Read on Twitter
they challenge performance on declared targets, but not the ideology&moral framework behind them.
1. Science might inform moral choice, but will never replace moral imperatives. These might be set one way, or another, and science will give ways better or worse ways of delivery.
1. Science might inform moral choice, but will never replace moral imperatives. These might be set one way, or another, and science will give ways better or worse ways of delivery.
2. Fundamental tension in any system of morals is between individual and social aspects of human existence. Calling one system by name is irrelevant. Never mind declarations, the challenge stays.
3. By supporting businesses, rather than addressing help directly to the people
3. By supporting businesses, rather than addressing help directly to the people
the government made a tacit declaration on where it stands on this issue. Earlier discussion in Parliament exposes all the troubles connected. They flow from assumed hierarchy of businesses&people as elements of businesses and irrelevant otherwise. Primacy of some over others.
Unless there is a force ready to proclaim a different stance, no meaningful discussion is possible and neither @bbclaurak, nor @Kier_Starmer give us warranty of such an intervention. (In latter case there is 600 pages about of evidence, I hear)
The first tweet of this thread was "lost" by platform provider:
Right start, wrong question.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52377079
totally of mark.
People first, should be pandemic prevention strategy. To me is clear, that it wasn't.
Right start, wrong question.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52377079
totally of mark.
People first, should be pandemic prevention strategy. To me is clear, that it wasn't.
