politicscouk--2020-03-27--Week in Review: Covid shines a light on everything

The coronavirus emergency is providing a weird form of political awakening .
In every area of life , the response to it reveals deep truths about us and how we do things .
Maybe it 's because it is non-political .
If it were a political emergency - a war , say , or a sudden no-deal Brexit - people would retreat into their tribes and justify this or that according to whatever their loyalty was .
But no-one has loyalty to covid .
Every so often , people try to twist it to an agenda - pretending that closing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bulldog spirit or attempting to racialise the disease .
But it 's rare .
For the time being , those efforts still seem like sad subplots rather than the larger narrative .
Instead , the political conclusions which emerge from covid feel deeply true and widely accepted , untainted by tribalism .
The economic response from the government , for instance , which is essentially to flood the economy with money in a bid to keep it at least half-alive , is a final and absolute refutation of the argument that the market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case for the good times .
During a boom , classical economists and right-wingers can still claim that the market performs most efficiently when left alone .
But it is a defining acceptance that this does not operate during the bad times .
When shocks emerge , state support is needed .
The same is true about the jobs we value .
Last night people emerged from their homes to applaud NHS workers .
It was a beautiful scene , the kind of thing you 'd need a heart of stone to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is also in line with our traditional notions of value .
More startling has been the emergence of less celebrated roles - the people who collected the rubbish , the tube drivers , the delivery services , the supermarket staff .
They are now something new .
They are key workers .
These are not the jobs we usually celebrate .
It is almost like the feminist critique of traditional economics - that the system would simply stop working without the free domestic labour overwhelmingly delegated to women and then treated as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now we see the same for the function of society .
We never discuss these workers .
But when they are not there , everything collapses .
Businesses are businesses .
Their primary function is to make money .
But that does not mean that they must be only concerned with profit and can not have a moral dimension too .
So we have also seen the ethical heart of many companies .
Some have cast off their employees , or thrown homeless people out of hotel rooms , or refused to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help .
The true nature of these operations has been on show .
And customers will remember .
The same goes for people .
Some fight in supermarkets so they can secure their ludicrous tower of toilet paper .
But actually this is comparatively rare .
Most of the food shortages seem to be due to people taking a little bit extra of what they usually get , which is entirely rational if they are being asked to shop less often .
In fact we are seeing huge surges of decency and kindness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of people volunteering to help the NHS .
Even that new email sign-off - 'stay safe ' - replaces our usual goodbyes with a more genuine and heartfelt commitment to each other .
We all remember the post-apocalyptic films and TV shows right now - the 28 Days Later and Walking Deads .
There 's been a lot of them in recent years .
And when London is deserted and people are stockpiling goods , it 's hard to prevent your brain from locking into that narrative .
All those films have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is humanity really like ?
And most of them reach pretty grim conclusions .
The Walking Dead in particular seems to be based on the most negative conception of people imaginable .
But it 's not true , or if it is we 've no evidence upon which to believe it .
Take a look at what is happening .
We are all making tremendous sacrifices .
The price the economy suffers will be paid back for years to come .
We are accepting very substantial limitations on our freedoms and our pleasures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Yes , a bit of it is for selfish or family reasons .
We do n't want to get sick and we worry most of all about the older people we love .
But for the majority of people the risks of covid are quite moderate .
This entire upheaval in our lives has one intention : to protect the vulnerable , to ensure that those over 70 or with underlying health conditions are shielded from the virus .
And that is not a local or a national thing , or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human thing .
It is happening around the world .
We have closed down planet earth .
We made this sacrifice to protect those most at risk .
And there is , no matter how grim this thing gets , something profound about that .
Things will eventually go back to normal .
But when they do , we should not forget the things we 're learning - about economics , business behaviour , people 's actions , and about ourselves .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out later this year .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

The coronavirus emergency is providing a weird form of political awakening. In every area of life, the response to it reveals deep truths about us and how we do things.
Maybe it's because it is non-political. If it were a political emergency – a war, say, or a sudden no-deal Brexit – people would retreat into their tribes and justify this or that according to whatever their loyalty was. But no-one has loyalty to covid.
Every so often, people try to twist it to an agenda – pretending that closing pubs is a betrayal of the British bulldog spirit or attempting to racialise the disease. But it's rare. For the time being, those efforts still seem like sad subplots rather than the larger narrative.
Instead, the political conclusions which emerge from covid feel deeply true and widely accepted, untainted by tribalism.
The economic response from the government, for instance, which is essentially to flood the economy with money in a bid to keep it at least half-alive, is a final and absolute refutation of the argument that the market knows best.
This isn't necessarily the case for the good times. During a boom, classical economists and right-wingers can still claim that the market performs most efficiently when left alone. But it is a defining acceptance that this does not operate during the bad times. When shocks emerge, state support is needed.
The same is true about the jobs we value. Last night people emerged from their homes to applaud NHS workers. It was a beautiful scene, the kind of thing you'd need a heart of stone to not feel touched by. But it is also in line with our traditional notions of value. More startling has been the emergence of less celebrated roles – the people who collected the rubbish, the tube drivers, the delivery services, the supermarket staff. They are now something new. They are key workers.
These are not the jobs we usually celebrate. It is almost like the feminist critique of traditional economics – that the system would simply stop working without the free domestic labour overwhelmingly delegated to women and then treated as if it were not economic at all. Now we see the same for the function of society. We never discuss these workers. But when they are not there, everything collapses.
Businesses are businesses. Their primary function is to make money. But that does not mean that they must be only concerned with profit and cannot have a moral dimension too. So we have also seen the ethical heart of many companies. Some have cast off their employees, or thrown homeless people out of hotel rooms, or refused to pay sick workers. Others have tried to help. The true nature of these operations has been on show. And customers will remember.
The same goes for people. Some fight in supermarkets so they can secure their ludicrous tower of toilet paper. But actually this is comparatively rare. Most of the food shortages seem to be due to people taking a little bit extra of what they usually get, which is entirely rational if they are being asked to shop less often.
In fact we are seeing huge surges of decency and kindness, of neighbours helping each other out, of people volunteering to help the NHS. Even that new email sign-off – 'stay safe' – replaces our usual goodbyes with a more genuine and heartfelt commitment to each other.
We all remember the post-apocalyptic films and TV shows right now – the 28 Days Later and Walking Deads. There's been a lot of them in recent years. And when London is deserted and people are stockpiling goods, it's hard to prevent your brain from locking into that narrative. All those films have one central question in them: what is humanity really like? And most of them reach pretty grim conclusions. The Walking Dead in particular seems to be based on the most negative conception of people imaginable.
But it's not true, or if it is we've no evidence upon which to believe it. Take a look at what is happening. We are all making tremendous sacrifices. The price the economy suffers will be paid back for years to come. We are accepting very substantial limitations on our freedoms and our pleasures.
And why are we doing it? Yes, a bit of it is for selfish or family reasons. We don't want to get sick and we worry most of all about the older people we love. But for the majority of people the risks of covid are quite moderate. This entire upheaval in our lives has one intention: to protect the vulnerable, to ensure that those over 70 or with underlying health conditions are shielded from the virus.
And that is not a local or a national thing, or even a cultural thing. It is a human thing. It is happening around the world. We have closed down planet earth. We made this sacrifice to protect those most at risk. And there is, no matter how grim this thing gets, something profound about that.
Things will eventually go back to normal. But when they do, we should not forget the things we're learning – about economics, business behaviour, people's actions, and about ourselves.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out later this year.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-03-26--Coronavirus: Displaced people are being left without help

There 's been very little mention of the effect of the coronavirus on some of the most marginalised people in Europe - the displaced .
The far-right and some European governments have started capitalising on the spread of Covid-19 to feed into anti-migrant narratives .
There is no evidence indicating that displaced people are bringing this virus into their countries of refuge , but there is a real concern about what will happen to migrants once the virus takes root in marginalised displaced communities where access to medical care is very limited .
There are things which can be done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ governments to listen .
Médecins Sans Frontières ( MSF ) have issued warnings that the evacuation of squalid Greek camps is more urgent than ever .
Due to the unhygienic , overcrowded living conditions , the threat of an outbreak among camp residents is extremely serious , yet there are reportedly no epidemic response plans in place .
MSF describes these conditions as providing `` the perfect storm for a Covid-19 outbreak '' , due to the lack of adequate sanitation services and the extremely limited medical care .
This means that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camps in Greece is very high .
The World Health Organisation continues to emphasise the importance of social distancing but individuals on the Greek islands have no way of observing any of these precautions .
Refugee Rights Europe therefore fully supports MSF in urging for the immediate evacuation of the 42,000 individuals in the camps in the Greek islands and moving them to appropriate accommodation .
We also need an emergency relocation of children from the islands to other European Union member states .
In the absence of accommodation provision , displaced people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living conditions .
The sanitary conditions are deplorable .
There is a severe lack of sanitation facilities and water points , which are often located hundreds of meters or even kilometres away from settlements .
This means that the risk of the virus spreading , once it has taken root , is critically high .
Exposure to very cold and humid climate , coupled with stress and exhaustion brought on by ongoing uncertainty and daily evictions of living spaces , means the individuals here are at heightened risk of experiencing health complications if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases is next to impossible , given that most people are unable to access health services , while others are likely to fear the risk of detention or removal if they present themselves .
They are therefore much more likely to go undetected and untreated .
The recently adopted confinement measures are further exacerbating the poor living conditions , as frontline organisations are not currently allowed to go to the settlements to provide support .
Immediate measures should be taken by the French authorities to respond adequately to the situation .
Robust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased dissemination of information in relevant languages and formats , rapid identification and isolation of existing cases , and of course the treatment of individuals experiencing severe cases are urgently needed .
Adequate accommodation must be provided , irrespective of immigration status .
There is a brief flicker of good news here .
French authorities recently made a decision to extend the validity of immigration documents by three months , including long term residents permits , asylum claim certificates and receipts of residence permit requests , where such documents would otherwise expire by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Global Detention Project , individuals placed in immigration detention centres are `` frequently confined in facilities with inadequate sanitary provisions and limited health care , and all too often they are forced to share rooms with countless others '' .
It is clear that the only option for social distancing would be to place individuals in full isolation , which in itself risks leading to deteriorating mental health .
We therefore fully support the calls of the Board of Border Criminologies and demand the increased use of testing in immigration detention centres , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where feasible .
This has now been done in Spain .
In the UK a number of lawyers and campaigners have called for immigration centre detainees to be released because `` there is a very real risk of an uncontrolled outbreak of Covid-19 in immigration detention '' .
In France and Italy several NGOs are also calling for immigration centres to be gradually closed down to avoid further spread of illness .
In France , one case of a detainee being infected by the virus has already been reported in the detention centre @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issued a statement to alert the authorities and the general public regarding this critical situation , which was followed by a call for the unconditional release of all individuals deprived of their liberty in the context of immigration detention .
On top of the health argument , NGOs also argue that the legal ground for detention no longer exists , given that individuals can not be deported due to the closure of borders , and they should therefore be released .
Maintaining access to rights and services for displaced people In a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ measures have been taken to avoid further spread of the virus .
Public institutions and services have been shut down .
This can have dramatic consequences on ensuring the most basic rights of displaced individuals .
In Belgium , for instance , asylum seekers can no longer register their claim to the Foreigners ' Office which has been closed until further notice without any alternative plan being defined .
Such suspension of service provision also affects the ability of NGOs to support displaced people .
In France , for instance , legal assistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centres is suspended due to confinement measures adopted by the government .
Overall , health authorities across Europe must present a plan relating to refugee camps and settlements on their territories , which includes measures for infection prevention and control , dissemination of information in relevant languages and formats , rapid identification and isolation of existing cases , and of course the treatment of individuals experiencing severe cases .
The European Commission must also assert its influence to ensure that EU member states are indeed drawing up and implementing such plans .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by all European states , that individuals who present themselves for testing and/or health care will not face the threat of detention or removal .
In addition , suitable accommodation provision must be made a priority for individuals trapped in unsanitary informal settlements across Europe , again without conditions of claiming asylum and without the risk of deportation .
Individuals in detention must have access to testing and should be released wherever feasible .
These measures will protect displaced populations .
But the reality of the virus is that we are all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host communities too .
For all our sakes , displaced people must be treated with dignity , respect and humanity .
Marta Welander is the executive director of Refugee Rights Europe .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Marta Welander
There's been very little mention of the effect of the coronavirus on some of the most marginalised people in Europe – the displaced.
The far-right and some European governments have started capitalising on the spread of Covid-19 to feed into anti-migrant narratives. There is no evidence indicating that displaced people are bringing this virus into their countries of refuge, but there is a real concern about what will happen to migrants once the virus takes root in marginalised displaced communities where access to medical care is very limited.
There are things which can be done, across Europe. We just need governments to listen.
The overcrowded Greek islands
Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) have issued warnings that the evacuation of squalid Greek camps is more urgent than ever. Due to the unhygienic, overcrowded living conditions, the threat of an outbreak among camp residents is extremely serious, yet there are reportedly no epidemic response plans in place. MSF describes these conditions as providing "the perfect storm for a Covid-19 outbreak", due to the lack of adequate sanitation services and the extremely limited medical care. This means that the risk of the virus spreading in the camps in Greece is very high.
The World Health Organisation continues to emphasise the importance of social distancing but individuals on the Greek islands have no way of observing any of these precautions. Refugee Rights Europe therefore fully supports MSF in urging for the immediate evacuation of the 42,000 individuals in the camps in the Greek islands and moving them to appropriate accommodation. We also need an emergency relocation of children from the islands to other European Union member states.
The border land in northern France
In the absence of accommodation provision, displaced people in northern France are experiencing extremely poor living conditions. The sanitary conditions are deplorable. There is a severe lack of sanitation facilities and water points, which are often located hundreds of meters or even kilometres away from settlements. This means that the risk of the virus spreading, once it has taken root, is critically high. Exposure to very cold and humid climate, coupled with stress and exhaustion brought on by ongoing uncertainty and daily evictions of living spaces, means the individuals here are at heightened risk of experiencing health complications if they contract the virus.
The detection of cases is next to impossible, given that most people are unable to access health services, while others are likely to fear the risk of detention or removal if they present themselves. They are therefore much more likely to go undetected and untreated. The recently adopted confinement measures are further exacerbating the poor living conditions, as frontline organisations are not currently allowed to go to the settlements to provide support.
Immediate measures should be taken by the French authorities to respond adequately to the situation. Robust measures for infection prevention and control, increased dissemination of information in relevant languages and formats, rapid identification and isolation of existing cases, and of course the treatment of individuals experiencing severe cases are urgently needed. Adequate accommodation must be provided, irrespective of immigration status.
There is a brief flicker of good news here. French authorities recently made a decision to extend the validity of immigration documents by three months, including long term residents permits, asylum claim certificates and receipts of residence permit requests, where such documents would otherwise expire by March 16th.
Individuals in immigration detention
As highlighted by the Global Detention Project, individuals placed in immigration detention centres are "frequently confined in facilities with inadequate sanitary provisions and limited health care, and all too often they are forced to share rooms with countless others". It is clear that the only option for social distancing would be to place individuals in full isolation, which in itself risks leading to deteriorating mental health.
We therefore fully support the calls of the Board of Border Criminologies and demand the increased use of testing in immigration detention centres, and for immigration authorities to release individuals where feasible. This has now been done in Spain. In the UK a number of lawyers and campaigners have called for immigration centre detainees to be released because "there is a very real risk of an uncontrolled outbreak of Covid-19 in immigration detention".
In France and Italy several NGOs are also calling for immigration centres to be gradually closed down to avoid further spread of illness. In France, one case of a detainee being infected by the virus has already been reported in the detention centre of Lille-Lesquin. Detained individuals have now issued a statement to alert the authorities and the general public regarding this critical situation, which was followed by a call for the unconditional release of all individuals deprived of their liberty in the context of immigration detention. On top of the health argument, NGOs also argue that the legal ground for detention no longer exists, given that individuals cannot be deported due to the closure of borders, and they should therefore be released.
Maintaining access to rights and services for displaced people
In a number of European countries, safeguarding and preventive measures have been taken to avoid further spread of the virus. Public institutions and services have been shut down. This can have dramatic consequences on ensuring the most basic rights of displaced individuals.
In Belgium, for instance, asylum seekers can no longer register their claim to the Foreigners' Office which has been closed until further notice without any alternative plan being defined.
Such suspension of service provision also affects the ability of NGOs to support displaced people. In France, for instance, legal assistance usually provided by NGOs in administrative detention centres is suspended due to confinement measures adopted by the government.
Not leaving displaced people behind
Overall, health authorities across Europe must present a plan relating to refugee camps and settlements on their territories, which includes measures for infection prevention and control, dissemination of information in relevant languages and formats, rapid identification and isolation of existing cases, and of course the treatment of individuals experiencing severe cases. The European Commission must also assert its influence to ensure that EU member states are indeed drawing up and implementing such plans.
It must be made clear and communicated proactively, by all European states, that individuals who present themselves for testing and/or health care will not face the threat of detention or removal. In addition, suitable accommodation provision must be made a priority for individuals trapped in unsanitary informal settlements across Europe, again without conditions of claiming asylum and without the risk of deportation. Individuals in detention must have access to testing and should be released wherever feasible.
These measures will protect displaced populations. But the reality of the virus is that we are all in this together. They will safeguard host communities too. For all our sakes, displaced people must be treated with dignity, respect and humanity.
Marta Welander is the executive director of Refugee Rights Europe.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-03-23--Warning raised over Coronavirus bill impact on elderly and disabled

Charities and campaigners are sounding the alarm over an emergency bill tackling the coronavirus , amid fears that it threatens services for elderly and disabled people .
Under Schedule 11 of the emergency laws , which are set to be passed by MPs tonight , ministers can free councils of their duties under the Care Act 2014 - the legislation governing much of the adult care system .
If the measures are enacted , councils will no longer have to assess and meet the care needs of elderly or disabled people unless they are required to by the European Convention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not have to provide adult care when children receiving social care turn 18 .
The plans have sparked widespread fears that people 's basic care needs will no longer be met .
A post written at the end of last week by five lawyers - two of them QCs - warned that `` Schedule 11 as currently drafted is likely to have a serious negative impact on adults with care and support needs and their carers '' .
Svetlana Kotova , director of campaigns and justice at disability charity Inclusion London , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ local authority support is already very high .
So people who get this support really need it .
`` So we are really worried that that would put people at risk .
Those people who depend on support to get out of bed , to eat something , to even access basic means of communication to ask for help - what will happen to those people ? ''
Even those who currently receive council-funded care services could lose some or all of their existing provision .
`` This is why so many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Local authorities `` could go and cut [ care ] packages - if the situation is very critical , they will do that '' .
The ECHR does little to guarantee social care provision .
Andie Gbedemah , public affairs manager at autism charity Dimensions , says that case law on Convention rights in an adult social care context `` is very different and [ gives ] a lower quality of life than the ambition of the Care Act as it stands '' .
She also warned that not many council staff know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their Convention rights .
However , charities are not unified in their view of the emergency bill .
Caroline Abrahams , of Age UK , has some sympathy for the government 's position .
`` They want to have these powers in reserve so that if and when lots of people in the care workforce start to fall over with coronavirus or are self-isolating , they can basically reallocate staff from one user to another without worrying that they will be inadvertently breaking the law in the process . ''
Age UK has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subject to debate and renewal by parliament every six months , which the government has now conceded .
`` I do n't think it 's a hideous plot , '' says Abrahams .
`` I think it is a fairly sensible pragmatic response potentially to what might end up being an absolutely hideous situation .
If you find that a third of your domiciliary care agency workforce just is n't there , what do you do ?
How are they going to divvy people up to make sure that people survive ? ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ guidance on how councils should allocate resources if the Care Act is suspended - guidance that is likely to be crucial in determining the impact the new law has .
There might be a surface logic to prioritising overstretched resources in the way the emergency laws envisage , but if people do n't receive the care they need their needs are liable to worsen until they become a priority for the council - or for a potentially overwhelmed NHS .
`` There 's absolutely that risk , '' says Abrahams .
`` And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system is so cash-strapped , it means that almost everybody who 's getting a service now has a really high level of need . ''
Kotova , of Inclusion London , describes the bill 's approach as `` really short-sighted '' .
She adds : `` If you do n't have appropriate social care support , people will end up eventually in hospital .
The whole Care Act was based on prevention , trying to get needs early .
It did n't really work , they still concentrate on crisis situations , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and of course eventually it will come back to the council . ''
Gbedemah agrees .
`` That is an area of concern for us , '' she says .
`` If people are a ) not being assessed and b ) not having what currently are described as 'eligible needs ' met , then they will be put in a position where their situation deteriorates , and that could have unintended consequences for people reaching crisis point and requiring a more intensive intervention from public services . ''
She highlights the potential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well as on health and care services .
There are also fears that this dynamic of escalating needs could see more people with learning disabilities and autism detained long-term under the Mental Health Act - despite the government officially committing to reducing these numbers .
`` If people , by virtue of the changes to social care , end up getting lower levels of support than they need , the escalation of their crisis might mean that they require mental health detention , or end up in mental health detention , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people now working from home for the foreseeable future will increasingly be leant on to care for older or disabled family members to free up adult care staff .
`` It may be that the informal carer thing will be one of the criteria that will become more important .
If you just looked at my mum , she 's right at the top of the risk profile .
But she 's got me .
Some of the charities are rightly pointing out that this is absolutely bound to mean more of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think they 're absolutely right .
I do n't see how that could be avoided really .
But of course lots of people have n't got anyone .
That 's the problem . ''
Underlying all of this , however , is a simple truth - the emergency bill is landing on a system that has already been cynically stretched to the limit by austerity over the last ten years or more .
Those who receive council care nowadays generally have very high needs .
As is proving so often the case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Britain 's social state for what it is .
The Department for Health and Social Care insists these provisions are time-limited , and that it still expects councils to do everything they can to maintain existing services and meet the needs of as many people as possible , particularly those with the most acute needs .
The bill provides the secretary of state with powers to direct councils to follow the guidance on allocating care resources if necessary .
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist .
Follow him on Twitter here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Chaminda Jayanetti
Charities and campaigners are sounding the alarm over an emergency bill tackling the coronavirus, amid fears that it threatens services for elderly and disabled people.
Under Schedule 11 of the emergency laws, which are set to be passed by MPs tonight, ministers can free councils of their duties under the Care Act 2014 – the legislation governing much of the adult care system.
If the measures are enacted, councils will no longer have to assess and meet the care needs of elderly or disabled people unless they are required to by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and will not have to provide adult care when children receiving social care turn 18.
The plans have sparked widespread fears that people’s basic care needs will no longer be met. A post written at the end of last week by five lawyers – two of them QCs – warned that “Schedule 11 as currently drafted is likely to have a serious negative impact on adults with care and support needs and their carers”.
Svetlana Kotova, director of campaigns and justice at disability charity Inclusion London, says: “The threshold of getting local authority support is already very high. So people who get this support really need it.
“So we are really worried that that would put people at risk. Those people who depend on support to get out of bed, to eat something, to even access basic means of communication to ask for help – what will happen to those people?”
Even those who currently receive council-funded care services could lose some or all of their existing provision. “This is why so many people are frightened,” Kotova says. Local authorities “could go and cut [care] packages – if the situation is very critical, they will do that”.
The ECHR does little to guarantee social care provision. Andie Gbedemah, public affairs manager at autism charity Dimensions, says that case law on Convention rights in an adult social care context “is very different and [gives] a lower quality of life than the ambition of the Care Act as it stands”. She also warned that not many council staff know how to assess people in light of their Convention rights.
However, charities are not unified in their view of the emergency bill. Caroline Abrahams, of Age UK, has some sympathy for the government’s position. “They want to have these powers in reserve so that if and when lots of people in the care workforce start to fall over with coronavirus or are self-isolating, they can basically reallocate staff from one user to another without worrying that they will be inadvertently breaking the law in the process.”
Age UK has been calling for the legislation to be subject to debate and renewal by parliament every six months, which the government has now conceded. “I don’t think it’s a hideous plot,” says Abrahams. “I think it is a fairly sensible pragmatic response potentially to what might end up being an absolutely hideous situation. If you find that a third of your domiciliary care agency workforce just isn’t there, what do you do? How are they going to divvy people up to make sure that people survive?”
The government is shortly due to publish guidance on how councils should allocate resources if the Care Act is suspended – guidance that is likely to be crucial in determining the impact the new law has.
There might be a surface logic to prioritising overstretched resources in the way the emergency laws envisage, but if people don’t receive the care they need their needs are liable to worsen until they become a priority for the council – or for a potentially overwhelmed NHS.
“There’s absolutely that risk,” says Abrahams. “And the problem is that because the care system is so cash-strapped, it means that almost everybody who’s getting a service now has a really high level of need.”
Kotova, of Inclusion London, describes the bill’s approach as “really short-sighted”. She adds: “If you don’t have appropriate social care support, people will end up eventually in hospital. The whole Care Act was based on prevention, trying to get needs early. It didn’t really work, they still concentrate on crisis situations, but this will create even bigger crises, and of course eventually it will come back to the council.”
Gbedemah agrees. “That is an area of concern for us,” she says. “If people are a) not being assessed and b) not having what currently are described as ‘eligible needs’ met, then they will be put in a position where their situation deteriorates, and that could have unintended consequences for people reaching crisis point and requiring a more intensive intervention from public services.” She highlights the potential impact on the criminal justice system, as well as on health and care services.
There are also fears that this dynamic of escalating needs could see more people with learning disabilities and autism detained long-term under the Mental Health Act – despite the government officially committing to reducing these numbers.
“If people, by virtue of the changes to social care, end up getting lower levels of support than they need, the escalation of their crisis might mean that they require mental health detention, or end up in mental health detention,” says Gbedemah.
Abrahams suggests that many people now working from home for the foreseeable future will increasingly be leant on to care for older or disabled family members to free up adult care staff.
“It may be that the informal carer thing will be one of the criteria that will become more important. If you just looked at my mum, she’s right at the top of the risk profile. But she’s got me. Some of the charities are rightly pointing out that this is absolutely bound to mean more of a responsibility burden on informal carers, and I think they’re absolutely right. I don’t see how that could be avoided really. But of course lots of people haven’t got anyone. That’s the problem.”
Underlying all of this, however, is a simple truth – the emergency bill is landing on a system that has already been cynically stretched to the limit by austerity over the last ten years or more. Those who receive council care nowadays generally have very high needs.
As is proving so often the case, coronavirus is exposing what’s left of Britain’s social state for what it is.
The Department for Health and Social Care insists these provisions are time-limited, and that it still expects councils to do everything they can to maintain existing services and meet the needs of as many people as possible, particularly those with the most acute needs. The bill provides the secretary of state with powers to direct councils to follow the guidance on allocating care resources if necessary.
Chaminda Jayanetti is a freelance journalist. Follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in politics.co.uk’s Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-03-23--A plague of hot takes: Lazy contrarians are putting everyone at risk

And so it came to pass , that the very talking heads who have been , for some years now , calling everyone else `` a snowflake '' , had a collective meltdown over their local pub closing for a few weeks .
`` This is a dark day for the UK , '' declared Brendan O'Neill in The Spectator .
`` Britain without its pubs is not Britain .
It just is n't .
It becomes something else .
Something worse .
Something less free . ''
Could it be that we have found - whisper it , gently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even Vladimir Putin might hesitate before doing anything so blatant , '' chimes in Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday .
`` If there is no serious rebellion against this plan in the Commons , then I think we can commemorate tomorrow as the day parliament died . ''
He preempts any criticism .
`` I 'll be accused of threatening public health and all kinds of other conformist rubbish . ''
There you have the nub of it .
They 're not being selfish dicks .
They 're being non-conformist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For what it 's worth , I fully support Peter Hitchens and Brendan O'Neill 's inalienable right to be infected with a deadly virus .
If they existed in a vacuum , I might buy myself one of those big foam fingers and cheer them on , as they march to the extinction that is the destiny of every dinosaur .
But they do n't exist in a vacuum .
They have no more a 'right ' to keep congregating in pubs than they have a right to set fire to their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ skyscraper .
Not following guidance , not distancing socially , does n't just imperil you .
It is something that imperils my friends , my loved ones , everyone .
Nobody has a right to put others at risk .
I am stranded in Greece at the moment .
The whole country is on lock-down .
As of 6am Monday morning , I must fill in a permit form in order to leave my house , and it must fulfil a set of predetermined criteria .
Otherwise I am fined .
Repeated breaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greek government is following World Health Organisation advice .
It is taking draconian action , even though it is behind the UK cases/deaths curve .
I do n't feel oppressed .
I feel protected .
Because I understand the context of this is a deadly pandemic .
I like having clear instructions .
Things here are calm .
The supermarkets have everything in stock .
The public supports the measures .
They are adults .
They understand .
I worry much more about my other half and loved ones in the UK .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dithering government , which seems to be constantly behind the curve .
Columbia Road flower market was heaving yesterday .
Snowdonia had its busiest ever day , in terms of visitors .
The reaction of the UK seems to me a classic category error .
Because the only recent crisis reference point is terrorism , we have been taught that the right reaction is defiance .
Carrying on .
Not letting them win .
This makes perfect sense in those circumstances .
The terrorist 's goal is to disrupt your life .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A virus has no such goal .
Its sole imperative is to propagate .
You 're not being defiant by aiding it .
You ’ re being dangerously dim .
It 's brave to go to a concert the day after the Manchester Arena bombing .
It 's stupid to go to a concert in the middle of a deadly pandemic .
There is nobody to defy .
It 's self-defeat .
In order to flip this reaction switch from stiff-upper-lip to maximum caution , clear government messaging is needed .
Every @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple message : `` Stay home .
Stay safe . ''
My mobile phone screeches direct alerts from the government , every time instructions change .
The ear-piercing alarm only stops after I read them .
I do n't feel intruded upon .
I feel informed .
Because I understand the context of this is a deadly pandemic .
This dangerous frivolity seems to be , for lack of a better word , infectious .
Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph welcomes the return of the bow and curtsy .
James Delingpole in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chinese Virus '' is not racist .
Mathew Lesh tweets in defence of actual profiteering .
If only hot takes could kill this thing , we 'd be sorted .
Instead Britain finds itself under attack from two pandemics : Covid-19 and a plague of inane punditry .
It 's understandable .
For years , these people preached individualism and free markets .
For years they made it their explicit aim to atrophy the state .
Now their readers are beginning to discover that the state can only protect you if it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that £70 a week is plenty to live on , provided you stop smoking fags , buying flatscreen TVs and generally being a bit of a common oik .
Now , their readers are beginning to understand that even the statutory sick pay of £94 a week is not enough .
Not even for a short while .
So , they must pivot .
Their last remaining way to write about this pandemic is to deny it is happening .
To ignore the fact that it exposes their principled individualism to be nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it came to pass , that the very talking heads who have been , for some years now , telling everyone else to rediscover the Spirit of the Blitz , were revealed to be the morons who refused to turn their light off during a blackout and endangered their entire neighbourhood .
Alex Andreou is a writer , actor and cook living in London and Greece .
You can follow him on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its owners .

By Alex Andreou
And so it came to pass, that the very talking heads who have been, for some years now, calling everyone else "a snowflake", had a collective meltdown over their local pub closing for a few weeks.
"This is a dark day for the UK," declared Brendan O'Neill in The Spectator. "Britain without its pubs is not Britain. It just isn't. It becomes something else. Something worse. Something less free." Could it be that we have found – whisper it, gently – Brendan's safe space?
"Even Vladimir Putin might hesitate before doing anything so blatant," chimes in Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday. "If there is no serious rebellion against this plan in the Commons, then I think we can commemorate tomorrow as the day parliament died." He preempts any criticism. "I'll be accused of threatening public health and all kinds of other conformist rubbish."
There you have the nub of it. They're not being selfish dicks. They're being non-conformist. It's heroic. It's cool.
For what it's worth, I fully support Peter Hitchens and Brendan O'Neill's inalienable right to be infected with a deadly virus. If they existed in a vacuum, I might buy myself one of those big foam fingers and cheer them on, as they march to the extinction that is the destiny of every dinosaur.
But they don't exist in a vacuum. They have no more a 'right' to keep congregating in pubs than they have a right to set fire to their flat on the ground floor of a skyscraper. Not following guidance, not distancing socially, doesn't just imperil you. It is something that imperils my friends, my loved ones, everyone. Nobody has a right to put others at risk.
I am stranded in Greece at the moment. The whole country is on lock-down. As of 6am Monday morning, I must fill in a permit form in order to leave my house, and it must fulfil a set of predetermined criteria. Otherwise I am fined. Repeated breaches can lead to my arrest.
The Greek government is following World Health Organisation advice. It is taking draconian action, even though it is behind the UK cases/deaths curve. I don't feel oppressed. I feel protected. Because I understand the context of this is a deadly pandemic.
I like having clear instructions. Things here are calm. The supermarkets have everything in stock. The public supports the measures. They are adults. They understand.
I worry much more about my other half and loved ones in the UK. They're getting mixed messages by a dithering government, which seems to be constantly behind the curve. Columbia Road flower market was heaving yesterday. Snowdonia had its busiest ever day, in terms of visitors.
The reaction of the UK seems to me a classic category error. Because the only recent crisis reference point is terrorism, we have been taught that the right reaction is defiance. Carrying on. Not letting them win. This makes perfect sense in those circumstances. The terrorist's goal is to disrupt your life. You win by not letting him disrupt it.
A virus has no such goal. Its sole imperative is to propagate. You're not being defiant by aiding it. You’re being dangerously dim. It's brave to go to a concert the day after the Manchester Arena bombing. It's stupid to go to a concert in the middle of a deadly pandemic. There is nobody to defy. It's self-defeat.
In order to flip this reaction switch from stiff-upper-lip to maximum caution, clear government messaging is needed. Every ad break on Greek TV transmits one simple message: "Stay home. Stay safe." My mobile phone screeches direct alerts from the government, every time instructions change. The ear-piercing alarm only stops after I read them. I don't feel intruded upon. I feel informed. Because I understand the context of this is a deadly pandemic.
This dangerous frivolity seems to be, for lack of a better word, infectious. Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph welcomes the return of the bow and curtsy. James Delingpole in the Spectator explains why calling it "the Chinese Virus" is not racist. Mathew Lesh tweets in defence of actual profiteering.
If only hot takes could kill this thing, we'd be sorted.
Instead Britain finds itself under attack from two pandemics: Covid-19 and a plague of inane punditry. It's understandable. For years, these people preached individualism and free markets. For years they made it their explicit aim to atrophy the state. Now their readers are beginning to discover that the state can only protect you if it is muscular.
For years they told us that £70 a week is plenty to live on, provided you stop smoking fags, buying flatscreen TVs and generally being a bit of a common oik. Now, their readers are beginning to understand that even the statutory sick pay of £94 a week is not enough. Not even for a short while.
So, they must pivot. Their last remaining way to write about this pandemic is to deny it is happening. To ignore the fact that it exposes their principled individualism to be nothing more than malignant selfishness.
And so it came to pass, that the very talking heads who have been, for some years now, telling everyone else to rediscover the Spirit of the Blitz, were revealed to be the morons who refused to turn their light off during a blackout and endangered their entire neighbourhood.
Alex Andreou is a writer, actor and cook living in London and Greece. You can follow him on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-03-20--Protecting the doctors: The reality of the equipment supply problem

The doctors are scared .
So are the nurses , the staff and the cleaners .
They have looked at Italy and they know what 's coming .
`` I 'm not going to lie , a lot of people here are shitting themselves , '' one doctor says .
`` They do n't quite know what to expect or how this is going to pan out .
We are really going to see what some people are made of .
I 've seen a lot of horrendous things , but even I 'm not sure how well I 'm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Probably the most significant anxiety is around protective equipment .
This is the kit handed to the medical staff treating potential or actual coronavirus patients .
There is a widespread fear that doctors and nurses are simply not being given what they need to stay healthy .
`` As front line medical workers , we do n't have the confidence that we 're protected , '' another doctor said .
`` We do n't know what we are facing and we feel woefully unprepared .
We do n't feel safe .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 're putting ourselves at risk by doing it .
And if we get sick , there 's less of us .
It 's another doctor down . ''
At the heart of much of this fear is a downgrade in the advice given to hospitals about the equipment .
The main transmission risk for covid-19 is through droplets .
Someone coughs or sneezes , and the droplets produced can be breathed in .
This is why the advice is to stay around 6 foot away from others and to self-isolate if you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also spread by people touching surfaces onto which infected patients have coughed or sneezed .
If you then touch your face you risk transferring the virus from your hands into your mouth or nose.That 's why so much of the advice on protecting yourself is about washing your hands and not touching your face .
For doctors handling potential or actual covid patients , the recommended protective equipment is therefore an apron , gloves , goggles and a surgical mask , of the type that you see everyone wearing when you go to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ splash-resistant barrier in case someone sneezes or coughs on them .
Then they take off the gear after dealing with a patient , discard it , and get a new set for the next one .
But there is another danger for covid transmission in hospitals .
It is through the generation of aerosol .
These are tiny droplets that linger in the air .
Aerosols are much smaller .
They are light enough to stay airborne and therefore have a much higher chance of being breathed in .
Because they are small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Several procedures in intensive care units generate aerosol , such as intubation , where a tube is inserted through the mouth or nose and into the trachea so a patient can be placed on a ventilator .
Anaesthetists are therefore at particular risk of aerosols , as they have to intubate patients for surgery .
But so are many other staff groups such as frontline paramedics and teams dealing with cardiac arrests .
When you press a patient 's chest , you are pushing air out and there is briefly aerosol in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for dentists .
Almost all the procedures in a dentists , including anything involving a drill , the suction unit or the water spray , generate aerosol .
In these situations , the danger is not just for the person delivering treatment .
Aerosol stays in the air for around three hours .
So others going into the room afterwards could also potentially be infected .
In intensive care units , where the air is replaced rapidly , this is less of a problem .
But in normal rooms , like that of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat .
Where aerosol is generated , a surgical mask is not enough .
Doctors need masks with a fine filter which can catch the air particle .
These are called FFP3 .
At the start of the covid outbreak in January , Public Health England put out advice which stated that doctors handling coronavirus patients would need gloves , an apron , eye protection and FFP3 .
But since then , as we 've learned more about the disease , that recommendation has now changed so that only health workers dealing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others are safe with just the surgical mask .
Most experts spoken to for this article were comfortable with the new guidance and believed it was the right use of limited resources .
But many frontline staff are deeply suspicious of it .
They are anxious that the guidance was changed because it is harder to get FFP3 masks .
They are also concerned about when medical situations change quickly .
People can suddenly deteriorate and need a ventilator .
The staff around them will have to act , but they 'll only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other dangerous situations too .
Covid sufferers who are giving birth through cesarean section , for instance , may suddenly need to convert from epidural to anaesthetic .
And then again the same risk emerges .
Some doctors are torn .
`` For the majority of us , it 's safe [ to use only a surgical mask ] , '' one consultant said .
`` Although intellectually I know this , when I am examining a patient coughing on me - with no idea of their status - and I 'm in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I 'm shitting it .
Psychologically it 's a nightmare . ''
Some experts broadly accept the guidance but remain anxious about it .
Although the risk of transmission is lower in non-aerosol cases , it 's still not zero .
Medical staff are going to be experiencing repeated exposures , especially when things start to reach critical levels in the weeks to come .
In an ideal world everyone in the medical profession working on the outbreak would be wearing FFP3 .
But the trouble is that supplies are short and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure they fit .
They 're designed to prevent particles being breathed in , so they ca n't just be chucked on the face .
They have to completely seal the mouth and nose .
These tests come in a few different forms .
You can put a hood on the person , place the mask on and then apply a sweet spray and check if they can taste it .
If they can , it does n't fit .
Or you can set up an enclosed space , where you test for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , looks left and right and so on .
There is a particular problem with finding masks for people with large heads and a more pronounced one - mentioned by several people - for female doctors with small faces .
There are lots of reports , from doctors from all over the country , about nightmarish wastes of time .
They test two , three , four types of masks , and then find out the models are not available and are asked to test for a different type .
Because the masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also use up supply .
Some doctors have resorted to buying them themselves by Googling the company in China .
Supplies of the masks come from three sources .
The first is the government 's pandemic stock .
The second is the national NHS supply chain , which operates in each of the four nations .
And the third is by NHS foundations .
Hospitals can buy their stock through any of these three approaches .
Doctors working in intensive care units and anaesthetics are particularly worried .
They are preparing for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few weeks and they do not have confidence that they have the FFP3 masks to deal with it .
There are also acute concerns about FFP3 masks for doctors rushing to deal with cardiac arrests .
The current guidance from the Resuscitation Council says that `` full aerosol generation procedure PPE must be worn by all members of the resuscitation/emergency team before entering the room '' .
But these are fast moving events , where staff rush to the emergency in order to desperately try to save someone 's life .
Foundation year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they 're younger .
There 'll also be a registrar and critical care doctor .
At the moment , it 's not likely that they 'll have been tested for FFP3 .
This puts them in a terrible ethical position .
What will they do ?
Not go in , and let them die ?
Or go in , and know they could become a vector of transmission ?
Dentists seemed to have been completely hung out to dry by the government .
They are self employed workers , who typically operate by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which they do not own and over whose equipment they have no control .
They are generating aerosol all the time .
They do not have FFP3 masks .
It also puts patients at risk , because the aerosol can linger in the room .
The chief dental officer in England , Sara Hurley , had n't bothered to offer any guidance for weeks , desite clarity from all the other UK nations .
The British Dental Association started writing to her once every other day expressing `` anger and frustration '' that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left to cope in the current frightening situation without the benefit of clear official advice '' .
Dentists across the country were extremely nervous .
`` It 's not a selfish thing , '' one said .
`` I do n't want a patient coming in and going out infected .
I 'm willing to take a risk to help people out who are in pain and need my help .
But I do n't want anyone else to be at risk by coming in . ''
And it 's not just them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's lots of worried and scared people .
Support staff look to us and we do n't have answers to tell them . ''
Finally this morning she clarified that non-emergency aerosol procedures should be avoided , sliding out an announcement which ended routine dentistry as we know it .
Again , uncertainty was allowed to prevail , chipping away at confidence in the government approach .
There are widespread and extensive reports of other kinds of shortages .
Some hospitals have a lack of goggles .
Intensive care doctors have resorted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to strap an overhead projector sheet to their face .
Anaesthetists have resorted to buying visors in B & Q .
In general , doctors and nurses across the country are crying out about the lack of equipment they have .
When you put out a call to hear how they feel about the working environment they are being asked to work in , a wave of outrage and fear comes back .
And that 's the thing .
That 's why medical staff struggle to have confidence in what they 're being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors ' bodies like the BMA simply can not say that they have confidence that their members are being kept safe .
Because all around them there is evidence that they do not have the resources they need .
The government response looks reactive , sluggish and opaque .
Medical staff need certainty and they need supplies .
They will spend the next few months defending the public .
In exchange , the public will need to defend them .
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said : '' We will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social care sector everything they need to tackle this outbreak and we have central stockpiles of Personal Protective Equipment .
We are working closely with industry , the NHS , social care providers and others in the supply chain to ensure these medical products are delivered to the frontline as quickly as possible , helping minimise any risks to patients and staff . ''

The doctors are scared. So are the nurses, the staff and the cleaners. They have looked at Italy and they know what's coming.
"I'm not going to lie, a lot of people here are shitting themselves," one doctor says. "They don't quite know what to expect or how this is going to pan out. We are really going to see what some people are made of. I've seen a lot of horrendous things, but even I'm not sure how well I'm going to cope with all this."
Probably the most significant anxiety is around protective equipment. This is the kit handed to the medical staff treating potential or actual coronavirus patients. There is a widespread fear that doctors and nurses are simply not being given what they need to stay healthy.
"As front line medical workers, we don't have the confidence that we're protected," another doctor said. "We don't know what we are facing and we feel woefully unprepared. We don't feel safe. We'll do the job, but we're putting ourselves at risk by doing it. And if we get sick, there's less of us. It's another doctor down."
At the heart of much of this fear is a downgrade in the advice given to hospitals about the equipment.
The main transmission risk for covid-19 is through droplets. Someone coughs or sneezes, and the droplets produced can be breathed in. This is why the advice is to stay around 6 foot away from others and to self-isolate if you have a persistent cough.
The virus can also spread by people touching surfaces onto which infected patients have coughed or sneezed. If you then touch your face you risk transferring the virus from your hands into your mouth or nose.That's why so much of the advice on protecting yourself is about washing your hands and not touching your face.
For doctors handling potential or actual covid patients, the recommended protective equipment is therefore an apron, gloves, goggles and a surgical mask, of the type that you see everyone wearing when you go to hospital. It's basically just a splash-resistant barrier in case someone sneezes or coughs on them. Then they take off the gear after dealing with a patient, discard it, and get a new set for the next one.
But there is another danger for covid transmission in hospitals. It is through the generation of aerosol. These are tiny droplets that linger in the air. Aerosols are much smaller. They are light enough to stay airborne and therefore have a much higher chance of being breathed in. Because they are small, they can penetrate a surgical mask.
Several procedures in intensive care units generate aerosol, such as intubation, where a tube is inserted through the mouth or nose and into the trachea so a patient can be placed on a ventilator.
Anaesthetists are therefore at particular risk of aerosols, as they have to intubate patients for surgery. But so are many other staff groups such as frontline paramedics and teams dealing with cardiac arrests. When you press a patient's chest, you are pushing air out and there is briefly aerosol in the room.
There are also dangers for dentists. Almost all the procedures in a dentists, including anything involving a drill, the suction unit or the water spray, generate aerosol.
In these situations, the danger is not just for the person delivering treatment. Aerosol stays in the air for around three hours. So others going into the room afterwards could also potentially be infected. In intensive care units, where the air is replaced rapidly, this is less of a problem. But in normal rooms, like that of a dentist, it can be a threat.
Where aerosol is generated, a surgical mask is not enough. Doctors need masks with a fine filter which can catch the air particle. These are called FFP3.
At the start of the covid outbreak in January, Public Health England put out advice which stated that doctors handling coronavirus patients would need gloves, an apron, eye protection and FFP3. But since then, as we've learned more about the disease, that recommendation has now changed so that only health workers dealing with aerosol generation require the FFP3 mask and others are safe with just the surgical mask.
Most experts spoken to for this article were comfortable with the new guidance and believed it was the right use of limited resources. But many frontline staff are deeply suspicious of it. They are anxious that the guidance was changed because it is harder to get FFP3 masks.
They are also concerned about when medical situations change quickly. People can suddenly deteriorate and need a ventilator. The staff around them will have to act, but they'll only have a surgical mask.
There are other dangerous situations too. Covid sufferers who are giving birth through cesarean section, for instance, may suddenly need to convert from epidural to anaesthetic. And then again the same risk emerges.
Some doctors are torn. "For the majority of us, it's safe [to use only a surgical mask]," one consultant said. "Although intellectually I know this, when I am examining a patient coughing on me – with no idea of their status – and I'm in a flimsy plastic apron and surgical mask, I'm shitting it. Psychologically it's a nightmare."
Some experts broadly accept the guidance but remain anxious about it. Although the risk of transmission is lower in non-aerosol cases, it's still not zero. Medical staff are going to be experiencing repeated exposures, especially when things start to reach critical levels in the weeks to come. In an ideal world everyone in the medical profession working on the outbreak would be wearing FFP3.
But the trouble is that supplies are short and the FFP3 masks require testing to make sure they fit. They're designed to prevent particles being breathed in, so they can't just be chucked on the face. They have to completely seal the mouth and nose.
These tests come in a few different forms. You can put a hood on the person, place the mask on and then apply a sweet spray and check if they can taste it. If they can, it doesn't fit. Or you can set up an enclosed space, where you test for particles while the person talks, walks, looks left and right and so on.
There is a particular problem with finding masks for people with large heads and a more pronounced one – mentioned by several people – for female doctors with small faces.
There are lots of reports, from doctors from all over the country, about nightmarish wastes of time. They test two, three, four types of masks, and then find out the models are not available and are asked to test for a different type. Because the masks can't be reused, these tests also use up supply. Some doctors have resorted to buying them themselves by Googling the company in China.
Supplies of the masks come from three sources. The first is the government's pandemic stock. The second is the national NHS supply chain, which operates in each of the four nations. And the third is by NHS foundations. Hospitals can buy their stock through any of these three approaches.
Doctors working in intensive care units and anaesthetics are particularly worried. They are preparing for a massive surge in cases in the next few weeks and they do not have confidence that they have the FFP3 masks to deal with it.
There are also acute concerns about FFP3 masks for doctors rushing to deal with cardiac arrests.
The current guidance from the Resuscitation Council says that "full aerosol generation procedure PPE must be worn by all members of the resuscitation/emergency team before entering the room".
But these are fast moving events, where staff rush to the emergency in order to desperately try to save someone's life. Foundation year doctors are often there first, because they're younger. There'll also be a registrar and critical care doctor. At the moment, it's not likely that they'll have been tested for FFP3. This puts them in a terrible ethical position. What will they do? Not go in, and let them die? Or go in, and know they could become a vector of transmission?
Dentists seemed to have been completely hung out to dry by the government. They are self employed workers, who typically operate by conducting their business in a practice, which they do not own and over whose equipment they have no control.
They are generating aerosol all the time. They do not have FFP3 masks. It also puts patients at risk, because the aerosol can linger in the room.
The chief dental officer in England, Sara Hurley, hadn't bothered to offer any guidance for weeks, desite clarity from all the other UK nations. The British Dental Association started writing to her once every other day expressing "anger and frustration" that "dentists and their teams are being left to cope in the current frightening situation without the benefit of clear official advice".
Dentists across the country were extremely nervous. "It's not a selfish thing," one said. "I don't want a patient coming in and going out infected. I'm willing to take a risk to help people out who are in pain and need my help. But I don't want anyone else to be at risk by coming in."
And it's not just them, but the staff. "There's lots of worried and scared people. Support staff look to us and we don't have answers to tell them."
Finally this morning she clarified that non-emergency aerosol procedures should be avoided, sliding out an announcement which ended routine dentistry as we know it. Again, uncertainty was allowed to prevail, chipping away at confidence in the government approach.
There are widespread and extensive reports of other kinds of shortages.
Some hospitals have a lack of goggles. Intensive care doctors have resorted to making their own by using elastic bands to strap an overhead projector sheet to their face. Anaesthetists have resorted to buying visors in B&Q.
In general, doctors and nurses across the country are crying out about the lack of equipment they have. When you put out a call to hear how they feel about the working environment they are being asked to work in, a wave of outrage and fear comes back.
And that's the thing. That's why medical staff struggle to have confidence in what they're being told about equipment. That's why doctors' bodies like the BMA simply cannot say that they have confidence that their members are being kept safe. Because all around them there is evidence that they do not have the resources they need. The government response looks reactive, sluggish and opaque.
Medical staff need certainty and they need supplies. They will spend the next few months defending the public. In exchange, the public will need to defend them.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said:
"We will continue to give our NHS and the social care sector everything they need to tackle this outbreak and we have central stockpiles of Personal Protective Equipment. We are working closely with industry, the NHS, social care providers and others in the supply chain to ensure these medical products are delivered to the frontline as quickly as possible, helping minimise any risks to patients and staff."


politicscouk--2020-03-18--Coronavirus bill: The biggest expansion in executive power we've seen in our lifetime

We 've never seen a bill like this .
The powers it is going to give the state are unprecedented .
It is the most extensive encroachment on British civil liberties we have ever seen outside of wartime .
Let 's get the obvious out the way .
The government is going to need many of these powers .
Most - and perhaps even all of them - can be justified in their own right , given what we 're facing .
But that means it is more , not less , important to scrutinise what is going on .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just as during a terror attack , they will want firm responses and become irritated with those who ask questions of them .
That makes it doubly important to do so .
The opposition , in so far as it currently exists , is supporting the bill and Jeremy Corbyn is anyway incapable of proper forensic scrutiny .
That makes it triply important .
Yesterday the government published some guidance on what the coronavirus bill will contain .
That 's all we have for now .
We 'll get a better look when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few days .
No.10 expects it to get royal assent by the end of the month .
It 's being forced through quickly , for obvious reasons .
It makes for very challenging reading .
It gives you an indication of how bad the government thinks things could get .
Indemnity will be provided for clinical negligence liabilities arising from NHS efforts to deal with the virus .
That suggests an awareness of how grim things could become if the health service starts to buckle under the strain .
There are also provisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the death management process in their area if the number of deaths becomes too high for the current system to handle .
That would involve local authorities managing and streamlining the work of funeral directors , mortuary owners and crematorium owners .
This is not a normal bill .
It is not taking place in normal circumstances .
Nevertheless , the powers are extraordinary .
`` The bill will enable the police and immigration officers to detain a person , for a limited period , who is , or may be , infectious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place to enable screening and assessment , '' the notes read .
We will need a description of very precise circumstances for when that power can be enforced , because , at the moment , any member of the human race `` may be '' infectious , meaning that this provision effectively gives a blank cheque for authorities to detain any member of the public .
Other powers enable the home secretary to request that port and airport operators temporarily close , to cancel elections and `` restrict or prohibit events and gatherings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why these powers might be necessary .
But let 's be clear about what they involve .
The capacity to close off Britain , to suspend elections and ban all protests or demonstrations , alongside football matches and concerts .
The powers must be narrowly drawn .
There 's clearly a sense in government that we could be facing serious social unrest , perhaps because of the psychological effect of isolation , or a spike in deaths without NHS capacity to help , or even lack of food if there is n't an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security capabilities at a time of potential widespread upheaval is critical , '' the guidance reads , `` and it is necessary to ensure that the powers to vary specific aspects of the regime are available to the government should they be deemed necessary . ''
That means that they want the ability to carry out surveillance .
But judicial commissioners , who oversee the surveillance activity of the intelligence agencies , are typically former judges .
That means they 're usually older people and are therefore precisely in the group that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to introduce temporary judicial commissioners and extend the period in which an urgent warrant for surveillance needs to be reviewed from three days to 12 .
Again , you can understand the reasons , if for instance we are facing wide scale rioting .
But again , we will need more details about the process for appointing temporary judicial commissioners and evidence for how independent they are .
The extension on the time limit for review is also very substantial , adding up to nearly a month if those are working days .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers last for two years .
That is a very long period of time .
They could have had annual sunset clauses , or monthly ones , giving parliament a regular say in them continuing .
We also do n't know the mechanism for how they fade out .
We will need those details .
But the big issue with the bill is n't really about what it proposes exactly , but the kind of message it gives out .
We are almost certainly about to see a very significant change in data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Israel and China , are already starting to use mobile data to track where people are and where they have been .
The state is going to want to know whether people are staying at home and where the people who are not staying at home are going .
It might usefully be able to track the movements of someone who has the virus , via their mobile data , so we can find out who they came into contact with beforehand .
They could also be comparing that travel data with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hoarding and work against shortages .
We 're not sure whether the data provided by mobiles is decent enough for that to be effective yet , but it could potentially be useful .
And the thing is , there 's nothing necessarily wrong with that .
You can understand why the state would want to do it and most of the public would probably be supportive .
But we have n't really heard anything from the government yet about data .
One of the rare mentions we do have is from health secretary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He spoke about GDPR , the existing data protection rules we have from the EU .
`` GDPR does not inhibit use of data for coronavirus response , '' he said .
`` GDPR has a clause excepting work in the overwhelming public interest . ''
Then he made an interesting dichotomy .
`` We are all having to give up some of our liberties ; rights under GDPR have always been balanced against other public interests . ''
He 's right that GDPR has exceptions for all sorts of things .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vital interests of the subject , for instance - to save their life .
And there is , as he said , a public interest exemption .
But it comes with requirements .
You have to explain what you are doing .
You have to be proportionate and there have to be safeguards .
The point of GDPR is that even when things happen that you do n't agree with , you at least know about them .
There is transparency .
That 's why the mood music of the coronavirus bill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing on data , there is a lot in there on national security , and specifically the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 .
Ministers can get the kind of bulk mobile data they 'll want by asking for a warrant under that Act .
We 'll likely never know it exists .
And this emphasis on national security suggests that is precisely what they are going to do , or in all likelihood already have done .
That is an error .
Approaching this type of thing with secrecy does not increase their control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any public awareness or debate .
And that increases paranoia and distrust of government .
It is also completely pointless , because the public would be highly likely to accept this intrusion into their privacy for the public good .
And the government could even , when this is over , use that as an example of how surveillance has some beneficial aspects .
But instead , it feels like the direction of travel is towards secrecy and a national security application .
Usually in national security , the case for privacy can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it can not .
There really is no reason the public can not know .
And in fact making the public think they are not being told things is a good way of making the situation worse .
To be clear , this is not a power-grab by a cynical executive .
This is a government taking the powers it thinks it needs to face a fast-moving emergency .
But they have a choice now .
Proceed on the basis of secrecy and cloak everything under national security .
Or be straight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we need proper scrutiny of what is happening , or the former is likely to win over the latter .
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk .
His new book , How To Be A Liberal , is out in September 2020 .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

We've never seen a bill like this. The powers it is going to give the state are unprecedented. It is the most extensive encroachment on British civil liberties we have ever seen outside of wartime.
Let's get the obvious out the way. The government is going to need many of these powers. Most – and perhaps even all of them – can be justified in their own right, given what we're facing.
But that means it is more, not less, important to scrutinise what is going on.
Many people will not like this. Just as during a terror attack, they will want firm responses and become irritated with those who ask questions of them. That makes it doubly important to do so.
The opposition, in so far as it currently exists, is supporting the bill and Jeremy Corbyn is anyway incapable of proper forensic scrutiny. That makes it triply important.
Yesterday the government published some guidance on what the coronavirus bill will contain. That's all we have for now. We'll get a better look when the bill reaches parliament in the next few days. No.10 expects it to get royal assent by the end of the month. It's being forced through quickly, for obvious reasons.
It makes for very challenging reading. It gives you an indication of how bad the government thinks things could get.
Indemnity will be provided for clinical negligence liabilities arising from NHS efforts to deal with the virus. That suggests an awareness of how grim things could become if the health service starts to buckle under the strain.
There are also provisions for local government to take control of the death management process in their area if the number of deaths becomes too high for the current system to handle. That would involve local authorities managing and streamlining the work of funeral directors, mortuary owners and crematorium owners.
This is not a normal bill. It is not taking place in normal circumstances.
Nevertheless, the powers are extraordinary. "The bill will enable the police and immigration officers to detain a person, for a limited period, who is, or may be, infectious and to take them to a suitable place to enable screening and assessment," the notes read.
We will need a description of very precise circumstances for when that power can be enforced, because, at the moment, any member of the human race "may be" infectious, meaning that this provision effectively gives a blank cheque for authorities to detain any member of the public.
Other powers enable the home secretary to request that port and airport operators temporarily close, to cancel elections and "restrict or prohibit events and gatherings".
Again, we can understand why these powers might be necessary. But let's be clear about what they involve. The capacity to close off Britain, to suspend elections and ban all protests or demonstrations, alongside football matches and concerts. The powers must be narrowly drawn.
There's clearly a sense in government that we could be facing serious social unrest, perhaps because of the psychological effect of isolation, or a spike in deaths without NHS capacity to help, or even lack of food if there isn't an end to stockpiling.
"Maintaining national security capabilities at a time of potential widespread upheaval is critical," the guidance reads, "and it is necessary to ensure that the powers to vary specific aspects of the regime are available to the government should they be deemed necessary."
That means that they want the ability to carry out surveillance. But judicial commissioners, who oversee the surveillance activity of the intelligence agencies, are typically former judges. That means they're usually older people and are therefore precisely in the group that is self-isolating. So the bill is going to introduce temporary judicial commissioners and extend the period in which an urgent warrant for surveillance needs to be reviewed from three days to 12.
Again, you can understand the reasons, if for instance we are facing wide scale rioting. But again, we will need more details about the process for appointing temporary judicial commissioners and evidence for how independent they are. The extension on the time limit for review is also very substantial, adding up to nearly a month if those are working days. They need to justify it.
The powers last for two years. That is a very long period of time. They could have had annual sunset clauses, or monthly ones, giving parliament a regular say in them continuing. We also don't know the mechanism for how they fade out. We will need those details.
But the big issue with the bill isn't really about what it proposes exactly, but the kind of message it gives out.
We are almost certainly about to see a very significant change in data collection. Countries around the world, like Israel and China, are already starting to use mobile data to track where people are and where they have been.
The state is going to want to know whether people are staying at home and where the people who are not staying at home are going. It might usefully be able to track the movements of someone who has the virus, via their mobile data, so we can find out who they came into contact with beforehand. They could also be comparing that travel data with banking and shopping information to assess food hoarding and work against shortages.
We're not sure whether the data provided by mobiles is decent enough for that to be effective yet, but it could potentially be useful. And the thing is, there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. You can understand why the state would want to do it and most of the public would probably be supportive.
But we haven't really heard anything from the government yet about data. One of the rare mentions we do have is from health secretary Matt Hancock this morning on Twitter. He spoke about GDPR, the existing data protection rules we have from the EU.
"GDPR does not inhibit use of data for coronavirus response," he said. "GDPR has a clause excepting work in the overwhelming public interest." Then he made an interesting dichotomy. "We are all having to give up some of our liberties; rights under GDPR have always been balanced against other public interests."
He's right that GDPR has exceptions for all sorts of things. You can use data without permission to protect the vital interests of the subject, for instance – to save their life. And there is, as he said, a public interest exemption.
But it comes with requirements. You have to explain what you are doing. You have to be proportionate and there have to be safeguards. The point of GDPR is that even when things happen that you don't agree with, you at least know about them. There is transparency.
That's why the mood music of the coronavirus bill is interesting. Because although there's nothing on data, there is a lot in there on national security, and specifically the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Ministers can get the kind of bulk mobile data they'll want by asking for a warrant under that Act. We'll likely never know it exists. And this emphasis on national security suggests that is precisely what they are going to do, or in all likelihood already have done.
That is an error. Approaching this type of thing with secrecy does not increase their control. It reduces it. It avoids any public awareness or debate. And that increases paranoia and distrust of government.
It is also completely pointless, because the public would be highly likely to accept this intrusion into their privacy for the public good. And the government could even, when this is over, use that as an example of how surveillance has some beneficial aspects.
But instead, it feels like the direction of travel is towards secrecy and a national security application. Usually in national security, the case for privacy can legitimately be made. In this situation, it cannot. There really is no reason the public cannot know. And in fact making the public think they are not being told things is a good way of making the situation worse.
To be clear, this is not a power-grab by a cynical executive. This is a government taking the powers it thinks it needs to face a fast-moving emergency. But they have a choice now. Proceed on the basis of secrecy and cloak everything under national security. Or be straight with people.
Despite everything going on, we need proper scrutiny of what is happening, or the former is likely to win over the latter.
Ian Dunt is editor of Politics.co.uk. His new book, How To Be A Liberal, is out in September 2020.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.


politicscouk--2020-03-18--'A perfect storm': Food banks face uncertainty as coronavirus crisis deepens

By Natalie Bloomer This week , the Islington food bank became one of the first to announce that it would be closing due to the coronavirus pandemic .
With dwindling donations and more and more people needing to self-isolate , it 's likely they wo n't be alone .
Food banks rely on the very products that many people are busy stockpiling .
Bags of pasta , tins of beans or tomatoes and long-life milk are essential items in an emergency food package .
Not only are many organisations seeing donations of this type fall , there are also restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to be purchased at supermarkets , meaning food bank staff often ca n't top up stock levels themselves .
Another problem is the volunteer base .
At the food bank that I help out at , a large number of the people who keep it running would be classed as high-risk for corona due to their age or health issues .
This is the same at many food banks .
The people needing food are often unable to get to the food bank because they are self-isolating .
Some places are arranging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the size of the operation and will need enough volunteers to make it happen .
In many areas it will simply not be an option .
There is often a lack of understanding about the amount of work that goes into running a food bank .
It starts with the donation of items .
They can come in by the trolley-load .
All of it needs to be sorted in expiry date order and stored by category .
Then individual standard parcels need to be packed and ready for when people arrive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ food for all different family sizes .
Finally , once you 're ready to hand the food out , volunteers will swap and add items depending on different needs - some people are vegetarians , for instance , some ca n't eat pork , some are dairy intolerant .
All of that is before you even get to the admin side or the time spent talking to people about their problems and referring them to suitable agencies .
Without enough volunteers , all of this becomes incredibly difficult .
We 're facing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back their services at precisely the moment when the number of people needing them is likely to increase .
Without a major intervention by the government , there could be millions of people who are self-employed , on zero hours contracts or in other work affected by the crisis , that will struggle to meet basic living costs in the coming months .
If schools close , there will also be many families who usually rely on free school meals needing emergency food .
`` There is a potential for a perfect storm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Favell food bank in Northampton says .
`` As well as people who need food possibly having to self-isolate , staff and volunteers could be among those having to stay at home and there is likely to be increased demand .
We are all working very hard to keep things running as normally as possible . ''
Other food aid projects are facing similar problems and there seems to be little advice as to how they should handle the crisis .
The Hope Centre in Northampton provides support to vulnerable adults , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As well as running a drop-in centre which serves food , the organisation also has a local food club where people on low incomes can access supplies at a reduced price .
Chief executive Robin Burgess says he is concerned at the lack of meaningful planning and leadership about how the needs of these groups will be met .
`` In the absence of local or national planning , it is apparently down to the voluntary sector to do the work needed to prevent death and harm to some of the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he says .
`` Hope has had to organise meetings of key people to address the needs of both client groups .
But there are real limits to what we can do , without funds or resources , like access to accommodation for the homeless to self-isolate into , or to feed hungry people with no money '' .
A decade of austerity measures and welfare reforms have led to charities stepping in to replace the safety net removed by the government .
Now , at this moment of crisis , the state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens have enough to eat .
Natalie Bloomer is a freelance journalist .
You can follow her on Twitter here .
The opinions in Politics.co.uk 's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners .

By Natalie Bloomer
This week, the Islington food bank became one of the first to announce that it would be closing due to the coronavirus pandemic. With dwindling donations and more and more people needing to self-isolate, it's likely they won't be alone.
Food banks rely on the very products that many people are busy stockpiling. Bags of pasta, tins of beans or tomatoes and long-life milk are essential items in an emergency food package. Not only are many organisations seeing donations of this type fall, there are also restrictions being placed on the number of items allowed to be purchased at supermarkets, meaning food bank staff often can't top up stock levels themselves.
Another problem is the volunteer base. At the food bank that I help out at, a large number of the people who keep it running would be classed as high-risk for corona due to their age or health issues. This is the same at many food banks.
The people needing food are often unable to get to the food bank because they are self-isolating. Some places are arranging home deliveries, but this will depend on the size of the operation and will need enough volunteers to make it happen. In many areas it will simply not be an option.
There is often a lack of understanding about the amount of work that goes into running a food bank. It starts with the donation of items. They can come in by the trolley-load. All of it needs to be sorted in expiry date order and stored by category. Then individual standard parcels need to be packed and ready for when people arrive, making sure there is enough essential food for all different family sizes. Finally, once you're ready to hand the food out, volunteers will swap and add items depending on different needs – some people are vegetarians, for instance, some can't eat pork, some are dairy intolerant.
All of that is before you even get to the admin side or the time spent talking to people about their problems and referring them to suitable agencies. Without enough volunteers, all of this becomes incredibly difficult.
We're facing the possibility of food banks closing or scaling back their services at precisely the moment when the number of people needing them is likely to increase. Without a major intervention by the government, there could be millions of people who are self-employed, on zero hours contracts or in other work affected by the crisis, that will struggle to meet basic living costs in the coming months. If schools close, there will also be many families who usually rely on free school meals needing emergency food.
"There is a potential for a perfect storm," Haydon Spenceley from the Weston Favell food bank in Northampton says.
"As well as people who need food possibly having to self-isolate, staff and volunteers could be among those having to stay at home and there is likely to be increased demand. We are all working very hard to keep things running as normally as possible."
Other food aid projects are facing similar problems and there seems to be little advice as to how they should handle the crisis.
The Hope Centre in Northampton provides support to vulnerable adults, including the homeless and people living in poverty. As well as running a drop-in centre which serves food, the organisation also has a local food club where people on low incomes can access supplies at a reduced price. Chief executive Robin Burgess says he is concerned at the lack of meaningful planning and leadership about how the needs of these groups will be met.
"In the absence of local or national planning, it is apparently down to the voluntary sector to do the work needed to prevent death and harm to some of the UK’s most vulnerable people," he says.
"Hope has had to organise meetings of key people to address the needs of both client groups. But there are real limits to what we can do, without funds or resources, like access to accommodation for the homeless to self-isolate into, or to feed hungry people with no money".
A decade of austerity measures and welfare reforms have led to charities stepping in to replace the safety net removed by the government. Now, at this moment of crisis, the state must be responsible for ensuring that all citizens have enough to eat.
Natalie Bloomer is a freelance journalist. You can follow her on Twitter here.
The opinions in Politics.co.uk's Comment and Analysis section are those of the author and are no reflection of the views of the website or its owners.