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 ba

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

A time for every purpose

All life moves. Or, more precisely, all life moves purposefully.  This is true even for trees and plants.  Movement is essential for maintaining life.  Animals migrate; plants disperse.  Some form of migration is an ingredient of all life.  For many organisms, it is a key function of reproduction.  We don't reproduce merely to create a new organism, but also to disperse the population - finding new fertile ground, or resources. Reproduction is a form of migration. Reproduction isn't merely to replicate. Reproduction produces change and diversity.  While we may have strong resemblences in families, we also have differences.  Creating a difference is how evolution works.  In this sense, nature is a continuous exploratory process, finding what works best.  Nature senses change and responds.  Some of this is immediate and physiological or behavioural; some of it is over generations.  If we look at a forest over long periods of time, we would see that it shifts. There is a movement