Skip to main content

Boris is back

He is back. UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is back at the helm following his illness with COVID-19. At the media conference this evening, he seemed to have much of his old bounce.

He had at least some good news. The UK is now turning the corner in its struggle with COVID-19. The curve of deaths appears now in a downward direction. The UK has passed its peak of COVID-19 deaths, and this is all good news.

We now have a better idea of the numbers of COVID-19 deaths because we are no longer merely counting those in hospitals. Testing has undoubtedly gone up, even if it hasn't reached the target of 100,000 set by the Health Secretary.

The emphasis is now turning to reduce collateral deaths (from cancer, heart disease, etc.) due to patients not accessing vital health care. We still don't know how many may die as a result of this. This needs more effort and should be a key factor now and in coming out of lockdown. It would be wrong to sacrifice cancer patients and others. After all, one reason for the lockdown is to reduce the burden on vital NHS services.

The PM said at today's briefing that it would be wrong to make comparisons with other countries at this time. Yet, this is precisely what the Heath Secretary did on the 17th April when he boasted, incorrectly, that the UK had already gone past the number of tests done in Germany and South Korea

It seems it is ok for the government to make comparisons when it wishes to put a spin on statistics, but not if anyone else asks them about comparisons.

After all, if you asked why South Korea has been so much more successful in bringing numbers down, it is in large part due to a test, trace and treats strategy. No difficulty making the comparison there because we haven't done that.

We were also told today that, of course, we should learn lessons as we go along, but not act on them now, which is very odd. The government should consider that sometimes if you find you're going the wrong way, it is better to make adjustments in your direction. But certainly, there are longer-term lessons, like making sure you can supply sufficient PPE and testing. 






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