Skip to main content

Difficult decisions on Coronavirus pandemic

The coronavirus is a nightmare for any government, and the UK Health Secretary has difficult choices to make.  The worst-case scenario is worrying.  The government should be preparing for the worst.  To date, the UK is in a containment phase of the crisis.  Other countries have already moved to measures to prevent the virus from spreading.  Managing the spread of the virus means drastic social and political action as evidenced in Italy.

One wonders why the government is waiting.  There is no reason to suppose that the virus is not spreading in the UK just as it is in France, even if it has not reached the levels seen in Italy.



Stopping the spread would mean taking strong measures that would impact adversely on the economy.  The government will also be mindful of the risks of panic in the population.

Many experts are warning that the UK has only a few days if it is to take action that would prevent the virus spreading as it has done in Italy, where much of the country is now in shutdown.  This might be regarded as unduly alarmist by some.

While it might seem churlish to criticise the government for their response to the virus, it is nonetheless right that they should be vigorously questioned.   Turning the coronavirus into a political football isn't going to be helpful.  But the public would be correct in suspecting that they are in no small extent being kept in the dark about the potential risks.

The government rightly say they will follow the science.  But that science will be telling them that the threat from this virus is severe.  Science cannot make a political decision.   And yet whether the outbreak is considered a pandemic is, to a large extent just that -  a political decision.

Some news organisations, such as CNN are already calling coronavirus outbreak a pandemic.  They are doing so because that is what science is informing them.  Waiting for the WHO to catch up with that would be foolish.   The WHO is behind events not ahead of them.

Whether we are dealing with an outbreak, an epidemic or a pandemic is to a large extent a matter of scale.  But it also reflects the degree to which the spread is or is not under control.

Currently, the WHO classifies the risks of spread as 'high'.   The WHO is hopeful that with aggressive steps now, the spread can be constrained.  How aggressive should governments be? That is a judgement, not an absolute measure made in a scientific laboratory.  Many epidemiologists are already calling it a pandemic. 

Our government should act on what science is telling them - and much of that science will be telling them to act now.   It is better to take appropriate measures early enough to contain the spread and save lives than it is to wait until many lives are lost.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 balan…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…