Home » Posts tagged 'covid-19'
Tag Archives: covid-19
Public inquiry into Covid must begin now, says senior judge
Well, there’s a turn-up for the books. According to this story (below), Sir Robert Owen will brook no delay: he wants an inquiry now. Sir Robert is, of course, right — but he’s retired and who’s going to take notice of a retired judge? Not Johnson for sure. Neither will he listen to
the Royal College of Nursing, Bob Kerslake, the former head of the civil service under David Cameron, Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, and Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
It’s good of Sir Robert to suggest a “duty of candour”, to be put in a charter and applied to all inquiries. But what good would that do? Most of us might assume that a duty of candour is a given — otherwise what’s the use of a sodding inquiry in the first place? And what difference would it make if it was written down? If they want to be candour-free, they will be candour-free:
Lord Justice Cholmondeley-Grimwood: I must remind all parties to this inquiry of their duty of candour throughout these proceedings.
Counsel for the government: My Lord, my clients assure me that they have been working incredibly hard to ensure that candour is at the very heart of their approach.
This perfect example of a lack of candour will continue “throughout these proceedings”, as his Lordship might put it.
Candour excluded.
Government exonerated.
Justice denied.
Public inquiry into Covid must begin now, says senior judge
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/24/public-inquiry-into-covid-must-begin-now-says-senior-judge-sir-robert-owen?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Nothing but facts?
“In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts!” — Thomas Gradgrind, in Hard Times, by Charles Dickens
This story (see below) is about GPs in England saying there is an inconsistent supply and distribution of Covid vaccines and that this is causing roll-out problems. Embedded in the story is something I’ve known for a long time.
I’m used to seeing standardised, lying statements from my favourite government department, the Home Office, aimed at calming people’s fears and short-circuiting discontent, when both the fears and the discontent are well founded:
“The United Kingdom has a proud record of providing protection to those fleeing persecution … All those seeking asylum are dealt with on their merits.”
No it hasn’t. No they aren’t. And today, it’s interesting to see evidence that this type of statement is not confined to the Home Office but extends across government:
Jeremy Hunt (Chair of Commons Liaison Committee): “Why are the public not allowed to know anything except the most basic information [about the supply and distribution of vaccines]?”
In reply, Johnson promised the government would publish regional breakdowns “later this week” but admitted they were likely to show wide disparities. When it came to vaccinating the over 80s, he said it was “more than 50%, well over 50% now in the north-east and Yorkshire” but added it was “less good in some other parts of the country”.
This reply (bad news as it clearly was) was not the one he was supposed to give. But not to worry. Whitehall can cope with that. The official answer remains the official answer against all inadvertent blurting out of the truth, and he will be reminded of it when he gets back indoors in case he’s asked the question again. Here’s the official answer (otherwise known in Whitehall as “the truth”):
“Vaccines are being distributed fairly across the UK to ensure the most vulnerable are immunised first and all GPs will continue to receive deliveries as planned.” — Department of Health and Social Care unnameable spokesperson.
Oh good. That’s alright then.
GPs in England say inconsistent supply of Covid vaccine causing roll out issues
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/13/gps-in-england-say-inconsistent-supply-of-covid-vaccine-causing-roll-out-issues?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Labour’s plan for jobs
Just a few random thoughts on Labour’s plan for jobs (see link below). It begins with this statement:
The Government was too slow into lockdown, too slow on testing and too slow to protect jobs. Now, the Chancellor’s one-size-fits-all withdrawal of furlough risks creating a jobs squeeze that will put people’s livelihoods at risk.
Absolutely right. And on lockdown, many Tories knew that it was being imposed later than it should have been. Ken Clarke had well-informed friends who told him, two weeks before it began, that he should lock down now. He did.
However, Labour failed to oppose the early lifting of the lockdown, in fact it explicitly supported it. Arguably, it is because of that early lifting that the government is having to impose local lockdowns and targeted quarantines now, with a policy of lifting here and locking down there, at short notice and with more than a hint of chaos.
Still, having got that out of the way, the first point of Labour’s plan is:
-
Fight for jobs:
fix the furlough scheme to support people in the worst-hit industries.
For sure, “fix the furlough scheme” is one of the things we should now demand. But this is too vague. The demand should be to “fix the furlough scheme” by making it compulsory on all employers who want to lay off workers who can’t work from home and by keeping it in place until a vaccine is produced and being used successfully. This will cost money. But Labour must have the courage to spell out a strategy that costs more. If it doesn’t, it will quickly become an extension of the Tory party. I know Starmer doesn’t want to “make unreasonable demands”, but this isn’t unreasonable. We’re in a crisis the like of which we haven’t seen before.
-
Back our businesses:
with a £1.7 billion fightback fund to stop firms going under and save our high streets.
This is good – except that there’s no detail and £1.7bn doesn’t seem enough, considering the government’s past failures have put us into a longer crisis than might have been necessary. Again, spell out a strategy that costs more.
-
“Leave no-one behind:
with targeted support for areas forced back into lockdown.”
This is good, and will be supported by most people. No detail though.
-
Keep workers safe:
by protecting workers’ rights, by boosting sick pay, making workplaces safe, and giving our NHS and care services the resources to stop a second wave.
Absolutely. But, again, there’s no detail. In particular, workers’ rights are absent in many workplaces. They need to be given in the first place and then protected. The way to do that is to campaign for union membership everywhere and make union recognition mandatory in all workplaces. When I worked in France at the fag-end of the UK’s Thatcher period I was amazed to discover that no employer in France could refuse to negotiate with a union rep. Attacks on workers’ rights have taken place in France under Macron and I’m not sure of the current state of play. But everything is possible, whether there or here, and we should demand everything. By the way, looking at Point 2 above, they’re not remotely beginning to be “our” businesses unless the measures suggested here are in place. Saying that they are is a Labour version of Cameron’s “we’re all in this together”. We weren’t then, and they’re not “our” businesses now.
-
“Drive job creation:
by investing in infrastructure, speeding up progress to zero-carbon economy and improving access to skills and training.”
All this is good. What its value as a promise may be, I don’t know: on speeding up progress to a zero-carbon economy, Starmer has shelved Labour’s previous target of 2030. Let’s wait and see, he says. Wasn’t that Stanley Baldwin’s motto?
Limited enforcement
Labour has a plan “to ease the 14-day quarantine measures” (Labour List, 8/6/2020). The proposal for “a testing procedure for travellers, with results provided within 48 hours” is a good one – as long as people are quarantined for that 48 hours in a specified space. But if the government rejects that proposal, Labour must on no account sympathise with the poor travellers holed up for 14 days. Because they won’t be. According to The Guardian, they will be able to go food shopping, change accommodation and use public transport from airports. Only one-fifth of them will be spot-checked to see if they are staying at their notified address. Enforcement of the quarantine will be limited (The Guardian, 1/6/2020).
So where’s the quarantine? There is no quarantine worth the name. Instead, there is a smoke-and-mirrors operation to fool us that there is. That’s because the travellers are likely to be business. Or tourists, which is the same thing. And opening up business is important. More important than health.
What can we do?
It would be a good idea to have the words “however”, “but” and “as long as” in mind when considering the new guidelines announced by the prime minister today. This Guardian article (see below) was written before the guidelines were actually published, and is based on the words of the prime minister.
Still, here we go. Here are some first thoughts on what he said:
Can we see family and friends? Yes. Six people will now “be permitted to congregate [an odd, religious-sounding word] in gardens and other private outdoor spaces, instead of just in public spaces. If you’re a bit worried about this, Johnson says “there is no difference in the health risk”. (Presumably like there’s no difference in the health risk between, say, taking someone in a confined space (a car) with an infected person who was displaying symptoms and driving 264 miles with them to another location rather than keeping everybody at home in a larger space where you can practise social distancing.)
Anyway, it’s yes, we can see family and friends. Where’s the “but”? It’s here: we should try, said the prime minister, to avoid seeing people from too many households in quick succession, “so that we can avoid the risk of quick transmission from lots of different families and continue to control the virus”. (So, is the idea that if I see my neighbours from no. 24 today and wait until tomorrow before seeing my neighbours from flat 19B, this is safer than seeing one of them this morning and the other this afternoon? I don’t know. Perhaps we should use FAQs on gov.uk if we’re not sure.) Anyway, this overall more relaxed approach to seeing family and friends applies to the over-70s too. (It’s not clear why this should be: if I still can’t go shopping in a sanitised Sainsbury’s it may also be wise not to go dancing on the grass with 6 of my neighbours, especially without checking where they’ve been for the last 6 weeks or so.)
Can we have a barbecue? Yes. And the “but”? Enter Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty (you may remember him, he’s been quiet recently, what with one thing and another). He provides the “but”: those having a barbecue, he warned, should remember they can spread the virus by passing things from one person to another. Things, eh? Hmm.
Can we go into other people’s homes? No. Yes. The government says socialising inside is not allowed. But here comes a “however”, a prime ministerial “however”, and it’s this: people can go through houses to access back gardens. This doesn’t conjure up a picture of social distancing really, which the Welsh government noticed immediately. They said, OK, but that they would be publishing guidance on how to do this safely. An illustrated guide would be especially helpful, I suppose. Let’s see. If you live in Wales, don’t unlock until you’ve seen it. Oh, and Chris Whitty popped up again. He said it was acceptable for people to use their host’s toilet (perhaps another illustrated guide would be useful).
Can we travel? Yes. People in England can travel as far as they want to take exercise and spend time outside. Is there a “but”? There is indeed: they cannot stay over at people’s houses. The prime minister was firm on that: “We don’t want people to go to other households and stay there. I’m afraid we are not at that stage.” That sounds as if it might have been a rejected line from an earlier draft statement about the behaviour of a particular individual. Saved for future use on other people, I suppose. Still, scattered like gunshot though his words often are, here he was firm.
Can I do non-essential shopping? Yes. Outdoor retail such as markets and car showrooms in England will be allowed to open in England from Monday. Right, although showrooms are indoors, aren’t they? Isn’t that why they’re called “rooms”? Still, best not to quibble. Go to FAQs again.
Can children go to school? Yes. No comment.
My advice? Do none of the above. Especially the dancing and the toilet activity. And don’t send your children to school.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/29/uk-lockdown-rules-what-are-the-key-changes
School’s back?
It’s “an exercise in chaos theory”, said Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham about the proposal to open schools on 1 June. I know what he means, but it may be more than that. Education Secretary Gavin Williamson claims his concern is for the kids: “The longer that schools are closed, the more children miss out”, he said today. He then raised the emotional temperature:
The poorest children, the most disadvantaged children, the children who do not always have support they need at home, will be the ones who will fall furthest behind if we keep school gates closed. They are the ones who will miss out on the opportunities and chances in life that we want all children to benefit from what teachers and schools deliver for them.
We shouldn’t be fooled. He has conveniently forgotten that the poorest, most disadvantaged children are the creation of successive Tory governments over the past 10 years, a decade during which they imposed public spending cuts, benefit caps, and all the paraphernalia of austerity, the result of which is that “children do not have the support they need”. The only appropriate emotion, faced with his crocodile tears, is anger.
Johnson has said the argument for lifting the lockdown is not based on economics. But it is. The reason the government wants to get the children back to school is that it wants to get the workers back to work. It has nothing to do with the kids’ education and welfare, or with schools being the place where “they are safe and happy”, as Williamson also said today. It’s so that Mummy and Daddy can get back to manufacturing and producing and providing services and making profits for their bosses.
Another question lurks in the shadows to make us question whether Burnham’s chaos theory is a sufficient explanation for the push to end the lockdown. The New Yorker, in an article about the situation in the US, reminds us that some people
who argue for reopening sooner rather than later say that doing so will allow for a “controlled spread” of the disease, in which more people can develop a resistance and the population as a whole can achieve “herd immunity.” One problem with this approach is the projected number of hospitalizations and deaths along the way, which is very high. Another is that the idea assumes that those who have had COVID-19 will, indeed, be immune. But, as the World Health Organization recently warned, it isn’t yet clear how effective or enduring any immunity might be.[1]
I don’t know if there are still people arguing for herd immunity here. There certainly were earlier on, and they were at the heart of government. But if we reject it for the two reasons given in the New Yorker article, we should reject it above all because if we don’t we will be deliberately trying to spread the disease (“allow for a ‘controlled spread’”). A lockdown and social distancing try to reduce the spread. That should be our aim. So let’s not reopen the schools.
[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/11/the-rush-to-reopen
“No, Mr Speaker, it wasn’t true.” Oh yes it was.
Did Boris Johnson, at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on 13 April 2020, lie and duck and dive about government advice on covid-19 in care homes?
In light of the high number of deaths in care homes, the allegation by Keir Starmer at PMQs was that
Until 12 March, the Government’s own official advice was [that] “It remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home will become infected.”
Johnson replied:
No, Mr Speaker, it wasn’t true that the advice said that …
Oh yes it was. It did say that. In fact it said it twice, with slightly different wording each time. In a subsequent letter to Starmer, Johnson himself quoted from the official advice, but from a different bit of it, and included the preceding sentence, which Johnson put in bold type although it wasn’t in bold type in the guidance:
This guidance is intended for the current position in the UK where there is currently no transmission of COVID-19 in the community. It is therefore very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or in the community will become infected.
Starmer’s quote comes from para. 7 of the guidance: “Face masks”. Johnson’s comes from para. 1. But they say the same thing.
But Johnson’s point seems to be that, because the guidance was “intended for the current position in the UK” (i.e. the date when the guidance was issued, 25 February), there was nothing wrong with the advice. That’s a different answer to the one given at PMQs, obviously, but there’s worse. The guidance was issued on 25 February. On 28 February, the UK confirmed the first covid-19 transmission inside the country.[1] On 4 March, UK officials announced “the biggest one-day increase so far as 34 cases bring the total to 87.”[2] By 10 March, six people had died in the UK and 373 people had tested positive for the virus, including the UK’s junior health minister Nadine Dorries.[3] On 11 March, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak “announced a £12bn package of emergency support to help the UK cope with the expected onslaught from coronavirus.”[4] The guidance was only withdrawn two days later, on 13 March. Till then, the advice that it was “very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or in the community will become infected” was current, operational, and deadly.
So yes, there was a lie in a Commons answer this week, ducking and diving in a letter, and a mounting infection-rate and death-rate among care-home patients and staff.
For the guidance see Guidance for social or community care and residential settings on COVID-19, http://www.gov.uk
[1] British Foreign Policy Group (BFPG), Covid-19 Timeline, http://www.bfpg.co.uk.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
Bob Mouncer's blog 