are in the same place and you just need to send the pinstickers in; likewise students at university or children at school. 80-year-olds living at home will be harder to reach; you could ask them to visit their GP but that presents its own problems and compliance would likely be moderate at best.
Unless Matt Hancock plans to send nurses door-to-door, the current list looks impracticable. Maybe it should concentrate on locations instead, like care homes or schools, but then look at the places people will go to for vaccination (a bit like the flu jab): GPs, pharmacists, even supermarkets, but also workplaces.
Yet here we have mock outrage and horror at a 10% markup. Why is that?
[edit: I was going to add an additional sentence, but it sounded too "Dura_ace" so I skipped it
The problem you have is the Conservatives are holding the purse strings and their PPE procurement policy wreaks. If a Labour government had overseen this fiasco, you would quite rightly be outraged.
https://order-order.com/2020/11/19/exclusive-news-uk-tv-station-ramps-up-hiring-as-studio-construction-starts/
Those happy with legacy media will still tune into the BBC, where as those of us looking for better quality / more in depth analysis watch dedicated YouTube channels. Not sure where this idea fits into that.
Remember the quantity of rather repugnant commentary on PB earlier in the year along the lines "They are going to die soon anyway, so let them die."
https://twitter.com/DonovanSlack/status/1329277981492191232
The only arguments in Labour's favour are Wales looking better for the party now and Starmer being more actively popular with LD>Lab switchers who weren't actively keen on Miliband or Corbyn even if a lot of them voted tactically Lab in 2017.
I just can't see many Tory voters who have not already switched to Lab (over e.g. Cummings etc), switch between now and 2024.
The man is shameless....