Sharing the cost of covid-19 - FAIRLY!

THE huge cost of coronavirus needs to be shared fairly by the population of Britain and in accordance with their means. Only income tax can do this. Any other means is unfair and falls most heavily on those least able to pay - hard working families, the poor and pensioners on fixed incomes. And at the same time is most easily avoided or reduced by those most wealthy and able to pay.

For that reason I was horrified to hear my local council considering raising council tax to meet such costs! This is the most unfair tax of all, levied solely on the worth of a property which for vast numbers of people is not in any way connected to their ability to pay.

So I have further copied my letter to my MP, the Rt Hon James Cleverly with suitable additional comments. I sincerely hope others may feel inclined to take similar action. 

TEXT BEGINS: 

Dear Mr Cleverly,

You may have seen that I wrote this week to the Halstead Gazette regarding the costs of the coronavirus response and in particular how this may impact local councils. While my points were  directed specifically at the Braintree District Council they represent an opinion which I believe may be much more widely held.

I would ask you in your position as a local MP and former chair of the Conservative Party to look into this issue and to defend your local constituents against what may prove to be an unfair burden when compared to the national emergency. Indeed, a post code lottery, as our media friends are inclined to title such attacks on the hard working, the poorer and the pensioner.

TEXT OF LETTER: I was horrified to read that Braintree Council is considering raising council tax to pay for the cost of coronavirus. This has been a national emergency and  all the costs should be handled nationally. That way it can be evenly and fairly spread across all tax payers including the filthy rich. Instead a council tax hike will fall unfairly and unevenly on the hard working and the poorer as well as pensioners.

Typical Tory policy of course for Government to dodge its responsibilities and leave the locals to pick up the pieces,

Shame on you if you go ahead instead of fighting this shambolic Government. ENDS

Defending the indefensible and other disastrous errors

THE nation has just watched a Prime Minister commit professional suicide. Well most of us have. Two other audiences remain, those who did not watch and those who believe Boris Johnson is the messiah.
It is possible I am exaggerating but I doubt it. For Boris Johnson did not merely defend his special adviser Dominic Cummings. He did not merely refuse to sack him. He endorsed his actions. Which means the buck has moved up a level to the Prime Minister's own desk.
As a retired PR adviser and consultant I listened in mounting horror to the foolishness of Johnson's words. Bad enough that he chose to defend the indefensible actions of his man. Bad enough too that he should have called his actions reasonable and legal. But then he set about lying to show that the interpretation put upon the regulations was justified by the words in them.
This is not only untrue but the facts of this case do not meet even the extreme interpretation that Johnson has put upon them.


If you brief a senior executive on a breach of the rules you have to make sure they understand what their audience understood. Stay Home. Short sweet and eminently supported by the man himself and all of his acolytes. And resulting in huge personal, emotional and familial sacrifices by the population. Not sit at home and think about it. Not figure out how to avoid it. Not use your heartfelt desire to do something else. But Stay Home.


It is worth just examining the probity of Cummings claim, which Johnson so handsomely endorsed.
He and his wife are both high powered employees with work demanding long hours and flexibility. They live in a nice London house with a four year old son. To ensure his care they have a nanny. I will just say that again since it is something the media seems unable to grasp. They have a nanny. Presumably to provide support for their child when they are not available. Hmmm.
But beyond that they will have a wide circle of friends in the area. And they both have family working and living in London. Some of Cummings chums and family work in number 10. So the last problem they were confronted with when Mrs Cummings announced she had covid-19 symptoms was child care.
The regulations state that in this circumstance the family should self-isolate, at home. Mrs C would use one room and facilities; the others the rest until things changed or they had been tested or 14 days had elapsed. No problem you might say for the Cummings family.
But he must have asked himself, why do we want people to stay home? Surely they can do their jankers somewhere else? No. Track and trace requires that the trackers and tracers know where you are. If they spoke to the source of Mrs C 's infection they would come knocking on the Cummings's door. No one home? Where are they? They could find them but it would take time.
And by then Mrs C would have given it to Mr C, the child may have it, the people they went close to at the motorway stop where they took a pee, fettled the child and bought fluids... well anyway you get the point.


The rules have a purpose, the purpose was the safety of the entire family including the four year old child. Cummings ignored all that and decided he was above the rules and could do what he wanted – see his parents, honour his mum's birthday and get out of the London hell hole while they recovered.
And he had the infernal cheek to refuse to quit, laugh at the issue, tell us he doesn't care how it looks (thus insulting his boss and the cabinet). And then his boss throws the entire covid-19 strategy under a bus along with the reputation of the Tory party. For what?
To save the neck of a man who is an avowed anarchist. Judgement? Johnson never has had any and has never proved it so conclusively. Now the issue is – Johnson

Do as I tell you, not what I do...

WHERE to begin on the real background to Dominic Cummings scuttle off to mummy? Maybe I start by saying how deeply ashamed I am to be British these days. I hate that. Britain always stood for something. Now it stands for nothing. Worse than nothing.

Many years ago, when a company I worked for was struggling at a crossroads in a fast developing business a colleague said we were “in danger of losing our sense of true north”. He was so right. And this is where this appalling Government is leading us – astray. Off the path. Away from the moral high ground into the depths of the talgy wood, where the really nasty gripper grabbers walk.

LET us begin by examining what is represented by Cummings actions and public acceptance of the lockdown rules. If the rules are flexible for Cummings will anyone follow them? Well if he accepted he was wrong and resigned no harm would be done. If he did not accept he was wrong but was sacked for his behaviour the rules would be reinforced.

But if he claims what he did was fine and the PM and Cabinet – as they are – back him then irreparable harm will be done. How much will it matter?

WE are now past the first peak and are said to be reasonably confident there will not be a second. But just in case we are putting a major test and track service in place to contain any resurgence. This process was unwisely stopped only a week or two into the crisis. On that basis it must be the case that if the lockdown is eased too fast a second peak becomes more likely.

And that will be made even more certain if public adherence to the rules is damaged by a piece of favouritism by the PM and Cabinet.

So what do they really think they are playing at? Advisers are ten a penny, here today and gone tomorrow hirelings. If the public good can be best served by dumping or even better sacking him then that is the right decision.

But they are busy chummying up to back him. Risking their entire lockdown strategy on the mis-directed whim of a sick man who may not even have been in full possession of his wits.

THE moral bankruptcy and the dereliction of public duty this implies is terrifying. It betrays a Government infinitely more interested in its own power and dogma than the well being of the public it serves.

That this can already by implied by their earlier failures – especially in the area of care homes – leads to only one real conclusion:

Boris Johnson and his Tory Government have no interest in the well-being of the British people. I so accuse. I just wish they would sue me for libelling the cretinous, criminal and morally corrupt bunch of them.

The Cummings and Goings of Dominic:

27 March - Cummings seen running along Downing Street shortly after the prime minister posts video saying he has contracted virus.
28 and 29 March - Over weekend, Cummings is said to have developed coronavirus symptoms.

30 March - Downing Street confirms Cummings is self-isolating after developing symptoms of the virus.

31 March - Joint investigation by The Guardian and the Daily Mirror, shows Cummings travelled to his family's farm in Durham.

31 March - Cummings's family spoken to by the police. Durham Constabulary said: Officers made contact with the owners of the address who confirmed that the individual in question was present and was self-isolating in part of the house.

14 April - Cummings is pictured in Downing Street after recovering from coronavirus.

22 May - The story breaks.

23 May - Cummings statement claims it was reasonable action to protect child; Number 10 backs him.

POINTS: Cummings family have a nice established home in London . They have a nanny to care for their four year old son. He is a well-paid adviser. Many family members work in Government at Number 10 and could have supported him. He drove while unwell. It is reported that the weekend he drove to Durham was his mother's birthday.

Complacency at the heart of the process

The row that has erupted about Keir Starmer's attack on the PM over the care home situation has reduced to the level of a 'you did-I didn't' playground spat.
But however you view the quote that Starmer used, what it demonstrates utterly is that the Government was complacent at the time and has remained so since - and that they were not following the science.
It was first published on February 25 and remained in place until March 12.
By Feb 25 it was well known that Covid-19 was into France and appearing in Britain. Indeed current evidence suggest we may have at least one death in January. But leaving that aside. Everyone knows that care homes are rife with viral influenza during the flu season.
So how could anyone state that "it was very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected (with coronavirus)".
But worse the incubation period for coronavirus was not established but it was quickly know that it was up to 14 days. So any advice given at that time needed to be updated daily.
The tragedy is that another two weeks passed without any attempt to ensure that major steps were taken at all levels and in all situations to build up reserves of testing kits, PPE, oxygen, oxygen delivery kit and ventilators.
It all smacks of a piece of guesswork by an adviser rather than anything scientifically based. Indeed one could be forgiven for fearing it has more to do with herd immunity theory. If so it must surely be time for a wholesale clear out of the special adviser dug out at Downing Street?

The who, what, when, and why of letting thousands die in care homes....

ROUGHLY a month ago I wrote about the spiralling deaths in care homes and wondered how it was happening. I even suggested it might be part of the Tory Government strategy to let the deaths rip in care homes rather than add them to the burden threatening to overwhelm the NHS.
Today in the House a new leader of the Labour party finally brought the PM to book on the subject. Oh the mad Tory supporters are busy claiming the advice back in March that care homes were not much at risk from coronavirus was taken out of context. Indeed Johnson lied once again by saying Starmer was wrong.
He was not. As clear as the indecent majority won by Johnson and co the care homes were told not to worry; they were not at significant risk. It was tosh at the time. It has been rubbish all along. And it is now visibly bollocks.
It will be some time before we know what the actual number of covid-19 deaths in care homes is. But it is already well above the numbers quoted by the forensically careful Keir Starmer.
I shall watch that row burn with interest. But today I would like to remind everyone of what all this represents, starting with the fact that people put into care homes are old, sickly, vulnerable and in many cases , alone. And that in the main the care they receive is not about life saving but about life caring and, if hospice does not intervene, providing a peaceful environment in which to slip this mortal coil. It's what they and their families pay for.

So the questions must be:

• WHY in God's name were those found to be ill with covid-19 NOT sent to hospital to receive intensive care and ventilation?
• WHO decided they should instead die an horrific and suffering death while spreading their dread disease among those brave enough to serve them?
• WHO indeed was it who decided that if they did get to hospital but were deemed not worthy of all this they were sent back whence they came, to die a horrific etc etc...
• WHO massaged the figures so that for weeks care home deaths were NOT reported at all?
• WHEN and by whom was that decision finally changed, only for the figures to continue being fudged?
• WHEN were GPs told or guided NOT to list coronavirus on the death certificate but only add it as contributing factor?
• WHEN will Johnson, Hancock and co finally admit the truth?

Out of confusion comes forth obvious guilt....

So my scepticism about the new coronavirus policy was justified. Confusion reigns. Clarity we do not have. And a spike in infection seems highly likely.
Let us start with who should be told first. After discussion and agreement in cabinet (did it happen?) it should be put to Parliament, where it will be further debated and the chance for clarifications can be met. This will be reported on. (This point will recur.) And the devolved nations should be consulted. Clearly they have not as they disagree vehemently with Johnson.
Then the PM or some chosen minister will tell the nation about it. If it warrants that. And they will make an address to the nation. Probably live. To be fair Churchill was often recorded but then his intake of brandy required it so we are told.

So why did Johnson choose to tell the nation first? It can only be for one of two reason or a combination of both.

• First he is not well enough to reliably deliver the message coherently in one take. To be honest he has not looked well since he came out of hospital.
• Second he wanted to ensure clarity and avoid the risk that reportage from a contentious House of Commons might be confusing.

Well the first is OK but frankly this tiny jiggering of the rules and wholesale loss of clarity could have seriously done with some testing in the House.
There is a third available explanation.  Johnson wanted to take credit for the first steps in lifting the lockdown; to be fully identified as the man who did it. Or, to put it another way, Johnson was still playing politics with the life and economy of the nation.

It is now clear that the Government accepts, albeit tacitly, that serious mistakes were made early on. Some even before the pandemic. Emergency stock of PPE was drastically low and under managed. Our capacity for testing, track and trace was similarly depleted, especially against our success in the past.
The NHS was under resourced and what little reserve capacity it had against major emergencies was hopelessly compromised.
But instead of responding rapidly to offset these failings they hesitated. Instead of following the science, as they claim, they delayed doing so. As a result, many things that might have been done as early as February were not done.

• Air travel continued unhindered and has done until now. 
• Major public events were not cancelled. 
• No steps were taken to guard against disaster in the care home. 
• A couple of headline grabbing hospital builds were begun. 

But as late as early March the science was saying lockdown now..They waited again to March 23. Thousands died.
And somewhere the care home situation was allowed to escalate out of control. One could be forgiven for taking the cynical view that I do. The elderly in care homes were NOT offered hospitalisation and thus no ventilators simply to save the NHS. That they could have gone to the Nightingale Hospitals (and still could have until last week) was not it seems considered.
Instead these old, frail people who had lived through the war we so recently lauded, were allowed to lie in their ordinary beds, tended by extraordinary people in less than adequate protective gear, to subside into gasping agony as the disease ate away at their lungs, their kidneys, their livers and finally their lives.
One day, good people of Britain, this man Johnson and his misbegotten gang of fools and rogues must be made to pay.

This is what we need right now to call Government to account

For many decades I have been an avid reader of Private Eye and right now it is doing a far better job of holding Government to account than either the mainstream, the digital or the social media.

Their medical writer(s?) under the pseudonym MD have (has?) this edition done the best job yet of examining the actions - and too many failures - of our national policy. And given I am no expert I am pleased to find that as I have said, following the science does not describe it at all.

From the moment this pandemic reached Britain (whenever that actually was!) errors of policy have followed. For a start of course the emergency supplies of PPE and the 'reserved spare' emergency capacity in the health service had been allowed to wither during ten years of Tory inspired austerity.

On that basis the knee-jerk herd immunity was a disaster. Then came the PPE problem and a devious downgrading of coronavirus to allow lesser protection to, apparently, be allowable.

Then there was the message to care homes – "you have nothing to worry about". In terms of Government intervention they were right. In terms of Covid-19 infection they were woefully wrong.

(MD does not say it but I believe it. That this decision was a cold-blooded means of protecting the weakened and ailing NHS to cope with what was coming. And it now appears to have continued with infected and allegedly recovering care home patients being sent from hospital to care home without testing or tested with a 30% fallible test.)

Testing started. Then stopped. Track and trace started. Then stopped. Yet we all know, from South Korea and others, that this was an essential step in protecting the NHS and saving lives.

Then 'stay home' came two weeks too late and after huge public gatherings. And was not rammed home hard enough to begin.

Now we come to loosen the lockdown. Am I confident we shall get that right? Don't even ask. But they cannot let the likes of me loose yet: too old, too complicated, too vulnerable, too much part of the 0.5%....

AND finally I'd like to share the Eye's leading article this edition. And this I shall quote at length:

LOSE-LOSE SCENARIO

PANDEMIC planning is the ultimate lose-lose scenario. The lives and livelihoods lost from the virus have to be balanced against the lives and livelihoods lost from the "treatment".

This virus is causing a surge of deaths particularly in the sick and elderly, whereas lockdown is causing a smaller surge in non-Covid deaths and a steady, sustained increase in harm to those who have their whole lives ahead of them.

Brutally put, 100 percent of us are making sacrifices to save 0.5 percent of us (or less).

Children are being harmed to save adults; the poor are being harmed more than the rich; and some people have become so conditioned to "stay at home" that not even a medical

emergency will tempt them to seek help.

Given such staggering complexity, the best one can hope for is an overall "harm minimisation" strategy. To get there, experts from all disciplines need to subject their models and data on the benefits and harms of any strategy to full public scrutiny. And politicians need to admit their errors in real time.

It has taken us more than three months to move from Patient Zero to mass testing and tracing. It would be churlish not to welcome Matt Hancock's 100,000 tests a day (even

though they included requests and promptly fell again), but thousands more lives might have been saved by earlier action. It is time for an apology.

Meanwhile, after the mothballing of the little-used Nightingale hospital in London, questions will be asked about the money and precious resources spent on the hospital — but it's worth noting that the NHS needs extra capacity in case it gets a second spike in infection.

To read it all go to this link in a day or two when it goes live (we subscribers get a bonus) : 
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/current-issue
 Or order your copy now...