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

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

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,