Diabetic prepared to die for Brexit

LM1405

Well-known Member
Stockpiling. Same thing happened ahead of the March deadline.
I'll ask again, we've had shortages of medicines for years and before Brexit while still in the EU. What's the reason?

I think it's because some suppliers? pharmacies? have been stockpiling medicines in case there is a shortage. As manufacturers haven't ramped up production to meet the increased demand some pharmacies are going short. A bit like when the BBC mistakenly forecast a blizzard and suddenly there's no bread or milk left in the local shops.
IG we've had shortages of different medicines for years before Brexit, so I call it bullsh*t.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
I'll ask again, we've had shortages of medicines for years and before Brexit while still in the EU. What's the reason?



IG we've had shortages of different medicines for years before Brexit, so I call it bullsh*t.
I think the shortages are real, the link to Brexit particularly is bullsh*t. As you said those happen all the time. And sure they may get a little bit worse, but not materially so. Undoubtedly that won't stop predominately some of those who want to remain in the EU blaming Brexit for it.
 

kav

Distinguished Member
I'll ask again, we've had shortages of medicines for years and before Brexit while still in the EU. What's the reason?



IG we've had shortages of different medicines for years before Brexit, so I call it bullsh*t.
Whether you accept stockpiling ahead of a no deal Brexit as a valid reason or not doesn't make a difference, we just had someone mention that they spoke to someone in the field who is affected by it and aside from the anecdotal info, it's supported by what happened ahead of the March deadline, so hardly that unbelievable.
 

IronGiant

Moderator
Are all those historic distribution and shortages also Brexit related?
Of course not, but that doesn't prove the current ones aren't. There's only anecdotal evidence that they are, but I don't think it's unreasonable to "think they may" be.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
Whether you accept stockpiling ahead of a no deal Brexit as a valid reason or not doesn't make a difference, we just had someone mention that they spoke to someone in the field who is affected by it and aside from the anecdotal info, it's supported by what happened ahead of the March deadline, so hardly that unbelievable.
What is likely, in my opinion, knowing that there is a shortage is a fact by such person. Attributing a reason or cause to it would have been a subjective addition.
 

Bl4ckGryph0n

Distinguished Member
Of course not, but that doesn't prove the current ones aren't. There's only anecdotal evidence that they are, but I don't think it's unreasonable to "think they may" be.
I'm not so certain. After all, we are coming toward that season for these particular drugs. And there is historic evidence that this actually happens regularly. As I said, Brexit will have a part to play and may increase the levels a little, but the base level of shortages was always there anyway.
 

kav

Distinguished Member
Undoubtedly that won't stop predominately some of those who want to remain in the EU blaming Brexit for it.
I'd reframe that comment somewhat. In my experience many of those who voted Remain (myself included) tend towards being more risk averse than those who voted Leave. (I even make my living from risk management.)

I accept that the UK is leaving the EU, so at this point how I voted is irrelevant. However what hasn't changed is my perspective around the challenges of actually doing it. Fundamentally a lot of the arguments I see are predicated on different understandings and perspectives of risk, and a lot of what I read is not supported by solid reasoning, it's supported because people want it to be true. Thus you get anyone recommending a more cautious position on any given topic being shouted down as supporting Project Fear and that sort of thing, which completely prevents any kind of meaningful discussion.
 

kav

Distinguished Member
What is likely, in my opinion, knowing that there is a shortage is a fact by such person. Attributing a reason or cause to it would have been a subjective addition.
Yes it's definitely subjective but doesn't seem completely unbelievable. And as I said, it's supported by the historical evidence from 6 months ago when industry stockpiled ahead of the March deadline, so there is some precedent.
 

Dbcoup

Distinguished Member
Brexit and uncertainty are two different things, often leading to confusion.
 

kav

Distinguished Member
Brexit and uncertainty are two different things, often leading to confusion.
That the process of Brexit is causing uncertainty is incontrovertible.
 

Dbcoup

Distinguished Member
That the process of Brexit is causing uncertainty is incontrovertible.
What I mean is, to be a Country functioning outside of the EU, is totally feasible, so there is no uncertainty in that.
The uncertainty arises from unhelpful negotiation, bad planning and obstruction.
 

SteakAndCake

Suspended
What I mean is, to be a Country functioning outside of the EU, is totally feasible, so there is no uncertainty in that.
The uncertainty arises from unhelpful negotiation, bad planning and obstruction.
And yet we have no Yellowhammer documents detailing the risks of remain. Isn't that odd? I wonder why that is.🤔
 

weaviemx5

Distinguished Member
They've been stockpiling such medication for a long time though.

Just as an example, was Brexit the reason in 2011?

or 2010?

or what about the distribution problems in 2000?

Just a few examples...

Are all those historic distribution and shortages also Brexit related?
So there have been previous shortages of flu vaccine, and the second article has nothing to do with vaccine shortages;

“More than two months before the annual flu outbreak is expected, hospitals have begun turning patients away because they have no beds and too few staff.”

The fact we already see shortages of vaccines just suggests that, potentially, throttling that supply more by choice is risky.
 

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
Yes, this is what I meant. Lack of funds elsewhere or an increase in taxation.
How much do you think this will cost?

We aren't going to need flights every day for six months. But ok, let's go with that.


A private jet from Paris to London is £4,140. Let's assume we don't get a bulk discount, or use the RAF.

Let's be generous and quadruple the cost and round it up to £20k.

That's 183 flights at £20k so £3.66m.

That's going to mean tax rises or a lack of funds elsewhere is it?
 

kav

Distinguished Member
How much do you think this will cost?

We aren't going to need flights every day for six months. But ok, let's go with that.


A private jet from Paris to London is £4,140. Let's assume we don't get a bulk discount, or use the RAF.

Let's be generous and quadruple the cost and round it up to £20k.

That's 183 flights at £20k so £3.66m.

That's going to mean tax rises or a lack of funds elsewhere is it?
I don't know. My comments were about the effect cumulatively across all areas impacted for the entire UK. Individual cost increases add up when aggregated.
 

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
I don't know. My comments were about the effect cumulatively across all areas impacted for the entire UK. Individual cost increases add up when aggregated.
So far these are the only drugs we've found with a genuine short shelf life. What else cumulatively in medicines is going to mean a cost that will push up taxes? If £3.6m is the maximum cost for medicines, then I'd suggest this is just another project fear example that's been shot down.
 

kav

Distinguished Member
So far these are the only drugs we've found with a genuine short shelf life. What else cumulatively in medicines is going to mean a cost that will push up taxes? If £3.6m is the maximum cost for medicines, then I'd suggest this is just another project fear example that's been shot down.
I don't know. I would rather have some analysis done and make a judgement based on that than assume that it's just project fear.
 

doug56hl

Distinguished Member
I did. They are absurd.
Ah, so you know more than the experts in the field. And without any proof decide that the comments of these experts are absurd. How about showing how you got to that conclusion.? Gut feeling? or based on facts? If the latter how about providing some documents and/or sources?

I'll throw in this letter dated 1st August 2019 from the Presidents of the Royal College of Radiologists and British Nuclear Medicine Society plus the Chair of the UK Radiopharmacy Group where they express concern about the state of preparations for a No Deal Brexit.

we remain apprehensive about supplier readiness, and the impact shipment changes and/or delays are likely to have on hospital planning and expenditure, and ultimately, on patients

We ask that you provide urgent clarification on a number of issues relating to radioisotope supply:

  • What guarantees can be given that reported customs delays at East Midlands Airport will not happen in future and which minister will have direct responsibility for this?
  • What clear actions have been taken to ensure industry has sourced enough trained drivers to ensure timely delivery of medical radioisotopes to the North of England, the South West of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
  • What action has been taken to ensure future tariff reimbursements for nuclear medicine tests and brachytherapy cancer treatment (both in regards to individual and contract tariff rates) reflect increased costs caused by Brexit?
https://www.rcr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/joint-letter-to-pm-johnson-on-radioisotope-assurances.pdf

They have been asking for clarification for years on radioisotope supplies in the event of a no deal Brexit, yet a mere 3 months before Oct 31st they still have to request urgent clarification. Why is the government after many years still failing to give the information they need?

Nicola Strickland, president of the Royal College of Radiologists, said despite planning she was "still concerned." "Until we hit the start of November, there is no guarantee that air transport contingencies put in place will work to deliver the current level of provision," she said.

They estimate that in the event of leaving with a deal, delivery costs will go up 15% - but this would potentially rise to 30% in the event of no deal, because of extra paperwork. These costs will be passed on to the taxpayer.
Warning over cancer treatment, after no-deal trial

No airport space was one excuse. Really? You think that's credible?
It is not airport space but airports with the procedures in place to handle radioisotopes.

Hansard 5th March 2019
I hope that the Secretary of State for Transport, before he leaves, will answer some questions about health. If this is all about the unhindered supply of medicines, we need him to answer some questions about medicines. In particular, I want him to answer some questions about medical radioisotopes.
I have been asking about this issue for more than two years without any proper information coming forward.

If we assume that they are going to be coming through Coventry in the event of problems at Dover, we can also assume that there is expertise there to deal with it. Coventry airport deals with isotopes efficiently and effectively at the moment, but has there been increased capacity planning? We now know about the £33 million, and we have heard statements today that this will improve the services and ensure that everything runs smoothly, but I wonder how much has been spent on increasing the capacity at Coventry airport. If we are at an advanced stage of planning, I wonder how much training and upskilling has been done for staff in Coventry. Dealing with radioisotopes needs special skills and training, but I am sure it will be fine because we are at an advanced stage.

Carol Monaghan and Charlie Elphicke debate

Looking at the full debate on Hansard I can see no response from the Secretary of State for Transport.
How about if they are life saving drugs, maybe the RAF could make some space available? Or you know, they might decide to run one less flight from a commercial airport to let a plane with life saving drugs arrive.
Would seem to depend if the RAF has people who hold a license to transport and/or drivers
About 25 years ago, the laws changed so only specially trained people who hold a license can transport radioisotopes. The letter asks if more will be trained to cope with delays and changes to schedules.
Warning over cancer treatment, after no-deal trial

BTW Coventry airport does not have scheduled passenger flights. Perhaps this is why it has been the airport of choice. Or it may be because of the surrounding transport infrastructure as it is close to the M42, M1, M5, M6 and M40. Meriden a few miles away was traditionally regarded as the centre of England.
 
Last edited:

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
Ah, so you know more than the experts in the field. And without any proof decide that the comments of these experts are absurd. How about showing how you got to that conclusion.? Gut feeling? or based on facts? If the latter how about providing some documents and/or sources?
I've given my reasoning. You don't agree. I'll cope.

Airport space as a reason is absurd. I asked this before, you ignored it. Do you think it is remotely credible that we wouldn't find airport space for flights for life saving drugs? You actually need me to find an expert to substantiate that? Don't you have any critical thinking of your own?

The cost argument is also overblown. See my previous post that daily flights for six months would cost £3.66m? That's using an overestimate of the number we would need, I more than quadrupled the costs and I gave no credit for bulk buying or using other arrangements.
 

doug56hl

Distinguished Member
I've given my reasoning. You don't agree. I'll cope.

Airport space as a reason is absurd. I asked this before, you ignored it. Do you think it is remotely credible that we wouldn't find airport space for flights for life saving drugs? You actually need me to find an expert to substantiate that? Don't you have any critical thinking of your own?
You haven't given any reasoning at all. Just a series of statements that you don't believe the experts.
Somewhat par for the course.

Again, it's not airport space but having enough staff available who have the necessary and required training to do the job. Try looking again at the letter to the Prime Minister I quoted in post #80. We are talking radioactive isotopes, not cans of beans from Tesco.

From Hansard dated 25th September 2019
Carol Moniham
The right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that compliant consignments should experience no delay. However, non-compliant consignments have the potential to cause serious traffic jams and delays.

An issue about which I have been asking for a number of years is the transport of radioactive isotopes, which come through Calais. If they are caught up in delays at Calais owing to non-compliant consignments, they will lose all their useful life. What steps has the right hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that that does not happen? We were previously told that the isotopes would come in through Coventry airport, but we have now been told that that will not happen. What will happen about those radioactive isotopes, which are so important to cancer treatment?

Michael Gove
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I would say two things. First, we want to minimise the number of non-compliant consignments of all kinds, which is why we are spending so much on readiness, and why businesses have responded so well. However, radioisotopes and other vital medical supplies are category 1 goods, and as well as ensuring that we have the maximum possible flow over the border, through the short straits, we are providing additional freight capacity.
The Department for Transport will update the House on that shortly.
Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer - Hansard

So 4 days ago the government still hadn't got the plans available.... :(
 

Squiffy

Distinguished Member
You haven't given any reasoning at all. Just a series of statements that you don't believe the experts.
Somewhat par for the course.
If that's what you think, then there is no point responding further to you.
 

Trending threads

Top Bottom