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

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

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,