conservativehome--2020-05-06--Benjamin Barnard: The policy implications of the Government’s controversial track and trace app

Benjamin Barnard is Head of Technology at Policy Exchange .
Digital contact tracing looks set to dominate the political agenda for the coming weeks , if not months .
Without a vaccine , and in the absence of widespread population immunity , the only methods to stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are those of standard epidemic control such as case isolation , physical distancing , contact tracing and increasing hygiene measures .
The Department of Health and Social Care is still designing and establishing its “ Test , Track and Trace ” service .
Nevertheless , it is clear that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed by NHSX ( the digital innovation unit of the National Health Service ) and tested on the Isle of Wight will be an important complementary tool to those ‘ standard ’ measures .
It is essential that the Government doesn ’ t just build public trust in NHSX ’ s creation , but that it also develops a set of supporting policies that incentivise its uptake .
This is because there is a linear correlation between the number of people who download ( and use ) contact tracing apps and their effectiveness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The way in which Government policies are communicated is just as important a determinant of their success as the policies themselves .
Although this maxim can be applied ( to varying degrees ) to every Government announcement , it applies particularly to Government interventions to stop the spread of COVID-19 .
If contact tracing apps are going to be used properly , it is vital that these dilemmas are understood and that false claims about the Government ’ s contact tracing app do not undermine its adoption .
Without support from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will struggle to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 .
As SARS-CoV-2 spread out of China , countries around the world put teams of contact tracers on high alert .
All of those countries now have epidemics and find themselves in lockdown .
This is not a failure in Government policy but a reflection of the progression and epidemiology of the virus itself .
Almost half of infections ( 46 per cent ) are transmitted by people who are not yet showing any symptoms and the serial interval of infection for COVID-19 is estimated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you can pass it on to many before you notice that you have symptoms .
For contact tracing to be worthwhile , it has to keep up with the transmission of the virus and operate at a speed , scale and accuracy that is not possible without the support of a digital app .
Unless individuals who have been in contact with somebody experiencing coronavirus symptoms are alerted immediately ( allowing them to adopt enhanced social distancing measures to prevent further transmission to others ) then it will be almost impossible to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to quell the transmission of the virus .
The NHX app will use Bluetooth Low Energy to log the distance between app users and their nearby contacts .
In layman ’ s terms , this means that phones that have downloaded the app will regularly broadcast anonymous user IDs via Bluetooth .
Other phones operating the apps will record identifiers they receive from other phones in close physical proximity , creating a log of anonymous IDs stored securely on their phones .
Crucially , phones will regularly change the identifier that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible to correlate identifiers across long periods of time and track people .
If you become unwell , you can notify the NHS triggering an anonymous alert to the users that you had encountered .
This alert will also provide them with practical advice about how to prevent further transmission of coronavirus and medical advice if they start themselves to display symptoms .
This will complement Public Health England ’ s traditional contact tracing operation by expediting the process by which contacts are identified ( negating the need for lengthy interview procedures ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more accurate by finding close contacts that are unknown or forgotten by patients ( such as strangers encountered on public transport ) .
It is important to remember that no contact tracing regime , no matter how advanced the technology supporting it , can be fully effective .
At the most basic level , not everybody has a smartphone .
Those who do must remember to keep their phone fully charged and with them at all times .
Indeed , designing a contact tracing app that doesn ’ t deplete phone batteries is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is important to ensure that misplaced public confidence in the application being developed by NHSX does not undermine other public health interventions , such as increased personal hygiene or sensible physical distancing from the elderly and those who are more vulnerable to the virus .
Moreover , Bluetooth Low Energy can only provide a proximity measure of those you have come into contact with .
It is vital to note that this proximity measure does not equate to the significant risk of infection : the NHSX contact tracing app wouldn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were wearing PPE when you came into contact with an infected individual or if you were separated by a physical barrier like a window .
If the app is to have widespread use , people have to trust that downloading a contact tracing app won ’ t undermine their privacy and civil liberties .
Only an estimated 17 per cent of Singapore ’ s population has downloaded the contact tracing app available to them and it is not unreasonable to think , given prevailing cultural attitudes , that the UK population is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are perceived to pose a risk to their civil liberties .
This consideration is particularly important not least because the Coronavirus Bill gives the police power to detain people if they have “ reasonable grounds to suspect … a person is infectious.
” Public perceptions of how well NHSX ’ s app protects user privacy will directly determine the number of people who download it , in turn , determining the app ’ s efficacy as a tool to suppress the resurgence of Coronavirus once lockdown ends .
In recognition of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethics advisory board to oversee the development of the app , which will be led by Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery .
This will assuage some public concerns .
Some commentators have already called for further independent , oversight of the contact tracing app .
Although expert contributions should always be welcomed , Ministers are responsible for their decisions and accountable to Parliament for them .
The system architecture , use and promotion of NHSX ’ s contact tracing app is no exception to this ; any oversight mechanisms that are adopted should not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing app .
To protect the privacy of its users , any contact tracing app should ensure that active consent is required for all actions that involve personal data and it should not be possible for those receiving alerts to determine from the app which of their contacts are displaying virus symptoms .
The exact design of the NHSX contact tracing app is only beginning to emerge .
Nonetheless , it is clear that NHSX intend to limit the amount of personal data that the app collects .
When users register , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their postcode .
This will give the Government ’ s epidemiological modelers a vague idea of where we are located .
Nevertheless , since it is only designed to generate a log of contact proximity events , the app will not collect real-time location data .
NHSX have also confirmed that each record will be deleted after 28 days and that elliptic curve cryptography ( ECC ) will be used to ensure that the random identifiers that are broadcast can not be traced back ( by anybody except the health service ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ users are given when they download the App .
According to NHSX , this will ensure that users of the app won ’ t need to hand over any personal data unless or until they want to be tested or to receive medical treatment .
To support transparency and in line with the Government Service Standard , NHSX should release the source codes ( each time they are updated ) not just for the app but also for the tools that are used to support it .
Moreover , any app that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tracing apps being developed by other countries .
As Policy Exchange argued in Exiting Lockdown , the Government should ensure that there are sufficient legal safeguards to determine how the app collects data and to prevent its misuse or repurposing .
This will be vital to preventing ‘ mission creep ’ from the Government .
Apple and Google have already announced that they plan to build contact tracing capabilities into the operating systems of their smartphones , thereby defining the technical details for generating , broadcasting , recording , and revealing identifiers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a row has already developed over reports that the NHSX app is not compatible with the application programming interface ( API ) that Apple and Google have developed to allow third party apps to use these tracing capabilities .
That NHSX have designed a contact tracing app that can run in the background using only publicly available APIs and protocols is a genuine technological achievement , but does it undermine user privacy ?
This debate hinges on whether a decentralised or a centralised approach to contact tracing is more desirable .
Apple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that contact tracing is conducted in a decentralised way .
This means that , when diagnosed with coronavirus , your contact log can not be uploaded to a central server .
Instead , the matching process is completed on phones themselves .
This would prevent any possibility of ‘ mission creep ’ by Governments .
Nonetheless , it would leave public health authorities with little knowledge of who is ill or how the disease is progressing since they would be unable to build up any kind of anonymous contact graph .
In contrast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to examine the contact logs of those who have been diagnosed and to determine which contacts are most at risk before they are alerted .
Their risk modelling algorithms will be essential in preventing people from receiving false alerts .
Although NHSX ’ s approach involves a degree of centralisation , it is important to remember that the identifiers uploaded to the server will remain anonymous .
This anonymous information is apparently vital for Government epidemiologists seeking to determine the success of public health interventions and ensuring that the NHS is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contact tracing apps are only necessary because the epidemiology of the virus renders manual contact tracing insufficient , so too must the epidemiology of the virus determine the system architecture and back-end design of the App .
Furthermore , it is important to remember that whenever we use apps , we send information about how we use it to developers , to allow them to improve their product .
Unless contact tracing apps are used properly , they won ’ t be effective .
This means that it is not only desirable but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data about its use so that its design and performance can be improved .
The better the app is , the more lives it saves .
There is a further potential barrier to the adoption of NHSX ’ s app : self-diagnosis .
In his appearance before the Science and Technology Select Committee , NHSX CEO Matthew Gould confirmed that the contact tracing app will include some form of self-diagnosis and this has now been confirmed by the team designing the App .
This is entirely sensible and is necessitated by the epidemiology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at which tests can feasibly be completed .
In the absence of reliable rapid diagnostic testing , can the Government afford to wait two to three days for a test before it starts tracing a patient ’ s contacts ?
Most COVID patients are diagnosed in hospital by their symptoms , without a test .
The shorter the delay , the more likely contact tracers are to prevent the further transmission of the virus .
Given the speed at which it spreads , presumptive diagnoses are clearly essential to preventing a resurgence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a danger , however , that self-diagnosis may lead to people falsely reporting symptoms and sending out unnecessary notifications to those that they have contacted .
The NHSX App will require users to answer questions about their symptoms before alerting their contacts , which may weed out some but certainly not all false diagnoses .
The app should clearly differentiate between notifications or alerts that have been triggered by self-diagnosis and alerts that are generated from contacts who have had a test to confirm that they have the virus .
If you receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your social distancing measures .
The latter and you should embrace total isolation .
Moreover , it is vital the Government makes it clear that some alerts may reverse if they later turn out to be based on a false diagnosis .
Nonetheless , self-diagnosis poses difficult policy dilemmas for the Government .
Most obviously , it will have to develop mechanisms to stop malicious users from seeking to cause disruption by going into crowded areas ( or , more to the point , hospitals ) and then diagnosing themselves with virus symptoms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk that people who can not work from home and who can not undertake social distancing measures at work won ’ t download the app if they feel that false self-diagnoses may impact their income .
The same dilemma applies to those who are self-employed .
If there is a choice between downloading an app and receiving an income , people will likely choose the latter .
This is why the Government must continue to support the self-employed and continue to allow businesses to use the Coronavirus Statutory Sick Pay Rebate Scheme .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ support for those who receive alerts warning them to adopt social distancing measures or to isolate completely , then how can they prevent malicious actors from abusing self-diagnosis for financial reward ?
This will be a crucial public policy dilemma for the coming months .
Not only will the economic cost of the virus be greater than the costs arising from the financial exploitation of the app ’ s alerts , but it is also important to remember that the Government ’ s furlough scheme and measures to support the self-employed during the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ desire to stimulate the economy to prevent a depression .
These schemes also remove the incentive for people to go to work , thereby creating an economic incentive to comply with social distancing measures .
Such schemes are themselves a form of public health intervention and may have to be continued in the future .
There are no easy answers to these questions .
Leaving lockdown is one of the most complex tasks that a Government will ever undertake .
The success of NHSX ’ s contact tracing app is dependent upon public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which complex technological and epidemiological dilemmas are discussed by those with public profiles , either in the press , the think tank world or online , will determine how effectively the Government can prevent the resurgence of the virus and save lives .

Benjamin Barnard is Head of Technology at Policy Exchange.
Digital contact tracing looks set to dominate the political agenda for the coming weeks, if not months. Without a vaccine, and in the absence of widespread population immunity, the only methods to stop the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 are those of standard epidemic control such as case isolation, physical distancing, contact tracing and increasing hygiene measures.
The Department of Health and Social Care is still designing and establishing its “Test, Track and Trace” service. Nevertheless, it is clear that the digital contact tracing app currently being developed by NHSX (the digital innovation unit of the National Health Service) and tested on the Isle of Wight will be an important complementary tool to those ‘standard’ measures.
It is essential that the Government doesn’t just build public trust in NHSX’s creation, but that it also develops a set of supporting policies that incentivise its uptake. This is because there is a linear correlation between the number of people who download (and use) contact tracing apps and their effectiveness in combating the transmission of infectious viruses. The way in which Government policies are communicated is just as important a determinant of their success as the policies themselves.
Although this maxim can be applied (to varying degrees) to every Government announcement, it applies particularly to Government interventions to stop the spread of COVID-19. If contact tracing apps are going to be used properly, it is vital that these dilemmas are understood and that false claims about the Government’s contact tracing app do not undermine its adoption.
Without support from a digital app, any contact tracing effort will struggle to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19. As SARS-CoV-2 spread out of China, countries around the world put teams of contact tracers on high alert. All of those countries now have epidemics and find themselves in lockdown.
This is not a failure in Government policy but a reflection of the progression and epidemiology of the virus itself. Almost half of infections (46 per cent) are transmitted by people who are not yet showing any symptoms and the serial interval of infection for COVID-19 is estimated to be around six days, meaning that you can pass it on to many before you notice that you have symptoms.
For contact tracing to be worthwhile, it has to keep up with the transmission of the virus and operate at a speed, scale and accuracy that is not possible without the support of a digital app. Unless individuals who have been in contact with somebody experiencing coronavirus symptoms are alerted immediately (allowing them to adopt enhanced social distancing measures to prevent further transmission to others) then it will be almost impossible to prevent our health services from being overwhelmed and to quell the transmission of the virus.
The NHX app will use Bluetooth Low Energy to log the distance between app users and their nearby contacts. In layman’s terms, this means that phones that have downloaded the app will regularly broadcast anonymous user IDs via Bluetooth. Other phones operating the apps will record identifiers they receive from other phones in close physical proximity, creating a log of anonymous IDs stored securely on their phones.
Crucially, phones will regularly change the identifier that they broadcast so that it isn’t possible to correlate identifiers across long periods of time and track people. If you become unwell, you can notify the NHS triggering an anonymous alert to the users that you had encountered. This alert will also provide them with practical advice about how to prevent further transmission of coronavirus and medical advice if they start themselves to display symptoms.
This will complement Public Health England’s traditional contact tracing operation by expediting the process by which contacts are identified (negating the need for lengthy interview procedures) and by making their contact tracing operations more accurate by finding close contacts that are unknown or forgotten by patients (such as strangers encountered on public transport).
It is important to remember that no contact tracing regime, no matter how advanced the technology supporting it, can be fully effective. At the most basic level, not everybody has a smartphone. Those who do must remember to keep their phone fully charged and with them at all times. Indeed, designing a contact tracing app that doesn’t deplete phone batteries is itself an enormous technical challenge.
Furthermore, it is important to ensure that misplaced public confidence in the application being developed by NHSX does not undermine other public health interventions, such as increased personal hygiene or sensible physical distancing from the elderly and those who are more vulnerable to the virus.
Moreover, Bluetooth Low Energy can only provide a proximity measure of those you have come into contact with. It is vital to note that this proximity measure does not equate to the significant risk of infection: the NHSX contact tracing app wouldn’t be able to detect if you were wearing PPE when you came into contact with an infected individual or if you were separated by a physical barrier like a window.
If the app is to have widespread use, people have to trust that downloading a contact tracing app won’t undermine their privacy and civil liberties. Only an estimated 17 per cent of Singapore’s population has downloaded the contact tracing app available to them and it is not unreasonable to think, given prevailing cultural attitudes, that the UK population is likely to be even more suspicious of apps that are perceived to pose a risk to their civil liberties.
This consideration is particularly important not least because the Coronavirus Bill gives the police power to detain people if they have “reasonable grounds to suspect … a person is infectious.” Public perceptions of how well NHSX’s app protects user privacy will directly determine the number of people who download it, in turn, determining the app’s efficacy as a tool to suppress the resurgence of Coronavirus once lockdown ends.
In recognition of these dilemmas, NHSX has already established an ethics advisory board to oversee the development of the app, which will be led by Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery. This will assuage some public concerns. Some commentators have already called for further independent, oversight of the contact tracing app.
Although expert contributions should always be welcomed, Ministers are responsible for their decisions and accountable to Parliament for them. The system architecture, use and promotion of NHSX’s contact tracing app is no exception to this; any oversight mechanisms that are adopted should not detract from ministerial accountability for the contact tracing app.
To protect the privacy of its users, any contact tracing app should ensure that active consent is required for all actions that involve personal data and it should not be possible for those receiving alerts to determine from the app which of their contacts are displaying virus symptoms.
The exact design of the NHSX contact tracing app is only beginning to emerge. Nonetheless, it is clear that NHSX intend to limit the amount of personal data that the app collects. When users register, they will have to provide the first part of their postcode. This will give the Government’s epidemiological modelers a vague idea of where we are located. Nevertheless, since it is only designed to generate a log of contact proximity events, the app will not collect real-time location data.
NHSX have also confirmed that each record will be deleted after 28 days and that elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) will be used to ensure that the random identifiers that are broadcast cannot be traced back (by anybody except the health service) to the “installation ID” that users are given when they download the App. According to NHSX, this will ensure that users of the app won’t need to hand over any personal data unless or until they want to be tested or to receive medical treatment.
To support transparency and in line with the Government Service Standard, NHSX should release the source codes (each time they are updated) not just for the app but also for the tools that are used to support it. Moreover, any app that is built should also be interoperable with contact tracing apps being developed by other countries. As Policy Exchange argued in Exiting Lockdown, the Government should ensure that there are sufficient legal safeguards to determine how the app collects data and to prevent its misuse or repurposing. This will be vital to preventing ‘mission creep’ from the Government.
Apple and Google have already announced that they plan to build contact tracing capabilities into the operating systems of their smartphones, thereby defining the technical details for generating, broadcasting, recording, and revealing identifiers, across iPhones and Android phones.
Nonetheless, a row has already developed over reports that the NHSX app is not compatible with the application programming interface (API) that Apple and Google have developed to allow third party apps to use these tracing capabilities. That NHSX have designed a contact tracing app that can run in the background using only publicly available APIs and protocols is a genuine technological achievement, but does it undermine user privacy?
This debate hinges on whether a decentralised or a centralised approach to contact tracing is more desirable. Apple and Google’s API framework necessitates that contact tracing is conducted in a decentralised way. This means that, when diagnosed with coronavirus, your contact log cannot be uploaded to a central server. Instead, the matching process is completed on phones themselves.
This would prevent any possibility of ‘mission creep’ by Governments. Nonetheless, it would leave public health authorities with little knowledge of who is ill or how the disease is progressing since they would be unable to build up any kind of anonymous contact graph.
In contrast, the Government’s approach allows it to examine the contact logs of those who have been diagnosed and to determine which contacts are most at risk before they are alerted. Their risk modelling algorithms will be essential in preventing people from receiving false alerts. Although NHSX’s approach involves a degree of centralisation, it is important to remember that the identifiers uploaded to the server will remain anonymous.
This anonymous information is apparently vital for Government epidemiologists seeking to determine the success of public health interventions and ensuring that the NHS is not overwhelmed. In the same way that contact tracing apps are only necessary because the epidemiology of the virus renders manual contact tracing insufficient, so too must the epidemiology of the virus determine the system architecture and back-end design of the App.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that whenever we use apps, we send information about how we use it to developers, to allow them to improve their product. Unless contact tracing apps are used properly, they won’t be effective. This means that it is not only desirable but essential that the Government can collect some data about its use so that its design and performance can be improved. The better the app is, the more lives it saves.
There is a further potential barrier to the adoption of NHSX’s app: self-diagnosis. In his appearance before the Science and Technology Select Committee, NHSX CEO Matthew Gould confirmed that the contact tracing app will include some form of self-diagnosis and this has now been confirmed by the team designing the App. This is entirely sensible and is necessitated by the epidemiology of the virus itself and the speed at which tests can feasibly be completed.
In the absence of reliable rapid diagnostic testing, can the Government afford to wait two to three days for a test before it starts tracing a patient’s contacts? Most COVID patients are diagnosed in hospital by their symptoms, without a test. The shorter the delay, the more likely contact tracers are to prevent the further transmission of the virus. Given the speed at which it spreads, presumptive diagnoses are clearly essential to preventing a resurgence of cases when lockdown ends.
There is a danger, however, that self-diagnosis may lead to people falsely reporting symptoms and sending out unnecessary notifications to those that they have contacted. The NHSX App will require users to answer questions about their symptoms before alerting their contacts, which may weed out some but certainly not all false diagnoses.
The app should clearly differentiate between notifications or alerts that have been triggered by self-diagnosis and alerts that are generated from contacts who have had a test to confirm that they have the virus. If you receive the former notification, you should enhance your social distancing measures. The latter and you should embrace total isolation. Moreover, it is vital the Government makes it clear that some alerts may reverse if they later turn out to be based on a false diagnosis.
Nonetheless, self-diagnosis poses difficult policy dilemmas for the Government. Most obviously, it will have to develop mechanisms to stop malicious users from seeking to cause disruption by going into crowded areas (or, more to the point, hospitals) and then diagnosing themselves with virus symptoms.
Moreover, there is a significant risk that people who cannot work from home and who cannot undertake social distancing measures at work won’t download the app if they feel that false self-diagnoses may impact their income. The same dilemma applies to those who are self-employed. If there is a choice between downloading an app and receiving an income, people will likely choose the latter.
This is why the Government must continue to support the self-employed and continue to allow businesses to use the Coronavirus Statutory Sick Pay Rebate Scheme. Nonetheless, if the Government provide financial support for those who receive alerts warning them to adopt social distancing measures or to isolate completely, then how can they prevent malicious actors from abusing self-diagnosis for financial reward?
This will be a crucial public policy dilemma for the coming months. Not only will the economic cost of the virus be greater than the costs arising from the financial exploitation of the app’s alerts, but it is also important to remember that the Government’s furlough scheme and measures to support the self-employed during the lockdown are only partly motivated by a desire to stimulate the economy to prevent a depression. These schemes also remove the incentive for people to go to work, thereby creating an economic incentive to comply with social distancing measures. Such schemes are themselves a form of public health intervention and may have to be continued in the future.
There are no easy answers to these questions. Leaving lockdown is one of the most complex tasks that a Government will ever undertake. The success of NHSX’s contact tracing app is dependent upon public trust in it. The way in which complex technological and epidemiological dilemmas are discussed by those with public profiles, either in the press, the think tank world or online, will determine how effectively the Government can prevent the resurgence of the virus and save lives.
This article originally appeared on Policy Exchange’s Blog.


Coronavirus Count

UK cumulative total of lab-confirmed cases : 194,990 ( Up from 190,584 ) .
UK cumulative total of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 29,427 ( Up from 28,734 ) .
Latest daily number of lab-confirmed UK cases : 4,406 ( Up from 3,985 ) .
Latest daily number of COVID-19 associated UK deaths in hospital : 693 ( Up from 288 ) .
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 From the Government ’ s website Number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk in the UK .
Wednesday April 29th note : Dominic Raab told today ’ s Government press conference that “ we are moving to an improved daily reporting system for deaths , so that deaths in all settings are included , wherever the individual has tested positive for COVID-19 , rather than just those in hospitals ” “ 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 .
GOVERNMENT RULES ON @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
Published on Monday March 23 .
GOVERNMENT GUIDANCE FOR WORKERS ON WHAT AND HOW THEY CAN CLAIM See here .
Published on Friday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 .
• Use hand sanitiser gel if soap and water are not available .
• Cover your mouth and nose with a tissue or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
NHS 111 has an online coronavirus service that can tell you if you need medical help and advise you what to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
• Do not go to a GP surgery , pharmacy or hospital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 7.00 on Wednesday May 6th . )

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--2020-05-06--Robert Halfon: Let’s not risk ending lockdown, the virus then claiming yet more victims – and having

Robert Halfon: Let’s not risk ending lockdown, the virus then claiming yet more victims – and having to impose shutdown all over again

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow , a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman , Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists .
The case for sticking with the lockdown for a little longer One of the great drivers towards ending the lockdown , as I wrote in my last Conservative Home column , is a love of liberty and an instinctive scepticism towards the State .
Libertarians don ’ t like big government deciding whether or not we can leave our home to go about our daily business as a free citizen without @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether or not we have breached our 24-hour curfew ( one hour , of course , being allowed to walk the dog ) .
The second driver is not so much liberty , but the strong , British tradition of a stiff upper lip , stoicism and just getting on with things – treating this illness like any other .
The third , and perhaps the most important , is a genuine fear about the state of the economy and employment – or rising joblessness .
Those with economic concerns believe that if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the years of austerity since 2010 will look like a tea party , as we potentially enter a financial ice age .
Given the choice , I would prefer life to liberty .
I think it is easier to defend that position , as I tried to do in my previous article .
As for the second driver , I would normally be on the side of the stoics – I always try to get to work , however run-down or ill I may be feeling .
But coronavirus is different ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the he , she and we .
All of us are walking hand-grenades .
So whilst it may appear ‘ brave ’ in carrying on as before and going to work et al , it is , in fact , potentially incredibly thoughtless .
This is because , although the individual may not even be unwell , he or she may be asymptomatic and become a Coronavirus superspreader .
Alongside that , the stoics always present “ the car argument ” ; thousands of people die in road fatalities every year , yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our roads .
I never have understood this line of reasoning .
There may be thousands of car crashes , but it could be a lot worse if we did not have speeding restrictions , seatbelts and safety features in cars , such as airbags .
In other words , motoring deaths would be much higher , were it not for preventative measures from the State – just as that same State is taking as many preventative measures as possible to stop the Coronavirus death tally becoming even greater .
The third argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) I understand the most .
Millions of people across our country not only face worries about their health and that of their families , but also ever-increasing financial anxiety – even with the Government ’ s multi-billion business package and furlough scheme .
Surely , is it not better to stay at home a bit longer to knock this disease on the head once and for all , so that rather than having a so-called “ phased un-lockdown ” , we can get back to normal as soon as possible ?
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all our businesses the confidence that when we think this disease is over , it really is over ?
Which is better , to have a partial re-opening and risk a second wave , reverting to a second lockdown , or bearing the pain now , in order to be really free once again .
The longer we stay in lockdown , the closer we are to a vaccine , and testing will be in the many of hundreds of thousands a day .
New Zealand , which appears to have eliminated Covid-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lockdowns , a fair whack of testing and tracing and has closed its borders to stop people bringing the virus from overseas .
The impressive Prime Minister , Jacinda Adern , said that she recently extended the lockdown stating that “ the extra short-term cost , will give much greater long-term health and economic returns ” .
I am not advocating that the lockdown continues for many months to come : I just think that it is better to be cautious for a few weeks more , be clear that we are over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second wave now , or during the winter .
The one thing that really worries me is that if we listen to all those who want to get back to normal now , we may do so too early , and have to return to full lockdown again .
That really will be structurally damaging for business and society .
In fact , I suspect the country might have a collective nervous breakdown .
Voting Online does not mean the end of Parliament as we know it I love my Conservative MP colleagues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I really can not fathom why there is so much outrage at the introduction of online voting .
Not only do I find it quite exciting ( yes , it is true I have been at home for almost seven weeks and have cabin fever , so welcome even the smallest of pleasures ) , but it is an extraordinary feat of technological ingenuity that the architecture of online votes has been built in the space of a few weeks , in the midst of the Coronavirus epidemic .
The web technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Division Bell sounding on our computers when there is a vote .
And yet , for some reason , this online hybrid Commons is seen as ‘ a slippery slope ’ , ‘ a weakening of scrutiny of the Executive ’ and ‘ an end to Parliament as we know it ’ .
This is in contrast , of course , to voting for five amendments from 10pm on a Monday evening which can take 90 minutes or more , and of which most of us are not even sure what the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the arguments about the usefulness of the voting lobby in getting access to Ministers and asking colleagues to sign petitions and the like .
Apart from possibly the Commons tea room , there are few substitutes .
However , at least this online system ensures that we do not only have ‘ a Parliament of the fittest ’ , so that MPs and Peers who are ill , self-isolating or shielded can take part fully in proceedings .
We should be thanking the Commons officials and techno wizards who made this possible and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Parliament to the people .
But that is an argument for another day , lest I upset my more traditional MP friends even further…

Robert Halfon is MP for Harlow, a former Conservative Party Deputy Chairman, Chair of the Education Select Committee and President of Conservative Workers and Trade Unionists.
The case for sticking with the lockdown for a little longer
One of the great drivers towards ending the lockdown, as I wrote in my last Conservative Home column, is a love of liberty and an instinctive scepticism towards the State.
Libertarians don’t like big government deciding whether or not we can leave our home to go about our daily business as a free citizen without a drone from the Old Bill checking whether or not we have breached our 24-hour curfew (one hour, of course, being allowed to walk the dog).
The second driver is not so much liberty, but the strong, British tradition of a stiff upper lip, stoicism and just getting on with things – treating this illness like any other.
The third, and perhaps the most important, is a genuine fear about the state of the economy and employment – or rising joblessness. Those with economic concerns believe that if the shutdown carries on much longer, the years of austerity since 2010 will look like a tea party, as we potentially enter a financial ice age.
Given the choice, I would prefer life to liberty. I think it is easier to defend that position, as I tried to do in my previous article.
As for the second driver, I would normally be on the side of the stoics – I always try to get to work, however run-down or ill I may be feeling.
But coronavirus is different; it is not about the I, but the he, she and we. All of us are walking hand-grenades. So whilst it may appear ‘brave’ in carrying on as before and going to work et al, it is, in fact, potentially incredibly thoughtless. This is because, although the individual may not even be unwell, he or she may be asymptomatic and become a Coronavirus superspreader.
Alongside that, the stoics always present “the car argument”; thousands of people die in road fatalities every year, yet we still allow automobiles and motorists on our roads.
I never have understood this line of reasoning. There may be thousands of car crashes, but it could be a lot worse if we did not have speeding restrictions, seatbelts and safety features in cars, such as airbags.
In other words, motoring deaths would be much higher, were it not for preventative measures from the State – just as that same State is taking as many preventative measures as possible to stop the Coronavirus death tally becoming even greater.
The third argument to end the lockdown (the economy) I understand the most. Millions of people across our country not only face worries about their health and that of their families, but also ever-increasing financial anxiety – even with the Government’s multi-billion business package and furlough scheme.
Surely, is it not better to stay at home a bit longer to knock this disease on the head once and for all, so that rather than having a so-called “phased un-lockdown”, we can get back to normal as soon as possible?
How much better it would be to give all our businesses the confidence that when we think this disease is over, it really is over? Which is better, to have a partial re-opening and risk a second wave, reverting to a second lockdown, or bearing the pain now, in order to be really free once again. The longer we stay in lockdown, the closer we are to a vaccine, and testing will be in the many of hundreds of thousands a day.
New Zealand, which appears to have eliminated Covid-19 completely, has had the toughest of lockdowns, a fair whack of testing and tracing and has closed its borders to stop people bringing the virus from overseas. The impressive Prime Minister, Jacinda Adern, said that she recently extended the lockdown stating that “the extra short-term cost, will give much greater long-term health and economic returns”.
I am not advocating that the lockdown continues for many months to come: I just think that it is better to be cautious for a few weeks more, be clear that we are over it, and are not risking a second wave now, or during the winter.
The one thing that really worries me is that if we listen to all those who want to get back to normal now, we may do so too early, and have to return to full lockdown again. That really will be structurally damaging for business and society. In fact, I suspect the country might have a collective nervous breakdown.
Voting Online does not mean the end of Parliament as we know it
I love my Conservative MP colleagues (almost all of them), but I really cannot fathom why there is so much outrage at the introduction of online voting.
Not only do I find it quite exciting (yes, it is true I have been at home for almost seven weeks and have cabin fever, so welcome even the smallest of pleasures), but it is an extraordinary feat of technological ingenuity that the architecture of online votes has been built in the space of a few weeks, in the midst of the Coronavirus epidemic.
The web technology behind this is remarkable, with even a Division Bell sounding on our computers when there is a vote.
And yet, for some reason, this online hybrid Commons is seen as ‘a slippery slope’, ‘a weakening of scrutiny of the Executive’ and ‘an end to Parliament as we know it’.
This is in contrast, of course, to voting for five amendments from 10pm on a Monday evening which can take 90 minutes or more, and of which most of us are not even sure what the amendments are about!
I accept completely the arguments about the usefulness of the voting lobby in getting access to Ministers and asking colleagues to sign petitions and the like. Apart from possibly the Commons tea room, there are few substitutes.
However, at least this online system ensures that we do not only have ‘a Parliament of the fittest’, so that MPs and Peers who are ill, self-isolating or shielded can take part fully in proceedings.
We should be thanking the Commons officials and techno wizards who made this possible and examine whether online democracy could be expanded from Parliament to the people. But that is an argument for another day, lest I upset my more traditional MP friends even further…


conservativehome--2020-05-06--Luke Evans: What we can learn from the good adaptations we’ve had to make during these bad times

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee , and is MP for Bosworth .
When bidding to host the 2012 Olympics , the then Labour Government understood that building a legacy for the games was in many ways as important as the Olympics themselves .
Previous host cities had been left with debt and crumbling infrastructure that had plagued them for years after their games had taken place , the vision was clear that London 2012 had to be a stepping stone rather than an end in itself .
It ’ s a great testimony to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Labour and coalition Governments that London was different .
The Olympic stadium is now a great venue for football , the park is beautiful and the Olympic village first occupied by athletes is providing decent homes to one of the historically most deprived areas of the capital .
The 2012 Olympic organisers realised early on : legacy planning is paramount .
Permanent venues for all sports would quickly become white elephants , and so they made the very best use of heritage and temporary structures .
I ’ ve been thinking a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outbreak .
Of course the circumstances are completely different .
The 2012 Olympics were a celebration of the best of Britain that had been planned for seven years .
Coronavirus has come as a bolt out of the blue bringing with it misery and pain instead of joy .
But they do have similarities too .
Both are hugely costly , both ultimately finite , and both challenge the way that things have always been done previously .
In London ’ s case , a commitment to meaningful legacy was unprecedented , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives lost we need a similar commitment to ensuring we keep the best of this awful period too .
The pandemic has resulted in a revolution instead of the usual evolution in all walks of society and how it operates .
In my own profession of medicine , the change made over such a short period of time has been dramatic and needed for many years .
With an NHS that is still the world ’ s largest purchaser of fax machines , the step change to telemedicine and paperless prescriptions and letters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make sure the best of those changes are embedded in our systems permanently once this outbreak has passed .
The NHS has swiftly built capacity and , whilst in some areas that may not be needed in the long term , the growth in testing capacity and other infrastructure needs to be harnessed for the future , along with processes to ensure flexibility , is central to what we do in years to come .
In the Health Select Committee , I have been able to ask about positive changes that health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that there have been changes that had been tried for years , but now have happened in days – i.e : ten cancer treatment teams all working in one site .
Outside of health , there have been huge benefits through the increased use of technology for home working , not least the immediate impact on our environment .
It ’ s imperative that those aren ’ t lost when this period is over .
And in getting to know our neighbours and community spirit we are seeing a very real embodiment of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Society ’ in action .
If there is one societal lesson we must learn out of all of this , it ’ s to ensure that this spirit isn ’ t lost .
Crisis can create opportunity and , with a pandemic that has touched every part of our society , and in turn every aspect of Government , with no sector or policy untouched , there are opportunities a plenty .
Just like the London Olympics , we must have a clear plan to harness those opportunities that Coronavirus has brought to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future threats .
One way of doing that is through the creation of a time limited Department of Virus Legacy , much like DExEU has done for Brexit , which is able to ensure opportunities are grasped .
A department which could cut across government and the country to harness the positive changes that have happened in the face of devastation ; ensure innovation is not lost and that we do not simply return to pre-virus normality ; and to plan to amplify good changes that have occurred .
We must have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put into Brexit over the next three years , to ensure we are fighting fit for the future .
There are many horrific parts to the Coronavirus pandemic : lives and loved ones lost , and livelihoods destroyed .
In the years to come we have to ensure that all of that isn ’ t in vain , the planning for that has to start now .

Dr Luke Evans is a member of the Health Select Committee, and is MP for Bosworth.
When bidding to host the 2012 Olympics, the then Labour Government understood that building a legacy for the games was in many ways as important as the Olympics themselves.
Previous host cities had been left with debt and crumbling infrastructure that had plagued them for years after their games had taken place, the vision was clear that London 2012 had to be a stepping stone rather than an end in itself.
It’s a great testimony to the foresight and determination of both the New Labour and coalition Governments that London was different. The Olympic stadium is now a great venue for football, the park is beautiful and the Olympic village first occupied by athletes is providing decent homes to one of the historically most deprived areas of the capital.
The 2012 Olympic organisers realised early on: legacy planning is paramount. Permanent venues for all sports would quickly become white elephants, and so they made the very best use of heritage and temporary structures.
I’ve been thinking a lot about legacy during this terrible Coronavirus outbreak.
Of course the circumstances are completely different. The 2012 Olympics were a celebration of the best of Britain that had been planned for seven years. Coronavirus has come as a bolt out of the blue bringing with it misery and pain instead of joy.
But they do have similarities too. Both are hugely costly, both ultimately finite, and both challenge the way that things have always been done previously.
In London’s case, a commitment to meaningful legacy was unprecedented, to ensure there is a purpose to those lives lost we need a similar commitment to ensuring we keep the best of this awful period too.
The pandemic has resulted in a revolution instead of the usual evolution in all walks of society and how it operates.
In my own profession of medicine, the change made over such a short period of time has been dramatic and needed for many years. With an NHS that is still the world’s largest purchaser of fax machines, the step change to telemedicine and paperless prescriptions and letters is more than welcome. We need to make sure the best of those changes are embedded in our systems permanently once this outbreak has passed.
The NHS has swiftly built capacity and, whilst in some areas that may not be needed in the long term, the growth in testing capacity and other infrastructure needs to be harnessed for the future, along with processes to ensure flexibility, is central to what we do in years to come. In the Health Select Committee, I have been able to ask about positive changes that health leaders have seen, and all commented that there have been changes that had been tried for years, but now have happened in days – i.e: ten cancer treatment teams all working in one site.
Outside of health, there have been huge benefits through the increased use of technology for home working, not least the immediate impact on our environment. It’s imperative that those aren’t lost when this period is over.
And in getting to know our neighbours and community spirit we are seeing a very real embodiment of what David Cameron called ‘the Big Society’ in action. If there is one societal lesson we must learn out of all of this, it’s to ensure that this spirit isn’t lost.
Crisis can create opportunity and, with a pandemic that has touched every part of our society, and in turn every aspect of Government, with no sector or policy untouched, there are opportunities a plenty.
Just like the London Olympics, we must have a clear plan to harness those opportunities that Coronavirus has brought to us, as well as mitigate the future threats.
One way of doing that is through the creation of a time limited Department of Virus Legacy, much like DExEU has done for Brexit, which is able to ensure opportunities are grasped. A department which could cut across government and the country to harness the positive changes that have happened in the face of devastation; ensure innovation is not lost and that we do not simply return to pre-virus normality; and to plan to amplify good changes that have occurred.
We must have a proactive programme that should emulate the effort put into Brexit over the next three years, to ensure we are fighting fit for the future.
There are many horrific parts to the Coronavirus pandemic: lives and loved ones lost, and livelihoods destroyed. In the years to come we have to ensure that all of that isn’t in vain, the planning for that has to start now.


conservativehome--2020-05-06--Coronavirus: Jenrick steps up efforts to help the vulnerable – rough sleepers and victims of domesti

Coronavirus: Jenrick steps up efforts to help the vulnerable – rough sleepers and victims of domestic violence

Robert Jenrick , the Housing , Communities , and Local Government Secretary , has responded to concerns that the lockdown has led both to an increase in domestic violence and a reduction in help for victims .
£76 million in extra funding “ will support survivors of domestic abuse , sexual violence , and modern slavery , as well as ensuring vulnerable children and young people continue to get the help they need.
” There will also be a change to the rules so “ those fleeing domestic abuse and facing homelessness , as a result , will be automatically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for housing – ensuring more survivors of domestic abuse have access to a safe home.
” For those escaping domestic violence there will be “ more safe spaces , accommodation and access to support services during the coronavirus outbreak.
” “ It is essential that the most vulnerable people in our communities continue to get the vital support they need during this pandemic .
This multi-million-pound package is a boost for charities working on front line to provide often lifesaving support or services at this unprecedented time .
This includes essential support for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the place where they should feel most safe – their home.
” It is a cross-departmental effort .
The Ministry of Housing , Communities , and Local Government is focusing on accommodation .
The Department for Education is providing extra help for safeguarding vulnerable children while the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office is increasing funding for charities that offer support services .
Apart from husbands beating their wives ( or more usually these days male partners assaulting female partners ) the House of Commons Justice Select Committee last week discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of older children – principally teenagers – attacking their parents amid frustration about being unable to go outside.
” Some refuges are full – or have closed as they have not found it viable to function due to the lockdown .
The challenge is both to ensure help is available and that victims are aware of it .
90 per cent of rough sleepers have been offered accommodation Even before the scale of the coronavirus crisis became clear the Government had put a high priority on reducing rough sleeping .
Then emergency funding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapid progress .
With hotels sitting empty the scope was available .
The most important element though was actively seeking out rough sleepers to make them aware of the offer and to encourage them to accept .
Of course , it does not follow that everyone will .
The progress report from the Government is encouraging : “ Over 90 per cent of rough sleepers known to councils at the beginning of the crisis have now been offered accommodation where they can remain safe during the crisis – helping protect themselves and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charities , faith groups , and health providers have worked with the Government to make offers to “ over 5,400 people who were sleeping rough at the beginning of the crisis ” .
Dame Louise Casey will lead a specialist taskforce which “ will work hand-in-hand with councils across the country on plans to ensure rough sleepers can move into long-term , safe accommodation once the immediate crisis is over – ensuring as few people as possible return to life on the streets.
” How many of the offers will be taken up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many will refuse long term help and be back on the streets in a few weeks or even a few days ?
While businesses have been reluctant to take up state guaranteed loans , the offers of grants – Small Business Grants Fund and the Retail , Hospitality and Leisure Grants Fund – have been snapped up .
But there has been some resentment from those who have not qualified due to technicalities .
For instance , owners of ‘ bed and breakfasts ’ who live in the premises and thus pay Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out .
The Government has responded by providing a “ five per cent uplift ” to the £12.33 billion of funding – in other words , £617 million .
“ This additional fund is aimed at small businesses with ongoing fixed property-related costs .
We are asking local authorities to prioritise businesses in shared spaces , regular market traders , small charity properties that would meet the criteria for Small Business Rates Relief , and bed and breakfasts that pay council tax rather than business rates .
But local authorities may choose to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local economic need .
The allocation of funding will be at the discretion of local authorities.
” Giving an element of discretionary funding strikes me as sensible from both a political and a practical point of view .
The idea has been to avoid complexity to allow the money to be made available quickly .
For the Government to have attempted to produce detailed lists of extra categories eligible for money would have been cumbersome .
Inevitably some would still have felt unfairly excluded .
Councils can hardly complain about being given the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denies them the chance to just shrug off any complaints and blame the Government .
The spirit of localism has survived .

Funding for domestic violence victims
Robert Jenrick, the Housing, Communities, and Local Government Secretary, has responded to concerns that the lockdown has led both to an increase in domestic violence and a reduction in help for victims. £76 million in extra funding “will support survivors of domestic abuse, sexual violence, and modern slavery, as well as ensuring vulnerable children and young people continue to get the help they need.” There will also be a change to the rules so “those fleeing domestic abuse and facing homelessness, as a result, will be automatically considered as a priority by their council for housing – ensuring more survivors of domestic abuse have access to a safe home.” For those escaping domestic violence there will be “more safe spaces, accommodation and access to support services during the coronavirus outbreak.”
Jenrick says:
“It is essential that the most vulnerable people in our communities continue to get the vital support they need during this pandemic. This multi-million-pound package is a boost for charities working on front line to provide often lifesaving support or services at this unprecedented time. This includes essential support for domestic abuse victims, living in fear in the place where they should feel most safe – their home.”
It is a cross-departmental effort. The Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government is focusing on accommodation. The Department for Education is providing extra help for safeguarding vulnerable children while the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office is increasing funding for charities that offer support services.
Apart from husbands beating their wives (or more usually these days male partners assaulting female partners) the House of Commons Justice Select Committee last week discussed “evidence of a newer trend, of older children – principally teenagers – attacking their parents amid frustration about being unable to go outside.”
Some refuges are full – or have closed as they have not found it viable to function due to the lockdown. The challenge is both to ensure help is available and that victims are aware of it.
90 per cent of rough sleepers have been offered accommodation
Even before the scale of the coronavirus crisis became clear the Government had put a high priority on reducing rough sleeping. Then emergency funding was provided with the aim of achieving rapid progress. With hotels sitting empty the scope was available. The most important element though was actively seeking out rough sleepers to make them aware of the offer and to encourage them to accept. Of course, it does not follow that everyone will.
The progress report from the Government is encouraging:
“Over 90 per cent of rough sleepers known to councils at the beginning of the crisis have now been offered accommodation where they can remain safe during the crisis – helping protect themselves and others from contracting the virus.”
Councils, charities, faith groups, and health providers have worked with the Government to make offers to “over 5,400 people who were sleeping rough at the beginning of the crisis”. Dame Louise Casey will lead a specialist taskforce which “will work hand-in-hand with councils across the country on plans to ensure rough sleepers can move into long-term, safe accommodation once the immediate crisis is over – ensuring as few people as possible return to life on the streets.”
How many of the offers will be taken up? Of those that are, how many will refuse long term help and be back on the streets in a few weeks or even a few days?
Discretionary small business funding announced
While businesses have been reluctant to take up state guaranteed loans, the offers of grants – Small Business Grants Fund and the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure Grants Fund – have been snapped up. But there has been some resentment from those who have not qualified due to technicalities. For instance, owners of ‘bed and breakfasts’ who live in the premises and thus pay Council Tax rather then Business Rates had missed out.
The Government has responded by providing a “five per cent uplift” to the £12.33 billion of funding – in other words, £617 million.
It says:
“This additional fund is aimed at small businesses with ongoing fixed property-related costs. We are asking local authorities to prioritise businesses in shared spaces, regular market traders, small charity properties that would meet the criteria for Small Business Rates Relief, and bed and breakfasts that pay council tax rather than business rates. But local authorities may choose to make payments to other businesses based on local economic need. The allocation of funding will be at the discretion of local authorities.”
Giving an element of discretionary funding strikes me as sensible from both a political and a practical point of view. The idea has been to avoid complexity to allow the money to be made available quickly. For the Government to have attempted to produce detailed lists of extra categories eligible for money would have been cumbersome. Inevitably some would still have felt unfairly excluded. Councils can hardly complain about being given the power to decide. However, that denies them the chance to just shrug off any complaints and blame the Government. The spirit of localism has survived.


conservativehome--2020-05-06--Ten reasons why it’s still too soon to compare international death rates from Covid-19

One arguably unhelpful part of the Coronavirus crisis has been the media ’ s insistence on comparing international death rates .
Yesterday , some deemed the UK the “ worst-hit European country ” after the death toll in England and Wales reached 29,648 .
It is a staggering , horrible figure – reminding us of the cruelty of this virus .
It ’ s not , however , an excuse to abandon statistical nuance – given we are dealing with enormously complicated data .
As Dominic Raab said in yesterday ’ s daily press briefing , it is too early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whitty has explained that “ all-cause mortality , age adjusted , and possibly seasonally adjusted ” would be the most important measure – sentiment echoed by other Governmental advisers .
This is not them trying to avoid criticism , nor is it an ideological position .
There are many reasons direct comparisons between countries should be resisted , which ConservativeHome has previously touched upon .
To elaborate , here are some of them : The first obvious factor that needs to be accounted for when it comes to analysing death rates is population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more cases of Covid-19 .
Population sizes vary hugely across Europe – and , indeed , the world .
Russia and Germany have the highest ( 145 million and 83 million , respectively ) .
The UK follows with 67 million people .
This is why it might be fairer to measure deaths per hundred thousand or million , which help to normalise differences in population size .
If analysts use the latter metric , as of today Belgium has the worst death rate , followed by Spain , Italy and then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size is population density .
The more people living closely together , the more higher transmissions of the virus and deaths .
The UK , for example , has one of the highest population densities in Europe , with 727 people per square mile , and 83 per cent living in urban areas .
Germany has a population density of 623 people per square mile and the Republic of Ireland has 186 people per square mile .
So it ’ s unreasonable to compare them in the same way .
Furthermore , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than others .
Take Sweden , where single-person households account for nearly half of all households , even being the majority in some cities .
That makes it far easier for citizens to self-isolate , even if the Government does not insist on it .
These nuances have to be controlled for in analyses .
It is incredibly important to understand demographic variables when understanding differences between countries .
We know for instance that the Coronavirus disproportionately affects black , Asian and minority ethnic people , men and older people .
Though we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are correlations between these groups and Covid-19 , they need to be deciphered – and considered in analyses of death rates – to understand why some countries are more severely affected than others .
Countries that have older populations , for example , will suffer much worse , as the average age of deaths for Covid-19 is above 80 .
The median age in Italy is 47 , compared to Ireland ( 37 ) , so this explains part of the reason we see big disparities in their Covid-19 death rates .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ valid assessments .
Covid-19 is more severe for people with certain underlying health conditions , such as diabetes , heart disease and high blood pressure .
Obesity , too , has been recognised as a big risk factor .
A study by the Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium has shown that almost 75 per cent of Covid-19 patients in intensive care are overweight – with death rates 37 per cent higher for obese patients .
That means that countries with higher rates of these will suffer worse when hit by Covid-19 .
This , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assessing death rates across countries .
Countries have different tests for Covid-19 , and they also have different quantities of tests , and this affects how their death rate looks – particularly if it ’ s measured as “ case-fatality ratio ” .
Using this metric , Germany ’ s death rate appears much less severe than others .
This is because of its mass testing regime , which meant it detected much milder cases of Covid-19 – bringing the fatality part of the case-fatality ratio down .
The UK , on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few days ago – a much smaller testing regime , mainly measuring hospital incidences .
This brings the fatality figure up , as it means only the most severely affected people ( hence why they ’ re in hospital ) get tested .
The more testing a country does , generally , the more it can get a sense of cases of Covid-19 compared to deaths from it .
This , in turn , can allow governments to understand if their strategy in regards to Covid-19 was worse than others ’ .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ recorded Countries also have differences in the ways that they record deaths .
Some of these are set out in Politico , which shows a whole variety of approaches .
There are countries with narrow definitions , others with a mixed approach and the rest have a broad definition .
Austria has a “ narrow definition ” ; it only counts “ deaths of patients who have died ‘ from ” COVID-19 and have been reported in the country ’ s epidemiological reporting system ” .
The same goes for the Netherlands , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ who tested positive for the disease and died in hospitals ” .
As of April 29 , the UK has included “ deaths in all settings where there ’ s a positive COVID-19 test , for example , in care homes.
” Generally , this area has been quite opaque – in terms of understanding how different governments record figures , but it needs to be deciphered to make assessments .
In years to come – God willing that the Coronavirus crisis will end – one suspects that people will become far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and what we can learn from them .
Indeed , there is already much interest in South Korea and Germany , as they have been praised for controlling the virus well .
One advantage Germany has is 621 acute care hospital beds available per hundred thousand people ( the second highest number in the whole of Europe ) .
Differences between healthcare systems will no doubt have an impact on death rates , and in due course , analysts will want to study them – in order to learn most of all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ collected In a Twitter post Nick Stripe , Head of Health Analytics at the UK ’ s Foreign Office for National Statistics , has warned against making comparisons between countries ’ death rates , because some are quicker – or slower – at reporting data .
He said the UK death registrations data “ is the fastest , most frequent and most in depth than any other stats agency ” .
This should be considered in light of a recent study by EuroMOMO , a network of epidemiologists , who collect weekly reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European countries – and concluded the UK has the worst score .
While excess mortality is a good metric – “ the gap between the total number of people who died from any cause , and the historical average for the same place and time of year ” – it could also be affected by lags in reporting Covid-19 deaths .
Until we know that every nation is up to speed on reporting figures , no one should make pronouncements on death rates .
Another tragedy of this pandemic is that it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; The Guardian reports there were an extra 3,312 of these in the week ending April 24 .
Some speculate that these were caused by delayed hospital visits for other life-threatening conditions , economic hardship , and/ or mental illness .
We need to fully understand this data to make any assessment of the UK Government ’ s approach , and others ’ .
• There are even more variables we may not know about now This is just an initial list in understanding what variables play into death rates .
It may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ completely right to be angry .
Perhaps lockdown should have come sooner ; perhaps it did not do enough to shield vulnerable people and so forth .
But no one can make any assessments without doing a proper analysis .
And that means stripping back data so you know what you ’ re measuring .
Lockdown and other interventions ( or lack of interventions ) have to be isolated to see their impact .
As the Government says , all-cause mortality , adjusted by age , will ultimately be the best way to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only measurement that can be properly compared across countries – all of which are dealing with and recording Covid-19 .
Until then , sensational assumptions help no one .

One arguably unhelpful part of the Coronavirus crisis has been the media’s insistence on comparing international death rates.
Yesterday, some deemed the UK the “worst-hit European country” after the death toll in England and Wales reached 29,648.
It is a staggering, horrible figure – reminding us of the cruelty of this virus.
It’s not, however, an excuse to abandon statistical nuance – given we are dealing with enormously complicated data.
As Dominic Raab said in yesterday’s daily press briefing, it is too early to come to conclusions.
Professor Chris Whitty has explained that “all-cause mortality, age adjusted, and possibly seasonally adjusted” would be the most important measure – sentiment echoed by other Governmental advisers.
This is not them trying to avoid criticism, nor is it an ideological position.
There are many reasons direct comparisons between countries should be resisted, which ConservativeHome has previously touched upon.
To elaborate, here are some of them:
Population size
The first obvious factor that needs to be accounted for when it comes to analysing death rates is population size; the more people, the more cases of Covid-19.
Population sizes vary hugely across Europe – and, indeed, the world.
Russia and Germany have the highest (145 million and 83 million, respectively).
The UK follows with 67 million people.
This is why it might be fairer to measure deaths per hundred thousand or million, which help to normalise differences in population size.
If analysts use the latter metric, as of today Belgium has the worst death rate, followed by Spain, Italy and then the UK.
Population density
Even more important than population size is population density.
The more people living closely together, the more higher transmissions of the virus and deaths.
The UK, for example, has one of the highest population densities in Europe, with 727 people per square mile, and 83 per cent living in urban areas.
Germany has a population density of 623 people per square mile and the Republic of Ireland has 186 people per square mile.
So it’s unreasonable to compare them in the same way.
Furthermore, some countries have more capacity to socially distance than others.
Take Sweden, where single-person households account for nearly half of all households, even being the majority in some cities.
That makes it far easier for citizens to self-isolate, even if the Government does not insist on it.
These nuances have to be controlled for in analyses.
Demographic make-up
It is incredibly important to understand demographic variables when understanding differences between countries.
We know for instance that the Coronavirus disproportionately affects black, Asian and minority ethnic people, men and older people.
Though we do not know the reasons why there are correlations between these groups and Covid-19, they need to be deciphered – and considered in analyses of death rates – to understand why some countries are more severely affected than others.
Countries that have older populations, for example, will suffer much worse, as the average age of deaths for Covid-19 is above 80.
The median age in Italy is 47, compared to Ireland (37), so this explains part of the reason we see big disparities in their Covid-19 death rates.
We need to explore these interactions to make valid assessments.
Comorbidity
Covid-19 is more severe for people with certain underlying health conditions, such as diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure.
Obesity, too, has been recognised as a big risk factor.
A study by the Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium has shown that almost 75 per cent of Covid-19 patients in intensive care are overweight – with death rates 37 per cent higher for obese patients.
That means that countries with higher rates of these will suffer worse when hit by Covid-19.
This, too, needs to be understood when assessing death rates across countries.
Countries have different testing regimes
Countries have different tests for Covid-19, and they also have different quantities of tests, and this affects how their death rate looks – particularly if it’s measured as “case-fatality ratio”.
Using this metric, Germany’s death rate appears much less severe than others.
This is because of its mass testing regime, which meant it detected much milder cases of Covid-19 – bringing the fatality part of the case-fatality ratio down.
The UK, on the other hand, had – up until a few days ago – a much smaller testing regime, mainly measuring hospital incidences.
This brings the fatality figure up, as it means only the most severely affected people (hence why they’re in hospital) get tested.
The more testing a country does, generally, the more it can get a sense of cases of Covid-19 compared to deaths from it.
This, in turn, can allow governments to understand if their strategy in regards to Covid-19 was worse than others’.
Differences between the ways deaths are recorded
Countries also have differences in the ways that they record deaths.
Some of these are set out in Politico, which shows a whole variety of approaches.
There are countries with narrow definitions, others with a mixed approach and the rest have a broad definition.
Austria has a “narrow definition”; it only counts “deaths of patients who have died ‘from” COVID-19 and have been reported in the country’s epidemiological reporting system”.
The same goes for the Netherlands, which only counts the deaths of patients “who tested positive for the disease and died in hospitals”.
As of April 29, the UK has included “deaths in all settings where there’s a positive COVID-19 test, for example, in care homes.”
Generally, this area has been quite opaque – in terms of understanding how different governments record figures, but it needs to be deciphered to make assessments.
Differences between healthcare systems
In years to come – God willing that the Coronavirus crisis will end – one suspects that people will become far more interested in international healthcare systems, and what we can learn from them.
Indeed, there is already much interest in South Korea and Germany, as they have been praised for controlling the virus well.
One advantage Germany has is 621 acute care hospital beds available per hundred thousand people (the second highest number in the whole of Europe).
Differences between healthcare systems will no doubt have an impact on death rates, and in due course, analysts will want to study them – in order to learn most of all.
The speed at which data is collected
In a Twitter post Nick Stripe, Head of Health Analytics at the UK’s Foreign Office for National Statistics, has warned against making comparisons between countries’ death rates, because some are quicker – or slower – at reporting data.
He said the UK death registrations data “is the fastest, most frequent and most in depth than any other stats agency”.
This should be considered in light of a recent study by EuroMOMO, a network of epidemiologists, who collect weekly reports on deaths from all causes in 24 European countries – and concluded the UK has the worst score.
While excess mortality is a good metric – “the gap between the total number of people who died from any cause, and the historical average for the same place and time of year” – it could also be affected by lags in reporting Covid-19 deaths.
Until we know that every nation is up to speed on reporting figures, no one should make pronouncements on death rates.
Excess deaths
Another tragedy of this pandemic is that it’s caused an increase in non-Covid-19 deaths; The Guardian reports there were an extra 3,312 of these in the week ending April 24.
Some speculate that these were caused by delayed hospital visits for other life-threatening conditions, economic hardship, and/ or mental illness.
We need to fully understand this data to make any assessment of the UK Government’s approach, and others’.
There are even more variables we may not know about now
This is just an initial list in understanding what variables play into death rates.
It may be that critics of the Government are completely right to be angry. Perhaps lockdown should have come sooner; perhaps it did not do enough to shield vulnerable people and so forth.
But no one can make any assessments without doing a proper analysis. And that means stripping back data so you know what you’re measuring. Lockdown and other interventions (or lack of interventions) have to be isolated to see their impact.
As the Government says, all-cause mortality, adjusted by age, will ultimately be the best way to access this – as it’s the only measurement that can be properly compared across countries – all of which are dealing with and recording Covid-19.
Until then, sensational assumptions help no one.


conservativehome--2020-05-06--Ben Roback: Trump and Biden’s prospects in key battleground states – and their approaches to lockdow

Ben Roback: Trump and Biden’s prospects in key battleground states – and their approaches to lockdown

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group .
The American response to Coronavirus continues to intrigue .
The pattern has been that Republican state governors , who are allies of Donald Trump , are keen to display their “ Make America Great Again ” credentials ahead of an election , and a likely reshuffle of the president ’ s top team , should he win in November .
More broadly , governors and states have led the imposing and subsequent relaxing of restrictions .
Some , such as Andrew Cuomo , the Democratic Governor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spotlight .
His approval rating has hit a record high of 77 per cent .
More than half of US states are set to be partially reopened by the end of this week .
But trust in state governments is broadly trending down , according to research by Ipsos , driven most fervently by residents of states leading the charge to re-open .
Over the last two weeks , 50 per cent of residents of Texas , Georgia , and Florida report trusting the state government .
This is down from 67 per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trust in Trump ’ s federal government falls clearly along party lines .
Republicans are more likely to trust it ( 66 per cent ) , and are less likely to think that returning to their pre-coronavirus lives is a major risk ( 58 per cent ) .
Democrats widely distrust the federal government ( 28 per cent ) , trust Governors ( 71 per cent ) , and believe returning to normal right now is a big risk ( 84 per cent ) .
Could these figures translate directly into the November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become one of the dividing issues between Trump and Joe Biden in November , not least because 30 million more Americans now rely on government support for their daily existence than before the global pandemic gripped the country .
Not every state is competitive , of course .
Some will vote for Trump or Biden regardless of what they do between now and November .
As the President famously said in the midst of the 2016 election campaign : “ I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters ” .
With a 93 per cent approval rating amongst Republicans – a figure that has steadily increased since January with Gallup – he is probably right .
Four states provide an intriguing look at how the 2020 election could be shaped by current events ( latest polling by Real Clear Politics ) .
Michigan has in many ways become the centre of the pro-Trump , anti-lockdown resistance .
Yesterday , armed protestors entered the state Capitol building demonstrating against the ongoing stay-at-home order issued by Gretchen Whitmer , the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House of Representatives has since decided against extending the emergency declaration .
Whilst her response to coronavirus has courted controversy , Whitmer ’ s approval rating easily exceeds that of the President .
Just 36 per cent of Michigan respondents polled said they approve of the president ’ s handling of the crisis , compared to 63 % approval for Whitmer .
In 2016 , Trump won the state by less than 11,000 votes out of more than 4.5 million votes cast .
Both Trump and Biden will focus on their blue-collar credential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart of America ’ s auto industry .
Proof that Arizona will be on a knife-edge in November is that the President visited Phoenix yesterday .
Stepping off Air Force One , Trump was en route to a mask-making factory .
Except for Bill Clinton ’ s win in 1996 , Arizona has voted Republican since 1952 .
In 2016 , Trump beat Clinton there by 3.6 points , but the home state of the late John McCain has continued to undergo major demographic changes , with a growing and energised Latino population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President ’ s prospects is the risk of defections amongst female voters in the suburbs of Phoenix .
Presently , Doug Ducey , the state ’ s Republican Governor , has imposed an ongoing state-wide stay-at-home order , and people can only leave their homes for essential trips .
It is due to expire on 15 May , by which time barbers , restaurants and coffee shops will be open for business .
Ducey is struggling with a 52 per cent approval rating , well below the 72 per cent average for governors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear , but with a narrow polling lead the state is undoubtedly in play come November .
In many ways the ultimate battleground state , Florida has voted with the winner since 1964 in every presidential race other than in 1992 .
Trump took Florida by just 1.2 per cent in 2016 , and retaining the state will be a critical step on the President ’ s path to re-election .
The strong Latino presence in such cities as Miami are counterbalanced by Florida being home to America ’ s conservative wealthy retirees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Republican Governor , has resisted a state-wide curfew , but residents have to stay indoors unless they are undertaking essential activities .
At the southern tip of the country , it is not surprising that fishing is deemed to be one of these .
Biden leads in the state that has become the President ’ s official personal base , where it is home to his ‘ Winter White House ’ resort .
It is by no means insurmountable , and so expect the president to spend much more time there when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resumption of campaign rallies .
Donald Trump won the state by 48 per cent to 48 per cent in 2016 , and the state looks to hang delicately in the balance this time around .
Pennsylvania has leant Democrat in presidential elections but , in 2016 , an appeal to the working class communities in the state ’ s Rust Belt represented a breaking of the ‘ blue wall ’ , in much the same way that CCHQ demolished Labour ’ s ‘ red wall ’ in 2019 .
Presidential candidates traditionally carry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s advantage for 2020 is that he was born in blue-collar Scranton .
The Democratic Governor , Tom Wolf , relaxed coronavirus restrictions at the start of the month , and now outdoor activities are permitted .
Biden will need to work hard to maintain his lead in the state , but winning it come November would represent a major step closer to the White House .

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.
The American response to Coronavirus continues to intrigue. The pattern has been that Republican state governors, who are allies of Donald Trump, are keen to display their “Make America Great Again” credentials ahead of an election, and a likely reshuffle of the president’s top team, should he win in November.
More broadly, governors and states have led the imposing and subsequent relaxing of restrictions. Some, such as Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic Governor of New York, have thrived under the spotlight. His approval rating has hit a record high of 77 per cent. More than half of US states are set to be partially reopened by the end of this week.
But trust in state governments is broadly trending down, according to research by Ipsos, driven most fervently by residents of states leading the charge to re-open. Over the last two weeks, 50 per cent of residents of Texas, Georgia, and Florida report trusting the state government. This is down from 67 per cent in late March.
Unsurprisingly, trust in Trump’s federal government falls clearly along party lines. Republicans are more likely to trust it (66 per cent), and are less likely to think that returning to their pre-coronavirus lives is a major risk (58 per cent).
Democrats widely distrust the federal government (28 per cent), trust Governors (71 per cent), and believe returning to normal right now is a big risk (84 per cent). Could these figures translate directly into the November election?
The 2020 knock-on effect
The Coronavirus response will inevitably become one of the dividing issues between Trump and Joe Biden in November, not least because 30 million more Americans now rely on government support for their daily existence than before the global pandemic gripped the country.
Not every state is competitive, of course. Some will vote for Trump or Biden regardless of what they do between now and November. As the President famously said in the midst of the 2016 election campaign: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters”. With a 93 per cent approval rating amongst Republicans – a figure that has steadily increased since January with Gallup – he is probably right.
Four states provide an intriguing look at how the 2020 election could be shaped by current events (latest polling by Real Clear Politics).
Michigan
Latest polling: Trump (41 per cent), Biden 47 per cent (+5.5)
Michigan has in many ways become the centre of the pro-Trump, anti-lockdown resistance. Yesterday, armed protestors entered the state Capitol building demonstrating against the ongoing stay-at-home order issued by Gretchen Whitmer, the state’s Democratic Governor.
Michigan’s House of Representatives has since decided against extending the emergency declaration. Whilst her response to coronavirus has courted controversy, Whitmer’s approval rating easily exceeds that of the President. Just 36 per cent of Michigan respondents polled said they approve of the president’s handling of the crisis, compared to 63% approval for Whitmer.
In 2016, Trump won the state by less than 11,000 votes out of more than 4.5 million votes cast. Both Trump and Biden will focus on their blue-collar credential in a state that remains the beating heart of America’s auto industry.
Arizona
Latest polling: Trump 44.2 per cent, Biden 48.6 per cent (+4.4)
Proof that Arizona will be on a knife-edge in November is that the President visited Phoenix yesterday. Stepping off Air Force One, Trump was en route to a mask-making factory.
Except for Bill Clinton’s win in 1996, Arizona has voted Republican since 1952. In 2016, Trump beat Clinton there by 3.6 points, but the home state of the late John McCain has continued to undergo major demographic changes, with a growing and energised Latino population.
The most pressing threat to the President’s prospects is the risk of defections amongst female voters in the suburbs of Phoenix. Presently, Doug Ducey, the state’s Republican Governor, has imposed an ongoing state-wide stay-at-home order, and people can only leave their homes for essential trips.
It is due to expire on 15 May, by which time barbers, restaurants and coffee shops will be open for business. Ducey is struggling with a 52 per cent approval rating, well below the 72 per cent average for governors nationwide. The challenge for Biden is clear, but with a narrow polling lead the state is undoubtedly in play come November.
Florida
Latest polling: Trump 43.3 per cent, Biden 46.5 per cent (+3.2)
In many ways the ultimate battleground state, Florida has voted with the winner since 1964 in every presidential race other than in 1992.
Trump took Florida by just 1.2 per cent in 2016, and retaining the state will be a critical step on the President’s path to re-election. The strong Latino presence in such cities as Miami are counterbalanced by Florida being home to America’s conservative wealthy retirees.
Ron DeSantis, the state’s Republican Governor, has resisted a state-wide curfew, but residents have to stay indoors unless they are undertaking essential activities. At the southern tip of the country, it is not surprising that fishing is deemed to be one of these.
Biden leads in the state that has become the President’s official personal base, where it is home to his ‘Winter White House’ resort. It is by no means insurmountable, and so expect the president to spend much more time there when an easing of restrictions allows for a resumption of campaign rallies.
Pennsylvania
Latest polling: Trump 41.8 per cent, Biden 48.3 per cent (+6.5)
Donald Trump won the state by 48 per cent to 48 per cent in 2016, and the state looks to hang delicately in the balance this time around.
Pennsylvania has leant Democrat in presidential elections but, in 2016, an appeal to the working class communities in the state’s Rust Belt represented a breaking of the ‘blue wall’, in much the same way that CCHQ demolished Labour’s ‘red wall’ in 2019.
Presidential candidates traditionally carry their home states, and Joe Biden’s advantage for 2020 is that he was born in blue-collar Scranton. The Democratic Governor, Tom Wolf, relaxed coronavirus restrictions at the start of the month, and now outdoor activities are permitted. Biden will need to work hard to maintain his lead in the state, but winning it come November would represent a major step closer to the White House.