Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods." In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods." It would be interesting to see how much of this useless PPE came from companies that started up during the pandemic and were owned by friends and neighbours of the members of the government. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"About £1.4bn worth of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been destroyed or written off in what is understood to be the most wasteful government deal of the pandemic. Figures obtained by the BBC reveal that at least 1.57 billion items of PPE provided by Full Support Healthcare, an NHS supplier based in Northamptonshire, will never be used, despite being manufactured to the proper standard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cll476qzm85o" Does PPE have a shelf life? Presumably it does otherwise why destroy something that met the proper standards? I know taxpayers were paying £millions to store it but surely “they” could have distributed to all hospitals and care homes (at a cost yes but does that offset the cost for destruction?) Can only assume there is a use by date? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods." I need to read the article but I was assuming the OP is a quote and it says… “despite being manufactured to the proper standard” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. It would be interesting to see how much of this useless PPE came from companies that started up during the pandemic and were owned by friends and neighbours of the members of the government. " This A good little money laundering scheme | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep shelf life… “It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” The company did nothing wrong. An established specialist supplier with existing NHS contracts. This is a case of over ordering (panic buying) which was understandable at the time AND since then a failure to know how best to use and distribute the stock. That is on DHSC/NHS. I wonder how much PPE has been ordered and used post pandemic? Imagine if there has been and consider how this stock could have been used instead?" Or even given to a 3rd world country? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. It would be interesting to see how much of this useless PPE came from companies that started up during the pandemic and were owned by friends and neighbours of the members of the government. This A good little money laundering scheme " None of the PPE referred to in this article was sub standard. For me that is an additional scandal as surely that could have been distributed and used over last three years meaning no other stock needed ordering. However, reports are that a huge amount of PPE did not meet standards, inc that supplied via Baroness Mone’s husband’s firm. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep shelf life… “It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” The company did nothing wrong. An established specialist supplier with existing NHS contracts. This is a case of over ordering (panic buying) which was understandable at the time AND since then a failure to know how best to use and distribute the stock. That is on DHSC/NHS. I wonder how much PPE has been ordered and used post pandemic? Imagine if there has been and consider how this stock could have been used instead? Or even given to a 3rd world country? " Yes good point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep shelf life… “It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” The company did nothing wrong. An established specialist supplier with existing NHS contracts. This is a case of over ordering (panic buying) which was understandable at the time AND since then a failure to know how best to use and distribute the stock. That is on DHSC/NHS. I wonder how much PPE has been ordered and used post pandemic? Imagine if there has been and consider how this stock could have been used instead? Or even given to a 3rd world country? " Exactly! but I can guess the answer : the government/NHS would have legal advice not to accept any liability for PPE sold or gifted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. It would be interesting to see how much of this useless PPE came from companies that started up during the pandemic and were owned by friends and neighbours of the members of the government. " According to the good law project the amount of PPE that was 'sourced' by the VIP lane and not fit for purpose was 26% via that and the cost (without storage and disposal which was more millions) was over £1.2 billion.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep shelf life… “It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” The company did nothing wrong. An established specialist supplier with existing NHS contracts. This is a case of over ordering (panic buying) which was understandable at the time AND since then a failure to know how best to use and distribute the stock. That is on DHSC/NHS. I wonder how much PPE has been ordered and used post pandemic? Imagine if there has been and consider how this stock could have been used instead?" Worth adding Tories cut 40% off pre pandemic emergency supplies which left us short https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/revealed-value-of-uk-pandemic-stockpile-fell-by-40-in-six-years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yep shelf life… “It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” The company did nothing wrong. An established specialist supplier with existing NHS contracts. This is a case of over ordering (panic buying) which was understandable at the time AND since then a failure to know how best to use and distribute the stock. That is on DHSC/NHS. I wonder how much PPE has been ordered and used post pandemic? Imagine if there has been and consider how this stock could have been used instead? Worth adding Tories cut 40% off pre pandemic emergency supplies which left us short https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/12/revealed-value-of-uk-pandemic-stockpile-fell-by-40-in-six-years " maybe it wasn’t that big of emergency we where told it was going to be then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!!" The masks were effective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective." narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke " So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?" no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ?" So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. " I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why " The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. " your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? " What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?" it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less " I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. " stop it I wasn’t worried at all just thought what a stupid rule if you think it was a good one great that’s fine by me lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. stop it I wasn’t worried at all just thought what a stupid rule if you think it was a good one great that’s fine by me lol" I have no opinion on the rule. I was trying to get clarification on your point. But I don't seem to be getting anywhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ?" I was brought up to cover my mouth when I coughed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. " Might have found that difficult ???? If irc the 3 stooges at the start said masks where ineffective, then once contracts off ppe were mentioned... they were compulsory After the event, they were proved to be inadequate... you could of asked any ex service person whose done nbc training to tell you that. But defeats the object and the smokes and mirrors of the whole thing imho | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. Might have found that difficult ???? If irc the 3 stooges at the start said masks where ineffective, then once contracts off ppe were mentioned... they were compulsory After the event, they were proved to be inadequate... you could of asked any ex service person whose done nbc training to tell you that. But defeats the object and the smokes and mirrors of the whole thing imho" they couldn’t of asked ex service men they would of got a real answer that’s why they used so called experts and the great scientists lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. Might have found that difficult ???? If irc the 3 stooges at the start said masks where ineffective, then once contracts off ppe were mentioned... they were compulsory After the event, they were proved to be inadequate... you could of asked any ex service person whose done nbc training to tell you that. But defeats the object and the smokes and mirrors of the whole thing imho they couldn’t of asked ex service men they would of got a real answer that’s why they used so called experts and the great scientists lol" We knew the score about masks, hence same rules when you use respirators... unless it's a clean, tight seal then its about useful as an ashtray on a motorbike 
Seeing idiots with beards, long hair, never mind when they wore one in a car on their own  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. Might have found that difficult ???? If irc the 3 stooges at the start said masks where ineffective, then once contracts off ppe were mentioned... they were compulsory After the event, they were proved to be inadequate... you could of asked any ex service person whose done nbc training to tell you that. But defeats the object and the smokes and mirrors of the whole thing imho they couldn’t of asked ex service men they would of got a real answer that’s why they used so called experts and the great scientists lol We knew the score about masks, hence same rules when you use respirators... unless it's a clean, tight seal then its about useful as an ashtray on a motorbike
Seeing idiots with beards, long hair, never mind when they wore one in a car on their own "Hard to believe after all this time, people still don't know the purpose of wearing masks. What a world we live in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We knew the score about masks, hence same rules when you use respirators... unless it's a clean, tight seal then its about useful as an ashtray on a motorbike Seeing idiots with beards, long hair, never mind when they wore one in a car on their own " Something something put your hand over your mouth if you're going to cough (I could actually hear my mum's voice as I typed that) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We knew the score about masks, hence same rules when you use respirators... unless it's a clean, tight seal then its about useful as an ashtray on a motorbike Seeing idiots with beards, long hair, never mind when they wore one in a car on their own Something something put your hand over your mouth if you're going to cough (I could actually hear my mum's voice as I typed that)" Then they serve food or beer without washing, my pet hate!! Then again, being in a restaurant/pub when you know you have a cold is a shooting offence imho | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. Might have found that difficult ???? If irc the 3 stooges at the start said masks where ineffective, then once contracts off ppe were mentioned... they were compulsory After the event, they were proved to be inadequate... you could of asked any ex service person whose done nbc training to tell you that. But defeats the object and the smokes and mirrors of the whole thing imho they couldn’t of asked ex service men they would of got a real answer that’s why they used so called experts and the great scientists lol We knew the score about masks, hence same rules when you use respirators... unless it's a clean, tight seal then its about useful as an ashtray on a motorbike
Seeing idiots with beards, long hair, never mind when they wore one in a car on their own
Hard to believe after all this time, people still don't know the purpose of wearing masks.
What a world we live in. "Or that there's a bloody virus forum for this type of stuff.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... " As long as friends and neighbours of the Tory party made billions, that's all that matters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. stop it I wasn’t worried at all just thought what a stupid rule if you think it was a good one great that’s fine by me lol" Why are they worn in theatres if they don't work? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke " Research showed that masks were effective. Poor use and stupid behaviour, wouldn't be overcome by any measures though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less I haven't expressed a view about those rules working. Still not sure why you're worried about people taking off the masks to eat, if you don't think they worked anyway. Might have found that difficult ???? If irc the 3 stooges at the start said masks where ineffective, then once contracts off ppe were mentioned... they were compulsory After the event, they were proved to be inadequate... you could of asked any ex service person whose done nbc training to tell you that. But defeats the object and the smokes and mirrors of the whole thing imho" They were effective in reducing the spread. Yes they lied to the public because they wanted the masks for healthcare and care workers. I would put it down to Hancock who lied. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... As long as friends and neighbours of the Tory party made billions, that's all that matters. " It's a bit like losing the election, as long as they've taken all that they can, whilst they can, losing office is just an occasional inconvenience and cost of their operation | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... " Legit out of date stuff is probably more effective than the crap mone's old man had a hand in producing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... " Of course the people up in arms about this are the same people who were up in arms that we didn't previously stockpile  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... Of course the people up in arms about this are the same people who were up in arms that we didn't previously stockpile "On the contrary, the issue is whether this stockpile could have been used in the three years since the pandemic. ie while these pallets were sitting in the New Forest, has the NHS or DHSC ordered any more stock. If so why? Couldn’t they use what they had before it went out of date? Now the answer might be no, they haven’t ordered any more in that period. Be good to know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... Of course the people up in arms about this are the same people who were up in arms that we didn't previously stockpile
On the contrary, the issue is whether this stockpile could have been used in the three years since the pandemic. ie while these pallets were sitting in the New Forest, has the NHS or DHSC ordered any more stock. If so why? Couldn’t they use what they had before it went out of date? Now the answer might be no, they haven’t ordered any more in that period. Be good to know.
"Has the NHS fixed the fragmented procurement problems that caused a lot of the over orders, or are trusts still ignorant of each other? Would be interesting to know, if the issues still exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... Of course the people up in arms about this are the same people who were up in arms that we didn't previously stockpile
On the contrary, the issue is whether this stockpile could have been used in the three years since the pandemic. ie while these pallets were sitting in the New Forest, has the NHS or DHSC ordered any more stock. If so why? Couldn’t they use what they had before it went out of date? Now the answer might be no, they haven’t ordered any more in that period. Be good to know.
"I don't know the details, but it's hard to imagine this gear was completely scrap. It needed pragmatism to say "OK, what can we salvage?". But the NHS is a bureaucratic dinosaur, and with a box ticked "Non Compliant" the entire consignment has to be destroyed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... Of course the people up in arms about this are the same people who were up in arms that we didn't previously stockpile
On the contrary, the issue is whether this stockpile could have been used in the three years since the pandemic. ie while these pallets were sitting in the New Forest, has the NHS or DHSC ordered any more stock. If so why? Couldn’t they use what they had before it went out of date? Now the answer might be no, they haven’t ordered any more in that period. Be good to know.
Has the NHS fixed the fragmented procurement problems that caused a lot of the over orders, or are trusts still ignorant of each other?
Would be interesting to know, if the issues still exist.
"Indeed! I don’t think under the circumstances of the early days of the pandemic anyone can really be critical of over ordering. Had things got worse with Covid the extra PPE would have been needed. As Feisty says, it would be rather hypocritical to criticise govt for not stockpiling and then when they do not using it. However, I remain interested to know whether this stockpile (or a chunk of it) could have been used before it went out of date. For me the scandal here would be if more stock has been purchased over the relevant years when this could have used. Obviously this is a related but separate point to the other PPE scandal around VIP lanes, dodgy suppliers, faulty stock. In this case the supplier was legit with established specialist experience and commercial relationship with the NHS. This company did nothing wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... Of course the people up in arms about this are the same people who were up in arms that we didn't previously stockpile
On the contrary, the issue is whether this stockpile could have been used in the three years since the pandemic. ie while these pallets were sitting in the New Forest, has the NHS or DHSC ordered any more stock. If so why? Couldn’t they use what they had before it went out of date? Now the answer might be no, they haven’t ordered any more in that period. Be good to know.
I don't know the details, but it's hard to imagine this gear was completely scrap. It needed pragmatism to say "OK, what can we salvage?". But the NHS is a bureaucratic dinosaur, and with a box ticked "Non Compliant" the entire consignment has to be destroyed."Unless I am misunderstanding your point/terminology…Please read the article or various posts here. This stock was not “non-compliant” it was past its use by date. The PPE supplied by this company was fine but just never got used (or was forgotten about). I seem to recall that DHSC handled the mass procurement of PPE during the pandemic rather the NHS directly. May be wrong on that. However, as NotMe says, a major problem is fragmented procurement and stock control. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... Of course the people up in arms about this are the same people who were up in arms that we didn't previously stockpile
On the contrary, the issue is whether this stockpile could have been used in the three years since the pandemic. ie while these pallets were sitting in the New Forest, has the NHS or DHSC ordered any more stock. If so why? Couldn’t they use what they had before it went out of date? Now the answer might be no, they haven’t ordered any more in that period. Be good to know.
"It sure has turned into the question of 'did they just sit there and go outbof date whilst we ordered more?' If you look across social media as a whole, it's definitely the same people criticising 'not stockpiling' and 'wasted money for out if date PPE' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So legit PPE that's out of date ? I hope people up in arms aren't also up in arms that we weren't prepared. Not sure the right approach, but damned if we do... Of course the people up in arms about this are the same people who were up in arms that we didn't previously stockpile
On the contrary, the issue is whether this stockpile could have been used in the three years since the pandemic. ie while these pallets were sitting in the New Forest, has the NHS or DHSC ordered any more stock. If so why? Couldn’t they use what they had before it went out of date? Now the answer might be no, they haven’t ordered any more in that period. Be good to know.
I don't know the details, but it's hard to imagine this gear was completely scrap. It needed pragmatism to say "OK, what can we salvage?". But the NHS is a bureaucratic dinosaur, and with a box ticked "Non Compliant" the entire consignment has to be destroyed.
Unless I am misunderstanding your point/terminology…Please read the article or various posts here. This stock was not “non-compliant” it was past its use by date. The PPE supplied by this company was fine but just never got used (or was forgotten about).
I seem to recall that DHSC handled the mass procurement of PPE during the pandemic rather the NHS directly. May be wrong on that. However, as NotMe says, a major problem is fragmented procurement and stock control."Fair enough, so was it OOD issue alone? I saw stories of £4bn of PPE being destroyed for being 'sub-standard'. But in any event, the same point applies : why didn't the NHS sell or gift it to others? Or is the OOD set in concrete? Maybe the world just over-produced in a pandemic and there's no market for this stuff? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason. "That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it." I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it. I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee." I'm going with the lab test boffins. Not your 'idea' that they are okay - I feel a whole lot safer that way, bearing in mind it's peoples lives and all that  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it. I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee. I'm going with the lab test boffins. Not your 'idea' that they are okay - I feel a whole lot safer that way, bearing in mind it's peoples lives and all that "But are they 'boffins' - or more likely jobsworths? Anyway, more lives might be saved if we had a fit-for-purpose healthcare system that wasn't p  igate with public money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it. I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee. I'm going with the lab test boffins. Not your 'idea' that they are okay - I feel a whole lot safer that way, bearing in mind it's peoples lives and all that
But are they 'boffins' - or more likely jobsworths? Anyway, more lives might be saved if we had a fit-for-purpose healthcare system that wasn't pigate with public money."Really. Another conspiracy? Now the lab test folks are just jobsworths? You need to consider that just once in a while 'everything' isn't conspiring to FU your life, regardless of your world view. Believe me, your stress levels will eventually drop into the green zone  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it. I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee." It's PPE so the date is massively important, thing is the system doesn't have within it the means to assess something and extend it.. In normal times it's not an issue.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it. I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee. I'm going with the lab test boffins. Not your 'idea' that they are okay - I feel a whole lot safer that way, bearing in mind it's peoples lives and all that
But are they 'boffins' - or more likely jobsworths? Anyway, more lives might be saved if we had a fit-for-purpose healthcare system that wasn't pigate with public money.
Really. Another conspiracy? Now the lab test folks are just jobsworths? You need to consider that just once in a while 'everything' isn't conspiring to FU your life, regardless of your world view.
Believe me, your stress levels will eventually drop into the green zone "LOL 'conspiracy' and 'fu my life' is a bit of a stretch. Nor am I stressed, but thanks for your concern. But waste of public money when our NHS is in crisis is a tad troubling - even for the wise and unstressed  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it. I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee. It's PPE so the date is massively important, thing is the system doesn't have within it the means to assess something and extend it.. In normal times it's not an issue.." Yes the date is important. But that doesn't necessarily mean PPE is instantly scrap. Maybe there SHOULD be a means to assess and extend use-by dates. Might save the NHS a fortune. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" LOL 'conspiracy' and 'fu my life' is a bit of a stretch. Nor am I stressed, but thanks for your concern. But waste of public money when our NHS is in crisis is a tad troubling - even for the wise and unstressed "So. Clearly, you are saying let surgeons use out of date face masks to operate on patients in theatre and infect their open wounds because the nose clip and the elastic on the mask has degraded so it doesn't form a proper seal? What hospital do you run? I want to make sure none of my friends and relatives go to it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it. I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee. It's PPE so the date is massively important, thing is the system doesn't have within it the means to assess something and extend it.. In normal times it's not an issue.. Yes the date is important. But that doesn't necessarily mean PPE is instantly scrap. Maybe there SHOULD be a means to assess and extend use-by dates. Might save the NHS a fortune." It's a potentially dangerous route to go down, you allow the mind set of we've assessed it and it's ok for you to use it might in extreme circumstances be ok as a one off for an apron but not for a full fit mask on an ICU ward with a fatal respiratory disease.. Before you know it the mindset of well it looks ok even if it's out of date creeps in across the board.. Am ex blue light and PPE was and is life critical, anyone trying to tell myself it's ok I've assessed it would get told foxtrot Oscar or there you go guv put it on and go in yourself.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" LOL 'conspiracy' and 'fu my life' is a bit of a stretch. Nor am I stressed, but thanks for your concern. But waste of public money when our NHS is in crisis is a tad troubling - even for the wise and unstressed
So. Clearly, you are saying let surgeons use out of date face masks to operate on patients in theatre and infect their open wounds because the nose clip and the elastic on the mask has degraded so it doesn't form a proper seal?
What hospital do you run? I want to make sure none of my friends and relatives go to it? "No I'm not saying that - those are your words, not mine. I'm questioning whether the dates are accurate and whether the material has truly degraded after 3 years. Even the most volatile plastic polymers take 20 years to degrade. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again: From a medical website: Material degradation: over time, the face mask materials, like the nose pieces and elastic bands deteriorate, impacting the effectiveness of the mask. If your face mask does not provide a secure fit, it can leave you at risk of exposure to contaminated air, viruses, bacteria, and disease. Exposure to environmental factors like humidity, sunlight and heat can cause these materials to slowly break down, making the mask less effective. Filtration efficiency: like the face mask materials, the filtration efficiency of the mask can decrease with time as a result of electrostatic charge decay. This is especially important for masks designed to filter out very small particles, such as respirators. The ability of the mask to effectively capture and block particles can decline with time, which can compromise its protective function. Quality assurance: manufacturers set expiration dates as a part of their quality control, testing and assurance processes. These dates are based on laboratory testing and calculations of how long the mask is expected to maintain its specified performance levels. Regulatory compliance: the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) requires manufacturers to provide expiration dates for all medical devices supplied in Australia, including surgical masks and respirators. This ensures that the product meets the relevant safety and efficacy standards within a defined timeframe. User safety: expiration dates also serve as a reminder for users to regularly check and replace their masks to ensure they are using products that offer the intended level of protection. This safety measure helps to prevent the use of masks that may have degraded or become less effective over time. Now unless you know different, please prove it here . . ?" You're either missing my point, or not wanting to understand it. But thanks for the Google effort anyway | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You're either missing my point, or not wanting to understand it. But thanks for the Google effort anyway "So. Clearly, tell me what your point is? My point is that PPE should be safe to use. and Your point is? ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not read all of this BUT Is it now better to keep a stock of medical PPE in the country just in case? This would go out for date and would need replacing so in its self if not used a waste of money? " It's standard practice to have adequate stocks of not only PPE but other expendables in case.. It's common in other areas apart from health.. On the PPE issue the reason we were caught napping was that the government ignored the recommendations of Op Cygnus in 2016 which said we didn't have adequate provision in case of a forthcoming pandemic.. That would have helped in the initial stages but the shortages and issues with shit PPE given it was global would still have happened to a point.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You're either missing my point, or not wanting to understand it. But thanks for the Google effort anyway
So. Clearly, tell me what your point is?
My point is that PPE should be safe to use.
and
Your point is?
? "OK one more attempt : 1. Yes I agree, PPE must be safe. 2. My point is whether the Use-by date could be safely extended at no risk to health workers but at great saving to taxpayers. 3. In my opinion, almost certainly yes. I'll give you another example : prescription drugs. They all come with a printed Use-by date, usually months. But the chemical compounds are usually stable and the drug could be safely used for years. Some common sense in all this would save £billions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You're either missing my point, or not wanting to understand it. But thanks for the Google effort anyway
So. Clearly, tell me what your point is?
My point is that PPE should be safe to use.
and
Your point is?
?
OK one more attempt :
1. Yes I agree, PPE must be safe.
2. My point is whether the Use-by date could be safely extended at no risk to health workers but at great saving to taxpayers.
3. In my opinion, almost certainly yes.
I'll give you another example : prescription drugs. They all come with a printed Use-by date, usually months. But the chemical compounds are usually stable and the drug could be safely used for years. Some common sense in all this would save £billions.
"And that is 'your' opinion. I have already said I would rather trust the lab-boffins and you poo pooed that with, but are they just jobsworths. Medical professionals here are saying trust the expiry date and that is all there is to it when all said and done. Youn can't just THINK something is okay when dealing with peoples lives you have to know it's okay. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason.
That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking."Most expiry dates are for the benefit of the manufacturer - to protect from prosecution in the event of failure and to ensure continuous ordering (profit). It's all about money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it. I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee." If it is centrally stock piled, I assume it's a DHSC purchase. Trusts, or rather departments will order PPE that they require, individually from reputable suppliers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason.
That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking.
Most expiry dates are for the benefit of the manufacturer - to protect from prosecution in the event of failure and to ensure continuous ordering (profit). It's all about money.
"Jeebus - more conspiracies! Of course it protects the manufacturer. Ask yourself the question . . . 'Protects the manufacturer from what?' Being sued because it failed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For example, plastic face masks and shields and eye protection degrades over time - So is that what we want the next conspiracy to be? 'OMG! It's past its shelf life and people are not properly protected?' Wait, hang-on, we did that one already and that's exactly what happened. If it is passed its shelf life then that is it. Don't use it and destroy it. I disagree. Shelf-life is only a conservative estimate in the first place. I'm quite sure dates could have been safely extended. But hey, this is £1.4bn of public money, let's just have a bonfire!! Sums-up the NHS to a tee. I'm going with the lab test boffins. Not your 'idea' that they are okay - I feel a whole lot safer that way, bearing in mind it's peoples lives and all that "I can imagine face masks and use of chemicals in their manufacture, have to be under strict QA as time may alter stability of, and possibly dangerous if inhaled. Plastic aprons less so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less " If masks don't work.Then I guess surgeons don't need to wear masks during surgery. That would save the NHS a lot of money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not read all of this BUT Is it now better to keep a stock of medical PPE in the country just in case? This would go out for date and would need replacing so in its self if not used a waste of money? " We were supposed to have a just in case stockpile. Off the top of my head we need a way to rotate stock. A central stockpile paid by dhsc, out of which trusts/departments order and there's automatic reordering. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less If masks don't work.Then I guess surgeons don't need to wear masks during surgery. That would save the NHS a lot of money." the masks are just a cheap piece of material with gaps just useless we should of followed the Swedish approach just my opinion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason.
That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking.
Most expiry dates are for the benefit of the manufacturer - to protect from prosecution in the event of failure and to ensure continuous ordering (profit). It's all about money.
Jeebus - more conspiracies! Of course it protects the manufacturer.
Ask yourself the question . . .
'Protects the manufacturer from what?' Being sued because it failed? "I've stated that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disgraceful waste of public money. But what is the true story I wonder? Firstly, we can understand the haste to get PPE in a pandemic, the outcome of which nobody knew at the time. But what is the degree of non-compliance of this gear? Is it totally useless or deficient in one tiny regard? I often see pedantry in QA inspection of manufacture goods. In theory the covid inquiry is still happening ?? Can remember at the start, masks were not needed ... then they were made compulsory, then afterwards it turned out they wasn't effective all along. Think the answer is follow the money!! The masks were effective.narrr they wherent two meter distance and walking to a table with a mask and removing it to eat was looking back a joke So you're saying a mask wasn't effective because people weren't wearing them. So they were effective?no I’m saying covid didn’t stop because ppl sat down to eat like ppl working together but not able to meet outside of work that was pathetic but yes I also thought masks didn’t work do you ? So the eating in a restaurant issue you mentioned is irrelevant because masks don't work anyway? I'm just trying to get clarification on your point. I don’t think masks worked read my first post lots of things didn’t work I’m critical of the government handling woth stupid rules and the science behind them so do you think the masks worked if so why The masks reduced the risk of virus spreading from someone was infected. Still not sure what your restaurant point had to do with it. your not sure I’ll try again for you going into a bar or restaurant with a mask on sitting down taking it of did covid not effect to sat down or only ppl stood up can’t you see the stupidity in the rule ? What's this rule got to do with the effectiveness of masks? If masks don't work as you say, why does it matter if people take them off?it was science led I don’t think any of the rules worked it doesn’t matter to me we lived our normal life during lockdown as much as we could and I still don’t think the masks worked or the two meter which started out as one meter but I’m not suprised you think they worked I’d expect nothing less If masks don't work.Then I guess surgeons don't need to wear masks during surgery. That would save the NHS a lot of money.the masks are just a cheap piece of material with gaps just useless we should of followed the Swedish approach just my opinion " Oh dear | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason.
That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking.
Most expiry dates are for the benefit of the manufacturer - to protect from prosecution in the event of failure and to ensure continuous ordering (profit). It's all about money.
Jeebus - more conspiracies! Of course it protects the manufacturer.
Ask yourself the question . . .
'Protects the manufacturer from what?' Being sued because it failed?
I've stated that. "You also said it's 'all about money'. Of course it is - you manufacture a product, law provides for it to fit a particular standard, you expire that standard by a recognised date of lifespan and then you don't get sued if it was used beyond that date. Common sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason.
That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking.
Most expiry dates are for the benefit of the manufacturer - to protect from prosecution in the event of failure and to ensure continuous ordering (profit). It's all about money.
Jeebus - more conspiracies! Of course it protects the manufacturer.
Ask yourself the question . . .
'Protects the manufacturer from what?' Being sued because it failed?
I've stated that.
You also said it's 'all about money'. Of course it is - you manufacture a product, law provides for it to fit a particular standard, you expire that standard by a recognised date of lifespan and then you don't get sued if it was used beyond that date.
Common sense."I'm not disagreeing with you. Their actual lifespan is extremely likely to be more than expiry date due to protect the manufacture, and in the case of masks, the wearer. And to make money. I get what midnight is saying tho. In times of, eg pandemic, could we extend this expiry date. The problem with that is that companies will then know the expiry dates can be ignored. A dangerous game. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I give up. Let’s take the discussion down the rabbit hole of whether something is REALLY past its use by date rather than discuss whether it could have been used before it reached its use by date! This place *sigh*" Just two sides of the same coin. Attention to either or both could've bought two new fully equipped hospitals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason.
That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking.
Most expiry dates are for the benefit of the manufacturer - to protect from prosecution in the event of failure and to ensure continuous ordering (profit). It's all about money.
Jeebus - more conspiracies! Of course it protects the manufacturer.
Ask yourself the question . . .
'Protects the manufacturer from what?' Being sued because it failed?
I've stated that.
You also said it's 'all about money'. Of course it is - you manufacture a product, law provides for it to fit a particular standard, you expire that standard by a recognised date of lifespan and then you don't get sued if it was used beyond that date.
Common sense.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Their actual lifespan is extremely likely to be more than expiry date due to protect the manufacture, and in the case of masks, the wearer. And to make money.
I get what midnight is saying tho. In times of, eg pandemic, could we extend this expiry date. The problem with that is that companies will then know the expiry dates can be ignored. A dangerous game."Well if we expend the expiry date - then guess what, it would have to be the lab boffins that would say that it is okay to do that and have to be signed off by the relative standards authority and then and only then would any medical professional or a member of my family being operated on accept that as safe to use. But hey! Hang on! - that's been done already when they made it to start with, and they set an expiry date. Let's keep at it though until somehow it fits what we want to argue it into. It's only your grandma, your sister, your daughter, even your pet rabbit . . . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason.
That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking.
Most expiry dates are for the benefit of the manufacturer - to protect from prosecution in the event of failure and to ensure continuous ordering (profit). It's all about money.
Jeebus - more conspiracies! Of course it protects the manufacturer.
Ask yourself the question . . .
'Protects the manufacturer from what?' Being sued because it failed?
I've stated that.
You also said it's 'all about money'. Of course it is - you manufacture a product, law provides for it to fit a particular standard, you expire that standard by a recognised date of lifespan and then you don't get sued if it was used beyond that date.
Common sense.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Their actual lifespan is extremely likely to be more than expiry date due to protect the manufacture, and in the case of masks, the wearer. And to make money.
I get what midnight is saying tho. In times of, eg pandemic, could we extend this expiry date. The problem with that is that companies will then know the expiry dates can be ignored. A dangerous game.
Well if we expend the expiry date - then guess what, it would have to be the lab boffins that would say that it is okay to do that and have to be signed off by the relative standards authority and then and only then would any medical professional or a member of my family being operated on accept that as safe to use.
But hey! Hang on! - that's been done already when they made it to start with, and they set an expiry date.
Let's keep at it though until somehow it fits what we want to argue it into. It's only your grandma, your sister, your daughter, even your pet rabbit . . .
"I'm a HCP, I wear masks .
My theoretical point follows the science but don't worry about it.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason.
That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking.
Most expiry dates are for the benefit of the manufacturer - to protect from prosecution in the event of failure and to ensure continuous ordering (profit). It's all about money.
Jeebus - more conspiracies! Of course it protects the manufacturer.
Ask yourself the question . . .
'Protects the manufacturer from what?' Being sued because it failed?
I've stated that.
You also said it's 'all about money'. Of course it is - you manufacture a product, law provides for it to fit a particular standard, you expire that standard by a recognised date of lifespan and then you don't get sued if it was used beyond that date.
Common sense.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Their actual lifespan is extremely likely to be more than expiry date due to protect the manufacture, and in the case of masks, the wearer. And to make money.
I get what midnight is saying tho. In times of, eg pandemic, could we extend this expiry date. The problem with that is that companies will then know the expiry dates can be ignored. A dangerous game.
Well if we expend the expiry date - then guess what, it would have to be the lab boffins that would say that it is okay to do that and have to be signed off by the relative standards authority and then and only then would any medical professional or a member of my family being operated on accept that as safe to use.
But hey! Hang on! - that's been done already when they made it to start with, and they set an expiry date.
Let's keep at it though until somehow it fits what we want to argue it into. It's only your grandma, your sister, your daughter, even your pet rabbit . . .
I'm a HCP, I wear masks .
My theoretical point follows the science but don't worry about it.
"Show me the science that says out of date PPE is what we should be using? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have read that DHSC spent 70k on a project to understand the potential for extending PPE expiry dates, back in Nov 21. They estimated they would be disposing of 7 billion items of PPE, can we safely say the extension of PPE expiry dates was not advisable, and this could be old news doing the rounds again?" We would certainly know about it if it had been. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From the article: '“It had either a two- or three-year shelf life. This means the PPE products are more likely to have passed their use-by date.” Why would anyone give passed shelf life products to a Third World country. It means passed shelf life for a reason.
That's my point really. Plastic polymers can take 500 years to degrade. Was the stuff REALLY at end of useful life? I very much doubt it. It's just box ticking.
Most expiry dates are for the benefit of the manufacturer - to protect from prosecution in the event of failure and to ensure continuous ordering (profit). It's all about money.
Jeebus - more conspiracies! Of course it protects the manufacturer.
Ask yourself the question . . .
'Protects the manufacturer from what?' Being sued because it failed?
I've stated that.
You also said it's 'all about money'. Of course it is - you manufacture a product, law provides for it to fit a particular standard, you expire that standard by a recognised date of lifespan and then you don't get sued if it was used beyond that date.
Common sense.
I'm not disagreeing with you. Their actual lifespan is extremely likely to be more than expiry date due to protect the manufacture, and in the case of masks, the wearer. And to make money.
I get what midnight is saying tho. In times of, eg pandemic, could we extend this expiry date. The problem with that is that companies will then know the expiry dates can be ignored. A dangerous game.
Well if we expend the expiry date - then guess what, it would have to be the lab boffins that would say that it is okay to do that and have to be signed off by the relative standards authority and then and only then would any medical professional or a member of my family being operated on accept that as safe to use.
But hey! Hang on! - that's been done already when they made it to start with, and they set an expiry date.
Let's keep at it though until somehow it fits what we want to argue it into. It's only your grandma, your sister, your daughter, even your pet rabbit . . .
I'm a HCP, I wear masks .
My theoretical point follows the science but don't worry about it.
Show me the science that says out of date PPE is what we should be using? "Show me wear I stated that! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"About £1.4bn worth of personal protective equipment (PPE) has been destroyed or written off in what is understood to be the most wasteful government deal of the pandemic. Figures obtained by the BBC reveal that at least 1.57 billion items of PPE provided by Full Support Healthcare, an NHS supplier based in Northamptonshire, will never be used, despite being manufactured to the proper standard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cll476qzm85o" The amount of out of date stuff dumped annually by the NHS is eye watering. Even stainless steel scissors and forceps have an expiry date. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Show me wear I stated that! " 
" My theoretical point follows the science but don't worry about it. " Here ^^^ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Show me wear I stated that!
My theoretical point follows the science but don't worry about it.
Here ^^^
"How the hell do you equate that with what you stated? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" My theoretical point follows the science but don't worry about it. Here ^^^ " Clear | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Er let's see . . . We are talking about 'extending ppe lifespan'. I was talking about it, you were talking about it. I said it shouldn't be extended by just thinking it should be extended, but only following lab-boffins, and standards watchdogs etc etc. You answered directly with: My theoretical point follows the science but don't worry about it. Here ^^^ Clear "I still haven't stated that science has stated we can extend ppe expiry dates. You have inferred something that is not there. Especially considering "my theoretical point", ie an idea. In healthcare expiry dates aren't guidelines, they are dates to not go beyond. However, to protect users, receivers and companies, expiry dates will be set within a safe range. Boffins might say the product is safe up to four years. Company might ask about anomalies. Boffins might say, fair enough, we're happy to confer safety up to 3 years. Company says if it's up to 3 years then let's expire product at 24 months. This is all supposition. And if it is known that sunlight/heat degrades materials, there'll be warnings on product to store away from these. As I implied in an earlier post that it's probably OK to extend expiry date in extreme circumstances (let's say with Boffins approval), it would be a slippery slope. I do not approve going beyond ppe expiry dates! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Er let's see . . . We are talking about 'extending ppe lifespan'. I was talking about it, you were talking about it. I said it shouldn't be extended by just thinking it should be extended, but only following lab-boffins, and standards watchdogs etc etc. You answered directly with: My theoretical point follows the science but don't worry about it. Here ^^^ Clear
I still haven't stated that science has stated we can extend ppe expiry dates.
You have inferred something that is not there. Especially considering "my theoretical point", ie an idea.
In healthcare expiry dates aren't guidelines, they are dates to not go beyond. However, to protect users, receivers and companies, expiry dates will be set within a safe range. Boffins might say the product is safe up to four years. Company might ask about anomalies. Boffins might say, fair enough, we're happy to confer safety up to 3 years. Company says if it's up to 3 years then let's expire product at 24 months.
This is all supposition. And if it is known that sunlight/heat degrades materials, there'll be warnings on product to store away from these.
As I implied in an earlier post that it's probably OK to extend expiry date in extreme circumstances (let's say with Boffins approval), it would be a slippery slope.
I do not approve going beyond ppe expiry dates!"Aren’t you both saying the same thing? ie you should not go beyond use by dates on PPE. Seems like a lot of words used to just agree | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Er let's see . . . We are talking about 'extending ppe lifespan'. I was talking about it, you were talking about it. I said it shouldn't be extended by just thinking it should be extended, but only following lab-boffins, and standards watchdogs etc etc. You answered directly with: My theoretical point follows the science but don't worry about it. Here ^^^ Clear
I still haven't stated that science has stated we can extend ppe expiry dates.
You have inferred something that is not there. Especially considering "my theoretical point", ie an idea.
In healthcare expiry dates aren't guidelines, they are dates to not go beyond. However, to protect users, receivers and companies, expiry dates will be set within a safe range. Boffins might say the product is safe up to four years. Company might ask about anomalies. Boffins might say, fair enough, we're happy to confer safety up to 3 years. Company says if it's up to 3 years then let's expire product at 24 months.
This is all supposition. And if it is known that sunlight/heat degrades materials, there'll be warnings on product to store away from these.
As I implied in an earlier post that it's probably OK to extend expiry date in extreme circumstances (let's say with Boffins approval), it would be a slippery slope.
I do not approve going beyond ppe expiry dates!
Aren’t you both saying the same thing? ie you should not go beyond use by dates on PPE.
Seems like a lot of words used to just agree "Yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
