Skip to main content

Testing is key to beating COVID-19

The sad truth is that the UK was strategically poorly prepared for COVID-19. We seem to have learnt very few lessons from previous virus pandemics. South Korea learnt those lessons, and they also followed the WHO advice to "test, test, test."

We are not alone in acting too little too late.  Most European countries and also the USA appear equally ill-prepared.  Our strategies are led more by panic than clear thinking.   To fight a virus such as COVID-19 preparedness matters.  To save lives, we have to be ahead of the curve.  Most authorities are behind it.



We seem to be at that point in a game, when the enemy is coming so fast that we really can't keep up with it and so we shoot, shoot, and shoot, only to find we have run out of ammunition.  The lesson is that we need the resources if a strategy is to work. A plan without resources just isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Logistics matters.  We should not have frontline medical staff crying out for the kit they need to protect themselves.  Logistics must be a crucial part of preparedness.

Consistency matter.  While it is right, the response must be adaptable to a particular virus, the inconsistency of message and purpose is damaging.  

But let us not despair.  It is late, but we can still put in place a more joined-up strategy.  

We need to get ahead of the curve, rather than simply respond to it.  Social isolation will flatten the curve, but that will be to little avail if we cannot then test for its effectiveness.  We need to check for immunity.  

The government/authorities in the UK appear not to have understood that getting ahead of the curve meant the population had to be targetted.    That, after all, is the main hunting ground of the virus.  

All effort must be put into testing the public so we know who might have gained immunity.  With that, we can more easily maintain critical social infrastructure by tracking key workers. Keeping the frontline safe must be a priority.

The Archbishop of York,  I think made a good point on BBC Question Time, when he advised the government to "promise less, and deliver more."

We should no longer hear statements promising kit in "two to three days", or "by the weekend".  The government needs to be honest in ist appraisal.  Promising what cannot be delivered will destroy trust.

We need now to think through the next stage: how we bring people out of lockdown.  That can only be acheived with testing for immunity.  But that may be a more difficult task given the problems with the testing kits.  Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, tells us that so many of them are found to give false positives.  That would be a disaster if rolled out.

The Health Secretary also says that production in the UK isn't as easy as in, say, Germany, because, while we have top scientific expertise in diagnostics, our pharmaceutical industry is not geared to diagnostics.

Surely, with the expertise and with cooperation from the pharmaceutical industries, this could be changed.  It needs to because testing for immunity must be the key priority.








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

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