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

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