Sluffy wrote:I can't see either of the articles as I deny third party trackers from links I don't often use or subscribe to.
However the text you posted of the first article says increased testing leads to lack of chemical reagents - well we knew that even before all this, as that was the problem why little testing wasn't being done in the first place - and led to the journalism 'scrutiny' of the 'scandal' of so little testing being carried out being put in the public domain and the 'political' pressure/demand to do something about it 'immediately'!
As the government hasn't got a magic wand to wave it was forced into giving the only answer that would 'fob' things off until they could source the reagents from abroad (in competition with everybody else across the world) by 'fudging' their reply to set a target they presumably/hopefully thought they'd reach at a later date - namely the 100,000 target.
We all now know how that ended.
Would the public had been better off not knowing and let testing increase and be priority targeted as and when stocks were secured than having such a meaningless and ongoing media shit storm and hoo-ha in the sense the government couldn't test without the chemical reagents and they obviously were trying to manage and prioritise what stocks they had whilst seeking restocking from abroad - as they simple couldn't do anything else?
I would say they would - ignorance is bliss at times - and why create a situation that can't be resolved in the short term and was obviously being sorted as best as it could as quickly as it could (unless of course your point of view is that the government were deliberately wanting people to die through lack of testing and through limiting what stocks they had for front line staff only and did not intend to test anyone else ever?)
I did warn at the very start that political games/media 'scrutiny' lead to bad and unnecessary situations at times like this and clearly this is a direct manifestation of this with a 'storm' being created over lack of testing in the 'here and now', even though no one could do anything about it at the time, and false promises/wishful targets being set (and 'politically' had to be seen to met') to buy themselves a bit more time and to 'calm' the 'storm' for then,
Also to underline that really this is a non story is the fact that the article is from an American paper. If it was a big issue over here don't you thing our papers would have the same article splashed over their papers too?
As for the FT story I'm sure the bottom line will end up being care homes were simply the second priority on the list and remained so until the NHS was secured and until it had, all resources were sent to them and there simply wasn't surplus for those in the care homes.
What else could have been done?
There was only a finite amount of resources to hand when this thing hit and given the stark choice of the NHS collapsing or the care home system they, they prioritised the NHS - which anyone given the same situation would have done.
Care home coronavirus deaths are around 11,000 I guess (this said 9,700 from a few days ago -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52631604 ) but a number of these people would have died within the year through underlying conditions and as such total deaths in care homes will fall under the national average in the coming months - only then the net difference between the two will show the actual deaths resulting from the virus.
It is also worth pointing out that deaths in hospital not resulting from Corona-19 have significantly dropped and that is because hospitals have stopped admissions of terminally ill patients from care homes whilst they have been dealing with the pandemic.
It is what it is unfortunately.
There was only so much stocks and systems in place when the virus struck and there simply wasn't enough to satisfy everybody's needs and demands.
Stocks couldn't be magically conjured up out of thin air and not everybody was going to be saved from this.
Unless you are of the view that the government deliberately set out to 'kill' people, then the only thing to be done is to prioritise where the best use of stocks could be made for the benefit of the population and acquire sufficient stocks for future need as quickly as they could in the face of world demand for the same goods.
It would have been helpful if they could have gone about this as best they could but that was never going to happen and as such unnecessary posturing and political point scoring ensued (by both sides - I've never limited it to just one side - but it is cause and effect - ie 'not enough tests' ok '100,000 tests by the end of the month' type thing).
Unfortunately this virus was always going to kill people and the government clearly (and rightly) prioritised the NHS over anything else - namely the care homes.
A future inquiry when all this is done and dusted will determine how good/bad a job was done.