Abstract

Article

If, as is clearly reeported, the number of virus cases is growing alarmingly, the common history of other countries show that it will continue to  proliferate, and many more people will die from it until the time when it is so bad that there will necessarily be a total shut-down order, which in time will bring it under control.

The obvious question is why in the light of this plain expectation the government has not ordered a shut-down now, before the position becomes so very bad and many people die.  If many will die who would not have died if a total shut-down were ordered now, their deths will be a direct result of the government's inaction.If a total shutdown is inevitable, it seems reasonable to infer that the earlier the shutdown, the quicker the resolution, the less the overall harm, and the easier a return to health and exonomic normality.

.................................................................................................................................................................................................................

It is now later than the above.Ifwhat was suggested had been carriedout then, the beneficial effects would have been in operation from then and shoould have prevented the rate and quantity of the proliferation of the virus accordingly. And its ultimate expiry would have been quicker and with less health and economic harm.

The authorities are deliberately avoiding identifying the culprit who made the astounding decision to release the passengers from the Ruby Princess.  From the history in other places, those persons shold have known of the danger, of the potential for the threat which became actual. The apologists, using such terrible arguments as avoiding the blame game, also speak in terms of avoiding judgment with hindsight. There should have been reasonable foresight, and on the available evidence they had, the decision-makers shoould have anticipated the obvious danger in what they were doing.  It is the kind ofargumentthat a drunk-drivr who has killed a pedestrian would have used: "In hindsight,I would not have driven in that condition."

The politicians have also adopted the srange cliche, 'on the other side', which will be of little comfort to those who are dying from it, and is an appaling euphemism in any case.

The government's chief medical officer recently made the pronoouncement that if everybody did what the Prime Minister said, all would work out well.  This was a naive remark in its context, since it should have been plain that many would not do so, and his advice should have been to take much more coercivve measures.  But his approach seems to be much in line with the Prime Minister's strong inhibitions against taking steps which would adversely affect business and commerce, a laudable attitude if the alternative were not the needless loss of many human lives.