Skip to main content

Testing our way out of lockdown

There is some good news on the horizon.  The government might meet its target of 100,000 tests for COVID-19 by the end of the month.

Testing is vital to bringing us all out of lockdown, getting people back to work, and gradually returning to normality.

The US company producing the tests here in the UK has ramped up the facilities for its manufacture.  But initially, the tests will be for the antigen, indicating whether someone has got the virus.  We also need to test for the presence of antibodies, showing whether someone has had the infection and has developed an immunity.



Meeting the testing target offers hope that the lockdown can be released gradually, perhaps first, with those who have recovered from the virus. Slowly, people can get back to work, getting the economy moving once again and critically enabling key health workers to return to the frontline.

One thing the lockdown has demonstrated is just who our key workers really are.  The many we have taken for granted, and on whom we now realise how much we depend.  The pandemic has demonstrated our interdependency.

From the person who delivers our groceries, or mans the till at the check-out, to the postman who delivers our parcels, the sanitation workers who take away our trash; the cleaners in our hospitals and schools and the offices, the bus drivers, the list goes on.

We cannot simply return to business as usual after the pandemic, heaving a sigh of relief and going back to how we were.  We should reset society.  That must be part of the preparation for dealing with the next pandemic.  Prevention, as ever, is better than cure.

We should stop worshipping wealth for its own sake and start valuing people, and the way we work together.

The prevention of the next pandemic starts as soon as this one is defeated.  Building a social infrastructure is key to preventing and fighting the next epidemic.

Meanwhile, let's do all we can to stay safe.






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