I was asking questions of the planned schedule for vaccinations yesterday.
I felt that vaccinating those in care homes didn't seem very proactive. If you were to be a little more war like in the fight against the virus, why would you not use the vaccine on those most likely to spread the virus?
The vaccination of the old and infirm and those in care homes seems very passive. If you treat the virus as an enemy in the field you look at what makes them strong and work to reduce that element.
So maybe vaccinate schools, colleges, hospital workers, public transport, shops ....
Having asked the question, it was kind of nice to hear a reasoned response from someone much closer to the problem.
It seems that with the first five million vaccines, the UK can protect the vast majority of those people who the virus might be able to kill, put in hospital, or severely affect.
This was really good to hear. Not what was to be done. Not that I have to totally agree with it. What was good to hear was that there was a considered/reasoned explanation for what was being proposed.
It would be nice if our politicians just explained why they are coming to the decisions they were making rather than leaving it up to be, frequently incorrectly, assumed.
While there should be a prescedent for politicians and others in authority to explain their actions, we also need an acceptance from others that if you're not happy with what you hear then the right thing to do is ask questions. And keep asking questions until we have understanding.
What we don't want, what is extremely counter productive is to counter poor explainations with foundless driffle and conspiracy. Anything that is based on, 'well I don't like/trust that answer so it must be the result of someone trying to manipulate the truth' is to give up on reason and reality.
There is way too much tolerance of, and way too much time given to those who should be, at the very most, laughed at and ridiculed.