In these unprecedented circumstances, no-one can claim to
know what is absolutely right and it is hard to imagine another time when we
would all look to Boris Johnson to tell us what to do! We’re grown-ups who can think for ourselves,
not slavishly accept what clever people say and what we read or see in the media. We’re suffering a pandemic of acquiescence that
has reached new heights in recent months.
It’s shocking what a frightening new virus can do to us.
Coronavirus is frightening; I accept that. In many of my blog-posts since lockdown
began, I’ve tried to understand the impact the pandemic has had on so many
people. As I’ve written in different
words before, it arrived so suddenly and killed so indiscriminately, it’s no
wonder many of us felt safer locked-down and many still feel safer shielded or
socially distanced from anyone else. The
dramatic measures taken at the end of March were necessary too; they
were effective in reducing infections, slowing the death-rate and ensuring the
NHS was not overwhelmed.
Not for one moment do I think we should be complacent; we
must guard against a second spike in infections. The first peak (God willing, the only peak)
has passed though and it’s time to reflect more rationally on the restrictions
we endured, the measures we took and the way we behave. In the cooler light of the early hours of
day, what made sense? And what
didn’t? How much faith do we have in the
politicians that led us through the first months of this crisis?
Personally, I have no faith in Boris Johnson and his
partners in government. His is a party
that knew a pandemic was the greatest risk to the country; however, not only
did they inadequately prepare – even when their own simulation identified the
weaknesses in the system – they actively ran down the essential kit the NHS
would need to protect its doctors and nurses.
Johnson himself is a man who couldn’t be bothered with the epidemic when
it first emerged. He flagrantly ignored
advice to limit social contact, declaring that he continued to shake hands even
in Covid-affected hospitals, ultimately threatening even his own life. Until the likely cost was pointed out, I
suspect the early strategy was to build herd-immunity, and I think that message
probably and reasonably sticks in the minds of many – especially the young and
healthy who are at less risk.
Testing in the community was abandoned then Matt Hancock talked about
ramping it up in the very week the pandemic reached its peak. They abjectly failed to provide the NHS with
the protective resources it needed and they neglected care homes. Advice about face-masks is vague and
confusing. We’re instructed to stay at
home and we question our own instincts, yet government advisers find
flexibility in the rules that most didn’t imagine existed and take a road-trip
across the country. The easing of
lockdown measures seems more politically expedient than scientifically
advisable; SAGE members themselves question it.
Restrictions are eased so we can meet relatives in a garden-centre but
not in their own gardens. They won’t
allow more than six friends or family to meet but are obviously and rightly
powerless to prevent thousands congregating in protest. The two-metre social distance rule is thrown
into doubt by the Prime Minister himself.
Schools are told it is safe for children to return then they are told to
remain closed to most until September.
The R is heralded as the number we should all watch, fearfully, then
we’re told it’s not so reliable. Not
only can no-one claim absolute moral authority to tell us what is right, no-one
can really have any clue; confusion reigns.
Still though, the Prime Minister stands behind his lecturn
and tells us what he will and will not allow. He will allow us to meet up to six people
outdoors so long as we remain two metres apart.
He will allow us to meet each other in our gardens, so long as we only
enter the house to use the toilet and wipe it down afterward. He will allow those of us who are single and
living alone to form a ‘bubble’ between our households and spend the night in
each other’s homes. The media would even
have us believe that some of us are now permitted by Boris to have sex with
each other. Everyone knows he has no way
of enforcing these edicts and that they are being flouted left, right and
centre. If he was a man with any
authority at all, his pronouncements would make him a laughing stock; as it is,
I really don’t know how he
dares to continue telling us what to do.
If there is any real strategy within governement, it’s
painfully divisive too. As we come out
of lockdown, it’s inevitable that there will be some who want to stick to the
old, seemingly safe rules while there are others who are less cautious, more
prepared to test the boundaries and take some risks. Some are the tentative skiers taking a gentle
route down the mountain I’ve written about before, while others are
self-assured black-runners. We probably
need some risk-takers too, to help us all learn what is possible and how to
live alongside the virus. While Johnson
and his government keep up their charade of authority with all their ridiculous
rules, they drive a wedge between the rule-takers and the apparent
rule-breakers.
Boris had a
point when he suggested we use our common sense, and he should have stuck with
it, showing his own trust in us and promoting trust in each other, instead of
sowing seeds of division. Government
strategy ought to be to help us understand the virus we are now living with, provide
us with clear, up-to-date scientific information as it becomes available and
provide us with limited, unambiguous advice – not instructions any longer. Then, they should encourage and trust us to
make our own judgements of the level of risk we’re each prepared to take, show
consideration for others and find our own way to live alongside coronavirus, as
we must.
We’re not
complacent; we want to protect ourselves and show regard for others around us. To most of us, some measures seem sensible:
maintaining social distance, meeting outdoors, getting tested if we fall unwell and washing our hands.
There’s simple logic to them, underpinned by simple science we
understand. Don’t tell us we can see six
people one week and eight people the next, that we must stay two metres away
from someone until next week when it will be okay to be as close as one metre,
that there are some places we can visit but not others, or who we can have sex
with from one week to the next. Give us
the facts we need to make our own informed, sensible, grown-up decisions about
all these things and more.
It’s no good telling us to use common sense and do our civic duty if you then undermine both along with personal responsibility and individual liberty by paternalistically telling us what to do as if we’re children. We don’t need telling what is the right way to behave by government or by any Covid-warriors; we should be given the information we need and trusted to do the right thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment