Post by RogerPost by PamelaThe NHS was under-resourced, run down and reacted too slowly. The UK's
reputation as a global leader in readiness aganist epidemics (flu, SARS
o
r
Post by Pamelaotherwise) turned out to be false. Stockpiles were far too low.
Stockpiles were at their projected levels. The trouble is that even with
rotation you can only stockpile so much before shelf life limit kick in.
In order to assure supply you need a supply chain you can rely on. If
you buy from a facility that works one shift 5 days a week, you have the
possibility of ramping production up fourfold if you go 24x7.
Post by PamelaAm not sure sourcing turning all production from the UK is wise as it
encourage mnonopoly behaviour.
Health services consume a lot of material, multiple suppliers are possible.
Post by PamelaIt might be better to have a large
stockpile a;long with a plan with contracts for massive local
production when required.
You cannot create production from nothing. It is easy to scale up
production in an emergency (as long as the plant is not already running
24x7). You mix the staff who know the plant with other workers, where
necessary using people with relevant related experience. Typically, when
you set up a new production facility, you reckon about 6 months to have
things running smoothly. Obviously in an emergency you can have some
production in weeks; case in point in this crisis there are now extra
facilities in Europe for producing PPE, reagents and auto testing
machines. But they were needed in less than the 6 to 8 weeks it took.
In the example I gave of the line working 8x5, it would be possible to
immediately boost production by at least 50% by overtime and weekend
working. If these workers were flanked by new workers familiar with the
type of work, if not the specific case, then in a couple of weeks they
would be well on their way to 24x7.
That's why there should be an emergency plan. Switching production is not
difficult or particularly slow if all the details and agreements have been
planned in advance. With a plan and agreed designs, one week to start
emergency production and two weeks to get up to speed is sufficient.
Post by RogerPost by PamelaI don't much like Cummings but that is another matter. However he
represents a political presence at scientific meetings which should not
be there in any circumstance.
Eh? SAGE should not meet the politicians? In any case, Cummings is not a politician.
Those objections are irrelevant.
Post by RogerA future public inquiry will determine if
Post by PamelaCummings was been behind some of the failed decisions (such as rapid
herd immunity) but right now all we can askis to keep politics out of
science.
Rapid Herd Immunity? AFAIK government policy in the delay phase has
always been to delay diffusion to within health service capacity.
Not at all . The inital plan, based on a lack of materials and
insufficient ICU beds, was to allow herd Covid sweep through the country
and rapidly create herd immunity. Only later did govt realise the cost in
lives of this crazy idea was too high and found that it could manage
supply & demand by flattening the peak requirement for ICU which then
became its policy.
Unfortunately the nursing homes had to be sacrificed to "save the NHS".
Post by RogerI would suggest that attempts to suggest otherwise are deliberate false
interpretations bordering on fake news.
However, in any situation Cummings has no responsibility or authority.
If he made an erroneous suggestion to a minister, and the minister acts
on that advice rather than the government scientists, it is the
ministers responsibility.
I wonder why there are so many spirited denials that Cummings is not
influential with Boris. It happens all the time. For example Trump's
most trusted advisor (after Ivanka) is Jared who couldn't even get a
security clearance untik Trump overrode the authorities.