Skip to main content

Hidden costs of COVID-19

Many people will be affected COVID-19 beyond those directly infected by it.  Lives will be lost as a result of the efforts to save lives from the virus.  This is a sad reality of the response to the pandemic.

As we focus on the potential loss of life through the virus, we need also to consider why so many others have had to put off possible life-saving treatments, or had operations cancelled.



We must also consider that the long term impact of the economic consequences will be considerable.

The problems we face are due to a decade of austerity, which made preparations for a pandemic almost impossible to achieve.

Of course, resources are always going to be stretched in such circumstances.   But it would be wrong to assume that such a pandemic was unforeseen.   On the contrary, all NHS Trusts have made some contingency plans for such a virus.

It would be easy enough to imagine that a decade of underfunding of the NHS has had no significant impact.  But it has.  And as a result, some people will now die who would not have done otherwise.

We read today of cancer drug trials being put on hold because clinicians and researchers are diverted to finding a vaccine and improved treatment for COVID-19 patients.

Major cancer drug trials are stopping recruitment with significant consequences for patients who otherwise might benefit from being on them.

Being able to put patients on drug trials is often the only way clinicians can give specific treatments to cancer patients.  It can provide a potential lifeline and prolong life, or make the end of their lives better.

This is the hidden cost of the COVID-19 pandemic.  It is the hidden cost of underfunded and overstretched resources.


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