Skip to main content

Too little, too late?

The new restrictions announced by the UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, are thought to be vital.  But is it going to be a case of too little, too late?

The prospect, unless more is done to protect those in the population who are vulnerable to the virus, is a catastrophic number of cases that would overwhelm the NHS.

An analysis by researchers at University College London,  Cambridge University, and Health Data Research, suggests that the mitigation measures already in place would not be sufficient to avoid tens of thousands of deaths caused by COVID-19 virus.



Using data on underlying conditions and age in the population, the analysis suggests that without stringent measures to prevent spread, the virus will bring about between 35,000 to 70,000 deaths.

These are shocking figures to contemplate - a picture of health services being overwhelmed, itself leading to further non-COVID-19 deaths.

The government have identified just 1.5 million with particular underlying conditions increase the risk of death from COVID-19.

However,  the study estimates that as many as 13.4 million in the UK population (20.0%) were at high risk from COVID-19, of which 13.7% were over the age of 70, and 6.3% aged 70 or younger.

What this demonstrates is that much more needs to be done to help and protect those vulnerable to the virus.  This would require a massive effort.

More thought needs to be put into how to get food and resources to these people.  Some will not be able to get food deliveries online.  This is already proving difficult with supermarket websites difficult to access and delivery slots unavailable.

The government must act to ensure adequate food supplies to shops and people. Merely leaving this to the supermarkets isn't going to work.   There has to be more stringent rationing to ensure fairness in distributions and access.




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…