Talk:UK Health Security Agency

Date of establishment

PHE have been told that the NIHP will be formally established 1 April 2021; but other reporting suggests it has been established as of today. Can we get some clarity on this? Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The government announcement is clear that it is already established "The National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP) will start work immediately, with a single command structure to advance the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic." and "From today it will bring together Public Health England (PHE) and NHS Test and Trace, as well as the analytical capability of the Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC) under a single leadership team." and then "In order to minimise disruption to the vital work dealing with the pandemic, the organisation will be formalised and operating from spring 2021". So as of yesterday it was established but as a "single leadership structure", with the full operating organisation due in spring. This is what the lead said.----Pontificalibus 05:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

My understanding now is that the NIHP will be formally created next year, but that its constituent parts have been brought together under common leadership now.

I think the "organisation will be formalised and operating" bit is the bit that matters. This is the government statement. Note that everything it says about NIHP is in the future. You're right that it does say, "The National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP) will start work immediately, with a single command structure to advance the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic." However, I think that is explained later by this paragraph:

"The government is immediately bringing together PHE, NHS Test and Trace and the Joint Biosecurity Centre under the interim leadership of Baroness Dido Harding, with a single command structure and operating model to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic."

That is, PHE continues to exist (and later text confirms that PHE remains an ongoing thing for now). PHE, NHS Test and Trace and the JBC have been brought "under the interim leadership of Baroness Dido Harding", but they remain separate entities for now. I understand there is a briefing note from PHE with details, but I've not found a copy of the text yet.

This RS describes it as, "The bodies will begin working together as of now to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic, but will become one formal organisation from 1 April next year." Bondegezou (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

While it's true that the setting up of the NIHP will be completed in the spring when it will then have control of all the specified functions, it certainly has already been created. The government press release even states "Baroness Dido Harding, Interim Executive Chair of the National Institute for Health Protection". Sure, PHE remains, but that is clear in our statement in the lead, where we say it has been created simply as a leadership structure at this stage. However the current embryonic NIHP cannot be said not to have been established.----Pontificalibus 09:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It is clear from policy circles that NIHP is not yet an established agency, and consists entirely of staff from the Department of Health and Social Care - much like NHS Track and Trace is not a body. In terms of a source to reference, we just have to wait. SW1APolitico (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Penrose comments

We had a piece of text about Harding's husband, Penrose, Con MP, saying, "who sits on the advisory board of think tank 1828 which has called for the NHS to be replaced by an insurance system and for Public Health England to be scrapped." DeFacto removed this. I think this point has attracted considerable RS coverage and is therefore due content. Thoughts, everyone else? Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Such political editorialising from a left-wing news outlet doesn't belong in the article. It is too far removed from her to be relevant. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Political editorialising is your interpretation. We report what RS say, in a balanced way. What do other editors think? Would it be helpful to review more RS on this matter? Bondegezou (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian article makes assertions about Dido Harding's role in changes which were advocated for by a thinktank to which her husband is an advisor. This appears to be a case of correlation without causation, as the paper presents no evidence of a causal link. It's really no surprise that a husband and wife might have similar views, or that widely advocated adjustments to government bodies might have been previously recommended by one or more thinktanks, or that the director of a new organisation might have been favourably disposed to its creation. I agree with DeFacto, the Guardian is casting an editorial line here that has no meaningful relevance to the topic of the article. Consider what is the implication here - that Harding's husband has some malign influence over her? If it was Harding herself who had previously advised the thinktank it would be a non-story, as it would simply confirm that her views on PHE aligned with her new role.----Pontificalibus 06:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

So long as it is clear its his opinion That seems fine. Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Name change

I understand that they're going with a name change, so get ready to move article. Am awaiting reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)