Skip to main content

Signs of second wave of COVID-19 across Europe

The upsurge in COVID-19 cases in Spain serves as a timely reminder that we are not out of the woods. The UK government acted swiftly to impose a two week quarantine period for people arriving from Spain. The latest advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) states that travellers returning to England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland from anywhere in Spain after July 26 needed to self-isolate for 14 days.

It would be wrong to consider that the problem is a Spanish one. It isn't. As the Prime Minister acknowledges, there are signs of a second wave across Europe. We can hope that with speedy action it can be contained. Certainly,  we need to be vigilant and ready to act decisively in the UK. The test, track and treat are vital in ensuring a speedy and effective response.

The Thin End COVID lockdown diary is out now on Kindle.  "It became clear from the beginning of the COVID Pandemic that many countries were ill-prepared for the task. This was undoubtedly true of the United Kingdom- not only was the country poorly prepared, but the government was slow to act, had inconsistent messages, and failed to sort out the logistics of ensuring adequate supplies of personal protective equipment for key health and care workers. They were late to order a lockdown, which likely cost many lives. They ordered elderly patients to be discharged from hospitals to care homes without COVID testing, contributing to the high death toll in care homes. They failed to meet targets on testing and tracking. This sad story of dithering and delay is recorded in this diary."

 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
7 comments
Read more

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
2 comments
Read more

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
4 comments
Read more