Can we turn the tide?

Prime Minister Boris Johnson was surprisingly upbeat at his news conference in saying effectively that the United Kingdom will see the Covid-19 crisis through in twelve weeks, or as he put it 'turn the tide'. Was he right to be so optimistic?

It is always good for leaders to offer hope and maintain morale, but where is Boris getting his twelve-week estimate from?

Boris' twelve weeks probably comes from the modelling. The models predict that 50% of cases will come in the first three weeks and 90% over nine weeks. Currently, we see cases doubling about every four days, which is very much in line with the modelling.

The governments objective is to delay the peak, pulling it out so that the burden on the NHS is reduced. It is a strategy to buy time. If it works, it might save lives because it will free up resources to deal with the severity of cases.

Nonetheless, challenging life and death decisions will have to be taken by clinicians about who they can save. How best they can concentrate their efforts with limited resources.

Italy shows how devastating it can be if control of the spread is lost. Despite the actions taken by the Italian authorities, deaths are now over 4,000 for a population of just 60 million.

There is much for the United Kingdom to be concerned about from the situation in Italy. The death toll is mostly attributed to the high proportion of elderly in the population and overstretched health resources.

The analysis shows that almost 40 per cent of infections and 87 per cent of deaths in Italy have been in patients over 70 years old.

Buying time is probably the right strategy, but it critically depends on people making it work. This is why the authorities have shut down pubs, clubs, theatres, restaurants. The fewer people are gathering, the slower will be the spread of the virus.

Preventing infections in older people is clearly essential if the strategy is to work. They are the most vulnerable, statistically.

The government is right to give encouragement that the 'tide can be turned'. The people will need to lift their spirits. We need to work together to keep people safe and protect the most vulnerable. Else our NHS will be overwhelmed.

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End

Search This Blog