Why I immediately stopped clapping for the NHS
Millions of people have taken part in a mass round of applause for the NHS. Meanwhile health secretary says Impossible' to say when NHS staff will get enough PPE".
In times like these, emergency and medical workers are unquestionably champions, as is anyone on the front line putting their life at risk for others.
But those who want us give thanks and adoration to a savaged institution are not.
Most are well-intentioned, but they are also overbearing and evangelical. And unwittingly or not, they could use our collective, unquestioning faith in the NHS to shut down debate.
The NHS has been described as 'national pride'. And in this crisis, we are being ordered to obey, stay at home and 'save the NHS'.
We must abide by to save the national 'trust', and not just that, we must also celebrate, by clapping in the street. Some wave flags outside their homes and from their cars. Bridges and buildings have been painted i in the colours of the NHS, and every major party, even businesses like Deliveroo, joined the show.
Like the majority of people, I believe in the concept of the NHS. Some fundamentals, like education and healthcare, should be accessible to all.
At the same time, I am a convinced supporter of the right of all workers to have safe and healthy working conditions. Our love for the NHS makes us blind and unable to see government responsibility to protect workers.
They often tell us "We are at war". Sometimes it feels like it.
Over 100 NHS and agency healthcare staff, from surgeons to nurses, porters and volunteers, have lost their lives to the Covid-19 in the UK.
A doctor who warned the prime minister about a lack of PPE for NHS workers, Dr Abdul Mabud Chowdhury, died after contracting Coronavirus.
Two nurses, both mothers in their 30s, died last week after being infected with the Coronavirus.
Only last month, medical staff were wearing bin bags because they did not have enough PPE.
Eight months pregnant nurse, 28, died in Luton & Dunstable hospital after contracting Coronavirus.
More than two dozen public transport workers have also died in London.
As on 15 April, of those hospitalised in the UK who tested positive for Coronavirus, 13,729 have died. This does not include deaths outside hospitals, such as those in care homes,
We are not at war.
No matter what ministers tell us. The reality is this is not a war.
Any criticism of the NHS, or suggestion other nations have better healthcare, is political suicide and is quashed before even considered.
This is very dangerous. It costs lives, and people fundamental rights.
A terrifying and compelling narrative which authoritarians are all too keen to urge has been created.
They are opportunists, and should not be trusted.
We knew the virus was coming.
On 23 January, Health Secretary, Matt Hancock made a statement to House Of Commons about Covid-19. The UK is well prepared and well equipped to deal with Coronavirus. The NHS is well prepared, and the UK is at the forefront of testing.
The reality is quite the opposite.
This is what he said when challenged.
By some predictions, Coronavirus could cut tens of thousands of lives short.
But knocking a few per cent off GDP and shoving the economy into a recession, as well as restricting millions of people to tiny flats, will cause tremendous damage and could shorten the lives of many thousands more.
At some point, we may conclude lockdown is doing more harm than good.
Make no mistake, Coronavirus deaths will happen on hospital floors, caught on cameras, and displayed on newspaper and television programs.
People will be wailing and politicians taking note.
And while I try to justify my position to a stranger who wondered "What the F---K was wrong with me?", Viral footage appears online. The video by doctor Damir Rafi on London's Westminster Bridge, shows groups of people, kids and at least three police vehicles with their sirens on, near St Thomas' Hospital. People close to each other throughout the footage, despite scientists saying that behaviour will make Coronavirus spread. The Metropolitan Police said it is 'reminding' its officers about social distancing.
Meanwhile, deaths linked to homelessness, joblessness, debt and depression will follow later, away from the cameras and sights of politicians. Those people will be sad, lonely, impoverished and easily ignored.
These deaths will also be hard to estimate, quantify, or predict.
Such tragedies are complicated.
A friend who works for the NHS told me "it is so hard feeling the responsibility to give care to others and expected to put my life on the line every time. I have a family I want to keep safe too".
Other friends have lost their jobs, security and future, as well as years of life expectancy. These people also matter, as well as the elderly and the NHS staff.
Doctors, nurses, and everyone on the front line, including those working in supermarkets and public transports are exceptional people.
Calling Healthcare Workers War "Heroes" Sets Them Up to Be Sacrificed
We can still advocate for more resources for healthcare, support for adequate protective equipment for frontline staff, and praise the fantastic work of doctors and nurses, while also challenging 'the NHS' and the politicians who hide behind it and bowing to collective hysteria. And you can still think the authorities are doing an excellent job and making difficult decisions, while also criticising some actions,
But these voices are currently being shouted down, suffocated, and dismissed as enemies of the NHS.
This is why I decided I will no longer be clapping at my window for the NHS. While individuals deserve praise, I can see they are being used by spineless politicians trying to avoid scrutiny.
We risk losing touch with reality during this crisis. I do not want to be part of the mania, which is serving to silence a real and open debate.
About the Creator
Anton Black
I write about politics, society and the city where I live: London in the UK.
Keep reading
More stories from Anton Black and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Greenlanders Say “We Don’t Want to Be Americans” as Trump’s Threats Rekindle Arctic Tensions
When former U.S. President Donald Trump once again raised the idea of asserting American control over Greenland, the response from the Arctic island was swift, united, and unequivocal. Greenlanders, through their political leaders, made one message clear to the world: they do not want to be Americans. The renewed rhetoric from Trump has not only revived an old controversy but also exposed deeper questions about sovereignty, identity, and the rights of small nations in an era of aggressive geopolitics. Greenland, the world’s largest island, may be sparsely populated, but its strategic importance has grown dramatically in recent years. Melting ice due to climate change has opened new shipping routes and access to vast reserves of rare-earth minerals, oil, and gas. These developments have turned the Arctic into a focal point of global power competition, drawing interest from the United States, China, and Russia alike. Yet for Greenlanders themselves, the conversation is not about global dominance — it is about dignity, autonomy, and the right to decide their own future. A United Political Front in Greenland One of the most striking aspects of the current moment is the rare unity displayed by Greenland’s political leadership. All major parties in the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, issued a joint statement rejecting any suggestion that Greenland could or should become part of the United States. Their words were firm and symbolic: “We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We want to be Greenlanders.” This statement was more than a reaction to Trump’s remarks; it was a declaration of identity. Greenland has spent decades gradually moving away from colonial dependence on Denmark. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, the island has taken control of most domestic affairs, while Denmark still manages defense and foreign policy. Many Greenlanders view eventual independence as a long-term goal, but one that must come through democratic choice — not external pressure. Public opinion strongly supports this stance. Surveys consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Greenland’s population opposes becoming part of the United States. The idea of being “bought” or absorbed by another country is widely seen as outdated, disrespectful, and incompatible with modern principles of self-determination. Trump’s Renewed Interest and Strategic Arguments Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland is not new. During his presidency, he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island, reportedly seeing it as a strategic asset that could strengthen U.S. military positioning in the Arctic and counter rival powers. His latest comments, which hinted that America might take Greenland “one way or another,” reignited fears about coercive diplomacy. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland’s location makes it invaluable. The U.S. already maintains a military presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key component of missile defense and space surveillance. Trump and his allies argue that greater U.S. control would enhance security, prevent Chinese investment, and limit Russian influence in the Arctic. However, Greenlandic leaders strongly dispute the notion that their island is vulnerable or incapable of managing foreign partnerships responsibly. They argue that security concerns should be addressed through cooperation with Denmark and NATO, not through threats or unilateral ambitions. To many in Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric feels less like a security strategy and more like a return to 19th-century power politics. Identity, Culture, and the Fear of Losing Control Beyond geopolitics, Greenlanders’ resistance is deeply rooted in cultural and social concerns. Greenland’s population, predominantly Inuit, has a distinct language, traditions, and worldview shaped by Arctic life. The island’s social model prioritizes community welfare, public healthcare, and local decision-making tailored to its harsh environment. Many fear that becoming part of the United States would fundamentally alter these systems. Questions arise about healthcare access, land rights, environmental protection, and the preservation of Indigenous culture. For a society that has already experienced the long-term impacts of colonial rule, the idea of exchanging one external authority for another is deeply unsettling. Local voices have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is “not for sale.” This sentiment reflects a broader rejection of being treated as a commodity rather than a community. The frustration is not only with Trump personally but with the mindset that assumes powerful nations can redraw borders without the consent of the people who live there. Denmark, NATO, and International Concerns Denmark has firmly backed Greenland’s position, warning that any attempt to force a change in the island’s status would violate international law and strain alliances. Danish leaders have stressed that Greenland’s future can only be decided by Greenlanders themselves, in accordance with existing self-rule agreements. The controversy has also raised concerns within NATO. If a leading alliance member were to threaten the territorial integrity of another member’s realm, it could undermine trust and cooperation at a time when unity is already under pressure from global crises. Allies worry that such disputes weaken the moral authority of democratic nations that claim to uphold international norms. A Defining Moment for Greenland’s Future Ironically, Trump’s threats may have accelerated conversations within Greenland about full independence. While economic challenges remain — including reliance on Danish subsidies — the current situation has strengthened national consciousness and political solidarity. Many Greenlanders now see greater autonomy not just as an aspiration, but as a safeguard against external interference. This moment is a reminder that in the modern world, power should not override principle. Greenland’s leaders are not denying the island’s strategic importance; they are insisting that strategic value does not cancel human agency. Their message resonates far beyond the Arctic, echoing the struggles of small nations everywhere that find themselves caught between competing global powers. Conclusion: Sovereignty Is Not Negotiable As tensions simmer, one truth stands out: Greenlanders are determined to speak for themselves. They reject the idea of becoming Americans not out of hostility, but out of a profound commitment to self-identity and self-rule. In doing so, they challenge a world order that too often prioritizes strategy over sovereignty. Whether Greenland eventually becomes fully independent or continues its partnership with Denmark, its future will be shaped by the will of its people — not by threats, deals, or geopolitical ambition. And in asserting that right so clearly, Greenland has delivered a powerful message: in the 21st century, nations are not possessions, and people are not bargaining chips.
By Muhammad Hassan3 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.