Skip to main content

UK Health Secretary talks nonsense

The UK government won't tell us who sits on the body advising them on how to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It isn't surprising because what we do now know is that it lacks critical expertise in virology, immunology.

This lack of expertise certainly shows at the daily media briefings, which seem more to do with putting a government spin on stories than revealing what is happening. To the greatest extent, we are being kept in the dark.



Take today, for example. The Health Secretary Matt Hancock came up with this shockingly misleading statement. He told us that


“The UK has already gone past the number of tests per day for instance that they carry out in South Korea, we’re approaching the levels that Germany undertakes"

This just is not the case by any reading of the statistics.

The UK’s daily testing average over the past week has been just shy of 23,000 tests a day. Germany has been carrying out 450,000 tests a week, according to its foreign minister, equivalent to 64,000 a day. So, that is twice the level reached by the UK.


The comparison with South Korea is completely bonkers.

South Korea, has had a test, trace and treat strategy from the outset, and as a result, they reduced the number of infections and deaths. They now test just 10 a day because that is the number of new cases per day. Let's look at the comparison


South Korea as of today:


Coronavirus Cases:
10,738
Deaths:
243
Recovered:
8,764


The UK as of today


Coronavirus Cases:
157,149
Deaths:
21,092 (Hospital deaths)
Recovered:
N/A


The UK doesn't know how many cases it has, nor how many deaths.  The UK government was late to act and have been ineffective in the action needed. We needed a test, trace and treat strategy.

The UK government can't even sort out testing properly nor PPE for our frontline staff. To compare us with South Korea simply serves to show how divorced from reality they have become.  

There have been so many missed opportunities.  There is only one way to describe the UK government approach: incompetent. 




.

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