Skip to main content

Testing key to easing lockdown

Test, track and treat must be an essential ingredient coming out of COVID-19 lockdown.  This was acknowledged by the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, in his statement to the House of Commons today spelling out a little more detail of the strategy moving forward. 

With more testing, it will be possible to predict at a more localised level in the community where infections will spread and target both community testing and more social interventions on high-risk areas in the future.  This might then prevents further national lockdown in response to any rebound of the virus. 



The Prime Minister rightly refers to the R-value in informing strategy. It represents the rate of infection - or how many people can be infected by another.  At the outset, this was above 3, and anything above one means a dramatic increase in infections and deaths. 

The Prime Minister also, on that basis, is right that there might be a need for differences in approach in different regions of the country, and he acknowledges this in the differences in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

Apart from the problems of creating unclear messaging, it is probably right that regional strategy should reflect local R values and not the value UK wide. 

But there are also substantial variations in R (the reproductive ratio) between the English regions.

There are greater risks in some areas than in others. So far, this is not taken into account in the strategy Johnson has announced. 

Thus, R is much higher in the North East of England than in the Midlands. The most disadvantaged communities have higher rates of infection than the more wealthy areas. 

It would better to have a regional strategy in England, given that R is what is informing the strategy, and this is why testing is so critical in being able to react to R, else we only know what is happening in hospitals or care homes.   We need a more sensitive measure of R, and we need to be able to track and trace to push infections back down. 

The Prime Minister has set up a taskforce to ramp up testing, which currently lags well below the target level he set of 200,000 a day by the end of the month.  


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