Guest pelmetman Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 2:01 PM Says the man that has whinged on for years about the £8bn a year or whatever it is we pay to the EU when just the red tape costs at our ports his Brexit is costing is going to cost more than that. . More Loser b*****ks *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-07 9:13 PM John52 - 2020-08-07 9:06 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 9:11 AM Its not just one gaff though, its loads. Remember the fleet of RAF Cargo planes sent to Turkey for gowns that all turned out to be useless? nearly half a million of them! Then there is the question of the missing PPE, Millions of it just vanished last year. The Government know where it went but refuse to say. The list of incompetence just goes on and from way before the Pandemic yet people still support them. Bizarre. I can't believe they can be that incompetent so it must be Same Old Tory Sleaze- which BoJo has shamelessly taken up to another level. And they get away with it because it isn't reported in the mainstream media like it would be if Jeremy Corbyn had been responsible for it Before we left Spain they'd bought a load of dodgy Chinky test kits ;-) ......... This isn't Spain, it's UK and the thread is about the incompetence of our own countries government.......not any other country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-08-07 9:20 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 9:13 PM John52 - 2020-08-07 9:06 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 9:11 AM Its not just one gaff though, its loads. Remember the fleet of RAF Cargo planes sent to Turkey for gowns that all turned out to be useless? nearly half a million of them! Then there is the question of the missing PPE, Millions of it just vanished last year. The Government know where it went but refuse to say. The list of incompetence just goes on and from way before the Pandemic yet people still support them. Bizarre. I can't believe they can be that incompetent so it must be Same Old Tory Sleaze- which BoJo has shamelessly taken up to another level. And they get away with it because it isn't reported in the mainstream media like it would be if Jeremy Corbyn had been responsible for it Before we left Spain they'd bought a load of dodgy Chinky test kits ;-) ......... This isn't Spain, it's UK and the thread is about the incompetence of our own countries government.......not any other country. So HAS Wales or Scotland not had any PPE problems? ;-) ......... Just askin >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 7, 2020 Author Share Posted August 7, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-07 9:19 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 2:01 PM Says the man that has whinged on for years about the £8bn a year or whatever it is we pay to the EU when just the red tape costs at our ports his Brexit is costing is going to cost more than that. . More Loser b*****ks *-) ......... Which bit as it was your own government that posted the figures of just how much the extra paperwork will cost at our borders recently, it was posted on here. Almost double what we pay into the EU and yes, you have constantly referred to the amount of money we paid in. So are you saying your government are talking bollox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted August 7, 2020 Share Posted August 7, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-07 9:24 PM Bulletguy - 2020-08-07 9:20 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 9:13 PM John52 - 2020-08-07 9:06 PM Barryd999 - 2020-08-07 9:11 AM Its not just one gaff though, its loads. Remember the fleet of RAF Cargo planes sent to Turkey for gowns that all turned out to be useless? nearly half a million of them! Then there is the question of the missing PPE, Millions of it just vanished last year. The Government know where it went but refuse to say. The list of incompetence just goes on and from way before the Pandemic yet people still support them. Bizarre. I can't believe they can be that incompetent so it must be Same Old Tory Sleaze- which BoJo has shamelessly taken up to another level. And they get away with it because it isn't reported in the mainstream media like it would be if Jeremy Corbyn had been responsible for it Before we left Spain they'd bought a load of dodgy Chinky test kits ;-) ......... This isn't Spain, it's UK and the thread is about the incompetence of our own countries government.......not any other country. So HAS Wales or Scotland not had any PPE problems? ;-) ......... I've yet to read of any reports of NHS Wales or Scotland frittering away £millions without due diligence dishing out money to chocolatiers, pigeon netting suppliers and companies with no assets and no record of supplying. Nothing excuses Johnsons continual ineptness no matter how hard you try to, yet if you had an ounce of moral decency you'd be extremely angry about this. I don't think you're taking this seriously enough at all....it's just Brexit Brexit blah blah Brexit with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Best let Ol Fishface know then ;-) .......... What is a Type II Face Mask? Type II face masks (EN14683) are medical face masks made up of a protective 3 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces, however they are not effective when blood or bodily fluids are present. Characteristics of Type II face masks include: Pleat style with ***ear loops*** or ties Protective three-layer construction Available in a variety of colours and styles. https://nhsprocurement.org.uk/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks/ Just sayin :D ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Typically Pelmet has been desperately trying to divert attention away from the thread topic as you've seen from this and other posts he's made. Brexiteers revere Johnson as their Dear Leader so their brainwashed minds are unable to to absorb any form of rationality. I expect to see some being held to account over this matter as it's spiraled out of control for too long now. Time for answers and time for heads to roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-08 3:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Best let Ol Fishface know then ;-) .......... What is a Type II Face Mask? Type II face masks (EN14683) are medical face masks made up of a protective 3 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces, however they are not effective when blood or bodily fluids are present. Characteristics of Type II face masks include: Pleat style with ***ear loops*** or ties Protective three-layer construction Available in a variety of colours and styles. https://nhsprocurement.org.uk/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks/ Just sayin :D ............. It's just a shame that you weren't just readin', before you began just sayin'! First, the masks you're citing are Type II, but the correct surgical mask is type IIR: 4 ply instead of 3 ply for higher filtration. Second, the Type II and type IIR masks are totally unsuitable for areas with high coronavirus load because neither provides adequate protection for the wearer. The ones that are suitable in those areas are the FFP3 masks that need head tapes to keep them in place. FFP 3 masks are what was supposedly ordered (in a highly questionable way) from a clearly incompetent (because they were buying in goods of which they had no experience or knowledge) supplier. So what were delivered were FFP3 type masks with Type IIR elastic ear loops, which would be dangerous to use in areas of high coronavirus load because they do not reliably seal to the wearer's face, as I explained above. To meet the FFP3 spec, the masks must have head tapes. It's all there, if you'd only read it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted August 8, 2020 Share Posted August 8, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:57 PM It's just a shame that you weren't just readin', before you began just sayin'! If only :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 seems most of the furlough money is being spaffed away to fraudsters too https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/09/two-thirds-of-uks-furloughed-workers-continued-job-in-covid-19-lockdown how many cafes are booking carry outs as eat ins to claim the subsidy there? how can they check? Did anyone in BoJo's cabinet of stooges and cronies think this through? Imagine the Daily Mail and Telegraph if it was Jeremy Corbyn giving £billions of your money away to cronies and fraudsters like BoJo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 John52 - 2020-08-09 8:25 AM seems most of the furlough money is being spaffed away to fraudsters too https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/09/two-thirds-of-uks-furloughed-workers-continued-job-in-covid-19-lockdown how many cafes are booking carry outs as eat ins to claim the subsidy there? how can they check? Did anyone think this through? Imagine the Daily Mail and Telegraph if it was Jeremy Corbyn giving £billions of your money away to cronies and fraudsters like BoJo. At least its being Spaffed in the UK B-) ............ Unlike the hundreds of milllions we give to the EU EVERY WEEK until 31/12/2020 *-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:57 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 3:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Best let Ol Fishface know then ;-) .......... What is a Type II Face Mask? Type II face masks (EN14683) are medical face masks made up of a protective 3 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces, however they are not effective when blood or bodily fluids are present. Characteristics of Type II face masks include: Pleat style with ***ear loops*** or ties Protective three-layer construction Available in a variety of colours and styles. https://nhsprocurement.org.uk/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks/ Just sayin :D ............. It's just a shame that you weren't just readin', before you began just sayin'! First, the masks you're citing are Type II, but the correct surgical mask is type IIR: 4 ply instead of 3 ply for higher filtration. Second, the Type II and type IIR masks are totally unsuitable for areas with high coronavirus load because neither provides adequate protection for the wearer. The ones that are suitable in those areas are the FFP3 masks that need head tapes to keep them in place. FFP 3 masks are what was supposedly ordered (in a highly questionable way) from a clearly incompetent (because they were buying in goods of which they had no experience or knowledge) supplier. So what were delivered were FFP3 type masks with Type IIR elastic ear loops, which would be dangerous to use in areas of high coronavirus load because they do not reliably seal to the wearer's face, as I explained above. To meet the FFP3 spec, the masks must have head tapes. It's all there, if you'd only read it! So the court case will decide whether the government ordered the wrong masks.......Or the supplier supplied the wrong masks ;-) ....... Dontcha think you should wait until the verdict? *-) ........... After all a £150 million is peanuts compared to what we are still giving the EU to Spaff Spaff Spaff away every week >:-) ......... But that doesn't bother you Remoner HYPOCRITES does it? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-09 8:36 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:57 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 3:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Best let Ol Fishface know then ;-) .......... What is a Type II Face Mask? Type II face masks (EN14683) are medical face masks made up of a protective 3 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces, however they are not effective when blood or bodily fluids are present. Characteristics of Type II face masks include: Pleat style with ***ear loops*** or ties Protective three-layer construction Available in a variety of colours and styles. https://nhsprocurement.org.uk/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks/ Just sayin :D ............. It's just a shame that you weren't just readin', before you began just sayin'! First, the masks you're citing are Type II, but the correct surgical mask is type IIR: 4 ply instead of 3 ply for higher filtration. Second, the Type II and type IIR masks are totally unsuitable for areas with high coronavirus load because neither provides adequate protection for the wearer. The ones that are suitable in those areas are the FFP3 masks that need head tapes to keep them in place. FFP 3 masks are what was supposedly ordered (in a highly questionable way) from a clearly incompetent (because they were buying in goods of which they had no experience or knowledge) supplier. So what were delivered were FFP3 type masks with Type IIR elastic ear loops, which would be dangerous to use in areas of high coronavirus load because they do not reliably seal to the wearer's face, as I explained above. To meet the FFP3 spec, the masks must have head tapes. It's all there, if you'd only read it! 1 So the court case will decide whether the government ordered the wrong masks.......Or the supplier supplied the wrong masks ;-) ....... 2 Dontcha think you should wait until the verdict? *-) ........... 3 After all a £150 million is peanuts compared to what we are still giving the EU to Spaff Spaff Spaff away every week >:-) ......... 4 But that doesn't bother you Remoner HYPOCRITES does it? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... 1 Yes. It is a breach of contract case. 2 Who has pre-judged the verdict? 3 It is additional money, not alternative spending. The question, that you still seem not to have grasped, is over the way this contract (and others) was awarded, which involved friends of friends and personal contacts of those in office, who were employed to provide goods of which they had little to no knowledge, and eventually delivered un-checked, non-compliant, product, for which they accepted payment and then waited for the buyer to do the quality control. That case, which is not a breach of contract case, has yet to be brought. 4 Yes. Anyone with an ounce of savvy should be concerned at members of the government apparently side-stepping competent suppliers who know what the requirement is, in favour of the process described in 3 above, which looks to anyone with normal eyesight very close to fraudulently diverting public money to "yer mates". Pure "banana republic" behaviour. Were this government not "your precious", you'd see that in a flash. That you aren't even remotely curious speaks volumes. Now that really is hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:28 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-09 8:36 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:57 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 3:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Best let Ol Fishface know then ;-) .......... What is a Type II Face Mask? Type II face masks (EN14683) are medical face masks made up of a protective 3 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces, however they are not effective when blood or bodily fluids are present. Characteristics of Type II face masks include: Pleat style with ***ear loops*** or ties Protective three-layer construction Available in a variety of colours and styles. https://nhsprocurement.org.uk/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks/ Just sayin :D ............. It's just a shame that you weren't just readin', before you began just sayin'! First, the masks you're citing are Type II, but the correct surgical mask is type IIR: 4 ply instead of 3 ply for higher filtration. Second, the Type II and type IIR masks are totally unsuitable for areas with high coronavirus load because neither provides adequate protection for the wearer. The ones that are suitable in those areas are the FFP3 masks that need head tapes to keep them in place. FFP 3 masks are what was supposedly ordered (in a highly questionable way) from a clearly incompetent (because they were buying in goods of which they had no experience or knowledge) supplier. So what were delivered were FFP3 type masks with Type IIR elastic ear loops, which would be dangerous to use in areas of high coronavirus load because they do not reliably seal to the wearer's face, as I explained above. To meet the FFP3 spec, the masks must have head tapes. It's all there, if you'd only read it! 1 So the court case will decide whether the government ordered the wrong masks.......Or the supplier supplied the wrong masks ;-) ....... 2 Dontcha think you should wait until the verdict? *-) ........... 3 After all a £150 million is peanuts compared to what we are still giving the EU to Spaff Spaff Spaff away every week >:-) ......... 4 But that doesn't bother you Remoner HYPOCRITES does it? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... 1 Yes. It is a breach of contract case. 2 Who has pre-judged the verdict? 3 It is additional money, not alternative spending. The question, that you still seem not to have grasped, is over the way this contract (and others) was awarded, which involved friends of friends and personal contacts of those in office, who were employed to provide goods of which they had little to no knowledge, and eventually delivered un-checked, non-compliant, product, for which they accepted payment and then waited for the buyer to do the quality control. That case, which is not a breach of contract case, has yet to be brought. 4 Yes. Anyone with an ounce of savvy should be concerned at members of the government apparently side-stepping competent suppliers who know what the requirement is, in favour of the process described in 3 above, which looks to anyone with normal eyesight very close to fraudulently diverting public money to "yer mates". Pure "banana republic" behaviour. Were this government not "your precious", you'd see that in a flash. That you aren't even remotely curious speaks volumes. Now that really is hypocrisy. 1.........Correct...... 2.........Obviously Numbnuts Barry for a start... by starting this thread, then the usual LLLLB hate squad jumped on his bandwagon.....You included....... 3........So the Liberals or Labour would never do anything like that? (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... The only hypocrisy I see is from you anti democratic Losers! *-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted August 9, 2020 Author Share Posted August 9, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-09 1:36 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:28 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-09 8:36 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:57 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 3:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Best let Ol Fishface know then ;-) .......... What is a Type II Face Mask? Type II face masks (EN14683) are medical face masks made up of a protective 3 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces, however they are not effective when blood or bodily fluids are present. Characteristics of Type II face masks include: Pleat style with ***ear loops*** or ties Protective three-layer construction Available in a variety of colours and styles. https://nhsprocurement.org.uk/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks/ Just sayin :D ............. It's just a shame that you weren't just readin', before you began just sayin'! First, the masks you're citing are Type II, but the correct surgical mask is type IIR: 4 ply instead of 3 ply for higher filtration. Second, the Type II and type IIR masks are totally unsuitable for areas with high coronavirus load because neither provides adequate protection for the wearer. The ones that are suitable in those areas are the FFP3 masks that need head tapes to keep them in place. FFP 3 masks are what was supposedly ordered (in a highly questionable way) from a clearly incompetent (because they were buying in goods of which they had no experience or knowledge) supplier. So what were delivered were FFP3 type masks with Type IIR elastic ear loops, which would be dangerous to use in areas of high coronavirus load because they do not reliably seal to the wearer's face, as I explained above. To meet the FFP3 spec, the masks must have head tapes. It's all there, if you'd only read it! 1 So the court case will decide whether the government ordered the wrong masks.......Or the supplier supplied the wrong masks ;-) ....... 2 Dontcha think you should wait until the verdict? *-) ........... 3 After all a £150 million is peanuts compared to what we are still giving the EU to Spaff Spaff Spaff away every week >:-) ......... 4 But that doesn't bother you Remoner HYPOCRITES does it? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... 1 Yes. It is a breach of contract case. 2 Who has pre-judged the verdict? 3 It is additional money, not alternative spending. The question, that you still seem not to have grasped, is over the way this contract (and others) was awarded, which involved friends of friends and personal contacts of those in office, who were employed to provide goods of which they had little to no knowledge, and eventually delivered un-checked, non-compliant, product, for which they accepted payment and then waited for the buyer to do the quality control. That case, which is not a breach of contract case, has yet to be brought. 4 Yes. Anyone with an ounce of savvy should be concerned at members of the government apparently side-stepping competent suppliers who know what the requirement is, in favour of the process described in 3 above, which looks to anyone with normal eyesight very close to fraudulently diverting public money to "yer mates". Pure "banana republic" behaviour. Were this government not "your precious", you'd see that in a flash. That you aren't even remotely curious speaks volumes. Now that really is hypocrisy. 1.........Correct...... 2.........Obviously Numbnuts Barry for a start... by starting this thread, then the usual LLLLB hate squad jumped on his bandwagon.....You included....... 3........So the Liberals or Labour would never do anything like that? (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... The only hypocrisy I see is from you anti democratic Losers! *-) ......... LOL! Ok then lets see them try and wriggle their way out of this one. Its not the first time they have handed contracts to their dodgy mates either. £250k to Doms pal to do an app that would never work, there are plenty of other examples. It wouldnt be so bad if the people they kept awarding the contracts to actually delivered the right stuff or stuff that actually works. How can you defend them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-08-09 1:47 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-09 1:36 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:28 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-09 8:36 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:57 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 3:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Best let Ol Fishface know then ;-) .......... What is a Type II Face Mask? Type II face masks (EN14683) are medical face masks made up of a protective 3 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces, however they are not effective when blood or bodily fluids are present. Characteristics of Type II face masks include: Pleat style with ***ear loops*** or ties Protective three-layer construction Available in a variety of colours and styles. https://nhsprocurement.org.uk/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks/ Just sayin :D ............. It's just a shame that you weren't just readin', before you began just sayin'! First, the masks you're citing are Type II, but the correct surgical mask is type IIR: 4 ply instead of 3 ply for higher filtration. Second, the Type II and type IIR masks are totally unsuitable for areas with high coronavirus load because neither provides adequate protection for the wearer. The ones that are suitable in those areas are the FFP3 masks that need head tapes to keep them in place. FFP 3 masks are what was supposedly ordered (in a highly questionable way) from a clearly incompetent (because they were buying in goods of which they had no experience or knowledge) supplier. So what were delivered were FFP3 type masks with Type IIR elastic ear loops, which would be dangerous to use in areas of high coronavirus load because they do not reliably seal to the wearer's face, as I explained above. To meet the FFP3 spec, the masks must have head tapes. It's all there, if you'd only read it! 1 So the court case will decide whether the government ordered the wrong masks.......Or the supplier supplied the wrong masks ;-) ....... 2 Dontcha think you should wait until the verdict? *-) ........... 3 After all a £150 million is peanuts compared to what we are still giving the EU to Spaff Spaff Spaff away every week >:-) ......... 4 But that doesn't bother you Remoner HYPOCRITES does it? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... 1 Yes. It is a breach of contract case. 2 Who has pre-judged the verdict? 3 It is additional money, not alternative spending. The question, that you still seem not to have grasped, is over the way this contract (and others) was awarded, which involved friends of friends and personal contacts of those in office, who were employed to provide goods of which they had little to no knowledge, and eventually delivered un-checked, non-compliant, product, for which they accepted payment and then waited for the buyer to do the quality control. That case, which is not a breach of contract case, has yet to be brought. 4 Yes. Anyone with an ounce of savvy should be concerned at members of the government apparently side-stepping competent suppliers who know what the requirement is, in favour of the process described in 3 above, which looks to anyone with normal eyesight very close to fraudulently diverting public money to "yer mates". Pure "banana republic" behaviour. Were this government not "your precious", you'd see that in a flash. That you aren't even remotely curious speaks volumes. Now that really is hypocrisy. 1.........Correct...... 2.........Obviously Numbnuts Barry for a start... by starting this thread, then the usual LLLLB hate squad jumped on his bandwagon.....You included....... 3........So the Liberals or Labour would never do anything like that? (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... The only hypocrisy I see is from you anti democratic Losers! *-) ......... LOL! Ok then lets see them try and wriggle their way out of this one. Its not the first time they have handed contracts to their dodgy mates either. £250k to Doms pal to do an app that would never work, there are plenty of other examples. It wouldnt be so bad if the people they kept awarding the contracts to actually delivered the right stuff or stuff that actually works. How can you defend them? 250k?.......Is prolly what Old Drunker spent our dosh on filling his wine locker >:-) ........ https://www.decanter.com/wine-news/brexit-uk-seek-share-eu-wine-cellar-report-332694/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-08-09 8:29 AM John52 - 2020-08-09 8:25 AM seems most of the furlough money is being spaffed away to fraudsters too https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/09/two-thirds-of-uks-furloughed-workers-continued-job-in-covid-19-lockdown how many cafes are booking carry outs as eat ins to claim the subsidy there? how can they check? Did anyone think this through? Imagine the Daily Mail and Telegraph if it was Jeremy Corbyn giving £billions of your money away to cronies and fraudsters like BoJo. At least its being Spaffed in the UK B-) ............ That never bothered you when you were sitting on a car park in Spain six months every year. Unlike the hundreds of milllions we give to the EU EVERY WEEK until 31/12/2020 *-) ........... It's costing us far more to become a third country banana state than had we remained a member. https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1?r=US&IR=T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:28 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-09 8:36 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:57 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 3:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Best let Ol Fishface know then ;-) .......... What is a Type II Face Mask? Type II face masks (EN14683) are medical face masks made up of a protective 3 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces, however they are not effective when blood or bodily fluids are present. Characteristics of Type II face masks include: Pleat style with ***ear loops*** or ties Protective three-layer construction Available in a variety of colours and styles. https://nhsprocurement.org.uk/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks/ Just sayin :D ............. It's just a shame that you weren't just readin', before you began just sayin'! First, the masks you're citing are Type II, but the correct surgical mask is type IIR: 4 ply instead of 3 ply for higher filtration. Second, the Type II and type IIR masks are totally unsuitable for areas with high coronavirus load because neither provides adequate protection for the wearer. The ones that are suitable in those areas are the FFP3 masks that need head tapes to keep them in place. FFP 3 masks are what was supposedly ordered (in a highly questionable way) from a clearly incompetent (because they were buying in goods of which they had no experience or knowledge) supplier. So what were delivered were FFP3 type masks with Type IIR elastic ear loops, which would be dangerous to use in areas of high coronavirus load because they do not reliably seal to the wearer's face, as I explained above. To meet the FFP3 spec, the masks must have head tapes. It's all there, if you'd only read it! 1 So the court case will decide whether the government ordered the wrong masks.......Or the supplier supplied the wrong masks ;-) ....... 2 Dontcha think you should wait until the verdict? *-) ........... 3 After all a £150 million is peanuts compared to what we are still giving the EU to Spaff Spaff Spaff away every week >:-) ......... 4 But that doesn't bother you Remoner HYPOCRITES does it? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... 1 Yes. It is a breach of contract case. 2 Who has pre-judged the verdict? 3 It is additional money, not alternative spending. The question, that you still seem not to have grasped, is over the way this contract (and others) was awarded, which involved friends of friends and personal contacts of those in office, who were employed to provide goods of which they had little to no knowledge, and eventually delivered un-checked, non-compliant, product, for which they accepted payment and then waited for the buyer to do the quality control. That case, which is not a breach of contract case, has yet to be brought. 4 Yes. Anyone with an ounce of savvy should be concerned at members of the government apparently side-stepping competent suppliers who know what the requirement is, in favour of the process described in 3 above, which looks to anyone with normal eyesight very close to fraudulently diverting public money to "yer mates". Pure "banana republic" behaviour. Were this government not "your precious", you'd see that in a flash. That you aren't even remotely curious speaks volumes. Now that really is hypocrisy. Spot on......and as clearly seen by his response, that's stung! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-08-09 3:29 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-09 8:29 AM John52 - 2020-08-09 8:25 AM seems most of the furlough money is being spaffed away to fraudsters too https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/09/two-thirds-of-uks-furloughed-workers-continued-job-in-covid-19-lockdown how many cafes are booking carry outs as eat ins to claim the subsidy there? how can they check? Did anyone think this through? Imagine the Daily Mail and Telegraph if it was Jeremy Corbyn giving £billions of your money away to cronies and fraudsters like BoJo. At least its being Spaffed in the UK B-) ............ That never bothered you when you were sitting on a car park in Spain six months every year. Unlike the hundreds of milllions we give to the EU EVERY WEEK until 31/12/2020 *-) ........... It's costing us far more to become a third country banana state than had we remained a member. https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1?r=US&IR=T I reckon your ranting Remoaner will need to redo his sums ;-) .......... The world is in a very different place to where it was in February >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 9, 2020 Share Posted August 9, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-08-09 3:38 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-09 11:28 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-09 8:36 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 6:57 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 3:44 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 2:36 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 1:58 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 12:56 PM pelmetman - 2020-08-08 9:24 AM Brian Kirby - 2020-08-08 8:39 AM pelmetman - 2020-08-07 7:06 PM You mean that PPE that the NHS say's "is" fit for purpose? ;-) ........ https://www.obantimes.co.uk/2020/05/26/lochaber-ppe-expert-says-standard-issue-nhs-mask-not-fit-for-purpose/ I don't think you read/understood what is being said in that article, Dave. The Oban Times article (which was "updated" on 26 May, so is now well out of date), states that standard IIR surgical masks are not suitable for use against the coronavirus in all circumstances. This was in response to a warning (from an unstated source) that IIR masks do not provide adequate protection against the virus in in areas of high virus concentration, where FFP3 masks are required. The (unstated) implication is that some health workers may have been wearing the wrong kinds of masks for the areas in which they were working. The two "experts" cited in the article apparently compared IIR masks with reusable FFP3 masks designed for continuous use for up to 8 hours. The NHS recommended FFP3 mask for use in areas of high coronavirus concentration is of disposable type (to be treated as biohazard waste after use, and disposed of as such), and is only to be used continuously for one hour. IIR masks remain perfectly fit for purpose, if worn only in appropriate areas. But all the above has nothing to do with bulk buying inappropriate masks, and so wasting money through incompetence, which is what this string is about. So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas? ;-) .............. Frankly I view the assertions of the Good Liar Project and their experts as sh*t stirring by the usual suspects *-) ........ So dont you think you should wait for the outcome of the legal proceedings?....... before you launch your latest Boris Bashing Bandwagon *-) ........ "So where is the evidence that they cant be worn in apprppriate areas?" What/who do you mean by "they"? I haven't said above that anything can't be worn in any area. The post isn't about masks in general, only about which mask should be worn under which conditions. You still haven't fully read that Oban Times article, have you? :-D We all know your tendency to dismiss anything that conflicts with your misunderstandings as unreliable. Your above post merely illustrates how this happens! I was referring to the new masks ;-) ............ Where is the evidence that they cant be worn in appropriate areas? :-| ......... As all I've seen from the Good Liar Project is that “will not be used in the NHS” because “there was concern as to whether the[y]… provided an adequate fixing.”...........So no evidence just opinion *-) .......... Because all that holds them in place are elastic ear loops which, because they are elastic, stretch to allow the mask to move and break it's seal with the wearer's face. Unless the mask reliably seals to the wearer's face, it does not provide the protection that is required. Maintaining that seal requites ties around the back of the head, which, if you watch the news you will frequently see hospital staff donning and wearing. That was realised when the masks were tested before being distributed. So no, it isn't just a matter of opinion, it is the result of testing the masks before use. Best let Ol Fishface know then ;-) .......... What is a Type II Face Mask? Type II face masks (EN14683) are medical face masks made up of a protective 3 ply construction that prevents large particles from reaching the patient or working surfaces, however they are not effective when blood or bodily fluids are present. Characteristics of Type II face masks include: Pleat style with ***ear loops*** or ties Protective three-layer construction Available in a variety of colours and styles. https://nhsprocurement.org.uk/covid-19-a-guide-to-face-masks/ Just sayin :D ............. It's just a shame that you weren't just readin', before you began just sayin'! First, the masks you're citing are Type II, but the correct surgical mask is type IIR: 4 ply instead of 3 ply for higher filtration. Second, the Type II and type IIR masks are totally unsuitable for areas with high coronavirus load because neither provides adequate protection for the wearer. The ones that are suitable in those areas are the FFP3 masks that need head tapes to keep them in place. FFP 3 masks are what was supposedly ordered (in a highly questionable way) from a clearly incompetent (because they were buying in goods of which they had no experience or knowledge) supplier. So what were delivered were FFP3 type masks with Type IIR elastic ear loops, which would be dangerous to use in areas of high coronavirus load because they do not reliably seal to the wearer's face, as I explained above. To meet the FFP3 spec, the masks must have head tapes. It's all there, if you'd only read it! 1 So the court case will decide whether the government ordered the wrong masks.......Or the supplier supplied the wrong masks ;-) ....... 2 Dontcha think you should wait until the verdict? *-) ........... 3 After all a £150 million is peanuts compared to what we are still giving the EU to Spaff Spaff Spaff away every week >:-) ......... 4 But that doesn't bother you Remoner HYPOCRITES does it? (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... 1 Yes. It is a breach of contract case. 2 Who has pre-judged the verdict? 3 It is additional money, not alternative spending. The question, that you still seem not to have grasped, is over the way this contract (and others) was awarded, which involved friends of friends and personal contacts of those in office, who were employed to provide goods of which they had little to no knowledge, and eventually delivered un-checked, non-compliant, product, for which they accepted payment and then waited for the buyer to do the quality control. That case, which is not a breach of contract case, has yet to be brought. 4 Yes. Anyone with an ounce of savvy should be concerned at members of the government apparently side-stepping competent suppliers who know what the requirement is, in favour of the process described in 3 above, which looks to anyone with normal eyesight very close to fraudulently diverting public money to "yer mates". Pure "banana republic" behaviour. Were this government not "your precious", you'd see that in a flash. That you aren't even remotely curious speaks volumes. Now that really is hypocrisy. Spot on......and as clearly seen by his response, that's stung! Stung? :-S .......... I treat you Losers like I do any annoying insect *-) ......... A quick swipe with a virtual newspaper is usually sufficient :D ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.