Skip to main content

Whose message on COVID-19?

During this Coronavirus pandemic, We often hear it said that we should 'follow the science'.  That, of course, is better than simply dipping your finger in the air to test the humidity!  But can the science work fast enough to inform debate when it comes to the difficult decisions to be made by politicians? 

The answer is that it cannot.  




The problem is that science works through a long process of experimentation or data acquisition, writing of papers, which then go through a peer review before being published. Cutting short any of this process weakens the strength of the science. 

With the Covid-19 pandemic, events are occurring faster than science can function. What then happens is mostly speculation based on judgement, whether by specialists or not. Epidemiologists, virologists etc. are called upon to give their view on what is likely to happen. Few of them stress the problem that science doesn't work that way. 

We all either feel in the dark, or that the government isn't giving us sufficient information, or we simply choose which particular strain of idea is trending. So we end up with assertions ranging from 'it isn't as bad as they say it is' or 'there is a conspiracy' to 'millions will die'.

I don't find the information available from any government source here in the UK to be particularly useful. That may be true across the globe.

So where do we get our information from?  Sadly, many are getting information from a source that is a little better than rumour and hearsay - social media. 

 It would be advisable for governments to think through how they handle the dissemination of information in such circumstances.  

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,