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

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha