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

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 account of COVID Lockdown