|
| + Visit Notts. County FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Swale, Sidn
May I suggest a change to the thread title, the rhetorical question has a clear answer!
It's already not reading too well IMO - 55 UK deaths and rising
Coronavirus pandemic?
Read this from the chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh.
A damning analysis of how the Government has fcuked this up. It's dithering and negligence will lead to thousands and thousands of extra deaths. This is what you get when you vote for politicians that care nothing for ordinary people.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...art-squandered
I think it's still too early to make a definitive judgement on the way the government has handled this. Looking at other countries, if we can keep the daily fatalities at or close to double figures as the peak, they have done a decent job. If in the coming weeks the death rate rises to similar numbers as Italy and Spain, they have failed big time. I hope I'm wrong, but I think the big mistake so far was 'advising' rather than 'enforcing'. Even if 90% of people take the advice on board, it still leaves millions who don't. My concern is that the actions we are now taking are a couple of weeks behind when they should have been taken.
An interesting hypothetical question is how a Jeremy Corbyn government would have handled the same situation?
The obvious thing to say is that a Corbyn Government would have thrown a lot of money at it, but then again Rishi Sunak has done that too and surprised a lot of people, so it's a question of whether Corbyn would have thrown even more at the problem.
The other question I suppose is whether he would have restricted civil liberties to a greater degree than the current Government. Corbyn isn't exactly a 'police state' guy to say the least, but would he have been hardline or softly softly? Would he have had the nation in lockdown already, or would he be trying to sit down and negotiate with the virus?