conservativehome--2020-11-02--Key for deciding on lockdown is hospitalisations, not deaths

As the pandemic gears up for round two , the political consensus on combating it continues to erode .
Over the summer we saw the breakdown of the ‘ four nations ’ coordinated approach across the United Kingdom .
Now dissent boils away inside the Conservative Party .
Senior figures , including Sir Graham Brady on this site , are calling on ministers to do much more to account for the negative consequences of lockdown – in terms of other health issues , mental health , and more – in the anti-Covid utility calculus .
Now the data used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from his newly-minted tier system towards a second full lockdown is coming under attack .
According to the Daily Telegraph , the Cambridge University data used to sell the policy is weeks out of date , and Ross Clark points out that much of the evidence apparently underlying the move is not publicly available .
Fraser Nelson also takes the Prime Minister to task for failing to set up a ‘ red team ’ of experts to challenge the assumptions of his advisors .
By limiting himself to one source of expert @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves himself unable to weigh alternatives or choose between plausible options , and exposes himself to extreme political danger if he defies his advisors .
But ranged against this tendency are those who argue that ‘ Covid deaths ’ isn ’ t the best way to understand the public health consequences : and that hospital capacity is .
Once lockdown started to bite , there was no shortage of people going sour on the phrase ‘ protect the NHS ’ .
Should it not , after all , be there to protect us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we explained at the time , was making sure that the number of serious cases remained within the capacity of the Health Service to treat .
The alternative was catastrophe .
Whilst the data about deaths is not clear , and dogged with disputes over definition , models and projections , hospitalisation data is publicly available on the Government ’ s dashboard .
It shows admissions climbing steadily since the start of September , on a trajectory that would see the UK hit the first peak well before Christmas .
But this doesn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because patients and beds are not evenly distributed across the country .
Much in the same way that the UK still has a housing crisis despite there being lots of stock in the wrong bits of the country , a surge in cases could overwhelm the NHS locally or regionally without the top-line figures showing that NHS England had toppled completely .
Furthermore , some lessons have been learned from the first wave , especially about the human toll of delayed treatments , surgeries , and the rest of the NHS ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted , there is now much greater recognition that Health Service ‘ capacity ’ must include these things , rather than just focusing on whether or not it can treat every coronavirus patient .
But maintaining sufficient slack in the system to do this , during the months when the NHS undergoes its annual ‘ winter crisis ’ , requires a more assertive response to the pandemic , not less .
This looming squeeze on capacity from other causes also explains why the decision can ’ t be based purely on the basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latter are declining , there will be a crunch if bed vacancies are falling faster .
Ultimately , the Government is paying the price for how badly it has handled public messaging during this crisis .
From the early insistence that hand-washing would be sufficient to mixed messaging over masks , from trying to force people back to the office to shutting everything down , and from fighting with Manchester over a few million before turning on the taps for a UK-wide furlough scheme , ministers have lost at least a little chunk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scoffing at the prospect of forcing businesses in the South West to shut to fight the virus in the North , days before appearing to do just that , exemplifies the problem .
This has created a fertile atmosphere for those suspicious of today ’ s strategy , and it isn ’ t just the commentators and hacks taking advantage .
Another political life for Nigel Farage will be far from the worst consequence of the Government continuing to get this wrong .
But it ’ s one we can do without .

As the pandemic gears up for round two, the political consensus on combating it continues to erode. Over the summer we saw the breakdown of the ‘four nations’ coordinated approach across the United Kingdom. Now dissent boils away inside the Conservative Party.
Senior figures, including Sir Graham Brady on this site, are calling on ministers to do much more to account for the negative consequences of lockdown – in terms of other health issues, mental health, and more – in the anti-Covid utility calculus.
Now the data used to justify Boris Johnson’s hard pivot away from his newly-minted tier system towards a second full lockdown is coming under attack. According to the Daily Telegraph, the Cambridge University data used to sell the policy is weeks out of date, and Ross Clark points out that much of the evidence apparently underlying the move is not publicly available.
Fraser Nelson also takes the Prime Minister to task for failing to set up a ‘red team’ of experts to challenge the assumptions of his advisors. By limiting himself to one source of expert information, this argument runs, Johnson leaves himself unable to weigh alternatives or choose between plausible options, and exposes himself to extreme political danger if he defies his advisors.
But ranged against this tendency are those who argue that ‘Covid deaths’ isn’t the best way to understand the public health consequences: and that hospital capacity is.
Once lockdown started to bite, there was no shortage of people going sour on the phrase ‘protect the NHS’. Should it not, after all, be there to protect us? But the central point, as we explained at the time, was making sure that the number of serious cases remained within the capacity of the Health Service to treat. The alternative was catastrophe.
Whilst the data about deaths is not clear, and dogged with disputes over definition, models and projections, hospitalisation data is publicly available on the Government’s dashboard. It shows admissions climbing steadily since the start of September, on a trajectory that would see the UK hit the first peak well before Christmas.
But this doesn’t tell the whole story, because patients and beds are not evenly distributed across the country. Much in the same way that the UK still has a housing crisis despite there being lots of stock in the wrong bits of the country, a surge in cases could overwhelm the NHS locally or regionally without the top-line figures showing that NHS England had toppled completely.
Furthermore, some lessons have been learned from the first wave, especially about the human toll of delayed treatments, surgeries, and the rest of the NHS’s normal business. As Bernard Jenkin recently noted, there is now much greater recognition that Health Service ‘capacity’ must include these things, rather than just focusing on whether or not it can treat every coronavirus patient.
But maintaining sufficient slack in the system to do this, during the months when the NHS undergoes its annual ‘winter crisis’, requires a more assertive response to the pandemic, not less. This looming squeeze on capacity from other causes also explains why the decision can’t be based purely on the basis of Covid admissions – even if the latter are declining, there will be a crunch if bed vacancies are falling faster.
Ultimately, the Government is paying the price for how badly it has handled public messaging during this crisis. From the early insistence that hand-washing would be sufficient to mixed messaging over masks, from trying to force people back to the office to shutting everything down, and from fighting with Manchester over a few million before turning on the taps for a UK-wide furlough scheme, ministers have lost at least a little chunk of the public with every u-turn. Scoffing at the prospect of forcing businesses in the South West to shut to fight the virus in the North, days before appearing to do just that, exemplifies the problem.
This has created a fertile atmosphere for those suspicious of today’s strategy, and it isn’t just the commentators and hacks taking advantage. Another political life for Nigel Farage will be far from the worst consequence of the Government continuing to get this wrong. But it’s one we can do without.


conservativehome--2020-11-02--WATCH: Johnson in the Commons. It’s back to stay alert, protect the NHS and save lives.

WATCH : Johnson in the Commons .
It ’ s back to stay alert , protect the NHS and save @ @

“The virus is doubling faster than we could conceivably add capacity”
Prime Minister Boris Johnson warns MPs about England's rate of Covid-19 growth https://t.co/MqmseLmxnK pic.twitter.com/0lRy3vLXhs
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) November 2, 2020


conservativehome--2020-11-02--“Let me spell out the medical and moral disaster we face.” The Prime Minister’s statement to MPs. Fu

“Let me spell out the medical and moral disaster we face.” The Prime Minister’s statement to MPs. Full text.

“ Mr Speaker with your permission , I will make a statement on the measures we must now take to contain the autumn surge of Coronavirus , protect our NHS and save lives .
On Saturday evening the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser described the remorseless advance of this second wave .
The extraordinary efforts being made by millions of people across the country especially by those in very high alert areas have made a real difference , suppressing the R rate below where it would otherwise have been .
But the R is still above one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is across much of Europe and the virus is spreading even faster than the reasonable worst-case scenario .
There are already more Covid patients in some hospitals now than at the height of the first wave , 2,000 more this Sunday than last Sunday .
While the prevalence of the virus is worse in parts of the North , the doubling time in the South East and the Midlands is now faster than in the North West .
Even in the South West , where incidence remains low , current projections mean they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capacity in a matter of weeks .
And the modelling presented by our scientists suggests that without action , we could see up to twice as many deaths over the winter as we saw in the first wave .
Faced with these latest figures , there is no alternative but to take further action at a national level .
I believe it was right to try every possible option to get this virus under control at a local level , with strong local action and strong local leadership .
And I reject any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking measures than our European friends and partners .
In fact , we are moving to national measures when the rate both of deaths and infections is lower than they were in France .
We are engaged in a constant struggle to protect lives and livelihoods , and we must balance the restrictions we introduce against the long term scars they leave , whether for businesses and jobs , or our physical and mental health .
No-one wants to impose measures unless absolutely essential , so it made sense to focus initially on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not to shut businesses , pubs and restaurants in parts of the country where incidence was low .
I want to thank the millions who have put up with local restrictions , sometimes for months on end .
I want to thank them , and to thank the local leaders who have understood the gravity of the position .
And we will continue as far as possible to adopt a pragmatic and local approach in the months ahead .
But we are fighting a disease Mr Speaker , and when the data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too .
To those in this House who believe we should resist further national measures , let me spell out the medical and moral disaster we face .
If we allow our health system to be overwhelmed – exactly as the data now suggests – then that would not only be a disaster for thousands of Covid patients , because their survival rates would fall , we would also reach a point where the NHS was no longer there for everyone .
The sick would be turned away because there was no room @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – of care for anyone who needs it , whoever they are and whenever they need it – could be broken for the first time in our lives .
Doctors and nurses could be forced to choose which patients to treat , who would live and who would die .
And this existential threat to our NHS comes not from focusing too much on Coronavirus , but from not focusing enough .
If we fail to get Coronavirus under control , it is the sheer weight of demand from Covid patients that would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cancer treatment , heart surgery , other life-saving procedures : all this could be put at risk if we do not get the virus under control .
And even though we are so much better prepared than before , with stockpiles of PPE and ventilators , the Nightingales on standby , and 13,000 more nurses than last year , I am afraid the virus is doubling faster than we could ever conceivably add capacity .
Even if we doubled capacity , the gain would be consumed in a single doubling of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House will vote on regulations which , if passed , will mean that from Thursday until 2nd December , in England , people will only be permitted to leave home for specific reasons , including : • For work , if you can not work from home ; • For exercise and recreation outdoors , with your household or on your own , or with one person from another household or support bubble ; • For medical reasons , appointments and to escape injury and harm ; • To shop for food and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for vulnerable people , or as a volunteer .
Essential shops will remain open and click and collect services will continue , so people do not need to stock up .
But I am afraid that non-essential shops , leisure and entertainment venues and the personal care sector will all be closed .
Hospitality must close except for takeaway and delivery services .
Places of worship can open for individual prayer , funerals and formal childcare but sadly not for services .
However Remembrance Sunday events can go ahead , provided they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Workplaces should stay open where people can ’ t work from home – for example in construction or manufacturing .
Elite sport will also be able to continue .
Single adult households can still form exclusive support bubbles with one other household , and children will still be able to move between homes if their parents are separated .
The clinically vulnerable and those over 60 should minimise their contact with others .
And while we will not ask people to shield again in the same way , the clinically extremely vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker , I am truly sorry for the anguish these measures will impose , particularly for businesses which had just got back on their feet , businesses across the country who have gone to such trouble to make themselves Covid secure , to install Perspex screens , to do the right thing .
Each of these actions has helped to bring the R down , and their hard work and your hard work will stand them in good stead , but for now it is clear that we must do more together .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything possible to support jobs and livelihoods in the next four weeks as we have throughout .
We have protected almost 10 million jobs with furlough , and we are now extending this scheme throughout November .
We have already paid out £13.7 billion to help the self-employed , and I can announce today that for November we will double our support from 40 to 80 per cent of trading profits .
My Rt Hon Friend the Chancellor will also extend the deadline for applications to Covid loan schemes from the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ensure that small businesses can access additional loans if required .
We are not going back to the full-scale lockdown of March and April , and there are ways in which these measures are less prohibitive .
We have for instance a moral duty to keep schools open now that it is safe to do so , because we must not allow this virus to damage our children ’ s futures .
So schools will remain open , as will colleges , universities , childcare and early years settings – and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Speaker across the House .
It is also vital that we continue provision for non-Covid healthcare so people should turn up to use the NHS , to get their scans , turn up for appointments and collect their treatments .
Mr Speaker let me stress that these restrictions are time limited .
After four weeks , on Wednesday 2nd December , they will expire and we intend to return to a tiered system on a local and regional basis according to the latest data and trends , and the House will have a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We have updated the devolved administrations on the action we are taking in England and will continue to work with them on plans for Christmas and beyond .
And while scientists are bleak in their predictions over the short-term , they are unanimously optimistic about the medium and long-term .
And if the House asks me Mr Speaker what is the exit strategy , what is the way out – let me be as clear as I can : it is to get the R down now – to beat this autumn surge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the medical and technical advances we are making to keep it low .
We now have not only much better medication and the prospect of a vaccine the immediate prospect of many millions of cheap , reliable and rapid turnaround tests – with a result in minutes .
Trials have already shown that we can help suppress the disease in hospitals , schools and universities by testing large numbers of NHS workers , children , teachers and students .
These tests , crucially , identify people who are infectious but do not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and stop the spread of the disease , and allowing those who are not infectious to continue as normal .
This means that , unlike in the spring , it ’ s possible to keep these institutions open and still stop the spread of the disease .
And so over the next few days and weeks , we plan a steady but massive expansion in the deployment of these quick turnaround tests which we will be manufacturing in this country applying them in an ever-growing number of situations , from helping women to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wards when they ’ re giving birth , to testing whole towns and even cities .
The army has been brought in to work on the logistics and the programme will begin in a matter of days .
Mr Speaker , we have dexamethasone – the first validated life-saving treatment for the disease , pioneered in this country .
We have the real prospect of a vaccine in the first quarter of next year and we have ever more sophisticated means of providing virtually instant tests .
I believe that these technical developments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defeat this virus by the spring , as humanity has defeated every other infectious disease .
And I am not alone in this optimism but I can not pretend that the way ahead is easy , or without painful choices for us all .
And so for the next four weeks I must ask the people of this country to come together , to protect the NHS , and to save many thousands of lives .
And Mr Speaker I commend this statement to the House .
”

“Mr Speaker with your permission, I will make a statement on the measures we must now take to contain the autumn surge of Coronavirus, protect our NHS and save lives.
On Saturday evening the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser described the remorseless advance of this second wave.
The extraordinary efforts being made by millions of people across the country
especially by those in very high alert areas
have made a real difference, suppressing the R rate below where it would otherwise have been.
But the R is still above one in every part of England
as it is across much of Europe
and the virus is spreading even faster than the reasonable worst-case scenario.
There are already more Covid patients in some hospitals now than at the height of the first wave,
2,000 more this Sunday than last Sunday.
While the prevalence of the virus is worse in parts of the North, the doubling time in the South East and the Midlands is now faster than in the North West.
Even in the South West, where incidence remains low, current projections mean they will start to run out of hospital capacity in a matter of weeks.
And the modelling presented by our scientists suggests that without action, we could see up to twice as many deaths over the winter as we saw in the first wave.
Faced with these latest figures, there is no alternative but to take further action at a national level.
I believe it was right to try every possible option to get this virus under control at a local level, with strong local action and strong local leadership.
And I reject any idea that we are somehow slower in taking measures than our European friends and partners.
In fact, we are moving to national measures when the rate both of deaths and infections is lower than they were in France.
We are engaged in a constant struggle to protect lives and livelihoods,
and we must balance the restrictions we introduce against the long term scars they leave,
whether for businesses and jobs, or our physical and mental health.
No-one wants to impose measures unless absolutely essential, so it made sense to focus initially on the areas where the disease was surging
and not to shut businesses, pubs and restaurants in parts of the country where incidence was low.
I want to thank the millions who have put up with local restrictions,
sometimes for months on end.
I want to thank them, and to thank the local leaders who have understood the gravity of the position.
And we will continue as far as possible to adopt a pragmatic and local approach in the months ahead.
But we are fighting a disease Mr Speaker, and when the data changes course, we must change course too.
To those in this House who believe we should resist further national measures,
let me spell out the medical and moral disaster we face.
If we allow our health system to be overwhelmed – exactly as the data now suggests –
then that would not only be a disaster for thousands of Covid patients, because their survival rates would fall,
we would also reach a point where the NHS was no longer there for everyone.
The sick would be turned away because there was no room in our hospitals.
That sacred principle – of care for anyone who needs it, whoever they are and whenever they need it – could be broken for the first time in our lives.
Doctors and nurses could be forced to choose which patients to treat, who would live and who would die.
And this existential threat to our NHS comes not from focusing too much on Coronavirus, but from not focusing enough.
If we fail to get Coronavirus under control, it is the sheer weight of demand from Covid patients that would deprive others of the care they need.
Cancer treatment, heart surgery, other life-saving procedures: all this could be put at risk if we do not get the virus under control.
And even though we are so much better prepared than before,
with stockpiles of PPE and ventilators, the Nightingales on standby,
and 13,000 more nurses than last year,
I am afraid the virus is doubling faster than we could ever conceivably add capacity.
Even if we doubled capacity, the gain would be consumed in a single doubling of the virus.
And so on Wednesday the House will vote on regulations which, if passed, will mean that
from Thursday until 2nd December, in England,
people will only be permitted to leave home for specific reasons, including:
• For education;
• For work, if you cannot work from home;
• For exercise and recreation outdoors, with your household or on your own, or with one person from another household or support bubble;
• For medical reasons, appointments and to escape injury and harm;
• To shop for food and essentials;
• And to provide care for vulnerable people, or as a volunteer.
Essential shops will remain open and click and collect services will continue, so people do not need to stock up.
But I am afraid that non-essential shops, leisure and entertainment venues and the personal care sector will all be closed.
Hospitality must close except for takeaway and delivery services.
Places of worship can open for individual prayer, funerals and formal childcare but sadly not for services.
However Remembrance Sunday events can go ahead, provided they are held outside, and observe social distancing.
Workplaces should stay open where people can’t work from home – for example in construction or manufacturing. Elite sport will also be able to continue.
Single adult households can still form exclusive support bubbles with one other household, and children will still be able to move between homes if their parents are separated.
The clinically vulnerable and those over 60 should minimise their contact with others.
And while we will not ask people to shield again in the same way, the clinically extremely vulnerable should only work from home.
Mr Speaker, I am truly sorry for the anguish these measures will impose, particularly for businesses which had just got back on their feet,
businesses across the country who have gone to such trouble to make themselves Covid secure,
to install Perspex screens, to do the right thing.
Each of these actions has helped to bring the R down, and their hard work and your hard work will stand them in good stead,
but for now it is clear that we must do more together.
So the government will continue to do everything possible to support jobs and livelihoods
in the next four weeks as we have throughout.
We have protected almost 10 million jobs with furlough,
and we are now extending this scheme throughout November.
We have already paid out £13.7 billion to help the self-employed,
and I can announce today that for November we will double our support from 40 to 80 per cent of trading profits.
My Rt Hon Friend the Chancellor will also extend the deadline for applications to Covid loan schemes from the end of this month to the end of next
to ensure that small businesses can access additional loans if required.
We are not going back to the full-scale lockdown of March and April,
and there are ways in which these measures are less prohibitive.
We have for instance a moral duty to keep schools open now that it is safe to do so, because we must not allow this virus to damage our children’s futures.
So schools will remain open, as will colleges, universities, childcare and early years settings – and I am pleased this will command support Mr Speaker across the House.
It is also vital that we continue provision for non-Covid healthcare so people should turn up to use the NHS, to get their scans, turn up for appointments and collect their treatments.
Mr Speaker let me stress that these restrictions are time limited.
After four weeks, on Wednesday 2nd December, they will expire
and we intend to return to a tiered system on a local and regional basis according to the latest data and trends,
and the House will have a vote to agree the way forward.
We have updated the devolved administrations on the action we are taking in England and will continue to work with them on plans for Christmas and beyond.
And while scientists are bleak in their predictions over the short-term, they are unanimously optimistic about the medium and long-term.
And if the House asks me Mr Speaker what is the exit strategy,
what is the way out – let me be as clear as I can:
it is to get the R down now – to beat this autumn surge
and to use this moment to exploit the medical and technical advances we are making to keep it low.
We now have not only much better medication and the prospect of a vaccine the immediate prospect of many millions of cheap, reliable and rapid turnaround tests – with a result in minutes.
Trials have already shown that we can help suppress the disease in hospitals, schools and universities by testing large numbers of NHS workers, children, teachers and students.
These tests, crucially, identify people who are infectious but do not have symptoms,
allowing them immediately to self-isolate and stop the spread of the disease,
and allowing those who are not infectious to continue as normal.
This means that, unlike in the spring, it’s possible to keep these institutions open and still stop the spread of the disease.
And so over the next few days and weeks, we plan a steady but massive expansion in the deployment of these quick turnaround tests
which we will be manufacturing in this country
applying them in an ever-growing number of situations,
from helping women to have their partners with them in labour wards when they’re giving birth,
to testing whole towns and even cities.
The army has been brought in to work on the logistics and the programme will begin in a matter of days.
Mr Speaker, we have dexamethasone – the first validated life-saving treatment for the disease, pioneered in this country.
We have the real prospect of a vaccine in the first quarter of next year
and we have ever more sophisticated means of providing virtually instant tests.
I believe that these technical developments, taken together, will enable us to defeat this virus by the spring,
as humanity has defeated every other infectious disease.
And I am not alone in this optimism
but I cannot pretend that the way ahead is easy, or without painful choices for us all.
And so for the next four weeks I must ask the people of this country to come together, to protect the NHS, and to save many thousands of lives.
And Mr Speaker I commend this statement to the House.”


conservativehome--2020-11-02--Howard Flight: The rights of British citizens who live among our European neighbours must be safegua

Howard Flight: The rights of British citizens who live among our European neighbours must be safeguarded

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury .
British in Europe has persuaded peers to propose three amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Bill .
The first would prevent the removal of the existing right of UK citizens who moved to the EEA to return with families they have established there .
The second and third amendments are to prevent the Bill ’ s regulation-making powers from being used to breach the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement .
The main amendment is to preserve the right of UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who return to live in the UK in the future , to then bring with them or to be joined by non-British family members on the same terms as have applied up until now .
If the Bill is not amended , British citizens who moved to the EU/EEA while the UK was a member will lose their right to return to their country of birth with a non-British partner or children unless they can meet financial conditions beyond the reach of many .
If they need to return to look after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to choose between either returning alone and leaving their families behind , or abandoning their parent to stay with their non-British family in the EEA .
The problem arises because the Government is using the end of free movement to make these British citizens meet , for the first time , “ the minimum income requirement ” for family reunion .
The MIR has been criticised both because the level is high , which 40 per cent of UK workers would not be able to reach ; and because of the Catch 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only be taken into account if they have been working in the UK for 6 months .
But how do they get into the UK to work if they can not satisfy the MIR ?
It is doubly unfair to apply the MIR to this group of British citizens where the change is retrospective .
When they left their homes in the UK to move to the EU/EEA they were safe in the knowledge that if they established a family while abroad , they would be able to bring them back to Britain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same expectations .
The rules also lead to the perverse result that the Government ’ s approach involves discrimination against its own citizens .
While British citizens who moved to the EU/EEA before the end of 2020 have these new restrictions ; EU citizens who moved to the UK before the end of 2020 will not .
They will have the right under the Withdrawal Agreement to bring existing family members to the UK for life , as well as keeping their existing right to return to their country of origin with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Government ’ s response is that they have allowed 15 months from the end of transition to return with families to the UK .
For many their plans to return to the UK are in retirement , well beyond 15 months .
The other two amendments are designed to ensure that the power created can only be used in a way consistent with the UK ’ s obligations under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement .
Clause 4 of the Bill enables regulations to be made to amend earlier primary legislation .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law by the EU ( Withdrawal Agreement ) at 2018 as amended .
It follows that , as drafted , the Clause 4 power enables the Secretary of State , by regulation , to modify the application of the Withdrawal Agreement in the UK .
The Withdrawal Agreement is the vital underpinning of the rights created in UK law for UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living here .
It is thus a matter of constitutional concern that the Agreement should have the maximum possible legal protection .
As far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UK ’ s EU Settlement Scheme for British citizens in the UK and is thus essential , for both EU citizens in the UK and British nationals in the EU , that the Withdrawal Agreement remains sacrosanct .
Where any proposed legislation might be seen as breach of the Withdrawal Agreement , the decision as to whether it does so should be a matter for Parliament to consider through primary legislation .
The second amendment to Clause 5 is to ensure that the power created by this clause can only be used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UK ’ s obligations under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement .
The three aspects of this legislation to British citizens covered by the Withdrawal Agreement are the continued right of UK State Pensioners living in the EU to receive their pensions and any pension increases and the continued right of pensioners to healthcare under the “ SI Scheme ” , which enables a pensioner living in a country which is not responsible for their pensions to receive healthcare in their county of residence at the expense of the country where they paid their pension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living in the EU and vice versa , and allows those who have worked in the UK and one or more EU countries have their contributions aggregated so as not to fall foul of National rules on minimum contribution periods.Unless this amendment is made it would be possible for a Government , by regulation alone , to modify these vital provisions , in breach of the Withdrawal Agreement .
This amendment is necessary to prevent Governments acting in breach of an international Treaty in connection with social security provision .

Lord Flight is Chairman of Flight & Partners Recovery Fund and is a former Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
British in Europe has persuaded peers to propose three amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Bill.
The first would prevent the removal of the existing right of UK citizens who moved to the EEA to return with families they have established there. The second and third amendments are to prevent the Bill’s regulation-making powers from being used to breach the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement.
The main amendment is to preserve the right of UK Nationals living in the EEA and Switzerland, who return to live in the UK in the future, to then bring with them or to be joined by non-British family members on the same terms as have applied up until now.
If the Bill is not amended, British citizens who moved to the EU/EEA while the UK was a member will lose their right to return to their country of birth with a non-British partner or children unless they can meet financial conditions beyond the reach of many. If they need to return to look after and elderly parent, they will have to choose between either returning alone and leaving their families behind, or abandoning their parent to stay with their non-British family in the EEA.
The problem arises because the Government is using the end of free movement to make these British citizens meet, for the first time, “the minimum income requirement” for family reunion. The MIR has been criticised both because the level is high, which 40 per cent of UK workers would not be able to reach; and because of the Catch 22 rule that the non-British partners income can only be taken into account if they have been working in the UK for 6 months. But how do they get into the UK to work if they cannot satisfy the MIR?
It is doubly unfair to apply the MIR to this group of British citizens where the change is retrospective. When they left their homes in the UK to move to the EU/EEA they were safe in the knowledge that if they established a family while abroad, they would be able to bring them back to Britain. The parents they left behind had the same expectations.
The rules also lead to the perverse result that the Government’s approach involves discrimination against its own citizens. While British citizens who moved to the EU/EEA before the end of 2020 have these new restrictions; EU citizens who moved to the UK before the end of 2020 will not. They will have the right under the Withdrawal Agreement to bring existing family members to the UK for life, as well as keeping their existing right to return to their country of origin with families they have made in the UK.
The Government’s response is that they have allowed 15 months from the end of transition to return with families to the UK. For many their plans to return to the UK are in retirement, well beyond 15 months.
The other two amendments are designed to ensure that the power created can only be used in a way consistent with the UK’s obligations under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement. Clause 4 of the Bill enables regulations to be made to amend earlier primary legislation. The UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement is incorporated in UK law by the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) at 2018 as amended. It follows that, as drafted, the Clause 4 power enables the Secretary of State, by regulation, to modify the application of the Withdrawal Agreement in the UK.
The Withdrawal Agreement is the vital underpinning of the rights created in UK law for UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living here. It is thus a matter of constitutional concern that the Agreement should have the maximum possible legal protection. As far as immigration is concerned, it underpins the UK’s EU Settlement Scheme for British citizens in the UK and is thus essential, for both EU citizens in the UK and British nationals in the EU, that the Withdrawal Agreement remains sacrosanct. Where any proposed legislation might be seen as breach of the Withdrawal Agreement, the decision as to whether it does so should be a matter for Parliament to consider through primary legislation.
The second amendment to Clause 5 is to ensure that the power created by this clause can only be used in ways which are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the UK/EU Withdrawal Agreement.
The three aspects of this legislation to British citizens covered by the Withdrawal Agreement are the continued right of UK State Pensioners living in the EU to receive their pensions and any pension increases and the continued right of pensioners to healthcare under the “SI Scheme”, which enables a pensioner living in a country which is not responsible for their pensions to receive healthcare in their county of residence at the expense of the country where they paid their pension contributions.
It applies to British pensioners living in the EU and vice versa, and allows those who have worked in the UK and one or more EU countries have their contributions aggregated so as not to fall foul of National rules on minimum contribution periods.Unless this amendment is made it would be possible for a Government, by regulation alone, to modify these vital provisions, in breach of the Withdrawal Agreement. This amendment is necessary to prevent Governments acting in breach of an international Treaty in connection with social security provision.


conservativehome--2020-11-02--Farage returns to a favourite game – winding up Tory MPs and flying them like a kite. Or trying to.

Over 50 per cent of voters supported Brexit , but under 20 per cent opposed the three-tiered lockdown , according to YouGov .
We wait to see how the polls settle down in the wake of Boris Johnson ’ s announcement of the latest one .
But it would be surprising were they to be very different .
So given the recent paucity of support for an anti-shutdown policy , what is Nigel Farage up to in briefing that the Brexit Party is to relaunch as an anti-lockdown party ?
The answer may be that he doesn ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make an impact on the British political scene .
True , there are no longer seats in the European Parliament to be won with under 20 per cent of the vote , and most of Britain ’ s domestic elections are contested under first past the post , which doesn ’ t help challenger movements .
All the same , a new force could conceivably pick up council seats next year , were it able to utilise the Brexit Party ’ s list of candidates and contacts .
But a moment ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t expecting to make a big electoral breakthrough next year – let alone in 2024 or whenever the next election comes , by which time all may be very different .
Rather , he is playing his familiar game of trolling the Tories – piling in on Conservative MP and Party member opposition to the coming lockdown to ramp it up further .
Farage ’ s best hope of success in British politics is to boost his chances in elections by dividing the Tories , and hoping to peel off members and MPs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mark Reckless .
It ’ s possible of course that the story is an elaborate Farage-Telegraph mutual wind-up of the kind that we have got used to over time .
After all , it ’ s not the first time he has floated branding the Brexit Party as “ Reform UK ” or , to be strictly accurate “ the Reform Party ” ( much the same thing ) .
Mind you , it isn ’ t clear that his attention is truly concentrated on UK politics , rather than a prospective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t come off to date .
He has also lost his LBC show .
And remember that absurd flurry about his suitability or otherwise to be the UK ’ s man in Washington , as puffed by Donald Trump .
In our view , Farage would be well placed in the Lords , which is where he should rightly be , rather than an Embassy : we can think of no-one less suited to diplomacy , with the possible exception of the late Brian Clough .
If he ’ s serious about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peel votes from Labour voters , other voters , and those who don ’ t vote at all .
But his natural pitch would be to small business people and the self-employed who voted Conservative last December ( plus the UKIPish fringe of mask-burners , anti-vaxers , 5G conspiracy theorists and QAnoners ) .
At any rate , he will want to freak out Tory MPs before Wednesday ’ s vote .
And in some cases will doubtless succeed .

Over 50 per cent of voters supported Brexit, but under 20 per cent opposed the three-tiered lockdown, according to YouGov. We wait to see how the polls settle down in the wake of Boris Johnson’s announcement of the latest one. But it would be surprising were they to be very different.
So given the recent paucity of support for an anti-shutdown policy, what is Nigel Farage up to in briefing that the Brexit Party is to relaunch as an anti-lockdown party?
The answer may be that he doesn’t need 50 per cent plus of the vote to make an impact on the British political scene.
True, there are no longer seats in the European Parliament to be won with under 20 per cent of the vote, and most of Britain’s domestic elections are contested under first past the post, which doesn’t help challenger movements.
All the same, a new force could conceivably pick up council seats next year, were it able to utilise the Brexit Party’s list of candidates and contacts.
But a moment’s thought suggests that Farage isn’t expecting to make a big electoral breakthrough next year – let alone in 2024 or whenever the next election comes, by which time all may be very different.
Rather, he is playing his familiar game of trolling the Tories – piling in on Conservative MP and Party member opposition to the coming lockdown to ramp it up further.
Farage’s best hope of success in British politics is to boost his chances in elections by dividing the Tories, and hoping to peel off members and MPs, as he did with Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless.
It’s possible of course that the story is an elaborate Farage-Telegraph mutual wind-up of the kind that we have got used to over time.
After all, it’s not the first time he has floated branding the Brexit Party as “Reform UK” or, to be strictly accurate “the Reform Party” (much the same thing).
Mind you, it isn’t clear that his attention is truly concentrated on UK politics, rather than a prospective TV career in America, which hasn’t come off to date. He has also lost his LBC show.
And remember that absurd flurry about his suitability or otherwise to be the UK’s man in Washington, as puffed by Donald Trump.
In our view, Farage would be well placed in the Lords, which is where he should rightly be, rather than an Embassy: we can think of no-one less suited to diplomacy, with the possible exception of the late Brian Clough.
If he’s serious about this new enterprise, he would obviously peel votes from Labour voters, other voters, and those who don’t vote at all.
But his natural pitch would be to small business people and the self-employed who voted Conservative last December (plus the UKIPish fringe of mask-burners, anti-vaxers, 5G conspiracy theorists and QAnoners). At any rate, he will want to freak out Tory MPs before Wednesday’s vote. And in some cases will doubtless succeed.


conservativehome--2020-11-02--Like the virus itself, and like other restrictions, this shutdown will come down hardest on the deep

Like the virus itself, and like other restrictions, this shutdown will come down hardest on the deep poor

Today ’ s papers are full of snippets about what newly-elected Conservative MPs from the former Red Wall seats are thinking and saying about the coming lockdown – and how they will vote on Wednesday .
It ’ s one more sign of the grip that the “ C2s ” , “ strivers ” , “ battlers ” , “ little guys ” ( and girls ) “ the just about managing ” and “ the north and midlands ” currently have on the country ’ s political imagination .
These categories , real and imagined , aren ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paint a rough picture of the provincial voters of England and Wales who gifted Boris Johnson his 80-seat majority last year .
We ’ re no strangers to taking an interest in them ourselves on ConservativeHome .
They are the focus of James Frayne ’ s fortnightly Far From Notting Hill column on this site .
As long ago as 2015 , we were calling for a “ conservatism for Bolton West ” , named after the most marginal English seat on David Cameron ’ s target list : Bolton West .
Lynton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the barnacles off the boat ” – and Chris Green , the Party ’ s candidate , won in Bolton .
But there is another group of voters who have long been of special interest to this site – all the way back to 2005 , when Tim Montgomerie first launched it .
They are the group immediately below the “ just about managing ” on most measures of incomes and outcomes – “ the vulnerable ” : a mass of people that Iain Duncan Smith first took a special interest in when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stroud , his Special Adviser when he was Work and Pensions Secretary , wrote on this site about one of the key trade-offs in public policy – now , during Covid-19 ; and previously .
She said that the Government can either “ focus on those who are moving in and out of poverty and close to the labour market ( the top seven million ) ” … “ …Or else focus energy and resources on those in deep poverty – those who are 50 per cent below the poverty line ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can be argued that government doesn ’ t have to choose between helping both near at the bottom of Robert Halfon ’ s famous ladder and those on the lower rungs , which is true enough .
Furthermore , the “ just about managing ” have an interest in helping those who aren ’ t managing at all – both as fellow citizens and , more particularly , because they pay taxes to support those those who struggle with “ five giants ” .
The Centre for Social Justice ( CSJ ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the modern age , identifies these as : family breakdown , worklessness , serious personal debt , addiction and educational underachievement .
Nonetheless , Stroud is right : when it comes to policy on spending , tax , regulation and much else , including the use of its bully pulpit , to govern is to choose .
So it is that on ConservativeHome this week , we ’ re very pleased to be hosting the CSJ , which Duncan Smith founded , in a series on Covid-19 and the deep poor – to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Andy Cook opens it today with an article urging that Universal Credit , which is coped well during this crisis , be supplemented by Universal Support – personal help suited to each person looking for and seeking to keep work .
He ’ s the CSJ ’ s Chief Executive Officer , and other pieces from the CSJ will follow on educational underachievement , mental health , homelessness , serious personal debt and domestic abuse .
That ’ s six giants in all , not five , but we believe that this exercise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delighted to have Duncan Smith writing on the site himself yesterday to introduce the series .
He wants a Social Justice Cabinet Committee – and has a plan to bring closure to the free schools meals row , which hasn ’ t gone away and will be back soon .
We look forward to the rest of series and to responses from our readers , MPs , Ministers and others – as the shutdown prepares to bite .

Today’s papers are full of snippets about what newly-elected Conservative MPs from the former Red Wall seats are thinking and saying about the coming lockdown – and how they will vote on Wednesday.
It’s one more sign of the grip that the “C2s”, “strivers”, “battlers”, “little guys” (and girls) “the just about managing” and “the north and midlands” currently have on the country’s political imagination.
These categories, real and imagined, aren’t necessarily the same, but they do paint a rough picture of the provincial voters of England and Wales who gifted Boris Johnson his 80-seat majority last year.
We’re no strangers to taking an interest in them ourselves on ConservativeHome. They are the focus of James Frayne’s fortnightly Far From Notting Hill column on this site.
As long ago as 2015, we were calling for a “conservatism for Bolton West”, named after the most marginal English seat on David Cameron’s target list: Bolton West.
Lynton Crosby duly provided it, scraping “the barnacles off the boat” – and Chris Green, the Party’s candidate, won in Bolton.
But there is another group of voters who have long been of special interest to this site – all the way back to 2005, when Tim Montgomerie first launched it.
They are the group immediately below the “just about managing” on most measures of incomes and outcomes – “the vulnerable”: a mass of people that Iain Duncan Smith first took a special interest in when Tory leader.
Last week, Philippa Stroud, his Special Adviser when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, wrote on this site about one of the key trade-offs in public policy – now, during Covid-19; and previously.
She said that the Government can either “focus on those who are moving in and out of poverty and close to the labour market (the top seven million)”…
“…Or else focus energy and resources on those in deep poverty – those who are 50 per cent below the poverty line (the bottom 4.5 million)”.
It can be argued that government doesn’t have to choose between helping both near at the bottom of Robert Halfon’s famous ladder and those on the lower rungs, which is true enough.
Furthermore, the “just about managing” have an interest in helping those who aren’t managing at all – both as fellow citizens and, more particularly, because they pay taxes to support those those who struggle with “five giants”.
The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), adapting that famous phrase from Beveridge for the modern age, identifies these as: family breakdown, worklessness, serious personal debt, addiction and educational underachievement.
Nonetheless, Stroud is right: when it comes to policy on spending, tax, regulation and much else, including the use of its bully pulpit, to govern is to choose.
So it is that on ConservativeHome this week, we’re very pleased to be hosting the CSJ, which Duncan Smith founded, in a series on Covid-19 and the deep poor – to pick up Stroud’s phrase.
Andy Cook opens it today with an article urging that Universal Credit, which is coped well during this crisis, be supplemented by Universal Support – personal help suited to each person looking for and seeking to keep work.
He’s the CSJ’s Chief Executive Officer, and other pieces from the CSJ will follow on educational underachievement, mental health, homelessness, serious personal debt and domestic abuse.
That’s six giants in all, not five, but we believe that this exercise is well worth it, and were delighted to have Duncan Smith writing on the site himself yesterday to introduce the series.
He wants a Social Justice Cabinet Committee – and has a plan to bring closure to the free schools meals row, which hasn’t gone away and will be back soon.
We look forward to the rest of series and to responses from our readers, MPs, Ministers and others – as the shutdown prepares to bite.


conservativehome--2020-11-02--Neil O’Brien: The virus and the lockdown. Let’s keep calm and carry on – there’s reason to believe t

Neil O’Brien: The virus and the lockdown. Let’s keep calm and carry on – there’s reason to believe that a vaccine is coming soon.

Sarah Thomas is a lunatic .
And amazing .
About a year ago , she became the first person to swim the Channel four times in a row without stopping .
It took 54 hours .
Between booking her slot , and getting in the water , she survived cancer .
Setting off , she was immediately stung in the face by a jellyfish .
On her fourth crossing , strong tides pushed her off course , turning 83 miles of swimming into 134 , forcing her to sprint-swim to break free from the current .
She ’ s inspiring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t a bad metaphor for our fight against coronavirus .
Metaphorically , we ’ re somewhere in the middle , when you can ’ t see Britain , but can ’ t quite see France either .
The national restrictions announced by the Prime Minister on Saturday underlined that we will still be slogging through this for a while yet .
Polls suggest the public strongly back his decision : given the alarming data , it is definitely the right one .
Yet everyone ’ s tired of the restrictions and not seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good things we look forward to once this is over remain a way off .
As we go through this marathon ordeal , what can we learn from Sarah Thomas ?
First , most top athletes are taught to visualise success .
Regarding Coronavirus , the finishing line is becoming more visible , with progress on vaccines looking good .
The New York Times runs a Vaccine Checker which lets you follow progress .
Eleven different vaccines are in final-stage “ Phase 3 ” clinical trials , with half a dozen or so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There were always reasons to be optimistic about a vaccine : when the whole world wants something really badly , it ’ s likely to get produced .
Producing a vaccine for coronavirus isn ’ t like inventing the atom bomb or putting a man on the moon , which required oodles of new technologies .
A Covid-19 vaccine is a sideways-step from existing technologies .
Several categories of vaccines look like they will be ready to roll in the coming months : • is basically a weakened version of a common cold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protein which Covid-19 also shows , so that your body can learn to seek and destroy it without exposure to the real thing .
Trials found it produces a good immune response including among older people , and doesn ’ t have side effects .
The UK , US and EU have signed for hundreds of millions of doses .
• Other vaccines based on a similar approach in final stage tests include China ’ s , Russia ’ s and in the US .
• Another promising approach is based on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for making proteins .
The vaccine works like this and may well be the first to go into non-trial use in the US .
There was some speculation last week that we could start using it here in the UK before Christmas , which seems a bit soon , but it isn ’ t far off .
Another similar vaccine from the is also final stage trials .
• Finally , there ’ s a bunch of traditional vaccines based on inactivated versions of Covid-19 ( like the Hepatitis B vaccine , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
China ’ s and both offer vaccines like this – the Sinovac one is already being used outside clinical trials and you can buy it in some cities for $ 60 .
The is also in final stage trials of an equivalent .
So the shore ’ s not so far away .
The other lesson from Sarah Thomas is about listening to the right people .
She says she nearly quit halfway , but her team egged her on .
Contrast that with the British commentariat , large parts of which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ d been in Sarah Thomas ’ s support boat they ’ d have been telling her to give up , harping on about how cold it was .
They ’ ve been hopeless throughout .
First , they dismissed the problem .
Richard Littlejohn wrote in the Daily Mail on March 2nd/ Then they declared the problem over .
In the Daily Telegraph , Allison Pearson wrote in May that that , by June : “ a scientist friend assures me the coronavirus will have petered out.
” Sunetra Gupta , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrington Declaration , ( and who the media fawns over ) , predicted in May that “ the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country ” , which she said was “ due to the build-up of immunity ” .
The commentariat want to shout down wiser voices .
In September , Sir Patrick Vallance faced a torrent of abuse for saying that there might be 200 deaths a day from Covid-19 by mid November .
“ Project fear , ” thundered one Telegraph columnist .
Piers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scaremongering.
” In fact we hit that grim milestone sooner , in late October , and hit 326 by the last day of October .
We need to start listening to the right coaches – not hopeless people who get it wrong time and again , but face zero accountability .
Finally , top athletes learn from the best .
In terms of Coronavirus , the best performers are Japan , Korea and New Zealand .
France has had 19,800 cases per million people .
The UK 14,800 .
Japan has had just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Zealand 325 .
New Zealand is rural , but Japan and Korea are heavily urban .
How did they do it ?
Partly it ’ s about near-universal mask use .
As the Lancet notes : “ In Hong Kong , Japan , and South Korea , the habit of mask wearing by people with respiratory conditions was already widespread before the pandemic ” .
Part of it is that all these countries also have tough virus border controls .
There are other factors .
Japan locked down Tokyo at a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ super-duper test and trace system uses records of credit card transactions , mobile phone and global positioning system data , to fill in gaps in what coronavirus patients can remember in interviews .
The most important lesson from Asia is that success breeds success .
A low rate of cases makes it easier for test and trace staff to isolate and shut down chains of infection , and contain local outbreaks .
Too many cases and such approaches are overwhelmed .
To use an analogy , it took us a long time to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The key discovery was that the only way to have stable inflation is to have very low inflation .
The same ’ s true of coronavirus .
Either you are beating coronavirus , or it is beating you .
It doesn ’ t want to go in a straight line or rise gently , but to streak exponentially upward .
Korea , Japan and New Zealand have got it pinned to the floor , so can get on with their lives .
Instead of surrendering , as let-it-rippers in the commentariat advocate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unlike Sarah Thomas we don ’ t have to swim for 54 hours .
But we ’ re all enduring hardships .
To get to the other side of this we need to keep thinking straight .
It ’ s easy to be seduced by the idea that there ’ s some easy way out .
There isn ’ t .
When she was far out to sea , her team called to her : “ Just keep swimming.
” At first , I thought that sounded really dumb .
But when you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Channel , it ’ s not such bad advice .

Neil O’Brien is MP for Harborough.
Sarah Thomas is a lunatic. And amazing. About a year ago, she became the first person to swim the Channel four times in a row without stopping. It took 54 hours.
Between booking her slot, and getting in the water, she survived cancer. Setting off, she was immediately stung in the face by a jellyfish. On her fourth crossing, strong tides pushed her off course, turning 83 miles of swimming into 134, forcing her to sprint-swim to break free from the current.
She’s inspiring. And swimming the channel isn’t a bad metaphor for our fight against coronavirus. Metaphorically, we’re somewhere in the middle, when you can’t see Britain, but can’t quite see France either.
The national restrictions announced by the Prime Minister on Saturday underlined that we will still be slogging through this for a while yet. Polls suggest the public strongly back his decision: given the alarming data, it is definitely the right one.
Yet everyone’s tired of the restrictions and not seeing loved ones and friends, and the good things we look forward to once this is over remain a way off.
As we go through this marathon ordeal, what can we learn from Sarah Thomas?
First, most top athletes are taught to visualise success.
Regarding Coronavirus, the finishing line is becoming more visible, with progress on vaccines looking good. The New York Times runs a Vaccine Checker which lets you follow progress.
Eleven different vaccines are in final-stage “Phase 3” clinical trials, with half a dozen or so now seeing limited use outside trials.
There were always reasons to be optimistic about a vaccine: when the whole world wants something really badly, it’s likely to get produced. Producing a vaccine for coronavirus isn’t like inventing the atom bomb or putting a man on the moon, which required oodles of new technologies. A Covid-19 vaccine is a sideways-step from existing technologies. Several categories of vaccines look like they will be ready to roll in the coming months:
The Oxford / AstraZeneca vaccine is basically a weakened version of a common cold type virus, modified to carry a protein which Covid-19 also shows, so that your body can learn to seek and destroy it without exposure to the real thing. Trials found it produces a good immune response including among older people, and doesn’t have side effects. The UK, US and EU have signed for hundreds of millions of doses.
is basically a weakened version of a common cold type virus, modified to carry a protein which Covid-19 also shows, so that your body can learn to seek and destroy it without exposure to the real thing. Trials found it produces a good immune response including among older people, and doesn’t have side effects. The UK, US and EU have signed for hundreds of millions of doses. Other vaccines based on a similar approach in final stage tests include China’s CanSino vaccine , Russia’s Gamaleya Research Institute and Johnson & Johnson in the US.
, Russia’s and in the US. Another promising approach is based on the use of messenger RNA: a blueprint for making proteins. The Pfizer / Biontech vaccine works like this and may well be the first to go into non-trial use in the US. There was some speculation last week that we could start using it here in the UK before Christmas, which seems a bit soon, but it isn’t far off. Another similar vaccine from the Gamaleya Research Institute is also final stage trials.
vaccine works like this and may well be the first to go into non-trial use in the US. There was some speculation last week that we could start using it here in the UK before Christmas, which seems a bit soon, but it isn’t far off. Another similar vaccine from the is also final stage trials. Finally, there’s a bunch of traditional vaccines based on inactivated versions of Covid-19 (like the Hepatitis B vaccine, which has been around since the 1960s). China’s Sinopharm and Sinovac both offer vaccines like this – the Sinovac one is already being used outside clinical trials and you can buy it in some cities for $60. The Indian Council of Medical Research is also in final stage trials of an equivalent.
So the shore’s not so far away.
The other lesson from Sarah Thomas is about listening to the right people. She says she nearly quit halfway, but her team egged her on.
Contrast that with the British commentariat, large parts of which are dishing out terrible advice. If they’d been in Sarah Thomas’s support boat they’d have been telling her to give up, harping on about how cold it was. They’ve been hopeless throughout.
First, they dismissed the problem. Richard Littlejohn wrote in the Daily Mail on March 2nd/
“My default position on all these health scares is weary scepticism. We’ve been here before. Sars, Mers, Ebola, Bird Flu, Swine Flu… All passed in Britain, at least without the catastrophic death toll the so-called ‘experts’ confidently predicted”.
Wrong.
Then they declared the problem over. In the Daily Telegraph, Allison Pearson wrote in May that that, by June: “a scientist friend assures me the coronavirus will have petered out.” Sunetra Gupta, one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, (and who the media fawns over), predicted in May that “the epidemic has largely come and is on its way out in this country”, which she said was “due to the build-up of immunity”.
Wrong.
The commentariat want to shout down wiser voices. In September, Sir Patrick Vallance faced a torrent of abuse for saying that there might be 200 deaths a day from Covid-19 by mid November. “Project fear,” thundered one Telegraph columnist. Piers Morgan blasted the Government’s “scaremongering.”
Wrong.
In fact we hit that grim milestone sooner, in late October, and hit 326 by the last day of October. We need to start listening to the right coaches – not hopeless people who get it wrong time and again, but face zero accountability.
Finally, top athletes learn from the best. In terms of Coronavirus, the best performers are Japan, Korea and New Zealand. France has had 19,800 cases per million people. The UK 14,800. Japan has had just 795, and Korea just 512 and New Zealand 325.
New Zealand is rural, but Japan and Korea are heavily urban. How did they do it?
Partly it’s about near-universal mask use. As the Lancet notes: “In Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea, the habit of mask wearing by people with respiratory conditions was already widespread before the pandemic”. Part of it is that all these countries also have tough virus border controls.
There are other factors. Japan locked down Tokyo at a very early stage. South Korea’s super-duper test and trace system uses records of credit card transactions, mobile phone and global positioning system data, to fill in gaps in what coronavirus patients can remember in interviews.
The most important lesson from Asia is that success breeds success. A low rate of cases makes it easier for test and trace staff to isolate and shut down chains of infection, and contain local outbreaks. Too many cases and such approaches are overwhelmed.
To use an analogy, it took us a long time to work out how to conquer inflation. The key discovery was that the only way to have stable inflation is to have very low inflation.
The same’s true of coronavirus. Either you are beating coronavirus, or it is beating you. It doesn’t want to go in a straight line or rise gently, but to streak exponentially upward. Korea, Japan and New Zealand have got it pinned to the floor, so can get on with their lives. Instead of surrendering, as let-it-rippers in the commentariat advocate, they’ve decided to win.
Unlike Sarah Thomas we don’t have to swim for 54 hours. But we’re all enduring hardships. To get to the other side of this we need to keep thinking straight. It’s easy to be seduced by the idea that there’s some easy way out. There isn’t.
When she was far out to sea, her team called to her: “Just keep swimming.” At first, I thought that sounded really dumb. But when you are out in the middle of the Channel, it’s not such bad advice.


conservativehome--2020-11-02--What Conservative council leaders told us about the virus, Ministers – and lockdowns

Over the last few days , I have been taking soundings from Conservative council leaders about how their local authorities are coping during the coronavirus pandemic .
Most of these conversations took place before the announcement of a second national lockdown .
I sought to discover the feelings of those council leaders about how central Government has been responding .
In order to enable them to respond candidly , I agreed not to name those I spoke to .
But the sample did include leaders of county , district and unitary authorities from different parts of the country .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all those I spoke to were coping well with the financial pressures .
Overall they felt the extra funding from the Government had been reasonable .
While they were able to keep their council budgets under control and maintain services , some were gloomy about the prospects for high street shops and other small businesses .
“ I said to the finance officers that we should use some of our reserves .
They resisted saying they wanted to save them ‘ for a rainy day.
’ But I politely pointed out that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this isn ’ t a ‘ rainy day ’ , what is ?
” Another council leader said his authority had avoided using reserves but would need to do so if there was a second national lockdown .
Revenues from car parks and leisure centres fizzled out during the full lockdown and have only partly returned .
There is also the indirect cost of councils from a loss of investment income – which the Government is not compensating for .
“ The big challenge for us has been school transport in rural areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has really pushed up costs .
Funding has been skewed towards deprivation .
That means some London boroughs have had more extra money than we have .
But our challenges are much greater .
That is not to claim that we aren ’ t managing to meet those challenges .
We are.
” In a more positive vein , some pointed to how the crisis had allowed some savings and service improvements .
One county council leader from the south of England told me : “ We have saved £400,000 in utility bills @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will certainly be looking at reducing our office space in the future – selling buildings or renting out a floor .
More home working in future will be popular with our staff .
Often they will have work that doesn ’ t need to be done nine to five .
Some with young children might prefer to do it when the children have gone to bed .
Why not ?
I expect sickness levels will go down .
There won ’ t be money for missing work for ‘ duvet days.
’ That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I think we will do more meetings on zoom even once the crisis is over .
But I have spent days when I ’ ve been staring at a screen for hours on end and that doesn ’ t improve my decision making or that of my chief executive .
Sometimes being able to look out of a window helps you to think .
So it ’ s a balance .
Probably there will be hybrid meetings where some councillors and council officers will be in the room and others will join @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For example , registrations of births , deaths and marriages .
There used to be a requirement to do these in person .
It can now be done over the phone which often people prefer .
It would make sense for that change to be permanent.
” One unitary authority leader said of the Secretary of State : “ Robert Jenrick is not only coping with the coronavirus pressures but just as important is keeping everything else going .
Pressing on with planning reforms .
He can walk and chew gum.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There is a Whatsapp group for Ministers and council leaders that works well .
It gives us a chance to vent our spleen.
” “ I would give them eight of ten .
Some of the expectation management was poor .
The ‘ whatever it takes… ’ stuff .
But I do think they listen .
That doesn ’ t mean we can realistically have everything we want .
Some of my colleagues muddle that up .
They do listen – that doesn ’ t mean we get all that we ask @ @ @ @ @ @ @ district council felt the moves to prevent landlords evicting tenants was “ storing up trouble ” which would increase pressure on his housing department : “ If landlords are unable to have the confidence that they can evict if they need to that will drive them out of the market .
Tenants who know they won ’ t be evicted will be more tempted to run up rent arrears – and so more likely to end up thrown out eventually .
It ’ s a time bomb really .
We will end up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a greater shortage of accommodation to place people looking for help.
” How has the Government in general performed ?
When it came to a broader verdict on the Government there was stronger criticism .
There was criticism over the “ mishandling ” of free school meals .
Also of “ high handed centralisation ” and “ lack of transparency ” from the Department of Health over test and trace .
Everyone I spoke to indicated they would oppose a second national lockdown ( though , as noted above , most of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be taking place ) .
A majority – though not all – were concerned that there were already too many restrictions .
One district council leader in a “ tier two ” area felt the restrictions were justified but would not back them going further : “ I think the Government has called as best they could .
We are trying to back enforcement of the restrictions to give them time to work – although realistically it ’ s more about persuasion than enforcement .
People have to be patient .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not seem to me to be realistic .
How would we get out of it ?
It would be Hotel California.
” But most others felt the restrictions had already gone too far .
One commented : “ I would resist being moved to Tier Two .
It would destroy our hospitality industry .
Who wants to eat out with just their family ?
Ludicrous .
Where is the evidence that moving from Tier One to Tier Two actually saves lives ?
I haven ’ t seen any .
So the Government would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convincing.
” “ The 10pm rule on pubs closing doesn ’ t make any sense .
I don ’ t even attempt to defend it .
The Government ’ s approach should be to only impose extra restrictions if the councils agree .
In Essex , they asked for them .
So fair enough .
My concern is that imposing more and more local lockdowns sort of creeps into a national one.
” The issue of free school meals in the holidays was regarded as a “ fiasco ” .
Again it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater faith in localism had been shown .
The Government could have provided hardship funds for feeding children with discretion on how councils spent it .
Several indignant complaints were made .
Though often this was about the political and PR aspect .
Few believed that children were genuinely being left to go hungry without getting offers of help .
“ The community response has meant a lot of food has been left uncollected , ” one council leader told me .
Another swipe was taken at the Department of Transport for restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travel fund ” can be spent .
“ A complete nightmare , ” I was told .
“ Very skewed towards urban areas and lots of perverse rules that make it hard to spend the money effectively.
” Perhaps one final comment provides a conclusion : “ I was rather in the middle of the lockdown debate .
Certainly , I was sympathetic towards the Government about how difficult the decisions are .
I still am to some extent .
But if mistakes are made then it is good to learn from them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is not working .
There is a limit to how long people can be expected to comply with an approach that just causes difficulties without any clear benefits .
”

Over the last few days, I have been taking soundings from Conservative council leaders about how their local authorities are coping during the coronavirus pandemic. Most of these conversations took place before the announcement of a second national lockdown. I sought to discover the feelings of those council leaders about how central Government has been responding. In order to enable them to respond candidly, I agreed not to name those I spoke to. But the sample did include leaders of county, district and unitary authorities from different parts of the country.
How are the councils coping?
Perhaps surprisingly all those I spoke to were coping well with the financial pressures. Overall they felt the extra funding from the Government had been reasonable. While they were able to keep their council budgets under control and maintain services, some were gloomy about the prospects for high street shops and other small businesses.
Reserves have helped ease temporary pressure on Council budgets:
“I said to the finance officers that we should use some of our reserves. They resisted saying they wanted to save them ‘for a rainy day.’ But I politely pointed out that we are responding to a pandemic. If this isn’t a ‘rainy day’, what is?”
Another council leader said his authority had avoided using reserves but would need to do so if there was a second national lockdown. Revenues from car parks and leisure centres fizzled out during the full lockdown and have only partly returned. There is also the indirect cost of councils from a loss of investment income – which the Government is not compensating for.
A northern county council leader said:
“The big challenge for us has been school transport in rural areas with the social distancing rules. It has really pushed up costs. Funding has been skewed towards deprivation. That means some London boroughs have had more extra money than we have. But our challenges are much greater. That is not to claim that we aren’t managing to meet those challenges. We are.”
In a more positive vein, some pointed to how the crisis had allowed some savings and service improvements. One county council leader from the south of England told me:
“We have saved £400,000 in utility bills from our buildings being empty. We will certainly be looking at reducing our office space in the future – selling buildings or renting out a floor. More home working in future will be popular with our staff. Often they will have work that doesn’t need to be done nine to five. Some with young children might prefer to do it when the children have gone to bed. Why not? I expect sickness levels will go down. There won’t be money for missing work for ‘duvet days.’ That will save costs on agency staff.”
“I think we will do more meetings on zoom even once the crisis is over. But I have spent days when I’ve been staring at a screen for hours on end and that doesn’t improve my decision making or that of my chief executive. Sometimes being able to look out of a window helps you to think. So it’s a balance. Probably there will be hybrid meetings where some councillors and council officers will be in the room and others will join online.
“Some services have improved. For example, registrations of births, deaths and marriages. There used to be a requirement to do these in person. It can now be done over the phone which often people prefer. It would make sense for that change to be permanent.”
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government performance?
The feedback I gathered was broadly favourable.
One unitary authority leader said of the Secretary of State:
“Robert Jenrick is not only coping with the coronavirus pressures but just as important is keeping everything else going. Pressing on with planning reforms. He can walk and chew gum.”
A northern county council leader said:
“The MHCLG Ministers have been good. There is a Whatsapp group for Ministers and council leaders that works well. It gives us a chance to vent our spleen.”
A southern district council leader agrees adding:
“I would give them eight of ten. Some of the expectation management was poor. The ‘whatever it takes…’ stuff. But I do think they listen. That doesn’t mean we can realistically have everything we want. Some of my colleagues muddle that up. They do listen – that doesn’t mean we get all that we ask for.”
One leader of a northern district council felt the moves to prevent landlords evicting tenants was “storing up trouble” which would increase pressure on his housing department:
“If landlords are unable to have the confidence that they can evict if they need to that will drive them out of the market. Tenants who know they won’t be evicted will be more tempted to run up rent arrears – and so more likely to end up thrown out eventually. It’s a time bomb really. We will end up with a lot of evictions combined with a greater shortage of accommodation to place people looking for help.”
How has the Government in general performed?
When it came to a broader verdict on the Government there was stronger criticism. There was criticism over the “mishandling” of free school meals. Also of “high handed centralisation” and “lack of transparency” from the Department of Health over test and trace. Everyone I spoke to indicated they would oppose a second national lockdown (though, as noted above, most of them were contacted before the announcement that it would be taking place). A majority – though not all – were concerned that there were already too many restrictions.
One district council leader in a “tier two” area felt the restrictions were justified but would not back them going further:
“I think the Government has called as best they could. We are trying to back enforcement of the restrictions to give them time to work – although realistically it’s more about persuasion than enforcement. People have to be patient. But a national ‘circuit break’ does not seem to me to be realistic. How would we get out of it? It would be Hotel California.”
But most others felt the restrictions had already gone too far. One commented:
“I would resist being moved to Tier Two. It would destroy our hospitality industry. Who wants to eat out with just their family? Ludicrous. Where is the evidence that moving from Tier One to Tier Two actually saves lives? I haven’t seen any. So the Government would have to come up with something pretty convincing.”
Another council leader adds:
“The 10pm rule on pubs closing doesn’t make any sense. I don’t even attempt to defend it. The Government’s approach should be to only impose extra restrictions if the councils agree. In Essex, they asked for them. So fair enough. My concern is that imposing more and more local lockdowns sort of creeps into a national one.”
The issue of free school meals in the holidays was regarded as a “fiasco”. Again it was felt this could have been averted if greater faith in localism had been shown. The Government could have provided hardship funds for feeding children with discretion on how councils spent it. Several indignant complaints were made. Though often this was about the political and PR aspect. Few believed that children were genuinely being left to go hungry without getting offers of help. “The community response has meant a lot of food has been left uncollected,” one council leader told me.
Another swipe was taken at the Department of Transport for restrictions on how it’s “active travel fund” can be spent. “A complete nightmare,” I was told. “Very skewed towards urban areas and lots of perverse rules that make it hard to spend the money effectively.”
Perhaps one final comment provides a conclusion:
“I was rather in the middle of the lockdown debate. Certainly, I was sympathetic towards the Government about how difficult the decisions are. I still am to some extent. But if mistakes are made then it is good to learn from them rather than keep pressing on with something that is not working. There is a limit to how long people can be expected to comply with an approach that just causes difficulties without any clear benefits.”