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

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

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