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 ba

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they