Skip to main content

Strategy? What strategy?

Following the PMs address this Sunday.  I have found no need to alter my earlier assumption that "the government strategy is to not have a strategy."

I have come to the conclusion that the government doesn't have a strategy for easing lockdown and we, the public, are going to make it up as we go along.

So, I hope you all have the appropriate skills to consider the risks.

Why did the Prime Minister not make a statement earlier? He has added only confusion, where once we had clarity. 

They are attempting to come out of lockdown by stealth, without testing, so we have no idea where the virus is. We have, instead, a vague ambition to increase testing. Meanwhile we will all be at risk if people are going out more and going back to work.

The message was that we should stay at home and socially distance to 'save the NHS'. The truth of that is that it wasn't about saving lives, which is why initially the figures we were given didn't include deaths in care homes or at home. The government knows that there will be a bounce back in the number of deaths as a result of easing lockdown. They know that because that is what the advisors on SAGE are telling them.

The Communities Secretary said this morning

"Stay alert will mean stay alert by staying home as much as possible, but stay alert when you do go out by maintaining social distancing, washing your hands, respecting others in the workplace and the other settings that you'll go to."

I can shorten that to "staying alert means staying alert."

Isn't that, sort of, the existing strategy, but with people deciding themselves what it means?

What happens if people refuse to go back to work even where their company insists. Who decides how safe it is?

What does he think has changed since we went into lockdown to make it safer?

No 10 says

"Everyone has a role to play in keeping the rate of infection (R) down by staying alert and following the rules."

In other words...it is up to you....we give up. Whatever the 'rules' were, they are vaguer now than they were.







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 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

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau