Coronavirus Count

UK cumulative total of lab-confirmed cases : 98,476 ( Down from 98,873 ) .
UK cumulative total of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 12,868 ( Up from 12,107 ) .
Latest daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 4,605 ( Down from 5,252 ) .
Latest daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 761 ( Down from 778 ) From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS IN HOSPITAL From the Government ’ s website Number of coronavirus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK .
ConHome note April 14 : Public Health England has changed its presentation of the data to make it clear that the UK cumulative and daily totals of cases are of lab-confirmed figures , and that the cumulative and daily totals of deaths exclude those outside hospitals ( i.e : in care homes ) .
It has also separated out its graph info for cases and deaths .
We will reproduce the daily figures rather than cumulative ones .
“ The risk to the UK has been raised to high ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Number of coronavirus ( COVID-19 ) cases and risk in the UK .
GOVERNMENT RULES ON STAYING AT HOME AND AWAY FROM OTHERS See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GUIDANCE : FURTHER BUSINESSES AND PREMISES TO CLOSE See here .
Published on Monday March 23 .
HOW EVERYONE CAN HELP STOP THE CORONAVIRUS ( SOCIAL DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
STAY AT HOME IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE CORONAVIRUS ( SELF-DISTANCING ) See here .
Republished on Monday March 23 .
See here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ GUIDANCE FOR WORKERS ON WHAT AND HOW THEY CAN CLAIM See here .
Published on Friday March 20 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS , TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW See here .
Published on Saturday March 28 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON WHAT THE CORONAVIRUS BILL WILL DO See here .
Published on Wednesday March 18 HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS • Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
• Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve ( not your hands ) when you cough or sneeze .
• Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
• Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell .
The symptoms of coronavirus are : However , these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness .
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common , such as cold and flu @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do .
Use this service if : • You think you might have coronavirus .
• In the last 14 days you ’ ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers .
• You ’ ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus .
• In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours .
• In Wales call 111 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 0845 46 47 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital .
• What the coronavirus is , how it ’ s spread and how to avoid catching it – Government NHS website overview .
• Stay at home advice and how to manage self-isolation .
( All information taken from Government sources .
Updated as of 19.00 on Wednesday April 15th . )

HEADLINE FACTS
Total number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 292,950 (Up from 291,409).
Total number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 41,481 (Up from 41,279).
Daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases: 1,541 (Up from 1,266).
Daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths: 202 (Up from 151).
England total cases: 156,410 (Up from 156,018 ).
England total deaths: 37,069 (Up from 36,883).
England death rate: 279.4 (Was 278.7).
Scotland total cases: 15,709 (Up from 15,682).
Scotland total deaths: 2,439 (Up from 2,434).
Scotland death rate: 288.9 (Was 288.4).
Wales total cases: 14,658 (Up from 14,581).
Wales total deaths: 1,435 (Up from 1,425).
Wales death rate: 467.0 (Was 464.6)
Northern Ireland total cases: 4,838 (Up from 4,822)
Northern Ireland total deaths: 538 (Up from 537).
Northern Ireland death rate: 257.1 (Was 256.3).
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
DAILY NUMBER OF COVID-19 ASSOCIATED DEATHS BY DATE REPORTED
DAILY NUMBER OF LAB-CONFIRMED ENGLAND CASES
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
RISK
“The risk to the UK has been raised to high” –
From the Government’s website Number of coronavirus (COVID-19) cases and risk in the UK.
– – –
NHS VOLUNTEER RESPONDER FORM
See here
(The Government’s scheme to recruit 250,000 volunteers.)
– – –
OUR PLAN TO REBUILD: THE UK GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 RECOVERY STRATEGY
See here. New as of Monday May 11.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON THE LOCKDOWN.
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SHIELDING AND PROTECTING PEOPLE WHO ARE CLINICALLY EXTREMELY VULNERABLE FROM COVID-19
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE ON SOCIAL DISTANCING
See here. New as of Tuesday June 2.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: GENERAL ADVICE
See here.
GOVERNMENT WEBSITE: FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS. WHAT YOU CAN DO AND CAN’T DO
See here.
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR LANDLORDS, TENANTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES NEW
See here. Published on Saturday March 28.
– – –
HOW TO AVOID CATCHING OR SPREADING CORONAVIRUS
Wash your hands with soap and water often – do this for at least 20 seconds .
Always wash your hands when you get home or into work .
Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or your sleeve (not your hands) when you cough or sneeze .
Put used tissues in the bin straight away and wash your hands afterwards .
Try to avoid close contact with people who are unwell.
SYMPTOMS
The symptoms of coronavirus are:
A cough.
A high temperature.
Shortness of breath.
However, these symptoms do not necessarily mean you have the illness.
The symptoms are similar to other illnesses that are much more common, such as cold and flu.
USING 111
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do.
Use this service if:
You think you might have coronavirus.
In the last 14 days you’ve been to a country or area with a high risk of coronavirus – see the coronavirus advice for travellers.
You’ve been in close contact with someone with coronavirus.
In Scotland call your GP or NHS 24 on 111 out of hours.
In Wales call 111 (if available in your area) or 0845 46 47.
In Northern Ireland call 111.
Do not go to a GP surgery, pharmacy or hospital.
FURTHER LINKS TO GOVERNMENT ADVICE
– – –
(All information taken from Government sources.
Updated as of 19.00 on Friday June 12.)


conservativehome--2020-04-15--Calls for care home equipment must be heard. But they mustn’t be allowed to panic residents and love

Calls for care home equipment must be heard. But they mustn’t be allowed to panic residents and loved ones.

Another day , another avalanche of criticism for the Government – this time on care homes .
The pressure around these arguably intensified last week when Ros Altmann , a Conservative peer and former work and pensions minister , said that residents across the country had been “ abandoned like lambs to the slaughter ” .
Since then , stories of care homes have filled the pages of newspapers , with suggestions that the death toll is being underestimated ( some indicate it could be as much as 4,000 ) due to lack of testing .
More wider criticisms are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough PPE equipment , as well as not including care home fatalities in official estimates of deaths – as other countries have done .
Peter Kyle , the Labour MP , has called for a dedicated minister to “ shout from the rafters about the horrors unfolding in our care ” .
It ’ s true that the Government has struggled in a number of ways to meet care home needs , not least as it ’ s still not hitting general testing targets .
Ministers pledged to reach 100,000 tests a day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not yet managed 15,000 .
In terms of the care home industry , this translates to 500 care home staff being tested so far .
Care England has said that one-third of employees are self-isolating or have symptoms .
PPE equipment is also an issue , with care homes reportedly resorting to getting it off dentists , construction companies and hair salons .
Although a spokesman for the Government has said it has delivered 7.8 million pieces of it to over 26,000 care homes , the impact is not being felt enough @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Matt Hancock promised to dramatically increase Coronavirus testing in care homes , and the Department of Health and Social Care has today published a list of steps it is taking to aid the fight , such as all symptomatic care residents being “ tested for COVID-19 as testing capacity to continues to increase ” .
In addition , hospital patients who ’ ve been discharged will be tested before going back into care homes , and all social care staff who need a test will get one , as well as anyone they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s exclusion of care home fatalities from death tolls , the head of Public Health England said that they are working towards changing this .
The main reason for this appears , at least , to be the speed at which hospitals and non-hospital settings can record deaths , with it being understandably faster for the former – thanks to the number of doctors on site .
Deaths outside such settings can take longer to process because of the time it takes for post-mortems , funerals and paperwork to pass through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensational to say these are being “ airbrushed out ” , as some have claimed .
Ultimately these three areas – ramping up tests , PPE and changing how deaths are recorded – are the main means through which the Government can help .
In regards to testing shortages , it makes even more of a case for the Government to decentralise the means through which it produces them , with universities , private laboratories and other organisations enrolled to create these – alongside state-run laboratories .
Not least because of the amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whereas there are approximately 200 hospitals to deliver tests to , there are around 11,000 care homes .
To get them tests and equipment at speed , we need more providers around the UK .
At the same time , it ’ s important to maintain a sense of realism about the challenges care homes face , whose residents are twice as likely as the general population to have long-term conditions such as diabetes or heart disease , and are therefore more susceptible , in spite of the best interventions .
Helen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been ridiculed for her comments on care homes .
At one point she said staff are “ used to ” infection control – considering homes receive bouts of seasonal flu .
But she is right : given the close proximity of residents , employees are trained to prevent illness spreading .
As with other illnesses , it has to additionally be accepted that there are limits to what carers – and the Government – can do .
Fundamentally , some of the rhetoric around care homes has been unhelpful .
Altmann ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ point may help drive home a point , but it is no reassurance to separated families throughout the country – many of whom have been worried for weeks about loved ones , even if the media interest in care homes has only peaked recently .
Critics of the Government must remember that for some families , care homes are the only choice they have to keep their relatives safe ; that there is no alternative , better solution for them at this time .
They must also remember that many residents can read @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by media fearmongering too .
Yes , it is imperative we do all we can to help people in care homes ; equipment must be sent their way as quickly as possible , and it is especially important that their carers are tested – so as not to pass on the disease .
Yes , it is important to speak up for those who can not .
But we must also not sensationalise this area ; it is already tough enough for many .

Another day, another avalanche of criticism for the Government – this time on care homes.
The pressure around these arguably intensified last week when Ros Altmann, a Conservative peer and former work and pensions minister, said that residents across the country had been “abandoned like lambs to the slaughter”.
Since then, stories of care homes have filled the pages of newspapers, with suggestions that the death toll is being underestimated (some indicate it could be as much as 4,000) due to lack of testing.
More wider criticisms are that the Government has not sorted out enough PPE equipment, as well as not including care home fatalities in official estimates of deaths – as other countries have done.
Peter Kyle, the Labour MP, has called for a dedicated minister to “shout from the rafters about the horrors unfolding in our care”.
It’s true that the Government has struggled in a number of ways to meet care home needs, not least as it’s still not hitting general testing targets. Ministers pledged to reach 100,000 tests a day by the end of April, but have not yet managed 15,000.
In terms of the care home industry, this translates to 500 care home staff being tested so far. Care England has said that one-third of employees are self-isolating or have symptoms.
PPE equipment is also an issue, with care homes reportedly resorting to getting it off dentists, construction companies and hair salons. Although a spokesman for the Government has said it has delivered 7.8 million pieces of it to over 26,000 care homes, the impact is not being felt enough.
In response to the backlash, Matt Hancock promised to dramatically increase Coronavirus testing in care homes, and the Department of Health and Social Care has today published a list of steps it is taking to aid the fight, such as all symptomatic care residents being “tested for COVID-19 as testing capacity to continues to increase”.
In addition, hospital patients who’ve been discharged will be tested before going back into care homes, and all social care staff who need a test will get one, as well as anyone they live with.
As for the Government’s exclusion of care home fatalities from death tolls, the head of Public Health England said that they are working towards changing this.
The main reason for this appears, at least, to be the speed at which hospitals and non-hospital settings can record deaths, with it being understandably faster for the former – thanks to the number of doctors on site.
Deaths outside such settings can take longer to process because of the time it takes for post-mortems, funerals and paperwork to pass through the coroners’ office. It’s sensational to say these are being “airbrushed out”, as some have claimed.
Ultimately these three areas – ramping up tests, PPE and changing how deaths are recorded – are the main means through which the Government can help.
In regards to testing shortages, it makes even more of a case for the Government to decentralise the means through which it produces them, with universities, private laboratories and other organisations enrolled to create these – alongside state-run laboratories.
Not least because of the amount of locations these need to get to. Whereas there are approximately 200 hospitals to deliver tests to, there are around 11,000 care homes. To get them tests and equipment at speed, we need more providers around the UK.
At the same time, it’s important to maintain a sense of realism about the challenges care homes face, whose residents are twice as likely as the general population to have long-term conditions such as diabetes or heart disease, and are therefore more susceptible, in spite of the best interventions.
Helen Whately, the Social Care Minister, has been ridiculed for her comments on care homes. At one point she said staff are “used to” infection control – considering homes receive bouts of seasonal flu. But she is right: given the close proximity of residents, employees are trained to prevent illness spreading. As with other illnesses, it has to additionally be accepted that there are limits to what carers – and the Government – can do.
Fundamentally, some of the rhetoric around care homes has been unhelpful. Altmann’s “lambs to the slaughter” point may help drive home a point, but it is no reassurance to separated families throughout the country – many of whom have been worried for weeks about loved ones, even if the media interest in care homes has only peaked recently.
Critics of the Government must remember that for some families, care homes are the only choice they have to keep their relatives safe; that there is no alternative, better solution for them at this time. They must also remember that many residents can read and hear, and can be panicked by media fearmongering too.
Yes, it is imperative we do all we can to help people in care homes; equipment must be sent their way as quickly as possible, and it is especially important that their carers are tested – so as not to pass on the disease. Yes, it is important to speak up for those who cannot. But we must also not sensationalise this area; it is already tough enough for many.


conservativehome--2020-04-15--The Corbynites may have handed Starmer a stick with which to beat them – the ICO

On the face of it , the leaking of a horrifying internal report on Labour ’ s antisemitism crisis is not the start to his leadership Keir Starmer might have hoped for .
But whilst it ’ s a big dark cloud , it may have a commensurate silver lining .
For those of you who haven ’ t been following , the document that ’ s been leaked was compiled by allies of Jeremy Corbyn once Labour submitted to investigation by the Equality & Human Rights Commission ( EHRC ) .
It was intended to serve as an ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the party ’ s handling of antisemitism .
The thrust of the report was that Corbyn ’ s efforts to crack down on antisemitism were hindered by right-wing wreckers , who frustrated them as part of a broader effort to bring down the leader and wrest control of the leadership away from the Left .
This case , such as it is , is evidenced by the inclusion of huge reams of private emails and messages between party staffers .
However , Corbyn resigned the leadership before the document could be submitted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Labour ’ s lawyers were advising against publishing it ( and no surprise ) , and spiked it .
At which point , somebody leaked the entire thing into the public domain – including people ’ s unredacted personal data .
This causes a couple of problems .
The smaller one is that it ’ s at the very least an embarrassing set of headlines at a moment when a new leader might have been anticipating some honeymoon coverage .
The much bigger one is that Labour now faces an investigation from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could cost it a lot of money in fines , or worse .
In data protection terms , this looks like a ‘ never event ’ .
Yet the timing isn ’ t all bad .
This would almost certainly be a much bigger story if it hadn ’ t broken in the middle of the ongoing coronavirus crisis .
If Starmer needs to have a fight with the remnants of Corbyn ’ s ancien régime – and the socialist Campaign Group have already called for an inquiry based on the report ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ battle best had when the public aren ’ t really paying attention .
Furthermore , given whence the leak likely originated and amongst whom the document has been circulating , the new leadership may , if they can demonstrate that Labour ’ s safeguarding measures were adequate , be able to channel the ICO ’ s wrath away from the Party as a whole and earth it through the very faction that leaked the report .
This would give Starmer a chance to make a public demonstration of his willingness to hold the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damage to his battered party .

On the face of it, the leaking of a horrifying internal report on Labour’s antisemitism crisis is not the start to his leadership Keir Starmer might have hoped for. But whilst it’s a big dark cloud, it may have a commensurate silver lining.
For those of you who haven’t been following, the document that’s been leaked was compiled by allies of Jeremy Corbyn once Labour submitted to investigation by the Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC). It was intended to serve as an ‘annex’ to the main submission on the party’s handling of antisemitism.
The thrust of the report was that Corbyn’s efforts to crack down on antisemitism were hindered by right-wing wreckers, who frustrated them as part of a broader effort to bring down the leader and wrest control of the leadership away from the Left. This case, such as it is, is evidenced by the inclusion of huge reams of private emails and messages between party staffers.
However, Corbyn resigned the leadership before the document could be submitted. Starmer was presented with it, informed that Labour’s lawyers were advising against publishing it (and no surprise), and spiked it.
At which point, somebody leaked the entire thing into the public domain – including people’s unredacted personal data.
This causes a couple of problems. The smaller one is that it’s at the very least an embarrassing set of headlines at a moment when a new leader might have been anticipating some honeymoon coverage. The much bigger one is that Labour now faces an investigation from the Information Commissioner’s Office which could cost it a lot of money in fines, or worse. In data protection terms, this looks like a ‘never event’.
Yet the timing isn’t all bad. This would almost certainly be a much bigger story if it hadn’t broken in the middle of the ongoing coronavirus crisis. If Starmer needs to have a fight with the remnants of Corbyn’s ancien régime – and the socialist Campaign Group have already called for an inquiry based on the report’s allegations – that’s a battle best had when the public aren’t really paying attention.
Furthermore, given whence the leak likely originated and amongst whom the document has been circulating, the new leadership may, if they can demonstrate that Labour’s safeguarding measures were adequate, be able to channel the ICO’s wrath away from the Party as a whole and earth it through the very faction that leaked the report. This would give Starmer a chance to make a public demonstration of his willingness to hold the culpable to account whilst minimising further institutional damage to his battered party.


conservativehome--2020-04-15--Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Protector of the Millennium Awards Trust –

Calling Conservatives: New public appointments announced. Protector of the Millennium Awards Trust – and more

Eight years ago , the TaxPayers ’ Alliance reported that “ in the last year , five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories ” .
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party , compared to less than a third for the Conservatives .
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts , over time , the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments .
One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number as Labour supporters .
To help remedy this , each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies , so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented .
“ The Office of the Complaints Commissioner is headed by the Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner ( the Commissioner ) who is a statutory appointment required under the Financial Services Act 2012 .
This is a senior position and , whilst the appointment is made by the regulators , it is an independent role , subject to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Commissioner carries out his duties through a company limited by guarantee ( Office of the Complaints Commissioner ) from premises based in the City of London .
He is assisted by three staff .
The Commissioner ’ s role is to review independently complaints about the actions or inactions of the UK ’ s current financial services regulators , the Financial Conduct Authority , the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England ( but only in respect of its oversight of the banking clearing houses and payment schemes ) .
” Remuneration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with judicial salaries , pro-rated as appropriate.
” “ Science , technology and demography are changing the way health care services are provided and this has implications for the education and training of the future workforce .
The World Health Organisation ( WHO ) are predicting worldwide shortages of doctors and nurses .
These developments provide the context for the work of HEE over the next few years .
How do we use finite resources most effectively to ensure that we have the right people in the right place with the right skills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
This is an exciting and fundamentally important task and our purpose is to improve the quality and safety of healthcare through the development , education and training of the current and future workforce.
” “ The Prudential Regulation Committee ( PRC ) governs the Prudential Regulation Authority ( PRA ) which is responsible for the prudential regulation of banks , building societies , other deposit takers , insurance companies and certain investment firms .
Chaired by the Governor , and accountable to Parliament , the PRC takes the most significant and high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for overseeing and holding to account the PRA ’ s strategy and policy making functions , and for setting the levy on regulated firms .
It also adopts the budget of the PRA.The Government is seeking to appoint up to three external members to fill vacancies which arise from retirements in 2020/21 .
These are high profile and influential roles .
Appointees will be independent and will not represent or lobby for individual groups , interests or sectors.
” Time : “ The PRC meets 15 to 20 times a year .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ Having celebrated our 156 year anniversary last year , we are looking forward to the challenge of strengthening our role in safeguarding the best natural haven on the east coast of England .
We cover an area across the River Stour , the lower part of the River Orwell , Harwich Harbour and an area seaward extending 12 nautical miles from the harbour entrance .
We provide services for shipping using the commercial ports of Felixstowe , Ipswich , Harwich International , Harwich Navyard and Mistley and also pilot boarding and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medway , Blackwater , Colne and Crouch .
Our vision is to be an exemplary Trust Port offering world class services , working with all stakeholders for a flourishing Haven.
” “ This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services , leading a sizeable and complex organisation .
There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role .
Under Andrew Bailey , the FCA has formulated a transformation programme , to equip the organisation for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers ; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified ; [ and ] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal , and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.
” “ UnLtd is a registered charity and the sole trustee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
The Millennium Awards Trust was established by the Millennium Commission which founded it with a permanent endowment of £100 million of National Lottery funds .
The MAT is governed by a Trust Deed which defines the framework within which the MAT should operate .
This Deed provides for the appointment of a Protector of the Trust ( the Protector ) who has a fiduciary duty to ensure the integrity of the administration of the Trust and the propriety of its procedures .
The Protector is appointed for a term of three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Digital , Culture , Media and Sport .
We are now looking to identify a suitably qualified individual to succeed the incumbent who is coming to the end of their term .
We are looking to formally appoint a successor in Summer 2020.
” “ This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps Britain moving .
You would be joining the DVSA at an exciting time , with the opportunity to help shape the future of the agency and ensure its continued success .
This will mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organisation to be equipped for a future where technological transformation will significantly influence mobility .
The DVSA is now seeking to appoint two Non-Executive Directors to the Board who will embrace technological disruption , possess an entrepreneurial spirit and have a passion for harnessing the possibilities that digital transformation plays in driving greater customer insight and intimacy .
We seek a Non-Executive Director who will be expected to provide thought leadership in digital transformation and keep abreast of digital transformation trends and innovative approaches to operational excellence , as well as a Non-Executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required to chair the audit and risk committee.
” Time : Up to 36 days per annum .
“ Led by the Non-Executive Chair , the Crown Commercial Service ( CCS ) Board is responsible for the oversight of the operation of CCS , with emphasis on its strategic direction , management control , and corporate governance .
All Non-Executive Board Members are expected to contribute to decisions covering the strategy for the organisation and the overall direction of the business , adding value by offering counsel , advice and challenge .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our Board as a Non-Executive Director and Chair of the Technology and Digital Transformation Committee to support progression of our transformation journey… To complement our existing Board we are particularly interested in hearing from individuals who bring recent experience in leading large scale digital transformation in either the private or public sector.
” “ As a non-executive director , you will play an active role on the board of SLC , supporting the SLC Executive Team and SLC Chair to deliver the company ’ s portfolio of priorities , overcome challenges and exploit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its customer base , delivery of recommendations from the Tailored Review ( Annex 3 ) and implementation of the Review of Post-18 Education .
A key element of the role will be to work with the board to ensure that the resources and skills available to the Company are commensurate with and focussed on its delivery obligations .
The SLC administers the data underpinning one of Government ’ s major assets : the Student Loan book .
This data supports the sale of tranches of loans to monetise that asset for the benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raised to date ) .
There may be other opportunities to realise the value , in the widest sense , of the SLC ’ s data in the future .
”

Eight years ago, the TaxPayers’ Alliance reported that “in the last year, five times more Labour people were appointed to public bodies than Tories”.
It currently reports that almost half of avowedly political appointees last year owed their allegiance to Labour Party, compared to less than a third for the Conservatives.
Despite the selection of some Party members or supporters to fill important posts, over time, the Conservatives have punched beneath their weight when it comes to public appointments. One of the reasons seems to be that Tories simply don’t apply in the same number as Labour supporters.
To help remedy this, each week we put up links to some of the main public appointments vacancies, so that qualified Conservatives can be aware of the opportunities presented.
– – – – – – – – – –
HM Treasury – Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner
“The Office of the Complaints Commissioner is headed by the Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner (the Commissioner) who is a statutory appointment required under the Financial Services Act 2012. This is a senior position and, whilst the appointment is made by the regulators, it is an independent role, subject to approval by HM Treasury. The current Commissioner carries out his duties through a company limited by guarantee (Office of the Complaints Commissioner) from premises based in the City of London. He is assisted by three staff. The Commissioner’s role is to review independently complaints about the actions or inactions of the UK’s current financial services regulators, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England (but only in respect of its oversight of the banking clearing houses and payment schemes).”
Time: Est. three days per week.
Remuneration: “Remuneration is on a level with judicial salaries, pro-rated as appropriate.”
Closes: 13 April
– – – – – – – – – –
Health Education England – Non-Executive Director
“Science, technology and demography are changing the way health care services are provided and this has implications for the education and training of the future workforce. The World Health Organisation (WHO) are predicting worldwide shortages of doctors and nurses. These developments provide the context for the work of HEE over the next few years. How do we use finite resources most effectively to ensure that we have the right people in the right place with the right skills and knowledge to respond to these developments? This is an exciting and fundamentally important task and our purpose is to improve the quality and safety of healthcare through the development, education and training of the current and future workforce.”
Time: 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: £7,883 per annum.
Closes: 14 April
– – – – – – – – – –
HM Treasury – External Member to the Prudential Regulation Committee
“The Prudential Regulation Committee (PRC) governs the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) which is responsible for the prudential regulation of banks, building societies, other deposit takers, insurance companies and certain investment firms. Chaired by the Governor, and accountable to Parliament, the PRC takes the most significant and high impact supervisory decisions. It is responsible for overseeing and holding to account the PRA’s strategy and policy making functions, and for setting the levy on regulated firms. It also adopts the budget of the PRA.The Government is seeking to appoint up to three external members to fill vacancies which arise from retirements in 2020/21. These are high profile and influential roles. Appointees will be independent and will not represent or lobby for individual groups, interests or sectors.”
Time: “The PRC meets 15 to 20 times a year. The nature of the role will require flexibility.”
Remuneration: £108,300 per annum.
Closes: 15 April
– – – – – – – – – –
Harwich Haven Authority – Non-Executive Chair
“Having celebrated our 156 year anniversary last year, we are looking forward to the challenge of strengthening our role in safeguarding the best natural haven on the east coast of England. We cover an area across the River Stour, the lower part of the River Orwell, Harwich Harbour and an area seaward extending 12 nautical miles from the harbour entrance. We provide services for shipping using the commercial ports of Felixstowe, Ipswich, Harwich International, Harwich Navyard and Mistley and also pilot boarding and landing services for the rivers Thames, Medway, Blackwater, Colne and Crouch. Our vision is to be an exemplary Trust Port offering world class services, working with all stakeholders for a flourishing Haven.”
Time: 20 days per annum.
Remuneration: £37,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 April
– – – – – – – – – –
Financial Conduct Authority – Chief Executive
“This is an opportunity to take on an intellectually demanding role at the heart of international financial services, leading a sizeable and complex organisation. There is a requirement for strong leadership in a challenging environment to undertake a critically important role. Under Andrew Bailey, the FCA has formulated a transformation programme, to equip the organisation for the next phase of its development: a data strategy and enhanced analytical skills to rapidly identify harm across an exceptionally broad range of firms of all sizes exploiting fast-moving changes in technology and distribution to target consumers; enhance employee capabilities and processes to act swiftly on the harms identified; [and] and with a regulatory framework which is appropriate following the completion of EU withdrawal, and which takes advantage of the opportunities for better and more efficient regulation brought by technology and behavioural science.”
Time: Full-time.
Remuneration: Competitive.
Closes: 24 April
– – – – – – – – – –
UnLtd – Protector of the Millennium Awards Trust
“UnLtd is a registered charity and the sole trustee of the Millennium Awards Trust (MAT). The Millennium Awards Trust was established by the Millennium Commission which founded it with a permanent endowment of £100 million of National Lottery funds. The MAT is governed by a Trust Deed which defines the framework within which the MAT should operate. This Deed provides for the appointment of a Protector of the Trust (the Protector) who has a fiduciary duty to ensure the integrity of the administration of the Trust and the propriety of its procedures. The Protector is appointed for a term of three years by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. We are now looking to identify a suitably qualified individual to succeed the incumbent who is coming to the end of their term. We are looking to formally appoint a successor in Summer 2020.”
Time: 3-4 hours per quarter.
Remuneration: £5,000 per annum honorarium.
Closes: 24 April
– – – – – – – – – –
Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency – Non-Executive Directors
“This is an exciting opportunity to join the Board of an organisation which keeps Britain moving. You would be joining the DVSA at an exciting time, with the opportunity to help shape the future of the agency and ensure its continued success. This will mean supporting the executive team in developing the organisation to be equipped for a future where technological transformation will significantly influence mobility. The DVSA is now seeking to appoint two Non-Executive Directors to the Board who will embrace technological disruption, possess an entrepreneurial spirit and have a passion for harnessing the possibilities that digital transformation plays in driving greater customer insight and intimacy. We seek a Non-Executive Director who will be expected to provide thought leadership in digital transformation and keep abreast of digital transformation trends and innovative approaches to operational excellence, as well as a Non-Executive Director who will have the necessary skills required to chair the audit and risk committee.”
Time: Up to 36 days per annum.
Remuneration: £15,000.
Closes: 28 April
– – – – – – – – – –
Crown Commercial Service – Non-Executive Directors
“Led by the Non-Executive Chair, the Crown Commercial Service (CCS) Board is responsible for the oversight of the operation of CCS, with emphasis on its strategic direction, management control, and corporate governance. All Non-Executive Board Members are expected to contribute to decisions covering the strategy for the organisation and the overall direction of the business, adding value by offering counsel, advice and challenge. We are seeking an exceptional individual to join our Board as a Non-Executive Director and Chair of the Technology and Digital Transformation Committee to support progression of our transformation journey… To complement our existing Board we are particularly interested in hearing from individuals who bring recent experience in leading large scale digital transformation in either the private or public sector.”
Time: Approx 2-3 days per month.
Remuneration: £15,000 per annum.
Closes: 17 May
– – – – – – – – – –
Student Loans Company Board – Non-Executive Directors
“As a non-executive director, you will play an active role on the board of SLC, supporting the SLC Executive Team and SLC Chair to deliver the company’s portfolio of priorities, overcome challenges and exploit opportunities, including the continued growth of its customer base, delivery of recommendations from the Tailored Review (Annex 3) and implementation of the Review of Post-18 Education. A key element of the role will be to work with the board to ensure that the resources and skills available to the Company are commensurate with and focussed on its delivery obligations. The SLC administers the data underpinning one of Government’s major assets: the Student Loan book. This data supports the sale of tranches of loans to monetise that asset for the benefit of the exchequer and taxpayers (£3.6bn raised to date). There may be other opportunities to realise the value, in the widest sense, of the SLC’s data in the future.”
Time: Two days per month.
Remuneration: £12,000, up to £17,000.
Closes: 19 May


conservativehome--2020-04-15--When the virus crisis is over, we will have to look at what the NHS can learn from Germany

The above chart , shown at yesterday afternoon ’ s Downing Street press conference , demonstrates the remarkable disparity so far between the death rate from the Coronavirus in Germany and in four other European countries , Spain , France , Italy and the United Kingdom .
It is now a week and a half since Charles Moore examined this discrepancy in his Daily Telegraph column : Moore is correct .
The discrepancy in intensive care beds is even greater : at the start of the pandemic , Germany had 34 for every 100,000 people , the European average was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Germany does not have a centralised system of command and control .
Each of the 16 federal states has responsibility for health , paid for from a system of compulsory health insurance dating back to Bismarck ’ s Health Insurance Bill of 1883 .
Germany today has a bewildering variety of public and private health insurance funds , with charges split between employers and employees , and supplemented by government subsidies .
The whole thing works by means of an elaborate system of corporatist bargaining , to set payments and entitlements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a general consensus , among the German public , that one ought to be able to go pretty much immediately to whichever doctor one chooses .
The British assumption , that one can only get to a specialist via a general practitioner , does not pertain .
Nor does the idea that healthcare is something to be rationed .
You can go direct to the specialist of your choice , to treat whatever you suppose to be wrong with you .
When I lived in Germany in the 1990s , I never heard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or for rehabilitation , nor has this become a problem since .
Such responsiveness can only be achieved by having excess capacity .
Staff and beds are underused , which when a crisis arises is a great advantage .
Germans love being able to go to the doctor whenever they feel the need , which tends to be more often than in countries where demand is damped down by the need first to get an appointment with your GP , and then by a queue to see the specialist to whom you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staff are incentivised , under the insurance system , to carry out procedures for which there may be no pressing medical need , but for which payments will be received .
Stays in hospital tend to be longer , stents are more often inserted , and batteries of tests are ordered whether or not they are required in order to arrive at a reliable diagnosis , for whether or not the tests are needed , charges for them can be levied .
There is far more scope , under this system , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual initiative : no need to wait for orders from the centre before attempting to develop a test for Coronavirus , or for anything else .
In Britain , the central bureaucracy was inundated with offers of help from potential providers of tests or ventilators or protective equipment who were trying , in effect , to sell their services to a single customer .
In Germany there are many customers , which means that in a crisis , there is less danger of a logjam developing at the national level , with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admit the need for sudden change , and then overwhelmed by the sheer volume of decisions needed from them in a very short period of time .
We are not the only country to have noticed that the Germans were quicker than us to respond to the present pandemic , and much faster to develop the testing capacity which can be so valuable in arresting its spread .
The French have seen with alarm that their more Napoleonic approach was in some respects markedly less effective , are worried that their industry has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not respond to sudden needs for more tests or other equipment , and are studying Germany closely to see what lessons they can learn .
This subject should not be discussed as if , by a mere act of political will , one can import whatever aspects of the German system , or any other system , might seem desirable .
And not every aspect to the German system can be called desirable .
It is much more expensive than the NHS : according to the Office of National Statistics , in 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health , while the Germans spent £4,432 .
To raise spending to German levels , while at the same time recovering from a severe economic shock , is unlikely to be practical .
Nor , cost aside , should one suppose the German system to be beyond reproach .
It has yet to go digital , contains an excessive number of general hospitals which are short of medical staff , is bad at preventive health programmes and does not lead to better general outcomes .
It would be good to bring a degree @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the unthinking defence of one ’ s national way of doing things , is not enough .
Nor is ideology : the simplistic claim that either more privatisation or more nationalisation , either the free market or socialism , offers a complete answer .
West Germany was founded on the social market economy : a pragmatic combination of market economics with social provision .
Competition and co-operation were combined in such a way as to command a consensus .
This was not very exciting to write about .
The consensus only seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means of endless , dreary negotiations , in which no one was entirely honest about the interests they were trying to defend .
But at least the politicians of West Germany recognised , as they worked out how to run their health system , that in order to meet the needs of patients , and command public approval , there had to be an entrenched role for competition between different providers .
This is a concession the founders of the NHS made only with reluctance , and spent many years trying to extinguish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monolithic than the German system , and critics of its over-centralised character are liable to be seen as so disloyal that they are accused of wishing to sell it off to the Americans .
In the NHS , the patient can all too easily be made to feel like a supplicant , who has no real rights , and should be grateful for what he or she is given .
In Germany , where the patient has far greater freedom to go straight to a particular doctor , that debilitating sense of inferiority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less likely to arise .
Boris Johnson has seized the chance to embrace the NHS .
The next step , once the immediate crisis is past , must be to see how it can be made more flexible and resilient , and that means we can not just lose ourselves in boundless admiration for the NHS ’ s staff : we have to look at what we might be able to learn from Germany .

The above chart, shown at yesterday afternoon’s Downing Street press conference, demonstrates the remarkable disparity so far between the death rate from the Coronavirus in Germany and in four other European countries, Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom.
It is now a week and a half since Charles Moore examined this discrepancy in his Daily Telegraph column:
“Most NHS staff are dedicated people. The defects are baked into our system of national bureaucratic command. People have noticed that Germany has been more successful in managing the virus spread through testing. This is not a coincidence. Germany does not have our lumbering central diagnostic system, because it does not have, in our sense, a national health service. It has 176 testing centres, part of localised arrangements which mix private insurance, employer involvement and government funding. There are more than three times as many beds per 1,000 patients as in Britain.”
Moore is correct. The discrepancy in intensive care beds is even greater: at the start of the pandemic, Germany had 34 for every 100,000 people, the European average was 11.5 and the United Kingdom had 6.6.
And Germany does not have a centralised system of command and control. Each of the 16 federal states has responsibility for health, paid for from a system of compulsory health insurance dating back to Bismarck’s Health Insurance Bill of 1883.
Germany today has a bewildering variety of public and private health insurance funds, with charges split between employers and employees, and supplemented by government subsidies.
The whole thing works by means of an elaborate system of corporatist bargaining, to set payments and entitlements.
But it also works because of a general consensus, among the German public, that one ought to be able to go pretty much immediately to whichever doctor one chooses.
The British assumption, that one can only get to a specialist via a general practitioner, does not pertain. Nor does the idea that healthcare is something to be rationed.
You can go direct to the specialist of your choice, to treat whatever you suppose to be wrong with you. When I lived in Germany in the 1990s, I never heard anyone complain about waiting lists for treatment, or for rehabilitation, nor has this become a problem since.
Such responsiveness can only be achieved by having excess capacity. Staff and beds are underused, which when a crisis arises is a great advantage.
Germans love being able to go to the doctor whenever they feel the need, which tends to be more often than in countries where demand is damped down by the need first to get an appointment with your GP, and then by a queue to see the specialist to whom you are referred.
In Germany, medical staff are incentivised, under the insurance system, to carry out procedures for which there may be no pressing medical need, but for which payments will be received.
Stays in hospital tend to be longer, stents are more often inserted, and batteries of tests are ordered whether or not they are required in order to arrive at a reliable diagnosis, for whether or not the tests are needed, charges for them can be levied.
There is far more scope, under this system, for competition between different providers, and for individual initiative: no need to wait for orders from the centre before attempting to develop a test for Coronavirus, or for anything else.
In Britain, the central bureaucracy was inundated with offers of help from potential providers of tests or ventilators or protective equipment who were trying, in effect, to sell their services to a single customer.
In Germany there are many customers, which means that in a crisis, there is less danger of a logjam developing at the national level, with the most senior bureaucrats failing at first to admit the need for sudden change, and then overwhelmed by the sheer volume of decisions needed from them in a very short period of time.
As a senior German doctor told ConHome:
“Our laboratory efficiency and capacity is high because of a high degree of privatisation and competition. We are not at all centrally ruled, meaning that every federal state can adopt own health care rules within certain limits.”
We are not the only country to have noticed that the Germans were quicker than us to respond to the present pandemic, and much faster to develop the testing capacity which can be so valuable in arresting its spread.
The French have seen with alarm that their more Napoleonic approach was in some respects markedly less effective, are worried that their industry has become so hollowed out that it cannot respond to sudden needs for more tests or other equipment, and are studying Germany closely to see what lessons they can learn.
This subject should not be discussed as if, by a mere act of political will, one can import whatever aspects of the German system, or any other system, might seem desirable.
And not every aspect to the German system can be called desirable. It is much more expensive than the NHS: according to the Office of National Statistics, in 2017 the UK spent £2,989 per person on health, while the Germans spent £4,432.
To raise spending to German levels, while at the same time recovering from a severe economic shock, is unlikely to be practical.
Nor, cost aside, should one suppose the German system to be beyond reproach. It has yet to go digital, contains an excessive number of general hospitals which are short of medical staff, is bad at preventive health programmes and does not lead to better general outcomes.
It would be good to bring a degree of humility to this debate. Patriotism, the unthinking defence of one’s national way of doing things, is not enough.
Nor is ideology: the simplistic claim that either more privatisation or more nationalisation, either the free market or socialism, offers a complete answer.
West Germany was founded on the social market economy: a pragmatic combination of market economics with social provision. Competition and co-operation were combined in such a way as to command a consensus.
This was not very exciting to write about. The consensus only seemed to be kept on the road by means of endless, dreary negotiations, in which no one was entirely honest about the interests they were trying to defend.
But at least the politicians of West Germany recognised, as they worked out how to run their health system, that in order to meet the needs of patients, and command public approval, there had to be an entrenched role for competition between different providers.
This is a concession the founders of the NHS made only with reluctance, and spent many years trying to extinguish or restrict. Our system is more monolithic than the German system, and critics of its over-centralised character are liable to be seen as so disloyal that they are accused of wishing to sell it off to the Americans.
In the NHS, the patient can all too easily be made to feel like a supplicant, who has no real rights, and should be grateful for what he or she is given. In Germany, where the patient has far greater freedom to go straight to a particular doctor, that debilitating sense of inferiority, even of impotence, is much less likely to arise.
Boris Johnson has seized the chance to embrace the NHS. The next step, once the immediate crisis is past, must be to see how it can be made more flexible and resilient, and that means we cannot just lose ourselves in boundless admiration for the NHS’s staff: we have to look at what we might be able to learn from Germany.


conservativehome--2020-04-15--Luke Evans: What I learnt from my own experience in intensive care with pneumonia about goals and se

Luke Evans: What I learnt from my own experience in intensive care with pneumonia about goals and setbacks

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee , and is MP for Bosworth .
I ’ m sure that most of us who watched the Prime Minister ’ s Easter message , recorded shortly after his release from St Thomas ’ hospital , had a tear in their eye , or at least a lump in their throat , at the remarkable fortitude of a man who days earlier had his life hanging in the balance as a direct result of this awful disease which weighs heavy on all of our shoulders .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s journey , as it cuts closer to home then you might first imagine .
Like most medics , I have experienced ITU from a professional perspective , both as a medical student but also a junior doctor on the wards .
But just over ten years ago , when I was a junior doctor , I had my own turn on the patient side ; it ’ s not something that I will ever forget .
I had been experiencing atypical symptoms of appendicitis when , in the early hours of Sunday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in pain .
Just a few hours later , I was undergoing an emergency appendicectomy , which led to an unusual but serious complication .
Low oxygen saturations and struggling for air led me to a stay on the intensive care unit .
I learnt what it is like to gasp for breath .
I had developed bilateral pneumonia , the after-effects of which have to be managed to this day .
A few days later , I developed another complication due to the antibiotic treatment I was on : pseudomembranous colitis – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scans and further medical treatment .
In some ways , my time as a patient in ITU was as formative to my approach to medicine as my medical training was , and was one of the factors in embarking on a political career .
The ebb and flow of improving and worsening , hidden complications and difficulties can make you short-sighted if you let them .
I left hospital to a long recuperation knowing that , whilst I had to focus on the small steps of returning to daily life , I also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture too ; an achievement or knockback in my daily goals didn ’ t alter the greater aim of where I wanted to be after a full recovery .
It strikes me that dual approach of daily targets and overall goals is apposite to where we are on Coronavirus too .
I know that it has been said so often before that it has become cliché , but this pandemic is unprecedented in modern times .
The Government ’ s response has had to be far-reaching and has been based on just two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives as we possibly can , and to do so whilst not permanently damaging the economy that every one of us , and every one of our public services , ultimately rely upon .
Of course there are hundreds if not thousands of work strands which go into achieving those two aims – the equivalent of my own and I suppose the Prime Minister ’ s daily goals .
Some of those strands will be enacted seamlessly whilst others will hit difficulties .
In Bosworth , I have been contacted over the past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ domiciliary care company both running low on personal protective equipment ( PPE ) .
Interventions on behalf of my constituents revealed that whilst sufficient PPE was held in stock locally there had been difficulties , in those two cases , of getting it out to where it was needed : in both cases the issue was resolved , but for a while things were concerning .
In an ideal world , that casework shouldn ’ t have been needed , but we ’ re living far from an ideal world right now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s very easy to lose sight of the issue in the round , the overall goal .
Early research from SAGE / Imperial College London suggested that if no mitigation measures were put in place Coronavirus could cost more than 500,000 lives here in the UK by August .
Whilst every life lost is a tragedy , returning to that bigger picture , it is astonishing that we are now potentially looking at somewhere around 20,000 additional deaths .
Of course we won ’ t know what the final picture looks like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in health is a dangerous game .
At this point of the pandemic , because of a whole host of mitigating factors , it is impossible to identify which countries are doing particularly well or poorly based on number of deaths alone .
I am all too aware of the downturn in presentations of non-COVID medical issues ; the likely jump in advanced cancer presentations ; the pending economic hardship that will see jumps in suicide ; and failing businesses if we judge by the precedent of the 2008 crash .
The struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manufacturing , restaurants and the travel industry will be great , there will no doubt come a time when the media pick all of these as single issue points .
However , a holistic view is imperative .
The latest opinion poll puts the Conservatives at a record high of 55 per cent .
Whilst opinion polling should be taken with a pinch of salt right now I have faith that the British public are focused on that bigger picture too ; that is what is driving reported levels of understanding and appreciation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s right that both politicians and journalists hold the government to account ; but I have a feeling when all of this is over , just like a patient being released from ITU , it will be those overall goals which mean much more to all of us .

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee, and is MP for Bosworth.
I’m sure that most of us who watched the Prime Minister’s Easter message, recorded shortly after his release from St Thomas’ hospital, had a tear in their eye, or at least a lump in their throat, at the remarkable fortitude of a man who days earlier had his life hanging in the balance as a direct result of this awful disease which weighs heavy on all of our shoulders.
I’m not alone in admiring the boss’s journey, as it cuts closer to home then you might first imagine.
Like most medics, I have experienced ITU from a professional perspective, both as a medical student but also a junior doctor on the wards. But just over ten years ago, when I was a junior doctor, I had my own turn on the patient side; it’s not something that I will ever forget.
I had been experiencing atypical symptoms of appendicitis when, in the early hours of Sunday morning, I was admitted to hospital in pain. Just a few hours later, I was undergoing an emergency appendicectomy, which led to an unusual but serious complication. Low oxygen saturations and struggling for air led me to a stay on the intensive care unit.
I learnt what it is like to gasp for breath.
I had developed bilateral pneumonia, the after-effects of which have to be managed to this day. A few days later, I developed another complication due to the antibiotic treatment I was on: pseudomembranous colitis – in short bowel inflammation needing contrast CT scans and further medical treatment.
In some ways, my time as a patient in ITU was as formative to my approach to medicine as my medical training was, and was one of the factors in embarking on a political career. The ebb and flow of improving and worsening, hidden complications and difficulties can make you short-sighted if you let them.
I left hospital to a long recuperation knowing that, whilst I had to focus on the small steps of returning to daily life, I also had to look to the much bigger picture too; an achievement or knockback in my daily goals didn’t alter the greater aim of where I wanted to be after a full recovery.
It strikes me that dual approach of daily targets and overall goals is apposite to where we are on Coronavirus too.
I know that it has been said so often before that it has become cliché, but this pandemic is unprecedented in modern times. The Government’s response has had to be far-reaching and has been based on just two central goals: to save as many lives as we possibly can, and to do so whilst not permanently damaging the economy that every one of us, and every one of our public services, ultimately rely upon.
Of course there are hundreds if not thousands of work strands which go into achieving those two aims – the equivalent of my own and I suppose the Prime Minister’s daily goals. Some of those strands will be enacted seamlessly whilst others will hit difficulties.
In Bosworth, I have been contacted over the past two weeks by a general practice and domiciliary care company both running low on personal protective equipment (PPE). Interventions on behalf of my constituents revealed that whilst sufficient PPE was held in stock locally there had been difficulties, in those two cases, of getting it out to where it was needed: in both cases the issue was resolved, but for a while things were concerning.
In an ideal world, that casework shouldn’t have been needed, but we’re living far from an ideal world right now, and in focusing on those minutiae it’s very easy to lose sight of the issue in the round, the overall goal.
Early research from SAGE / Imperial College London suggested that if no mitigation measures were put in place Coronavirus could cost more than 500,000 lives here in the UK by August. Whilst every life lost is a tragedy, returning to that bigger picture, it is astonishing that we are now potentially looking at somewhere around 20,000 additional deaths. Of course we won’t know what the final picture looks like for some time and making concrete predictions in health is a dangerous game.
At this point of the pandemic, because of a whole host of mitigating factors, it is impossible to identify which countries are doing particularly well or poorly based on number of deaths alone. I am all too aware of the downturn in presentations of non-COVID medical issues; the likely jump in advanced cancer presentations; the pending economic hardship that will see jumps in suicide; and failing businesses if we judge by the precedent of the 2008 crash.
The struggle to preserve sectors of the economy like manufacturing, restaurants and the travel industry will be great, there will no doubt come a time when the media pick all of these as single issue points. However, a holistic view is imperative.
The latest opinion poll puts the Conservatives at a record high of 55 per cent. Whilst opinion polling should be taken with a pinch of salt right now I have faith that the British public are focused on that bigger picture too; that is what is driving reported levels of understanding and appreciation, if not necessarily popularity.
It’s right that both politicians and journalists hold the government to account; but I have a feeling when all of this is over, just like a patient being released from ITU, it will be those overall goals which mean much more to all of us.


conservativehome--2020-04-15--Ryan Bourne: What is the Government using the shutdown for?

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute .
Covid-19 is producing an economic bloodbath across developed economies .
OECD sectoral analysis suggests lockdowns will see day-to-day activity fall 25-30 per cent across countries for their duration ; the Office for Budget Responsibility reckons 35 per cent in the UK .
Even if this lasted for just three quarters , with immediate rapid bounce-back , GDP would be 10 per cent lower over the year – a much greater downturn than after the Great Recession .
You don ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and locking people at home reduces activity .
U.S. data shows 16.6 million Americans – over a tenth of its labour force – filed for unemployment insurance in the past three weeks .
Universal Credit here in Britain has seen 1.2 million extra claims since March 16 .
That ’ s after unprecedented actions , remember , to discourage layoffs .
The OBR assumes a strong recovery and no permanent economic damage , but the longer this goes on , the more businesses fail and employment relationships get destroyed .
After some duration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to economic adaptation .
No wonder , per Fraser Nelson , Boris Johnson wonders about the wisdom of restrictions .
Truly dreadful GDP and unemployment figures are incoming .
But Johnson must remember this : the economy would still be cratering even without lockdown , because of changes to behaviour and collapsing supply chains .
Swedish unemployment is rising faster than after 2008 , even with laxer social distancing measures .
South Korea , with its test-and-track approach , has seen growth give way to recession .
Consumers and producers will avoid getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and risky production even absent government orders .
This effect probably accounts for 50 per cent of the downturn .
We tend to attribute all outcomes to politicians , but you could re-open every cinema across the country tomorrow and barely anyone would go .
So false dichotomy # 1 is that the economic alternative to lockdowns is normality .
In reality , the economy will only fully “ normalise ” once the virus threat is vanquished .
That means a credible vaccine , effective treatment or relatively stable herd immunity ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , or else such an efficient test and contact tracing system that public confidence is restored .
Anything else is adaptation or destruction , with a cost .
We therefore need less talk of an “ exit strategy ” for lockdowns and more talk of an exit strategy from covid-19 ’ s stranglehold over our lives .
Here , though , the Government ’ s thinking is difficult to discern .
Can anyone explain its aim beyond “ protecting the NHS ” from this first peak of infections ?
Is it to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NHS capacity and then manage future caseloads until herd immunity is reached ?
Is it instead to use restrictive containment to minimise deaths until a vaccine is in sight ?
Is the Government waiting on an effective treatment to facilitate loosening restrictions ?
Or building up South Korea-style testing infrastructure ?
Last week , Dominic Raab alluded to a strategy for the next phase .
But he would not express it , lest he muddy the waters on “ stay at home ” messaging .
Yet , the population has been , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected so far .
It belittles us to be kept in the dark .
Absent a clearly articulated strategy , and business uncertainty will heighten , and severe non-compliance is risked if people start questioning why they are sacrificing their livelihoods and liberties .
Particularly once the army of the immune grows and other countries take different approaches .
The absence of discussion of our true options here is sadly leading to false dichotomy # 2 : that the alternative to lockdown is doing nothing and hundreds of thousands of people dying .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will “ work ” in lowering the virus ’ s transmission .
In the face of uncertainty , overwhelmed health systems , and lack of infrastructure for other approaches , they are a precautionary nuclear option .
But they aren ’ t an end game for the virus .
They buy time to better manage cases or work towards a vaccine .
Yet they are a destructive , unsustainable stop-gap restricting much high-risk and low-risk economic activity alike .
So grave are they in disrupting our lives and freedoms , we must first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than they need to be and , second , that the time bought by them is used wisely , with a meaningful new policy once new cases are back at low numbers .
“ Reviews ” of lockdowns should therefore be meaningful .
Worldwide , businesses are adopting strict social distancing safety protocols , such as screens , regular disinfecting , mandatory mask wearing , one-way systems , single entrances , and adjusted business hours .
Capitalism finds ways of giving consumers and workers confidence to re-engage .
As these develop , business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Is the Government considering this ?
Life-sapping restrictions on outdoors activities likewise look disproportionate , given other steps that could be taken to lower risks .
Making sure any lockdown only disrupts what it has to should be the bare minimum we expect from governments .
But ultimately the next stage requires confronting the messy trade-offs that come on the path to the end of the pandemic , best analysed using an all-encompassing economic cost-benefit analysis .
For keeping aggressive restrictions until a vaccine turns up is a non-starter – it guarantees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unrest ( especially if a vaccine proves elusive ) .
Now is the time to earn public buy-in for balancing health and economic wellbeing going forwards , recognising the trade-offs inherent in any other path .
Allowing younger age groups back out brings significant risks for multi-generation households , for example , while industry-by-industry relaxations bring charges of favouritism .
Immunity passports – allowing those who have recovered to live normal lives – brings risks of false positives if introduced too early , while also creating incentives for some to catch the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ –giving “ safe ” doses in controlled medical environments – requires using scarce healthcare workers for deliberate infections .
Relaxing to social distancing measures after the peak , a la Sweden , but perhaps with at-risk groups isolated , sounds more feasible , but that would bring political accusations of “ putting the economy over lives ” given an inevitable higher death toll than suppression .
Testing-and-contact tracing as mitigation “ works ” elsewhere .
But it has monumental civil liberties implications , particularly if it incorporates forced quarantine .
Then there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovation – vaccines and effective treatments .
These , surely , have to be an addition to a strategy and not its extent .
The lockdown bought time to weigh up these options , or some combination , considering the constraints of public opinion and technology .
They are all imperfect , given this truly dreadful situation with no “ good ” outcomes .
But the government must soon show its hand .
The alternative , let ’ s not forget , is a deeply destructive , authoritarian , largely un-policeable lockdown .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an inane debate that implies the only meaningful choice is between mass deaths or economic destruction .

Ryan Bourne holds the R Evan Scharf Chair in Public Understanding of Economics at the Cato Institute.
Covid-19 is producing an economic bloodbath across developed economies. OECD sectoral analysis suggests lockdowns will see day-to-day activity fall 25-30 per cent across countries for their duration; the Office for Budget Responsibility reckons 35 per cent in the UK. Even if this lasted for just three quarters, with immediate rapid bounce-back, GDP would be 10 per cent lower over the year – a much greater downturn than after the Great Recession.
You don’t need economic expertise to realise that closing businesses and locking people at home reduces activity. U.S. data shows 16.6 million Americans – over a tenth of its labour force – filed for unemployment insurance in the past three weeks.
Universal Credit here in Britain has seen 1.2 million extra claims since March 16. That’s after unprecedented actions, remember, to discourage layoffs. The OBR assumes a strong recovery and no permanent economic damage, but the longer this goes on, the more businesses fail and employment relationships get destroyed. After some duration, mothballing activity becomes more damaging relative to economic adaptation. No wonder, per Fraser Nelson, Boris Johnson wonders about the wisdom of restrictions.
Truly dreadful GDP and unemployment figures are incoming. But Johnson must remember this: the economy would still be cratering even without lockdown, because of changes to behaviour and collapsing supply chains.
Swedish unemployment is rising faster than after 2008, even with laxer social distancing measures. South Korea, with its test-and-track approach, has seen growth give way to recession. Consumers and producers will avoid getting sick by forgoing much “social spending” and risky production even absent government orders.
This effect probably accounts for 50 per cent of the downturn. We tend to attribute all outcomes to politicians, but you could re-open every cinema across the country tomorrow and barely anyone would go. So false dichotomy #1 is that the economic alternative to lockdowns is normality.
In reality, the economy will only fully “normalise” once the virus threat is vanquished. That means a credible vaccine, effective treatment or relatively stable herd immunity (it is unclear how long immunity lasts), or else such an efficient test and contact tracing system that public confidence is restored. Anything else is adaptation or destruction, with a cost. We therefore need less talk of an “exit strategy” for lockdowns and more talk of an exit strategy from covid-19’s stranglehold over our lives.
Here, though, the Government’s thinking is difficult to discern. Can anyone explain its aim beyond “protecting the NHS” from this first peak of infections? Is it to use the lockdown time to build extra NHS capacity and then manage future caseloads until herd immunity is reached? Is it instead to use restrictive containment to minimise deaths until a vaccine is in sight? Is the Government waiting on an effective treatment to facilitate loosening restrictions? Or building up South Korea-style testing infrastructure?
Last week, Dominic Raab alluded to a strategy for the next phase. But he would not express it, lest he muddy the waters on “stay at home” messaging. Yet, the population has been, if anything, more compliant with orders than expected so far. It belittles us to be kept in the dark. Absent a clearly articulated strategy, and business uncertainty will heighten, and severe non-compliance is risked if people start questioning why they are sacrificing their livelihoods and liberties. Particularly once the army of the immune grows and other countries take different approaches.
The absence of discussion of our true options here is sadly leading to false dichotomy #2: that the alternative to lockdown is doing nothing and hundreds of thousands of people dying.
Let’s be clear: lockdowns will “work” in lowering the virus’s transmission. In the face of uncertainty, overwhelmed health systems, and lack of infrastructure for other approaches, they are a precautionary nuclear option. But they aren’t an end game for the virus. They buy time to better manage cases or work towards a vaccine.
Yet they are a destructive, unsustainable stop-gap restricting much high-risk and low-risk economic activity alike. So grave are they in disrupting our lives and freedoms, we must first demand that they are not more draconian than they need to be and, second, that the time bought by them is used wisely, with a meaningful new policy once new cases are back at low numbers.
“Reviews” of lockdowns should therefore be meaningful. Worldwide, businesses are adopting strict social distancing safety protocols, such as screens, regular disinfecting, mandatory mask wearing, one-way systems, single entrances, and adjusted business hours. Capitalism finds ways of giving consumers and workers confidence to re-engage. As these develop, business shutdowns, logically, should be eased. Is the Government considering this? Life-sapping restrictions on outdoors activities likewise look disproportionate, given other steps that could be taken to lower risks.
Making sure any lockdown only disrupts what it has to should be the bare minimum we expect from governments. But ultimately the next stage requires confronting the messy trade-offs that come on the path to the end of the pandemic, best analysed using an all-encompassing economic cost-benefit analysis.
For keeping aggressive restrictions until a vaccine turns up is a non-starter – it guarantees an economic depression that would create civil unrest (especially if a vaccine proves elusive). Now is the time to earn public buy-in for balancing health and economic wellbeing going forwards, recognising the trade-offs inherent in any other path.
Allowing younger age groups back out brings significant risks for multi-generation households, for example, while industry-by-industry relaxations bring charges of favouritism. Immunity passports – allowing those who have recovered to live normal lives – brings risks of false positives if introduced too early, while also creating incentives for some to catch the virus to “win their freedom.”
Variolation –giving “safe” doses in controlled medical environments – requires using scarce healthcare workers for deliberate infections. Relaxing to social distancing measures after the peak, a la Sweden, but perhaps with at-risk groups isolated, sounds more feasible, but that would bring political accusations of “putting the economy over lives” given an inevitable higher death toll than suppression.
Testing-and-contact tracing as mitigation “works” elsewhere. But it has monumental civil liberties implications, particularly if it incorporates forced quarantine. Then there’s trying to end this through medical innovation – vaccines and effective treatments. These, surely, have to be an addition to a strategy and not its extent.
The lockdown bought time to weigh up these options, or some combination, considering the constraints of public opinion and technology. They are all imperfect, given this truly dreadful situation with no “good” outcomes. But the government must soon show its hand. The alternative, let’s not forget, is a deeply destructive, authoritarian, largely un-policeable lockdown. The vacuum of audible strategy is creating an inane debate that implies the only meaningful choice is between mass deaths or economic destruction.


conservativehome--2020-04-15--Daniel Hannan: The abuse, outrage and viciousness is hurled overwhelmingly at those of us who back e

Daniel Hannan: The abuse, outrage and viciousness is hurled overwhelmingly at those of us who back ending the lockdown

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist .
He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020 , and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade .
You ’ d think that the Covid-19 outbreak would place us all on the same side .
We all want to minimise fatalities .
We all want as little suffering as possible in terms of job losses , preventable poverty and , indeed , collateral deaths caused by the diversion of resources .
We all have vulnerable relatives and friends .
There are , in short , no sectional interests , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree about ways and means , you ’ d expect the nation to be wrapped in a rare feeling of solidarity .
You ’ d be wrong .
The country remains as tribal and splenetic as ever .
Conspiracy theories circulate about the prime minister having faked his illness or deliberately contracted the coronavirus .
Matt Hancock is preposterously accused of insulting the NHS workers whose praises he sings every day .
Newspapers pretend to be scandalised because Robert Jenrick drove medical supplies to his self-isolating parents .
We might dismiss all this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – and , to some extent , it is .
A lot of the criticism follows familiar patterns : Left versus Right , Remain versus Leave .
Most of the vitriol aimed at the Government , for example , comes from people who already hated the Tories .
Even so , there is a palpable asymmetry .
The viciousness is directed overwhelmingly at those who want to relax the shutdown , not at those who want to extend it .
Some of this has to do with existing prejudices .
It so happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less restrictive regime were already loathed by the Left : Peter Hitchens , James Delingpole , Toby Young , Fraser Nelson .
But that alone doesn ’ t explain it .
The European country that is implementing policies closest to those advocated by these columnists is Social Democratic Sweden , which believes that it is sticking to the letter of its medical advice while others have gone further for reasons that have more to do with public opinion than science .
Sweden might turn out , when all this is over , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far , though , it shows no sign of rushing to copy its neighbours .
On the contrary , the neighbours are starting to copy Sweden .
Schools are reopening in Denmark and parts of Germany , as are shops in Austria and the Czech Republic .
Even Spain and Italy have relaxed their rules .
It may soon be Britain , rather than Sweden , that is the outlier .
The diversity of national approaches should allow us to study what works .
Instead , many commentators seem affronted that Sweden should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its epidemiologists – or , as the Washington Post put it “ to experiment with national chauvinism ” .
The insults hurled at Sweden are as nothing next to those aimed at its British admirers .
Question whether we are getting the balance right and you will be called at best callous and at worst a eugenicist .
Toby Young has been driven to set up a kind of samizdat website for anyone who thinks we might be overreacting .
To point out that trade-offs need to be made should be to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like this , every option carries costs .
Do nothing and people who would otherwise have lived will die for want of treatment .
Close everything and we would all starve .
The challenge is to find the optimum point on the spectrum between those extremes , the point at which the most bearable restrictions yield the greatest gains .
Almost everyone can see that we need to keep chemists open , and almost everyone can see that this doesn ’ t apply to ( say ) nightclubs .
But what about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other shops , as they are starting to do across Europe , provided they can limit the number of customers inside ?
If shops , what about hairdressers ?
Or restaurants ?
Or schools ?
These questions are not just legitimate ; they are urgent .
The forecast published yesterday by the OBR is of a depression beyond anything we have experienced : a 35 per cent drop in GDP this quarter and a two million rise in unemployment .
This would , as Kate Andrews points out , be “ worse than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Think about what those figures mean for people ’ s health and happiness .
Think about the impact they are already having – not yet on journalists and commentators , though that will come , but on the cash-in-hand economy .
Or if you really are determined to tell yourself that there are some Tories who care only about “ the economy ” as an abstract noun , rather than as a measure of people ’ s welfare , consider reports that NHS leaders are worried that “ we could end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ because of fatalities relating to non-Covid-19 health complications.
” Simply to write in these terms is to invite derision .
A common threat , especially in the form of a pathogen , flicks switches in our brains , making us less tolerant of dissent .
Proponents of a harsher crackdown , in such a situation , have a psychological advantage .
If this were true only of the media debate , it wouldn ’ t much matter .
Hitchens and Delingpole can look after themselves .
But if you think that governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by public opinion , you haven ’ t been watching .
We all have cognitive biases .
I certainly do .
I was initially too blasé about this bug , having seen the same pattern of alarmism with bird flu , swine flu and others .
Even now , I find myself reading cheerful news ( for example , studies suggesting that quite a few of us may already have had the virus with mild or zero symptoms ) more readily than gloomy news ( for example , suggestions that recovering from Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes have to make myself read the surveys that challenge my prejudices .
I am subject to these biases , and so is everyone else .
In government , the biases pull overwhelmingly toward harsher restrictions .
Ministers know that they will never be criticised for playing it too safe .
They know that the polls show huge support for restrictions .
They know that people are more concerned about a present threat than about future economic hardships , however terrible .
That is not to say that Ministers are wrong to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ front of them than I have .
We should simply be aware of the pressures on them .
If there are good reasons to delay easing the restrictions , there are also bad ones , such as “ The public won ’ t wear it ” , or “ We can ’ t decide this until the Prime Minister is back ” or “ Let ’ s wait a little longer just to be sure ” .
Recall why the shutdown was decreed in the first place .
It wasn ’ t to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do that in the absence of a vaccine .
Rather , it was to buy time to build NHS capacity .
We wanted to be sure that our hospitals would not be overwhelmed , as had tragically happened in parts of Italy .
Yet the talk now – not only from commentators , but from ministers – is about “ turning the corner ” or “ winning the battle ” .
The first objective is laudable : no one objects to the idea of paying to ensure that we have enough ventilators and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible , because the disease has no cure .
The only test that counts is whether we can be confident that the peak of the infection will not overwhelm our system – in other words , that people will not die for want of medical attention .
Ministers now suggest that they are indeed confident about it .
If so , a phased easing of the restrictions should start right away .

Daniel Hannan is a writer and columnist. He was a Conservative MEP from 1999 to 2020, and is now President of the Initiative for Free Trade.
You’d think that the Covid-19 outbreak would place us all on the same side. We all want to minimise fatalities. We all want as little suffering as possible in terms of job losses, preventable poverty and, indeed, collateral deaths caused by the diversion of resources. We all have vulnerable relatives and friends.
There are, in short, no sectional interests, no divergent goals. Though people may disagree about ways and means, you’d expect the nation to be wrapped in a rare feeling of solidarity.
You’d be wrong. The country remains as tribal and splenetic as ever. Conspiracy theories circulate about the prime minister having faked his illness or deliberately contracted the coronavirus. Matt Hancock is preposterously accused of insulting the NHS workers whose praises he sings every day. Newspapers pretend to be scandalised because Robert Jenrick drove medical supplies to his self-isolating parents.
We might dismiss all this as unrepresentative noise from the permanently outraged – and, to some extent, it is. A lot of the criticism follows familiar patterns: Left versus Right, Remain versus Leave. Most of the vitriol aimed at the Government, for example, comes from people who already hated the Tories.
Even so, there is a palpable asymmetry. The viciousness is directed overwhelmingly at those who want to relax the shutdown, not at those who want to extend it. Some of this has to do with existing prejudices. It so happens that many of the advocates of a less restrictive regime were already loathed by the Left: Peter Hitchens, James Delingpole, Toby Young, Fraser Nelson.
But that alone doesn’t explain it. The European country that is implementing policies closest to those advocated by these columnists is Social Democratic Sweden, which believes that it is sticking to the letter of its medical advice while others have gone further for reasons that have more to do with public opinion than science.
Sweden might turn out, when all this is over, to have made the wrong call. So far, though, it shows no sign of rushing to copy its neighbours. On the contrary, the neighbours are starting to copy Sweden. Schools are reopening in Denmark and parts of Germany, as are shops in Austria and the Czech Republic. Even Spain and Italy have relaxed their rules. It may soon be Britain, rather than Sweden, that is the outlier.
The diversity of national approaches should allow us to study what works. Instead, many commentators seem affronted that Sweden should have chosen to stick to the advice of its epidemiologists – or, as the Washington Post put it “to experiment with national chauvinism”.
The insults hurled at Sweden are as nothing next to those aimed at its British admirers. Question whether we are getting the balance right and you will be called at best callous and at worst a eugenicist. Toby Young has been driven to set up a kind of samizdat website for anyone who thinks we might be overreacting.
To point out that trade-offs need to be made should be to state the obvious. In a situation like this, every option carries costs. Do nothing and people who would otherwise have lived will die for want of treatment. Close everything and we would all starve.
The challenge is to find the optimum point on the spectrum between those extremes, the point at which the most bearable restrictions yield the greatest gains. Almost everyone can see that we need to keep chemists open, and almost everyone can see that this doesn’t apply to (say) nightclubs. But what about the large intermediate space? Might we reopen other shops, as they are starting to do across Europe, provided they can limit the number of customers inside? If shops, what about hairdressers? Or restaurants? Or schools?
These questions are not just legitimate; they are urgent. The forecast published yesterday by the OBR is of a depression beyond anything we have experienced: a 35 per cent drop in GDP this quarter and a two million rise in unemployment. This would, as Kate Andrews points out, be “worse than the financial crash and both world wars”.
Think about what those figures mean for people’s health and happiness. Think about the impact they are already having – not yet on journalists and commentators, though that will come, but on the cash-in-hand economy. Or if you really are determined to tell yourself that there are some Tories who care only about “the economy” as an abstract noun, rather than as a measure of people’s welfare, consider reports that NHS leaders are worried that “we could end up losing more ‘years of life’ because of fatalities relating to non-Covid-19 health complications.”
Simply to write in these terms is to invite derision. A common threat, especially in the form of a pathogen, flicks switches in our brains, making us less tolerant of dissent. Proponents of a harsher crackdown, in such a situation, have a psychological advantage.
If this were true only of the media debate, it wouldn’t much matter. Hitchens and Delingpole can look after themselves. But if you think that governments – even scientific advisers – are unaffected by public opinion, you haven’t been watching.
We all have cognitive biases. I certainly do. I was initially too blasé about this bug, having seen the same pattern of alarmism with bird flu, swine flu and others. Even now, I find myself reading cheerful news (for example, studies suggesting that quite a few of us may already have had the virus with mild or zero symptoms) more readily than gloomy news (for example, suggestions that recovering from Covid-19 does not guarantee immunity). I sometimes have to make myself read the surveys that challenge my prejudices.
I am subject to these biases, and so is everyone else. In government, the biases pull overwhelmingly toward harsher restrictions. Ministers know that they will never be criticised for playing it too safe. They know that the polls show huge support for restrictions. They know that people are more concerned about a present threat than about future economic hardships, however terrible.
That is not to say that Ministers are wrong to be cautious. They have more information in front of them than I have. We should simply be aware of the pressures on them. If there are good reasons to delay easing the restrictions, there are also bad ones, such as “The public won’t wear it”, or “We can’t decide this until the Prime Minister is back” or “Let’s wait a little longer just to be sure”.
Recall why the shutdown was decreed in the first place. It wasn’t to defeat the disease; no one can do that in the absence of a vaccine. Rather, it was to buy time to build NHS capacity. We wanted to be sure that our hospitals would not be overwhelmed, as had tragically happened in parts of Italy. Yet the talk now – not only from commentators, but from ministers – is about “turning the corner” or “winning the battle”.
The first objective is laudable: no one objects to the idea of paying to ensure that we have enough ventilators and critical beds. The second objective is impossible, because the disease has no cure.
The only test that counts is whether we can be confident that the peak of the infection will not overwhelm our system – in other words, that people will not die for want of medical attention. Ministers now suggest that they are indeed confident about it. If so, a phased easing of the restrictions should start right away.