he did not accept that there was a correlation between those cuts and the output of the nhs. therefore, trying to make the case, of course, that the national health service was not as a result of that austerity, ill prepared for the pandemic. let s now go to our help chris porter, jim reed. i have outlined the two areas. one he said repeatedly that they were looking at the wrong type of pandemic but defended the position of the nhs, apart from the absence of the nhs, apart from the absence of ppe in hospitals. would you make of ppe in hospitals. would you make of he said? . , of ppe in hospitals. would you make of he said? ., , , of he said? really interesting, those comments of he said? really interesting, those comments about - of he said? really interesting, | those comments about looking of he said? really interesting, - those comments about looking back at the wrong pandemic when they look at the wrong pandemic when they look at the pandemic preparedness for covid 19. mr cameron
secretariats, at the national security council did and think there was more attention onto those sorts of risks than there had been previously. but as i said, the problem was that when pandemics were looked at, there was too much emphasis on pandemic flu, and when other pandemics were looked at, including ebola, including mers, they tend to be high for charity but low infection. the regrets you see in oliver letwin s evidence and in george osborne s evidence is that more questions weren t as about the pandemic we faced. but i think many other countries are in the same boat, of not knowing what was coming. but i think we did more than many to scan the horizon and to try and plan. we did work on ebola, which it exercises, we try to change that national dynamic on these things and we planned and prepared
lost loved ones and the suffering people have felt, and the importance of this inquiry to get to the bottom of this inquiry to get to the bottom of decisions that were made, decision that could have been made, and the preparations for the future, this is the thing i keep coming back to. the pandemic was a tier1 risk. pandemics were looked at, but there was this former chief medical officer sally davies said, it was a group thing. more time was spent on pandemic flu and the dangers of pandemic flu and the dangers of pandemic flu, ratherthan pandemic flu and the dangers of pandemic flu, rather than on pandemic, potential pandemics of other more respiratory diseases like covid 19 turned out to be. this is so important because so many consequences followed from that. i have been sort of wrestling with, you know, buti have been sort of wrestling with, you know, but i think the
another economic crisis of some short, weather it s a recession or a banking crisis or insurance, who knows what it will be. the question is, do you have the spare capacity to suddenly borrow another ten, 15, 20% of your gdp to help your country and help people through it? that was very much in my mind when we took the plan to reduce the budget deficit and get the net gdp ratio under control, because that s the responsible thing to do. the second answer is, in the national risk assessments, there s quite a lot of material about national business resilience planning, working out, if you had a pandemic flu, and even with the pandemic flu we were looking at which had hundreds of thousands of deaths and a huge affect on the economy, what do you do to help the various sectors of the economy to recover? to that