It's difficult to know where to, and how to activate full frontal critique, especially within a conceptual writing project. Conceptual writing and full frontal don't, I'd argue mix well. So, I'd say this is a space for 'almost' full frontal critique.
Is this pandemic about to become the '2nd', much greater, Grenfell?
This is a thought I dwelled up whilst watching an interview with the journalist John Pilger. .
< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt58it26jCs > .
Pilger is often met with harsh criticism (I've even heard him as described as a once great journalist, who has drifted into the realm of 'tin pot' theories). But listen to his words here, and all that is different about a story we know so well (of the negligence of our governments who have spent a long time asset stripping the state in order to open avenues for profit-making) is that Pilger delivers it without an atom of nationalist, empiricist sentimentality, which, let's be honest, most self-identifying British have.
However, what Pilger tells us, isn't about the Yemenis or the Iraqis, it's about the government putting us, self-identifying, citizens in mortal danger.
This is why I believe a full frontal critique has to see the unfolding deadliness of this pandemic, if the numbers continue to rise in the same fashion, as a repeat of the Grenfell tragedy. If Grenfell was the tragedy of the outcome of years of austerity and privatisation, as well as institutional racism and classism, then UK_Covid_19 could end up being the much greater, more tragic, farce.