This, from the intro to govt’s PPE plan, is interesting. Apparently even though they had a PPE stockpile to respond to pandemic flu and no-deal Brexit, they didn’t account for supply to anywhere but NHS trusts, nor consider UK might need our own PPE manufacturing capacity.

Because you’d think that decent pandemic flu planning would have considered PPE for non-hospital trust settings. And you’d think no-deal Brexit planning would have included consideration of the essential manufacturing capacity we might need here in the UK.

Instead, although the first imported cases were identified here in January and local transmission was confirmed in February, it has taken until mid April - after 10pm on a Bank Holiday - to publish a plan for how we will manage PPE.

That is ridiculously, shamefully slow.

Whatever it takes, eh?

Wouldn’t it have been better to have a ‘whatever it takes’ plan in place three months ago?

Couldn’t it be said that a plan to cover guidelines, logistics & manufacturing capacity would have been possible years ago (and isn’t that what planning is for)?

This is why staff in special schools and early years settings are asking about PPE. They /can’t/ do their work while remaining less than two metres away from the children who don’t live in their household.

Social care’s vital role is not news. The govt sees this every year during the winter flu season. That’s why their previous pandemic flu / no-deal Brexit planning, omitting PPE provision to this sector, is such a disgrace.

We are claiming guidance is clear. (1)

We are acknowledging guidance is not clear enough. (2)

Btw, sections 1.6 - 1.8 contain three embedded links. Two to govt guidance and one to WHO guidance, and (it may just be me) I can only get the WHO embedded link to work.

What follows section 1.8 is a page and a half of press statements from various sources praising the issuing of the guidance.

I remember these statements from back when the guidance was issued.

Not convinced that cheerleading commentary needs to be built into a plan.

We’ve travelled quite a distance between section 1.2 (with its emphasis on symptoms) to 1.9 which acknowledges that carriers can have no symptoms.

This section of the plan, for non-health and non-care settings is the section that basically denies any need for PPE for most other worktasks and workplaces.

(This may be correct, and I do understand that health and care settings are higher risk.)

But I’d feel more comfortable and confident with this guidance if it didn’t feel so strongly driven by the need to preserve an insufficient stock, rather than to protect the population.

And if it wasn’t caveated by this statement which is essentially: “we don’t know, we might be wrong, if we find out we’re wrong, we’ll change our advice”.

(The link to the ‘guidance hub’ referenced in 1.17 also doesn’t appear to work, although the other embedded links do).