Author Topic: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?  (Read 110471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #270 on: April 03, 2020, 04:25:46 PM »
Another of Mr Murray’s opinions.

‘Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition... From long before we were first attacked it should have been made plain that people who come into Europe are here under our rules and not theirs … Where a mosque has become a centre of hate it should be closed and pulled down. If that means that some Muslims don't have a mosque to go to, then they'll just have to realise that they aren't owed one.[61][62][63]’

There shouldn't be any mosques in this country anyway. The Muslim religion was historically an anathema to Christians, recent events have only served to reinforce that belief despite the bleedin heart apologists.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2020, 04:31:34 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #271 on: April 03, 2020, 04:34:48 PM »
Douglas Murray’s views on mosques do not invalidate the views he expressed in the article I posted.  He is entitled to hold a wide range of views some of which I may concur with, no problem with that at all.  Let’s face it if some leftie journo had written about gotcha journalism being the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn, I’m sure that would have been met with massive agreement in some quarters.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2020, 04:40:33 PM by Vertigo Swirl »
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #272 on: April 03, 2020, 04:49:04 PM »
Douglas Murray’s views on mosques do not invalidate the views he expressed in the article I posted.  He is entitled to hold a wide range of views some of which I may concur with, no problem with that at all.  Let’s face it if some leftie journo had written about gotcha journalism being the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn, I’m sure that would have been met with massive agreement in some quarters.

And swap mosque for synagogue and how would you feel about him.

Btw I thought you had me on ignore.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #273 on: April 03, 2020, 06:19:50 PM »
There shouldn't be any mosques in this country anyway. The Muslim religion was historically an anathema to Christians, recent events have only served to reinforce that belief despite the bleedin heart apologists.

Historically Christianity in Britain was factionalised with Catholicism and Protest[ censored word]m both being anathema to the other.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #274 on: April 04, 2020, 02:12:54 AM »
Douglas Murray’s views on mosques do not invalidate the views he expressed in the article I posted.  He is entitled to hold a wide range of views some of which I may concur with, no problem with that at all.  Let’s face it if some leftie journo had written about gotcha journalism being the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn, I’m sure that would have been met with massive agreement in some quarters.


You do pick particularly unsavoury characters to quote.


Were Melanie Phillips and Douglas Murray to hold the same kinds of views about Jews as they do about Muslims and trans peole, they would not have shared a stage at Jewish Book Week (JBW).

Had Phillips said it was the “Jewish world” that is “given a free pass”, had Murray called “the whole [ censored word]emitism issue” a “delusion”, the pair would be public enemy numbers one and two among British Jews.

As it was, our most prestigious cultural event welcomed them with open arms. Perhaps the same logic that distinguishes brown “migrants” from white “expatriates” turns those with unsavoury views into provocateurs.



Welcoming the JBW audience on Tuesday night, Phillips acknowledged her and Murray’s reputation as enfants terribles: “The fact that both of us are on this platform,” she told the packed-out auditorium, “should warrant a trigger alert.”

Phillips had been invited to interview Murray about his latest contribution to the culture wars, The Madness of Crowds. Yet when she opened with the most basic of questions – why Murray had written the book – there was little clarity. Speaking with all the fluency of a chocolate fountain recycling brown liquid, Murray suggested that certain subjects had become “unsayable”. What those subjects were, he was unable to say

Murray was practising a skill that both he and Phillips have honed over the course of their careers: the ability to talk in a way that makes crystal clear what you think, without having to come out and say it. Murray would never openly state that he disdains trans people; instead he says that trans people too often top the news agenda and asserts that  the notion that the basic facts of trans identity are “complicated”.

“We are Jewish Solidarity Action (JSA),” came a cry from the gallery. “Solidarity with trans women!” As the protesters were escorted from the auditorium, I thought perhaps ideas like Murray and Phillips’s shouldn’t be quietly listened to, but loudly protested. Perhaps the event’s quasi-intellectual framing was inviting us to seriously consider viewpoints that – in my view – should not be even momentarily entertained.

I stayed, but decided to confront the speakers after the event. Yet my impassioned spiel went out the window when I found myself drawn into a lively tete-a-tete with Phillips. “I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree!” I chirruped. Here we were, at another stall in the marketplace of ideas, and here I was, buying Phillips’s wares.

Sadly, the organisers’ response to the protest was to double down. “Jewish Book Week has always been a platform for a diversity of voices,” they tweeted last night, in response to JSA’s action. “We take pride in providing our audiences with the opportunity to hear and question different perspectives – including those they may not themselves share – on the topics that matter.”

Yet Phillips and Murray are not simply right-wing “thinkers” with whom we might disagree. They are the polite faces of a dangerous ideology
 

Parleying in their plush armchairs, contemplating whether trans women are women and whether racism exists, the wolfishness of these sheep was entirely apparent to me. Yet to many in my community, it is not.

Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that both Murray and Phillips’s thinking makes an exception for Jews – Phillips for obvious reasons, Murray for less obvious ones (though Phillips joked that she suspected him “a secret Jew”).

Murray – a man seemingly unbothered by, even unbelieving of the existence of, most forms of prejudice – has called [ censored word]emitism “the vilest and most deadly prejudice of all”. Why Murray is so appalled by [ censored word]emitism but not by Phillips’s alleged Islamophobia is hard to say.

Phillips, meanwhile, complained at the event that identity politics produced a binary view of power: either one is a victim or a victimiser, but never both. I put to Phillips that this sounded a hell of a lot like a certain Jewish state. In an apparent volte-face, she asserted that this was a binary conflict, with Israel the victim, Palestinians the victimisers. For her own people, Phillips seemed willing to undermine her own argument.

This selective prejudice brings to mind a certain Boris Johnson, doling out bagels to Jews and insults to Muslims. Too many Jewish people have become happy to humour those who oppress others, so long as they don’t doesn’t oppress us. Yet A politics that targets one minority targets us all. This kind of political nimbyism, then, is not just morally abhorrent – it is dangerous short-sighted.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/melanie-phillips-douglas-murray-jewish-book-week-muslims-trans-issues-a9380166.html
« Last Edit: April 04, 2020, 02:16:07 AM by Faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Carana

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #275 on: April 04, 2020, 03:36:14 AM »
There shouldn't be any mosques in this country anyway. The Muslim religion was historically an anathema to Christians, recent events have only served to reinforce that belief despite the bleedin heart apologists.

People of every faith have died trying to save others in the UK and elsewhere.

What on earth does it matter which mainstream religion, practised in a peaceful manner, anyone chooses to follow?

I find that offensive, on the behalf of so many kind and caring people, whatever their faith.

I wasn't around when this was made, but it might make people think a little:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMkNtiXxQAM

« Last Edit: April 04, 2020, 03:52:31 AM by Carana »

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #276 on: April 04, 2020, 09:10:14 AM »

This is the very definition of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.  I mean who would really want to be in this man’s shoes right now, whatever he decides the armchair experts are going to rip him a new one:

“Boris Johnson’s coronavirus adviser calls for a way out of lockdown
Britain may still need to adopt herd immunity


Britain has “painted itself into a corner” with no clear exit strategy from the coronavirus epidemic and needs to reconsider herd immunity, according to a senior government adviser.

A prolonged lockdown risks causing more suffering than the virus itself, Graham Medley, the government’s chief pandemic modeller, has warned. He said that the country needed to face the trade-off between harming the young versus the old.

Professor Medley, a member of the key scientific body that is guiding the government’s response, told The Times that Britain must consider allowing people to catch the virus in the least deadly way possible rather than letting unemployment, domestic violence and mental ill health mount indefinitely.

His modelling showed that letting people return to work or reopening schools would allow the pandemic to take off again and no way had been found of easing the lockdown while controlling the virus. Only those working outside might be safe to go back to their jobs, he found.

An antibody test, which the government is hoping will prove a “game-changer”, could help but was not working and such a method had never previously been used to manage an epidemic, he said.


His warning came after 684 more people were confirmed yesterday to have died from the virus in Britain’s biggest daily rise, taking the total to 3,605”.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #277 on: April 04, 2020, 09:26:45 AM »
If the government’s much derided “herd immunity “ strategy was so very dangerous and wrong, it shouldn’t be too long before Sweden (still using a similar strategy) has the highest number of deaths per capita than any other country in Western Europe.  At the moment  it is 9th in the list.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #278 on: April 04, 2020, 10:34:47 AM »
People of every faith have died trying to save others in the UK and elsewhere.

What on earth does it matter which mainstream religion, practised in a peaceful manner, anyone chooses to follow?

I find that offensive, on the behalf of so many kind and caring people, whatever their faith.

I wasn't around when this was made, but it might make people think a little:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMkNtiXxQAM

Wonderful sentiments which I echo absolutely.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #279 on: April 04, 2020, 10:44:51 AM »
This is the very definition of being stuck between a rock and a hard place.  I mean who would really want to be in this man’s shoes right now, whatever he decides the armchair experts are going to rip him a new one:

“Boris Johnson’s coronavirus adviser calls for a way out of lockdown
Britain may still need to adopt herd immunity


Britain has “painted itself into a corner” with no clear exit strategy from the coronavirus epidemic and needs to reconsider herd immunity, according to a senior government adviser.

A prolonged lockdown risks causing more suffering than the virus itself, Graham Medley, the government’s chief pandemic modeller, has warned. He said that the country needed to face the trade-off between harming the young versus the old.

Professor Medley, a member of the key scientific body that is guiding the government’s response, told The Times that Britain must consider allowing people to catch the virus in the least deadly way possible rather than letting unemployment, domestic violence and mental ill health mount indefinitely.

His modelling showed that letting people return to work or reopening schools would allow the pandemic to take off again and no way had been found of easing the lockdown while controlling the virus. Only those working outside might be safe to go back to their jobs, he found.

An antibody test, which the government is hoping will prove a “game-changer”, could help but was not working and such a method had never previously been used to manage an epidemic, he said.


His warning came after 684 more people were confirmed yesterday to have died from the virus in Britain’s biggest daily rise, taking the total to 3,605”.

And the message ? ‘Save yourself and damn the old and vulnerable’ as it’s always been with the Tories. It’s eugenics by the back door. When a 28 year old with moderate health problems is ‘urged’ to sign a DNR you know there is something going badly wrong.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #280 on: April 04, 2020, 10:45:36 AM »
If the government’s much derided “herd immunity “ strategy was so very dangerous and wrong, it shouldn’t be too long before Sweden (still using a similar strategy) has the highest number of deaths per capita than any other country in Western Europe.  At the moment  it is 9th in the list.

You are trying to defend the indefensible....and failing.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #281 on: April 04, 2020, 01:46:27 PM »
If the government’s much derided “herd immunity “ strategy was so very dangerous and wrong, it shouldn’t be too long before Sweden (still using a similar strategy) has the highest number of deaths per capita than any other country in Western Europe.  At the moment  it is 9th in the list.

358 deaths as of yesterday out of a little over 6,000 cases.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Carana

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #282 on: April 04, 2020, 03:20:15 PM »
If Sweden can cope with half-way measures, great. However, that still depends on people acting responsibly (and being able to do so).

Covid-19: Still No Sign of Lockdown for Sweden
BLOG - 3 April 2020

(snip)

... Some claim that the government has chosen to induce herd immunity, alike strategies previously adopted by the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Since, both countries followed in the footsteps of other European countries by introducing much stricter measures.

Some claim that the government has chosen to bet on herd immunity.

According to this theory, explained by Claude Le Pen in a post for Institut Montaigne, a sufficiently large share of the population would have to be contaminated by the virus to make the entire population immune to the pandemic – until a vaccine exists, immunity comes through the contraction of the disease. This strategy, which raises many ethical issues and concerns, is not formally embraced. Indeed, there has been no official statement from the Swedish executive, contrary to Boris Johnson’s official statement in the UK a couple of weeks ago.

For one of Sweden's most publicized epidemiologists, Anders Tegnell, there is no evidence that a strategy of herd immunity has been adopted by the government. Interviewed by the national media outlet Svenska Dagbladet, he rules out the possibility of the government adopting this strategy: according to him, the government is instead looking at ways to curb the curve as much as possible, so as to limit the number of cases reported simultaneously and thus preserve the capacity of the health system to respond to the health crisis. What we understand from this is that chaos is not yet felt and is not predicted to occur in the future. One of Sweden's assets in the face of the pandemic is a low population density, which may help limit the spread of the virus. With 25 people per square kilometre, compared to 120 in France or 206 in Italy, Sweden is one of the countries with the lowest population density in Europe. And Stockholm, by far the densest city in the country, has half as many people per square kilometre as New York does, and four times fewer than Paris.

Nonetheless, as an article on the Swedish case published in Le Monde points out, experts are far from reaching consensus. Many remind that Swedish hospitals were already under pressure before the onset of the Coronavirus, with 2.4 beds per 1,000 inhabitants and a total of 526 beds in intensive care, the lowest figure among OECD countries.

Beyond the debate among experts, political parties have responded to this decision. While media outlets are being increasingly alarmist, political parties in the opposition have not tried to take advantage of the situation.
https://www.institutmontaigne.org/en/blog/covid-19-still-no-sign-lockdown-sweden

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #283 on: April 04, 2020, 04:28:17 PM »
For those who believe that the government are simply reacting to an emergency they couldn’t have  foreseen.


Exercise Cygnus uncovered: the pandemic warnings buried by the government   
Exercise Cygnus dramatically exposed the gaps in Britain’s pandemic response but its ‘terrifying’ findings have yet to be published
By
Paul Nuki,
 GLOBAL HEALTH SECURITY EDITOR, LONDON and
Bill Gardner
28 March 2020 • 9:00pm
A woman makes PPE
In the test run, there was not enough personal protective equipment (PPE) for the nation's doctors and nurses CREDIT:  Paul Faith / AFP
Ministers from across government were seated, ashen faced, in the Cabinet Office Briefing Room (COBR). On a large flat screen, epidemiologists from Imperial College London were showing a slide which detailed the scale of the epidemic that was enveloping Britain.

The first cases of the virus had been confirmed in south east Asia two months previously. Britain reported its first cases, imported from returning travellers, a month later. Now there was widespread and sustained domestic transmission and the World Health Organization (WHO) had declared a global pandemic.

But it was not the pandemic itself that was causing those gathered in Whitehall to grimace but the nation’s woeful preparation. The peak of the epidemic had not yet arrived but local resilience forums, hospitals and mortuaries across the country were already being overwhelmed.

There was not enough personal protective equipment (PPE) for the nation's doctors and nurses. The NHS was about to “fall over” due to a shortage of ventilators and critical care beds. Morgues were set to overflow, and it had become terrifyingly evident that the government’s emergency messaging was not getting traction with the public.

This was a drill. Code-named Exercise Cygnus, it took place in October 2016 and involved all major government departments, the NHS and local authorities across Britain. The modelling for the outbreak was prepared by the same team that is tracking the all-too-real Covid-19 pandemic now. And as the Sunday Telegraph reveals, it showed gaping holes in Britain’s Emergency Preparedness, Resilience and Response (EPRR) plan.

Readers using our app can view this here

 
The only significant difference between the test drill and the pandemic we now face is that Cygnus was assumed to be the H2N2 influenza virus, while Covid-19 is a coronavirus. Both spread rapidly and kill by causing acute respiratory illness.

There is one other difference. While the real Covid-19 epidemic is being played out in public, the report detailing the findings of Exercise Cygnus have never seen the light of day. A senior former government source with direct involvement in the exercise said they were deemed “too terrifying” to be revealed. Others involved cited “national security” concerns.   

“There has been a reluctance to put Cygnus out in the public domain because frankly it would terrify people,” said the former senior government source yesterday.

“It’s right to say that the NHS was stretched beyond breaking point [by Cygnus]. People might say we have blood on our hands but the fact is that it’s always easier to manage the last outbreak than the one coming down the track. Hindsight is a beautiful thing.”


Others are more critical. A senior academic directly involved in Cygnus and the current pandemic said: “These exercises are supposed to prepare government for something like this - but it appears they were aware of the problem but didn’t do much about it.

“We’ve been quite surprised at the lack of coherent planning for a pandemic on this scale. It’s basically a lack of attention to what would be needed to prevent a disease like this from overwhelming the system. All the flexibility has been pared away so it’s difficult to react quickly. Nothing is ready to go.”

Reasons for the report not being published are likely to go beyond Whitehall’s paternal view and a desire not to frighten the public. The Telegraph has talked to multiple sources with first hand knowledge of Cygnus and all say the exercise revealed significant caps in the NHS’s “surge capacity”.

These gaps, which included a shortage of ICU beds and PPE, were revealed at a time of austerity. Jeremy Hunt, the then health secretary, and Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, were cutting NHS bed numbers at the time rather than adding capacity. Dame Sally Davies, then chief medical officer, faced similar financial constraints. 

There was also cynicism across Whitehall about the epidemiological modeling. The previous chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, ended his term under something of a cloud when the 2009 H1N1 (Swine Flu) pandemic proved a damp squib relative to the initial modelling.

The same view was taken of forecasting of the 2013–2016 west african Ebola outbreak.

Whatever the reasons, the final report on Exercise Cygnus was buried and its prophetic findings hidden from public view.

At meeting of the Public Health England (PHE) advisory board on 26 April 2017, Paul Cosford, the quango’s director for health protection, said a report “setting out the learning and recommendations” from Cygnus “was in the process of being finalised” but it never saw the light of day.

Tellingly perhaps, NHS England, the body which oversees the running of the NHS and was found most wanting by the report, has no mention of the exercise on its website. It’s high fidelity, government-operated search engine returns nothing for the phrase “Cygnus” despite a board paper on the exercise being unearthed by the Telegraph.

“Our preparations for pandemic influenza were exercised in October 2016 with NHS England participating in Exercise Cygnus. The exercise was set seven weeks into a severe pandemic outbreak and challenged the NHS to review its response to an overwhelmed service with reduced staff availability,” says the paper which was drafted for “clearance” by Matthew Swindells, the then national director of operations and information.

A video (below at 7 minutes 14 seconds) of the meeting shows the NHS England Board considering the paper for just a few moments, with no serious questions being raised. This is despite the document making clear, albeit in the obtuse language of Whitehall, that the NHS had been found wanting by the exercise.

Readers using our app can view this here


The NHS’s emergency plans were to be “revised to incorporate the learning from this exercise and ensure our continued preparedness for future pandemic influenza outbreaks”, said Mr Swindells’ paper. “We are also continuing the challenging work around the management of surge and escalation decision making processes”.

The NHS board was then asked to “receive assurance that NHS England and the NHS in England are prepared to respond to an emergency”, which it duly accepted without further action.

Pressure is already mounting on the NHS leadership. Yesterday the editor of the Lancet, Richard Horton, called on the NHS board to “resign in their entirety” once the current crisis is over. Others said this was not the time for such attacks, justified or otherwise. “It’s a bit like calling for heads to roll over D-day just as the boats are arriving on the beaches,” said one veteran NHS observer.

Nevertheless, the revelation the government and the NHS leadership knew of the gaps in Britain’s surge capacity ahead of the current outbreak will not go ignored.

It was the lack of “surge capacity” within the NHS, combined with fresh data from Italy, that the modellers at Imperial cited only last week as the reason for Britain having to pivot from a strategy of mitigation to total lockdown six days ago.

In their defence, insiders say that while the Cygnus findings have not been published they were acted on in part at least. Projected shortages of PPE and ICU beds were not filled with bulk purchase because of cash constraints and worries they would become outdated or obsolete if left in storage. Instead work was done on securing reliable supply chains - something they say we will see evidence of this coming week in terms of PPE.

“Throwing money at the problem was not necessarily the solution. The NHS eats up money.  It’s a bottomless pit,” said a senior former government source. “We were in a time of austerity and it wasn’t easy.”

Readers using our app can view this here

 
Findings from Exercise Cygnus were cascaded down to at least some local organisations.

Croydon Council’s latest Pandemic Response Plan, dated March 2020, makes mention of Cygnus, for instance. A key lesson from the exercise, it notes, is the need for “a better understanding of the likely public reaction” to a pandemic in order to “help the development of a robust communications strategy to assist the response”.

The importance of this will not be lost on Number 10 communication chiefs who have faced criticism in recent weeks for their failure to communicate clearly and effectively with the public.

Rotherham’s Health Protection Annual Report 2016 also mentions Cygnus. Locally agreed objectives to be tested included: “assessing the co-ordination of public messages, strategic decision making, managing surges in health and social care activity and the wider consequence management (including dealing with excess deaths)”. Key “learning points” in the wake of the exercise included:

A better and wider understanding of the pressures within the social care setting and how these can be jointly managed

Ensuring the supply and proper use of PPE

Jointly reviewing, with partner agencies, the processes for managing excess deaths in a community setting

Northamptonshire Health and Wellbeing Board was also involved. On 15 March 2018 its annual report noted: “A recent national exercise (Exercise Cygnus) highlighted in particular the need for further work to be done to improve local arrangements around anti-viral distribution, community level protection measures, personal protective equipment [PPE] and mass vaccination programmes.”

The government also shared at least some of the findings of Exercise Cygnus with the Red Cross.

A report on an “NGO-Military Contact Group Conference” dated 17 July 2018, noted of Cygnus: “Lessons included the need … to drill down into the exact actions that the military, police, fire service, local authorities, and the voluntary sector could take to keep systems running and to keep as many people alive as possible.”

In a paragraph that foreshadows the army being called in last week to distribute PPE to hospitals after the NHS’s own logistics system failed, it adds: “Military actions included [the need for] command-and-control components to co-ordinate the healthcare system if the NHS senior management were unable to work.”

A former senior government minister with knowledge of Cygnus yesterday played down the significance of the exercise, saying it was designed, not to see if the NHS would be overwhelmed, but what would happen if it was.

“We knew there weren’t enough intensive care beds, and we wanted to know what would happen in a pandemic of that scale.

“There’s no health system in the world that could cope with that level of outbreak. When you have pressure of that severity it will overwhelm everything.

“There was no recommendation that we need more ventilators. We were modelling what would happen if we ran out of ventilators.

“We were trying to model a situation where the whole system was overwhelmed. We could have had another 10,000 ventilators and it wouldn’t have been nearly enough”.

Critics may counter that this was the problem. Exercise Cygnus starkly revealed what a worst case pandemic scenario would do to Britain but ministers did not respond by building capacity enough to cover it.

A Department of Health spokesperson said: “The coronavirus outbreak calls for decisive action, at home and abroad, and the World Health Organisation recognises that the UK is one of the most prepared countries in the world for pandemic flu.

“As the public would expect, we regularly test our pandemic plans and the learnings from previous exercises have helped allow us to rapidly respond to COVID-19. We are committed to be as transparent as possible, and in publishing the SAGE evidence the public are aware of the science behind the government’s response.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/28/exercise-cygnus-uncovered-pandemic-warnings-buried-government/

« Last Edit: April 04, 2020, 04:51:26 PM by Faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Carana

Re: Is Boris’s Lax Leadership Putting Us All in Danger ?
« Reply #284 on: April 04, 2020, 05:08:05 PM »
Thanks for that Faith, I'd heard about it but couldn't access the article at the time.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/extraordinary-exchange-care-minister-coronavirus/