'LISTEN to the science' has become a mantra for politicians during the pandemic. And presumably future training for top scientists will include a course on how to maintain a neutral expression while your political leaders go off piste through pressure from restless backbenchers and right wing columnists. Dr Anthony Fauci could perhaps deliver master-classes.
The problem is that science does not provide a single answer. So Professor Chris Whitty was happy to announce the planned reopening of schools in England just days after Arlene Foster said Education Minister Peter Weir wanted to open all the schools on March 8 but the scientific and medical advice here was against it.
Then Bojo the clown announced his plan to open all schools on that magical day. He said he was going on data, rather than dates but his statement contained a host of dates; March 29 – up to six people can meet outside, and stay at home rule ends; April 12 – shops, salons, gyms and libraries reopen, outdoor drinks at pubs; May 17 – sports venues, cinemas, hotels and museums can reopen, two families can mix indoors, drink in pubs and restaurants; and on June 21, all legal limits on social contact can be lifted. Hurrah.
Scotland and Wales are phasing in their school openings, which the teaching unions are backing. But the DUP seem to come out in a nervous rash when they’re seen to be doing anything different from London – apart from abortion, same sex marriage and blood donations from gay men, of course.
So ahead of an executive meeting Arlene announces that the current advice for phasing in the reopening would be revisited. Why?
I felt an inward howl when it was announced that our lockdown was set to continue. But like many people, I would prefer it to go on longer if it means we can come out of it definitively and permanently. And I would prefer our politicians to listen to the caution of science and not reach hasty compromises for political reasons.
* * *
JIMBO Allister QC is mentally ironing his wig as we speak, while joining with angry PE teacher-turned outraged baroness Kate Hoey and Europe’s richest former MEP Ben Habib in a legal challenge to the Northern Ireland Protocol.
With instruction apparently from m’learned friend John Larkin, former attorney general, and cheered on by the increasingly nervous DUP and the increasingly bewildering UUP, their case is that the protocol goes against the provisions of the Act of Union 1800 against internal UK trade barriers and is also in breach of the Good Friday Agreement principle of consent.
I’m no lawyer but the problem is that the Brexit vote didn’t go into the 'how' we leave the EU. That was left to the British government and the how morphed into a sea border. All other options having been ruled out, with the support of the DUP.
The difficulties that have undoubtedly emerged can be mitigated with goodwill and proper discussion. But lifting customs restrictions is unlikely to do anything to fix a sense of loss of British identity among unionists which is being egged on by Lord Trimble and others who are now hilariously painting themselves as champions of the Good Friday Agreement.
The court challenge won’t fix it either. And just who is funding the case is as big a mystery as how Kate Hoey was ever in the Labour party.
But if all goes to plan, it’ll drag out for long enough to see the DUP safely into the next election as the spokespeople for the most oppressed people ever.
* * *
I SUPPOSE it was inevitable, after days of rain-soaked isolation indoors, that there’d be a bolt for the great outdoors when the sun finally shone last Sunday.
There were reports of crowded coastlines the length of the country. I long for a glimpse of the sea, but have obediently stayed local. Our coast is the Lagan towpath which became Piccadilly Circus at rush hour.
Strolling couples, families with toddlers, scampering dogs and cyclists all descended on the narrow river path at Stranmillis. Some to look at the newly constructed, not yet open, footbridge, others dilly-dallying over coffee from two entrepreneurial coffee wagons, and others just to take the air.
It was a recipe for disaster as the bike brigade dinged their bells from behind, and pedestrians on the congested path felt unsure which direction to jump out of the way.
Can I make a modest proposal for a proper path to be created on the left-hand side of the river solely for cyclists? Then they can go at the speed they surely desire, while the rest of us can go for a more leisurely stroll. Just saying.
