The Government has wasted more than £9.9 billion on useless PPE,

why has the thread focussed on aprons?

Because that's what one contributor was fixated on, Casdon.

And there was a feel to earlier responses that the posters thought the NHS didn't really know what they were talking about when they rejected what they considered to be sub standard PPE. I began to feel as though I was the messenger that was being shot...

You do know about ignoring stuff you don't like, I presume?

I do think it's rude to ignore other posters. Like blanking them in a conversation...

Yes, some plastic is designed to crumble into tiny pieces now, growstuff (still polluting the environment unless dealt with properly).

It's not just plastic pinnies.
And imagine trying to do a full, very busy shift dressed like this:

I can categorically say that plastic aprons were NOT the problem PPE items, why has the thread focussed on aprons? Maybe because it’s easier to argue about an item which is simple, rather than multi-layered or has to fit to individual user requirement and is complex to manufacture?

MaizieD

Baggs

I don’t believe it was useless. Plastic past a use by date does not mean useless and that’s the only explanation I’ve heard as to why it was.

Look, Baggs, instead of harping on about plastic aprons (which don't actually comprise the entire extent of PPE) and your belief that they don't go out of date, to us, who can't give you any expert information on this particular item, perhaps you could take it up with the body that sets the standards for NHS PPE.

IME plastic does degrade over time, but that's the full extent of my non expertise..

I'm not one to underestimate gransnetter knowledge on anything, maiz, so not sorry to have 'bothered' you with this. You do know about ignoring stuff you don't like, I presume?

As for bodies that set standards, let's just say that, from my current experience with policies and procedures within caring/health services, I'm not impressed. Intentions are usually good but boy is there a lot of guff!

Yes, plastic does degrade over time and that varies according to what kind of plastic so we agree about that but it doesn't degrade half fast enough to prevent PHENOMENAL global plastic pollution.

Baggs-type harping on finished for now. Have a nice day ?

Baggs

MerylStreep

Baggs
Most of it has a shelf life.

Why does most of it have a shelp life? It's blimmin' plastic!

Plastic rots. A few weeks ago I found a plastic bag, which had got stuck between the back seat of my car and the boot. Most of it had crumbled and turned to dust. I guess it was a recyclable bag, but most plastics eventually degrade.

Full Fact

97% of the equipment [PPE] that we secured was ready, fit-for-purpose and there on the front line” —Michael Gove on the Today programme, 2 February 2022

A DHSC spokesperson told us that 97% of PPE items by item count, procured in the 2020/21 financial year, were usable. But Mr Gove is incorrect because not all of these items were “fit-for-purpose” or “on the front line”.

The spokesperson told us the remaining 3% which wasn’t usable corresponds to the £0.67 billion of PPE described in the department’s annual report as equipment “which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective.”

This doesn’t include £2.6 billion of PPE which was deemed “not suitable for use within the health and social care sector”, and so couldn’t reasonably be described as being “fit-for-purpose.” Nor could it be described as “there on the front line”, as Mr Gove said.

An additional £0.75 billion of PPE was said to be “in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed.”

Full Fact are writing to Gove to demand a correction.

Baggs

Good cartoon in Times today: Rishi S saying “And to help those struggling with heating bills we’ve spent billions on PPE whose only use is keeping people warm.”

They should run with that. Perhaps save the tax payer £500 million a day to store it all by handing it out to homeless people to keep warm on the streets. I’m sure Boris could find a way to spin in as a magnanimous gesture.

CvD66

What seems to be being missed is a high proportion of this PPE was purchased above market price, not because of demand but because these Tory cronies had no supply chains and had to start from crash. Other countries who did not use cronies, paid sensible prices so not raiding the public purse!!!

Not to mention PPE contracts being handed out to pub landlords !!

The Government has been forced to release private messages sent between Matt Hancock and Owen Paterson about Randox (the firm that won £600m+ in COVID contracts, that Paterson worked for).

It's pretty explosive stuff...
bylinetimes.com/2022/02/03/government-releases-private-messages-between-owen-paterson-and-matt-hancock-over-randox-contracts/

Baggs

Anyway, if the government over-ordered shelf-lifed PPE, how is that bad? Just think how the vipers would be at 'em if they'd ordered too little.

Belt and braces better than not surely?

Not to the tune of 9.9 billion, no.

Baggs

I don’t believe it was useless. Plastic past a use by date does not mean useless and that’s the only explanation I’ve heard as to why it was.

Look, Baggs, instead of harping on about plastic aprons (which don't actually comprise the entire extent of PPE) and your belief that they don't go out of date, to us, who can't give you any expert information on this particular item, perhaps you could take it up with the body that sets the standards for NHS PPE.

IME plastic does degrade over time, but that's the full extent of my non expertise..

On the ground the main failure products were masks, either because they were not compliant with the level of protection they should provide, poorly fitting, or because they were too flimsy, eg elastics breaking). They were purchased in huge container load batches, so if they weren’t compliant hundreds of thousands were withdrawn from stock.

Baggs

I don’t believe it was useless. Plastic past a use by date does not mean useless and that’s the only explanation I’ve heard as to why it was.

I guess there are levels of uselessness. But it probably was not suitable to be used in the most “sick” environment like there was with covid

What seems to be being missed is a high proportion of this PPE was purchased above market price, not because of demand but because these Tory cronies had no supply chains and had to start from crash. Other countries who did not use cronies, paid sensible prices so not raiding the public purse!!!

Pointless perhaps. See my comment about optician’s assistants wearing plastic aprons while the optician didn’t. They weren’t going to be coming into contact with bodily fluids.

I don’t believe it was useless. Plastic past a use by date does not mean useless and that’s the only explanation I’ve heard as to why it was.

There is also the small point that the “just in case there is a pandemic” stock was constantly reviewed and updated until the Tories took control in 2010.

It was then ignored and found to be useless when the pandemic occurred.

Otherwise we would not have been in such a damned panic about procurement

Good cartoon in Times today: Rishi S saying “And to help those struggling with heating bills we’ve spent billions on PPE whose only use is keeping people warm.”

Callistemon21

^£750 million buying PPE which will pass its expiry date before we can use it.^

I'm not sure why it expires - is it rubberised? Does it rot?
Plastic takes years to degrade.
Can it not be kept in good storage and used gradually? And is it not suitable for use post-Covid when we might not need PPE made with such stringent specifications?

I hate waste.

I think it's the cleanliness/sterility that has the shelf life maybe. As I recall our plastic aprons came on a roll and I don't remember a use by date. We used a different one for each patient. That was pre covid.
The gloves did have use by dates but they were quite lengthy.
We were specially fitted with sealed masks during the MERS outbreak - never used and probably still in a cupboard in the health centre somewhere.

£13 billion wasted on PPE

£12 billion to be raised by increases in NI. The tax payer is directly funding this wasteful scandal whilst the Tories pals buy mansions in the Cotswolds with the profits.

We are the money tree.

Well, well, well, the Kitemark is still being used today

I thought I'd seen it recently but began to wonder if I was having flashbacks to the 20th century but no, lots of companies continued to use it and still use it as a standard of quality.

The Kitemark is only available from BSI Group. To obtain Kitemark certification, products and services are assessed by BSI Product Services to ensure that they meet the requirements of the relevant British, European, trade association or international specification or standard. In addition, delivery of the product or service is audited against an accredited quality management system. Once a Kitemark licence is issued, licensees are regularly audited and are subject to surveillance visits to ensure continuing compliance.

Obviously this equipment didn't have one as continuing compliance wasn't met.

Kitemark, Callistemon ! What century are you living in...
Or it's equivalent.
Perhaps that's the problem - no kitemarks

It kept Boris's mates in beer money though, so money well spent in his eyes.

What I don't understand is that for a contract you need a specification. If the spec is not met then surely you would not pay out? Apparently £21 million was paid to a Spanish middle man. For what exactly? Why can't some of this money be reclaimed? Talking billions.