I wrote this tweet this morning:
No isolation for schoolchildren exposed to Covid means no isolation for their parents either. A year after the Great Barrington Declaration and the likely to have been the planned defenestration of Hancock the government's ‘let it rip' libertarians are having their day
— Richard Murphy (@RichardJMurphy) June 29, 2021
I am suggesting three things.
First that the policy on schools is dangerous.
Second, that I rather suspect that Hancock was opposed to both it and the 'living with Covid' policy that Javid is proposing.
Third, that the defenestration of Hancock was planned to permit this new policy to happen. Of course, he rather played into their hands, but when he did I would suggest that the timing of transition was planned, and Javid as his replacement was not a chance: that was all in the libertarian approach now emerging.
What is the basis of that approach? It is that the virus should be allowed to let rip and all this will then be over.
There is however a basic problem with that theory for the Tories. Their theories of 'let rip' are always based on the premise that the 'ripping' will happen to someone other than Tories. Tories are usually protected by their relative wealth whenever such policies are proposed.
But this time there is a flaw in their plan. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that Covid impacts poorer communities the most, it is a fact that Tories get Covid. And so too will Tory children. And they will also suffer from long Covid. Wealth is a very inadequate protection in this case.
And that is the flaw: their exceptionalism, which assumes misfortune only happens to other people and not to them, will not work with Covid. Those of us who care about all people can see that. They are blind to it. And that will be very costly.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Totally agree about Hancock – it explains why there was a delay in his going – it occurred to Boris (being the scumbag opportunist that he is) that he could use it to his advantage (and only his, mind).
The other flaw I see however is that there is still a refusal to acknowledge the durability of the Covid bug. How many ‘let rips’ have we got to have?
How many times will Covid re-invent itself, change it’s mind? Boris does not seem to realise that he has met his match.
How many people have got to become seriously ill or die as a result?
A lot, I fear
I am retaining my social distance
Also wear a mask outdoors, not just in shops..the Delta variant is at least 64% more transmissable…and can outwit the vaccine it seems.
Dr. Campbell is worth a watch…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udix34rrSio
I am pretty cautious, and really do not care what other people think
Tempting though the ‘master plan’ scenario is, I think the evidence – data not drama – points otherwise. They are dumb enough and devious enough but…. as Prof. Willie Barclay sued to say of a tempting but dubious biblical exegesis, “Of course there’s no evidence for it…. but it’d be lovely tae think, lovely tae think….”
Hancock could have been defenestrated at any point – and to loud, though politically mixed – public cheers. Johnson needs incompetents over whom he can swagger and his is a Cabinet of useful idiots, save only the repellent, if Svengali-like, Gove. Where we do agree, however, is that Javid is, at the very least, posturing as the libertarian macho-man and long past Covid that is the real danger to our health and to England’s already substantially privatised NHS. Clearly the three tests are going to be his apparent intent to ‘end’ the pandemic (Does his reading include the legend of Cnut?), the appointment or not of Dido Harding (aka Mrs Penrose wife of the Tories Anti-Corruption Champion – what tyro script writer makes this stuff up?) and the English NHS reorganisation which Hancock had already (oven-ready?) for next week. The evidence points to unhappy results.
He seems ready to embrace ‘living with the virus’. Will that include – if the so-called Opposition call loudly enough for it – a Ministerial Statement of the level of acceptable deaths? – in numbers or even percentages? On the second, he seems to have some form that would suggest he will not make quite so crass a blunder – probably wanting to reserve her head for the eventual enquiry when – if ever? – that does start. On the third, unless he has superhuman powers of resistance to the force of established policy, he will probably just put some spin on Hancock’s plans and seize the powers outlined in order to speed the privatisation process – after all what sort of man have Morgan Stanley been paying for?
As to the deaths of voters – Tories in slightly more modest quantities, except perhaps in their new ex-red pastures – the outcome will be seen against the scale of Johnson and Hancock’s disaster, and fade in comparison. That is unless and until the failures of aid policies re pandemics bring new nasties to show it up for the folly it undoubtedly is. Devi Srihdar and many other sane scientific souls must be appalled. I am.
They just cannot, or will not , understand that you can’t trade-off health and the economy. To get the economy going you need to suppress the virus – See NZ, Australia. S Korea, China etc etc.
Javid has promptly trumpeted his misunderstanding by signalling the economy will be prioritised, come what may.
Vaccines provide a real opportunity to suppress infection to a very low level, but to those who can only grasp the one binary – ‘lockdown or freedom’, it is far too difficult to contemplate building an effective
locally based test and trace system so contacts, of infected people can be isolated. Far too difficult to ventilate schools and workplaces. Far too difficult , to contemplate financial support for those needing to isolate. Far too difficult to consider vaccinating children.
From the notorious Sept 21st 2020 rejection of their own advisers recommended emergency circuit breaker – the policy has been explicit – let people get ill, let people die.
As I said last week, the thing was stage-managed, and the evidence continues to flow.
I shall continue my lock-down, mask-wearing, and social distancing.
My despicable ERG MP, Drax, is loving it.
The profile of vulnerability to this coronavirus goes up very steeply with age. And older people are proportionately more likely to vote. I hope the survivors remember who failed to protect them and put their lives at risk.
What is the Objectivist view of public healthcare? Altruism is for suckers, look after yourself, and devil take the hindmost?
The Objectivist view of public health care seems to be to resolutely oppose it until you need it yourself. Ayn Rand signed up for Social Security and Medicare soon after she contracted lung cancer.
‘Objectivist’?
Just like the runes on Tolkein’s Ring – such words should not be spoken here, firstly because it is a mis-use of language.
Secondly, any point of view has a subjective element to it. Ayn Rand, von Hayek etc., all came from backgrounds that had seen States abuse their power (Soviet/Nazi).
It was bound to jaundice their point of view about State operations and collective endeavour yet this is not acknowledged by their shills and supporters. So it is a very extreme view and one that unfortunately finds traction in the rich and powerful (what a surprise!).
All the above point out the truth that the Conservative Party does not care for the health of our population. Correct analyses of what is wrong.
I suggest the following to deal with the danger to our young children and grandchildren and therefore, to the rest of us:
1. Quantitative Easing (QE) for the reasons Richard Murphy has already explained and elaborated but where all the additional money is dedicated to dealing with a programme of vaccination of all 12-18 year olds in this country.
2. Allocation of responsibilities for its execution to new departments ( or temporary groups of people) in District and County Council, with clear and transparent lines of command etc.
3. Engage with the army, airforce and navy medical personnel to reallocate people from British engagements in foreign countries like Afghanistan and similar places to carry out the vaccinations of children and teenagers.
4. Use schools and similar buildings as from the beginning of the summer holidays. When children return in September, use empty churches, village halls, sport centres etc.
These are just some suggestions. Where would we get the vaccine from? In the short run, by paying the highest price on the international market, in the longer run, by setting up manufacturing of vaccines here in Britain.
We must by now DO something. Even if we have no confidence in this Government we must come up with ideas on what can and should be done and then PRESSURE all relevant people and media to ACT.
I know that some of you will say we should give such additional money to other countries that cannot afford to vaccinate their populations. There is not an “either or” . It is a question of now and priority. First deal with the pandemic here and when immediate resource constraints allow, deal with the international pandemic crisis.
Even though cases are continuing to rise rapidly – over 26,000 today – it seems pretty clear that the government is determined to remove all restrictions in three weeks, exposing literally millions of people to this virus.
As things stand, we have about 1% of hospital beds (and increasing slowly) occupied by people with a very infectious disease.
They are gambling rather heavily that we won’t get tens or hundreds of thousands of seriously ill people, all at once – say, a few percent of the millions who are unvaccinated, and some of the tens of millions with up to 90% protection.
And also giving up on the hundreds of thousands or millions of people (one per cent? two? more?) who might still have long COVID symptoms in a year’s time.
And hoping that allowing all of these infection events won’t present an opportunity another more dangerous variant to emerge – for example, one that gets around the vaccine.
They are determined to make the same mistakes, time and again.
Your conclusion appears to be the only certainty in this
The absolute stupidity of this is that we know the vaccines work – not perfectly but pretty well so far – but we just haven’t finished the vaccination programme sufficiently for it to be safe to unlock as much as we have already.
The whole point of locking down was to broaden the peak – that is, to keep infections and hospitalisations within capacity constraints while we waited for the vaccines. Given the estimated unconstrained reproduction number of the delta variant, we know we need something like 80 to 85% of people to be protected (and so not susceptible to infection) for “herd immunity” to work. In the last 6 months, we have something approaching 50% of people properly vaccinated (both doses) and we can get to 80 or 85% in another three months or so.
But no, we put that all at risk in a pursuit of a “normality” that doesn’t exist any more. It is self-defeating.
Cases are shooting up, hospital admissions are following, albeit at rates much below what we have seen before, and there will be many – perhaps 5 to 10% with longer term health impacts. Even deaths are rising – “only” 20-30 per day rather than 10-20, and not hundreds yet. It just beggars belief.
The government says “data not dates” but in pursuit of a policy that seems driven only by dates.
Agreed, completely
The Tory plan is full of holes and it is all based on their desperate need to get back to their normal as soon as possible. Two main reasons why it is flawed. One, they hope the vaccine will ultimately work enough, that even if infections continue to rise the number of deaths will be reduced. In other words we have to get used to living with it, but as long as the number of deaths are low enough people will accept it like flu. Second, sometimes this whole debate seems to forget that covid is worldwide. We have no idea what other variants might come along. Until it is defeated in the world as a whole, I doubt the Tory normal can ever return. We are not in isolation on this.
I just wish we had an opposition with the guts to say no to a return to the normal of the past. The opposition parties will never have a better opportunity to offer something radically different than the Tory normal.