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.
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
Post a Comment