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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

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

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,