Covid enquiry

Aveline

The vaccines were developed and used rapidly and saved many lives. The furlough scheme saved many livelihoods. The pandemic was not something any government had ever faced before. Of course it's extremely easy to point out where they went wrong now. Not so easy in the heat of the moment.

How do you reply to the detail given in evidence by civil servants, scientists and doctors at the covid enquiry?

The vaccines were developed and used rapidly and saved many lives. The furlough scheme saved many livelihoods. The pandemic was not something any government had ever faced before. Of course it's extremely easy to point out where they went wrong now. Not so easy in the heat of the moment.

Whitewavemark2

Aveline

Or many more could have died?

No quite the opposite according to all the scientists, doctors etc.

I'm not sure that I can work out what Aveline is talking about.

Thousands of people died unnecessarily because the government hadn't a clue what it was doing and didn't give a toss about people's lives. The evidence is there in the evidence of those working to try to stem the effects of the pandemic.

The government still doesn't give a toss. If it did it would pay the NHS staff properly and fund it properly. 7million people on the waiting lists because government does nothing is utterly disgraceful.

Companies etc now providing evidence that PPE contracts were delayed by the government to allow their cronies to get their application in as VIPs and gain the lucrative contracts.

So people were wearing big bags because of this delay.

aveline you still haven’t listened to any of the Covid enquiry have you? 😄

Aveline

Or many more could have died?

No quite the opposite according to all the scientists, doctors etc.

Or many more could have died?

Surely we are missing something here.

Regardless of anything, the Prime Ministers absolute priority is to save lives.

He failed spectacularly.

Aveline

I'm thinking more of the responses to the reactions of people at home. Scientific and academic information could only be a part of government considerations in the circumstances.

That's what the behavioural scientists were thinking of, too. From the evidence I've read so far (it's available in transcript, which I prefer to you tube) most of them point out that it wasn't just their field of expertise which had to be considered. They knew they were just part of a jigsaw.

I'm thinking more of the responses to the reactions of people at home. Scientific and academic information could only be a part of government considerations in the circumstances.

Aveline

So much to consider more than scientists views to take into consideration. Psychological and economic issues too. Look beyond personalities and personal likes and dislikes.

The range of 'scientists' working on covid was staggering. It wasn't just medical science, it covered a big section of 'scientific' academia.

You really need to look at some of the Inquiry evidence or documents.

Go to 'Explore past and future hearings'

You can watch them on you tube or read the transcripts.

covid19.public-inquiry.uk/

Surely he must be brought to account?

Can Sunak be forced to comply with the covid enquiry request that he hands over his WhatsApp messages?

I think that some GNers have short memories. Most of the topics referred to above have been written about on here quite regularly since covid. It's time consuming have to go over old ground and check the facts several times.

The govt agreed contracts with many of their cronies without going through the usual tests. Some of these are now subject to court cases.

The govt guaranteed the Bounce Back Loans which meant that the banks did not carry out the usual checks for loans. They have more or less given up on chasing the fraudsters.
And it wasn't just fraudsters who misused the loans. Accountants report clients borrowing £50k and using the money to buy an expensive car. Others used the loans for personal and not business purposes.

The following is an extract from an article was published in in Compliance magazine, the member publication of the International Compliance Association, on 24th January 2021.

"A report from the National Audit Office (NAO), published on 3 December 2021, found that the Government failed to put adequate measures in place to prevent fraudsters stealing billions of pounds through its BBL scheme. In fact, it is said that up to £17bn out of over £47bn credit provided through COVID-19 related loans will not be repaid. Further reports estimate as much as £4.9bn of the credit is thought to have been taken by fraudsters.

The fundamental purpose of the BBL Scheme was to provide businesses with capital to get them through the COVID-19 lockdown. Introduced in March 2020 as the UK went into the first lockdown, it was quickly ushered through. This was understandable as the economy was vulnerable and urgent measures were being conjured up to prevent collapse.

There were concerns over the flaws in the approval service, but these were overshadowed by an ‘act now and worry later’ policy. Applications for funding amounts between £2,000 to £50,000 were invited, and the government website provided application guidance suggesting that a short online application form would need to be completed, and self-declarations to confirm eligibility would be acceptable. For those looking for some easy, quick cash, this was perhaps akin to a car being left unlocked on the drive with the keys in the ignition.

The ease of access to funding and the lowering of approval scrutiny meant that there was always a risk. Fraud and overstated (or under-declared) applications slipped through the net. Huge numbers of applications were received within the first six weeks, and 860,000 loans were approved during this period.

In order to get the money out to applicants as quickly as possible, scrutiny of applications was lowered, with only certain conditions still being required to meet eligibility.

Since the loans were approved and those doing the back-office legwork have had time to catch a breath, the Cabinet Office has identified detailed examples of different types of fraud:

Hard fraud – large-scale fraud, often committed by organised criminal gangs. Examples include the impersonation of a legitimate business or person, submitting multiple fraudulent applications with different lenders, and using money mules to accept the loans and then filing for bankruptcy.

Soft fraud – where an organisation exaggerated an aspect of its business to acquire a loan, normally by way of inflating annual turnover figures. "

I doubt that any govt, with a different range of MPs would have allowed the above to happen.

I don't see where Wwmk2 is 'going too far'.

Looking at the evidence from the experts it looks as though the whole of the government's actions were informed by the famous Michael Gove pronouncement "We've had enough of experts".

As for any other colour of government, they would have been hampered by the tory mismanagement of PPE stocks in the preceding decade and their ignoring the recommendations of three pandemic planning exercises in the same decade, but I think that mistakes would have been far fewer because they wouldn't have had a Cabinet of second raters (having thrown most of their experienced MPs out of the party) nor have been 'led' by Johnson.

I'm not even being biased in my belief here, because I think that anyof the preceding tory governments would have done better... let alone a Labour one...

wwm2 you go too far. If only life was straightforward and nobody had any different and/or competing agendas.
Would any other government have done differently? Probably yes. They'd be being criticised too.

Headline

“Covid startup fund launched by Sunak put nearly £2million into wife’s firm”

I wonder if he declared an interest?

Aveline

20/20 hindsight must be terrific

It's not hindsight, Avaeline.

If you'd been following what the scientists giving evidence in this module are actually saying you'd know that they were proposing the right things at the time and were being ignored by the government... with consequences.

Watch the Edmunds clip I posted...

A clip of Prof. Edmunds evidence to the Inquiry yesterday.

So many avoidable deaths...

twitter.com/stuzi_pants/status/1715061852407734739

I have been reading this and discussing with DH at the breakfast table I was wondering what personal lessons we should take from the findings. Did we all follow the government advice to the letter or did we or should we start acting earlier ourselves? What things have we now abandoned? I was sharply reminded the other day seeing a woman feed her dog treats from the cafe table, a not unusual site. Tables used to be wiped down thoroughly before the next person was allowed to sit down but all there is now is a cursory wipe if anything. I always used to have hand sanitiser with me but not now. I will be putting some in my handbag now when I go out. From the perspective of government officials have they not yet learnt that everything they write on e-mails, whats apps, scribbled notes will be scrutinised and possibly sued in evidence?

Apparently it was Rishi Sunak who was labelled Dr Death by one scientist because of his Eat out to Help out scheme.

You could have done what we did and had 2 years harsh isolation with mental health amongst young people in a terrible state and our state bankrupt. We ended up with the highest death rate in Australia. One extreme to the other!

If only the dead could do that