Government incompetency over COVID-19

We have heard enough excuses from the UK government. They keep promising to deliver on protective clothing for our doctors and nurses, and they promise to roll out testing in the population. In both, they have failed to deliver.

In the next two weeks, we will see a massive increase in the numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths here in the UK and across the world.

We must stand by our frontline staff. They must have the protective equipment they need. We also need urgently now to roll out testing to the public so we know what is happening and who has built immunity, else we are acting in the dark.

We need honesty now from the government about the difficulties in doing that. It is vital that the authorities maintain public trust. That can only come from honesty. This is why it is vital that our doctors and nurses must be free from threats so they can also be honest in their appraisal of what is happening on the ground.

There should be no gagging of doctors and nurses. We are all in this together. Every day our frontline is putting themselves and their families at risk to help us fight this virus. We owe it to them to be on their side. Many of them have come out of retirement or been moved from other departments to work with COVID-19 patents. Let's not applaud only then to turn a blind eye.

It is scandalous that health workers are being gagged from speaking out about PPE shortages. The lack of protective equipment is a danger not only to the health care staff but also to patients.

We need honesty from the authorities not suppression of vital information. Trust matters when the government are taking sweeping powers to fight the virus. We have to know that they are not suppressing freedom of speech, particularly where it is vital for safety and health.

The government has a lot to answer for in explaining why there are still shortages when they have repeatedly denied it. The same is so for testing. We are repeatedly told that it would be rolled out in days, when in fact it is more likely to be towards the end of April. We are doing our bit, the government must do theirs.

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 unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End

Search This Blog