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 secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they