I’VE seen a lot of criticism coming from the fact almost 16,000 cases of Covid had not been reported due to the fact the Test and Trace system is being run from a spreadsheet.
Firstly, this system is not being run by the UK Government, they have outsourced it to a private company (Serco). They won’t refer to it as Serco though, they will refer to it as NHS Test & Trace. Because they don’t want us to realise they are outsourcing NHS services.
Secondly, I am not the slightest bit surprised that they are using a spreadsheet for this. Anyone who has worked on IT systems will know that often spreadsheets are used for vital processes. It’s not how it should be, but it’s how it is. Consider the speed with which they had to have something in place. Purpose-built IT systems take years to build and, even “off the shelf” systems will take months to select, agree contracts, configure, test and implement. They simply did not have the time to build something appropriate. Add to the fact they’ll want to spend as little money as possible to maximise profits (private company, remember) and you’ll be less surprised that a spreadsheet has been used.
READ MORE: UK Covid cases soar by 23,000 after Public Health England computer glitch
I love spreadsheets, I use them every day in my working and professional life for a whole variety of purposes. Their versatility and immense functionality makes them a prime candidate as a piece of software to provide some bespoke solution.
I don’t think the question here necessarily is “why were they using a spreadsheet?”, as unacceptable as that is. I personally think the answer to that is obvious. It’s “what processes and procedures did you have in place to mitigate the risks posed with using a spreadsheet as a vital solution to a public health crisis?”.
Also, I think we should know what penalties will be imposed on Serco for this failure. This contact has been funded by public money, and where there is a failure of this magnitude with the potential implications this has, the private company should have a penalty imposed as with any normal commercial set-up.
That’s what should be getting asked here, but I will not hold my breath that our hopeless media (The National being the one exception!) will ask it.
Maggie Rankin
Stirling
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel