Between them the BBC and the WHO have constructed a mountain out of the molehill of “swine flu”. Both bodies, who would claim to have the interests of the public at heart, have colluded to cause worry and panic in order to heighten their profile.
The WHO’s director general’s statement of “it really is the whole of humanity that is under threat” shows a massive overreaction to this illness and an appalling attempt to grab some much needed headlines for her organisation. This is the flu. A bad strain of it, but the flu all the same. Some people have and will unfortunately die from it, much the same as every bout of winter flu in the UK. But for most people who get it they will get ill and then get better.
Deaths have been largely confined to Mexico where high quality treatment isn’t readily available. Even here death rates are broadly similar to rates seen with other yearly flu viruses. Deaths in countries with comprehensive health coverage are, to date, almost non-existent, with treatment standing a very high chance of success. This coupled with the seemingly slow spread and declining virulence of this virus suggests this shouldn’t be high on our list of worries.
However, the BBC still see the need cover this with “Armageddon headlines” while more worthy news stories fall by the wayside. Coverage of diseases such as MRSA, HIV/Aids and Diabetes that are almost guaranteed to claim more lives in the coming year than Swine Flu are judged not as news worthy.
So just like with Sars, Bird Flu and CJD experts will give worst case scenarios, the media will cover as if it is a certainty and needless panic will ensue.
Thursday, 30 April 2009
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly and The Sad End of Mr Brown
So it is over. At the end of a 14 day period, where we have seen the best and worst of Mr Brown, the house has finally fallen. We will now have a year more of polling and campaigning, but the McBride scandal will come to be seen as the moment that this Prime Minister was finished.
At the start of the month it all looked so good; Gordon was doing what he does best. His political brilliance was on show for all to see as he mixed it on the world stage. The polls responded as world leader after world leader heaped worthy praise upon their host. People were reminded that behind the Tory spin there was a leader of the highest calibre who, if he was not the Prime Minister of Britain, would most likely have been the leader of the IMF, the World Bank or some other such institution.
Top line politics doesn't however allow ones strengths to show for too long without ones weaknesses casting a shadow. So as the McBride scandal broke the attack dog, brief/counter brief machine that Brown set up to oust Blair, which he didn't dismantle when he came to power, was coming back to haunt him. And, it is important to realise here that this is Brown's machine. He can try as might to disown this incident, but this is a beast that he has built. Brown believes that if you don't agree with him you are his enemy and as an enemy you must be destroyed. This in the past has been his way of doing just that.
Even by modern political standards this was gutter-ball stuff. Inexcusable and tasteless. Any half decent PR adviser would have insisted on Brown spending 5 humiliating minutes in front of the Cameras: "I have fired McBride (not let him resign), I knew nothing of these e-mails, but the buck stops with me" and most importantly "I am very sorry". Not doing this will be his downfall. By not killing the story at its source Brown has let it run and run. The conservatives are now going to spend the next month on Question Time questioning not just the moral integrity of Brown, but Labour as a whole.
Labour MPs with a majority of less that 6000 most probably have only 12 more months on the green benches. 8000 is a dead heat. Parliamentary Candidate's who are fighting marginals should save the money and effort for a brighter day. But high calibre Candidates, with a chance of winning, should be given the donations and publicity they require to do just that. For the election is gone and Labour will need the best and the brightest to rebuild in opposition.
And, as for Brown the manner in which he leaves Number 10 will determine his legacy. 'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal'.
At the start of the month it all looked so good; Gordon was doing what he does best. His political brilliance was on show for all to see as he mixed it on the world stage. The polls responded as world leader after world leader heaped worthy praise upon their host. People were reminded that behind the Tory spin there was a leader of the highest calibre who, if he was not the Prime Minister of Britain, would most likely have been the leader of the IMF, the World Bank or some other such institution.
Top line politics doesn't however allow ones strengths to show for too long without ones weaknesses casting a shadow. So as the McBride scandal broke the attack dog, brief/counter brief machine that Brown set up to oust Blair, which he didn't dismantle when he came to power, was coming back to haunt him. And, it is important to realise here that this is Brown's machine. He can try as might to disown this incident, but this is a beast that he has built. Brown believes that if you don't agree with him you are his enemy and as an enemy you must be destroyed. This in the past has been his way of doing just that.
Even by modern political standards this was gutter-ball stuff. Inexcusable and tasteless. Any half decent PR adviser would have insisted on Brown spending 5 humiliating minutes in front of the Cameras: "I have fired McBride (not let him resign), I knew nothing of these e-mails, but the buck stops with me" and most importantly "I am very sorry". Not doing this will be his downfall. By not killing the story at its source Brown has let it run and run. The conservatives are now going to spend the next month on Question Time questioning not just the moral integrity of Brown, but Labour as a whole.
Labour MPs with a majority of less that 6000 most probably have only 12 more months on the green benches. 8000 is a dead heat. Parliamentary Candidate's who are fighting marginals should save the money and effort for a brighter day. But high calibre Candidates, with a chance of winning, should be given the donations and publicity they require to do just that. For the election is gone and Labour will need the best and the brightest to rebuild in opposition.
And, as for Brown the manner in which he leaves Number 10 will determine his legacy. 'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal'.
Tuesday, 24 March 2009
The Pope in Africa - not just a public relations disaster
It was unsurprising this week that some inside the Vatican were privately saying the current pope has been a public relations disaster for the Catholic Church. But, his comments while on his tour of Africa could spell disaster in a very different way.
His quote "HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem" has potentially horrific consequences. This quote goes further than the normal line that "abstinence is best". It says that condoms can increase the problem; increase the spread of disease. This is so far from the truth it boarders on criminal negligence. In sub-Saharan Africa 22 million are infected with the disease and 17% of people are Catholics. Both figures are increasing by the day. For the Catholic Church Africa is a region where it has great influence. Therefore, it is breathtaking that the pope can make a such a scientifically naive comment while during his visit.
The scientific evidence is clear: the only workable way to prevent the spread of this disease is barrier contraception. Abstinence doesn't work, it never has. This is especially true in areas of great hardship and poverty. In making comments like the one above the Pope, and the Catholic Church as a whole, are making a grave mistake. A mistake that is likely to lead to the needless death of people who follow their advice.
His quote "HIV/Aids is a tragedy that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem" has potentially horrific consequences. This quote goes further than the normal line that "abstinence is best". It says that condoms can increase the problem; increase the spread of disease. This is so far from the truth it boarders on criminal negligence. In sub-Saharan Africa 22 million are infected with the disease and 17% of people are Catholics. Both figures are increasing by the day. For the Catholic Church Africa is a region where it has great influence. Therefore, it is breathtaking that the pope can make a such a scientifically naive comment while during his visit.
The scientific evidence is clear: the only workable way to prevent the spread of this disease is barrier contraception. Abstinence doesn't work, it never has. This is especially true in areas of great hardship and poverty. In making comments like the one above the Pope, and the Catholic Church as a whole, are making a grave mistake. A mistake that is likely to lead to the needless death of people who follow their advice.
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Cameron - surprisingly ineffective
You have to give it to him, you really do. David Cameron during Prime Ministers Questions is an effective politician. His combination of theatrical timing, oratory pace and agility of thought are a dangerous combination. He is as good as Blair was in 1996 when he reduced Major to bumbling manikin. And, there are hints of the cutting tongue that Thatcher used to silent semi-inebriated backbenchers during her ascent to the top of the Conservative Party. However, with all of this Cameron, time after time, fails to land a crushing blow.
This may be in part because Brown has worked on his defence and now hits harder with more concise rebuttals. It may also be that when he speaks many in his party feel uncomfortable with what is said. Or, it could be that Cameron is not yet at his best. But I think, his failure to score hard hitting body shots is not because of any of these things. It is because hypocrisy is easy to sense and arguing what you know to be wrong is hard to do.
Today's toe-to-toe in the house of commons was a prime example: Cameron tries to highlight that services being provided by the government are ineffectual and functioning poorly. Brown points out that these services would be cut if the Torys had their way. Cameron moves on, saying that the UK is in the worst shape of any of the major economies. This is wrong, we are not. Cameron finds himself bogged down in a debate on when the recession started; he is off by 3 months and loosing his pace. And, finally he lashes out with a personal insult towards the PM and his rhythm is gone.
Elections can be won by pointing out the faults of an existing administraion. But that is clearly not working for Cameron. With 2 million unemployed and downturn continuing you would expect a government to being polling support in the low twenty's, but Labour isn't. The cabinet is still speaking with one voice and grassroot campaigning is still continuing. A poll in the Guardian today shows that a stabilisation of the economy would lead to a change in the fortunes of Brown and Labour. And what will Cameron do then. What will Cameron do when the bailout works, when spending during the downturn is shown to be the right thing and when hope returns. He will need more than oratory power and good PR, he will need practical solutions. Solutions he doesn't have.
This may be in part because Brown has worked on his defence and now hits harder with more concise rebuttals. It may also be that when he speaks many in his party feel uncomfortable with what is said. Or, it could be that Cameron is not yet at his best. But I think, his failure to score hard hitting body shots is not because of any of these things. It is because hypocrisy is easy to sense and arguing what you know to be wrong is hard to do.
Today's toe-to-toe in the house of commons was a prime example: Cameron tries to highlight that services being provided by the government are ineffectual and functioning poorly. Brown points out that these services would be cut if the Torys had their way. Cameron moves on, saying that the UK is in the worst shape of any of the major economies. This is wrong, we are not. Cameron finds himself bogged down in a debate on when the recession started; he is off by 3 months and loosing his pace. And, finally he lashes out with a personal insult towards the PM and his rhythm is gone.
Elections can be won by pointing out the faults of an existing administraion. But that is clearly not working for Cameron. With 2 million unemployed and downturn continuing you would expect a government to being polling support in the low twenty's, but Labour isn't. The cabinet is still speaking with one voice and grassroot campaigning is still continuing. A poll in the Guardian today shows that a stabilisation of the economy would lead to a change in the fortunes of Brown and Labour. And what will Cameron do then. What will Cameron do when the bailout works, when spending during the downturn is shown to be the right thing and when hope returns. He will need more than oratory power and good PR, he will need practical solutions. Solutions he doesn't have.
Monday, 16 March 2009
50p a Unit
Throughout the UK this weekend alcohol will be the bringer of merriment after a long and increasingly hard week. Many, including myself, will use it to relax, wind down and allow the company of their colleagues to be vaguely tolerable. Others will use it to compliment a nice meal, and some to celebrate.
However, for others it will be the start of a week long, semi-conscious, binge. Tempers will be lost, fist and bottles thrown and streets will become no go areas. For some the results of this binge may mean a drunken husband looking to take his aggression out on someone. While for others a parent who is incapable of caring for them. And the cost of a weekend of heavy drinking in the UK - you can get change from £10.
With this in mind I find it surprising that the Prime Minister has positioned himself to quickly dismiss the report to be published on Tuesday by the chief medical officer recommending, among other things, a minimum price on a unit of alcohol. Brown has said that he doesn't want to punish the majority for the sins of a few; he doesn't want sensible drinkers to pay through the nose for pint. This is either a very thin veil of ignorance, or some ill thought political cover. A strong pint of premium ale would need to cost no more than £1.50 and a good bottle of wine £4.50. Now you tell me where can you get either of these at these prices these days.
However, this lower limit would mean that those aiming for a state of alcohol induced stupidity would have to spend a fair bit more getting there: the 2 litre of Lambrini would now cost considerably more and can of Stella would be £1. On the basis that most consumer behaviour can be explained on the balance of want vs cost, this would be set to have a powerful effect. But don't take my word for it - tomorrow the leading thinker in his field will say the same and the Prime Minister will canvass for votes by saying "no, not now".
However, for others it will be the start of a week long, semi-conscious, binge. Tempers will be lost, fist and bottles thrown and streets will become no go areas. For some the results of this binge may mean a drunken husband looking to take his aggression out on someone. While for others a parent who is incapable of caring for them. And the cost of a weekend of heavy drinking in the UK - you can get change from £10.
With this in mind I find it surprising that the Prime Minister has positioned himself to quickly dismiss the report to be published on Tuesday by the chief medical officer recommending, among other things, a minimum price on a unit of alcohol. Brown has said that he doesn't want to punish the majority for the sins of a few; he doesn't want sensible drinkers to pay through the nose for pint. This is either a very thin veil of ignorance, or some ill thought political cover. A strong pint of premium ale would need to cost no more than £1.50 and a good bottle of wine £4.50. Now you tell me where can you get either of these at these prices these days.
However, this lower limit would mean that those aiming for a state of alcohol induced stupidity would have to spend a fair bit more getting there: the 2 litre of Lambrini would now cost considerably more and can of Stella would be £1. On the basis that most consumer behaviour can be explained on the balance of want vs cost, this would be set to have a powerful effect. But don't take my word for it - tomorrow the leading thinker in his field will say the same and the Prime Minister will canvass for votes by saying "no, not now".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
