"It is the first responsibility of government in a democratic society to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens. That is where the public interest lies. It is essential to the preservation of democracy, and it is the duty of the court to do all it can to respect and uphold that principle."

From here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-6.htm

So the simple answer to your question is "no".

Given the current situation then obviously it's not "safeism" to have a contingency plan for a pandemic.

Especially when you consider a pandemic is identified on the governments own National Risk Register https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61934/national_risk_register.pdf as highly likely to occur (and they were right weren't they) and is the threat that will have the greatest impact on society. Higher even then terrorist attacks.

Add in the fact the government ran pandemic "war game" exercises informed them of the consequences of an event they already deemed highly likely, a pandemic is not something that just occurred out of the blue no one could plan for as I think you wish to imply.

In fact not following any recommended steps due to these "war games" is a dereliction of the governments duty to its citizens. I think we will find in the eventual public inquiry the government of the last 10 years is guilty of numerous dogma inspired failings in this regard such as J Hunt not being prepared to fund a stockpile of PPE in 2017 due to the obsession with Austerity.

As to how far or what the chancellor does in response to the financial impacts of a pandemic, well if they had bothered to plan for it then maybe the actions taken would not appear so haphazard and full of loopholes offering help to some who don't need it and no help to some of those who do.

"It is the first responsibility of government in a democratic society to protect and safeguard the lives of its citizens. That is where the public interest lies. It is essential to the preservation of democracy, and it is the duty of the court to do all it can to respect and uphold that principle."

From here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd041216/a&oth-6.htm

So the simple answer to your question is "no".

Given the current situation then obviously it's not "safeism" to have a contingency plan for a pandemic.

Especially when you consider a pandemic is identified on the governments own National Risk Register https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61934/national_risk_register.pdf as highly likely to occur (and they were right weren't they) and is the threat that will have the greatest impact on society. Higher even then terrorist attacks.

Add in the fact the government ran pandemic "war game" exercises informed them of the consequences of an event they already deemed highly likely, a pandemic is not something that just occurred out of the blue no one could plan for as I think you wish to imply.

In fact not following any recommended steps due to these "war games" is a dereliction of the governments duty to its citizens. I think we will find in the eventual public inquiry the government of the last 10 years is guilty of numerous dogma inspired failings in this regard such as J Hunt not being prepared to fund a stockpile of PPE in 2017 due to the obsession with Austerity.

As to how far or what the chancellor does in response to the financial impacts of a pandemic, well if they had bothered to plan for it then maybe the actions taken would not appear so haphazard and full of loopholes offering help to some who don't need it and no help to some of those who do.

This was not meant to be a government bashing exercise - but there you go

I think you on Hunt he didn't want to make the same mistake Brown did when he ordered all that vaccine that simply got binned because things didn't quite turn out as the experts predicted. Hunt had a limited budget, does he spend it on what could be a pandemic or what is genuine clinical need? Taxes are not a bottomless pit?

I only gave the recent Covid 19 responses as examples of where citizens expect total support - others could be bullying at school - this has gone on since Adam but we now seem to expect the state to stop it, mental issues many of which are quite normal neurological responses to life itself - should the state shield every citizen from every kind of adversity?

This was not meant to be a government bashing exercise - but there you go

I think you on Hunt he didn't want to make the same mistake Brown did when he ordered all that vaccine that simply got binned because things didn't quite turn out as the experts predicted. Hunt had a limited budget, does he spend it on what could be a pandemic or what is genuine clinical need? Taxes are not a bottomless pit?

I only gave the recent Covid 19 responses as examples of where citizens expect total support - others could be bullying at school - this has gone on since Adam but we now seem to expect the state to stop it, mental issues many of which are quite normal neurological responses to life itself - should the state shield every citizen from every kind of adversity?

If you want to use other examples as people wanting total support you need to cite what they are because each case is obviously different. It won't be possible or practical for some to be anticipated to catered for and others it will be (with a pandemic falling into the latter category). There is no generalised answer to the question unless you are some libertarian loon who thinks as a matter of dogma it's every man for himself on everything and the government has next to no role to play (which hopefully the point I made about its duty above deals with).

As to Hunt there is no need to speculate what the motives were to excuse him, it was just to save cash, and he wasn't blocking the purchase of perishable vaccines but PPE (specifically eye protection):



Advice on protective gear for NHS staff was rejected owing to cost

He's now got the brass neck as chairmen of the health select committee to complain about the pack of PPE for NHS staff.

If you want to use other examples as people wanting total support you need to cite what they are because each case is obviously different. It won't be possible or practical for some to be anticipated to catered for and others it will be (with a pandemic falling into the latter category). There is no generalised answer to the question unless you are some libertarian loon who thinks as a matter of dogma it's every man for himself on everything and the government has next to no role to play (which hopefully the point I made about its duty above deals with).

As to Hunt there is no need to speculate what the motives were to excuse him, it was just to save cash, and he wasn't blocking the purchase of perishable vaccines but PPE (specifically eye protection):



Advice on protective gear for NHS staff was rejected owing to cost

He's now got the brass neck as chairmen of the health select committee to complain about the pack of PPE for NHS staff.