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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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