2 big stories
Alright, we’re locked down. But the question is, how do you return to normal? The German government thinks it has plotted a route, as the Washington Post reports. Buty don’t get too optimistic, these are relative baby steps we’re talking about, capable of being halted without significant difficulty. On the other hand, it’s more of a plan than the British Government have thus far…
There’s still not much sign of Government support reaching businesses, and whilst the news that the Oasis and Warehouse fashion chains have entered into administration will be the headline story, the low takeup of the Government’s coronavirus business interruption loan scheme hardly represents a flood of funding. Nils Pratley, in the Guardian, notes;
Yet the risk in the current set-up is that too little money reaches small businesses at their point of maximum stress. They need to be around for the recovery. One tweak, as discussed at the Treasury select committee on Wednesday, would be to put a 100% guarantee only on loans below £25,000. It’s an idea, and the Treasury may have others. But it ought to do something: CBILS isn’t delivering.
2 blog posts
Jonathan Calder brings us news of the virtual launch of the Northern Liberal Network. And they make a thoroughly fair point when they state:
while the party has strong policies that would benefit our regions, we have failed to communicate those over successive General Elections. As a result, we still have only one MP in the North.
Frankly, there are other parts of the country that could benefit from a regional campaigning approach, like my own East Anglia, but that’s perhaps a project for another day.
I’m cheating a little here, in bringing in a short Twitter thread, but Jennie Rigg has taken to Twitter to question the judgement of the Federal Board in deciding to delay the leadership election until May 2021, a decision now found to be unconstitutional by the Federal Appeals Panel.
This is not a surprise, although it's frustrating that it had to go before FAP to get this. The shotgun punctuation in the announcement is amusing thoughhttps://t.co/K8lA5xDWvh
— 🤘🕷️ Jennie Rigg 🏳️🌈 🔸️ (@miss_s_b) April 15, 2020
I can’t say that I was terribly surprised…
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Tom Bailey
Matt (Bristol)
Hywel
Chloe
Sam Bateman
6 Comments
The Californian state government also seems to have a very succinct and sensible plan for lockdown modification.:
California has brought in compulsory face masks for workers and shoppers https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-10/wearing-masks-or-face-coverings-is-now-the-law-in-la. It appears likely that most people will begin using these masks when they are out. New Yorks’s governor has brought in the same measure https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/nyregion/coronavirus-face-masks-andrew-cuomo.html
Matt Hancock’s advisers appear to be unconvinced that face masks can make a difference but it is accepted that they can block the transmission to other people. Given that many people with Covid-19 do not show any symptoms for the first days after they are infected, masks clearly have a potential role to play if everyone wears them.
. As the guardian writes https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/14/should-everyone-be-wearing-face-masks
“There is now increasing pressure for the UK stance on masks to change. Even marginal gains could make a difference is at the heart of the argument. Prof Trisha Greenhalgh from the Nuffield department of primary care health sciences at the University of Oxford, and colleagues wrote a paper published by the British Medical Journal last week that argued in favour of “the precautionary principle”.
The standard level of scientific evidence is no good in this issue, she told the Guardian. Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard in drug development, but not appropriate to face masks in a pandemic, she said.
“The point is we have now got a hugely complex issue going on. The last thing we need is a controlled experiment. We need to follow the logic of complex systems,.”
Masks for the public don’t need to be the medical masks. The widespread wearing of ordinary cloth masks (Burka’s covering the mouth will do just as well) could provide much the same function as social distancing and should be part of an exit strategy that seeks to return people to relatively normal life as soon as possible.
The problem is that government adivisors know that if they don’t tell the Government what it wants to hear they probably won’t stay government advisors for very long. Perhaps it is too cynical to suggest that they exist primarily as a buffer between politicians and the public so that when something goes terrible wrong the Government has someone else to blame. However, listening to some of the dubious advice and information emanating from the daily coronavirus briefings I’m beginning to think that I’m not cynical enough.
I suspect that Hancock’s advisors aren’t recommending that the public wear facemasks because they know that there aren’t enough to go round in the same way that these same advisors said that ‘care homes’ and ‘personal care providers’ were a reltively low risk and therefore shouldn’t be a priority for PPE, or that non-essential building work (HS2. e.g.) could carry on because building workers could easily observe the two metre rule, or that the Cheltenham Festival didn’t present a significant risk of mass infection.
From the outset of this pandemic, Boris Johnson’s Government has put saving money before saving lives and pandering to the hardline Brexiteers rather than re-evaluating the situation and modifying our relationship with the EU (at least in the short/medium term) so as to best protect the lives and prosperity the people it purports to serve.
Perhaps I’m being unreasonable but I can’t help suspecting that one of the ways our Government is preventing the NHS from being overwhelmed is by trying to ensure that some of seriously ill coronavirus patients never reach hospital and are left to take their chances in the community or care homes.
There is undountedly some sound medical and socio-economic advice available – as well as examples of countries that have largely got it right (Germany and South Korea e.g.) – but Johnson’s Government still seems determined ignore ‘best practice’ and pursue policies that not only squandered the fact that the UK was two week behind most of Europe, but will now also almost certainly result in the UK having more coronavirus deaths per capita than anywhere else in the developed world – with the notable exception of Donald Trump’s USA.
Mark:
“On the other hand, it’s more of a plan than the British Government have thus far…”
The Government doesn’t even have the basic data, without which a plan is not possible. In fact it looks as if data is being manipulated in a way that downplays the gravity of the epidemic. Front line care workers, some of whom are on minimal pay, are putting their bodies on the line with inadequate protection. Health and safety at work are basic benchmarks of a civilised society (the governments motives for dissociating from the EU appear more ominous by the day). No one, least of all the lowest paid, should be asked to take these avoidable risks.
Please urge the Party to speak out and to speak up for those who are endangered.
Do listen to Professor John Ashton who has spoken out authoritatively from the beginning (and been criticised for so doing). Today he has issued a Youtube video, please watch it and encourage others to do so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxY8jINyRJk
I totally agree with Martin.
To me the NHS is a good example of the way we run our country. Doctors in hospitals are being Interviewed and saying that they have worked a 12 hour shift. This illustrates an underfunded NHS which cannot cope with various diseases which occur most years in the winter.
We need to be honest and fund the NHS for whatever we want it to do.
We also need planning.
Of course planning does take place, but not in an open and honest way.
As Professor John Ashton pointed out in the video recommended by Martin, we will not really know what is happening until we have wide spread testing. We have not heard why this was not acknowledged by the government.
As a former Director of Social Services and Non-Executive Director of an NHS Trust it is difficult to understand why older people are being left to die of coronavirus in Care Homes and not being admitted to hospital? Care Homes do not have respirators or intensive care.
Of course the wearing of face masks by the general public would reduce the spread of the virus. That not enough foresight was applied back in January to even get enough for the NHS, care homes, home carers, and super-market staff, not to mention the public, when people in China were seen wearing them on every television newscast is incomprehensible.