Skip to main content

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.

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As