Skip to main content

Taking care of care homes?

The Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, was right to question the Prime Minister on Care Home deaths. Our loved ones in care homes should have been kept safe. 

A new report today finds that the number of people dying from COVID-19 in care homes is double the figure given by the government.

The government's advice up to 13th March was that there were unlikely to be infections in care homes. This conclusion could not have been based on scientific advice. 



What logic were they applying?


There is no reasoning in science why a virus would behave differently because it is in a care home! A virus has no idea it is in a care home!

Did they think older people were immune if they were in care homes?

The government was slow to understand the problem we faced, slow to act, and still refuses to publish the advice it receives.

The consequence in our care homes has been catastrophic.

The government should come out of its self-congratulatory mode and start listening. The jingoistic bluster about being 'the best' should stop.

If there is to be a consensus on the way forward, then the government should stop the manipulation of statistics and be transparent about the problems we face.


In coming out of lockdown, the government is now advising people to wear masks. Previously, they had peddled the view that there was no evidence for their benefit. Yet, it was always plausible that they would help in reducing the spread of the virus, and the evidence that it would be so was available.

It is plausible that we might have slowed the spread more effectively had the government advice on masks been different.

Science can inform common sense. The two go hand in hand. Science rarely gives an exact answer. It is more often considering the plausibility of ideas rather than their absolute certainty.


Almost all the scientific advice used by the government is about plausible outcomes.

The government should now give clearer advice and instruction about wearing masks to help keep people safe as we move out of lockdown.

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