Row over dogs being kept on leads for social distancing

Radio Devon live reporting 21 April

A row has broken out in east Devon about dogs and their owners allegedly apparently breaking social distancing rules.

Cranbrook Town Council put up notices on social media stating it was mandatory that people kept their dogs on leads and said a ranger would be checking on them.

It said it had received “many complaints” from individuals who classed themselves as vulnerable about the “lack of social distancing when dogs off leads run up to them and the owners have to retrieve their pets”.

But that upset some dog owners, who said the council did not have legal grounds to enforce any ban.

They also said they were being unfairly targeted as other walkers and runners had been ignoring regulations as well.

The council apologised for its initial post, saying it was “trying to make sense of a difficult and extraordinary situation and sometimes we get it wrong”.

But it has still called for people to abide by social distancing rules.

Exclusive: Millions of pieces of PPE are being shipped from Britain to Europe despite NHS shortages

Millions of pieces of vital protective equipment are being shipped from British warehouses to Germany, Spain and Italy despite severe shortages in this country, The Telegraph can disclose.

Lorries are being packed with masks, respirators and other PPE kit before heading back to supply hospitals in the EU, it has emerged.

By Bill Gardner 21 April 2020  www.telegraph.co.uk

On Monday night, UK firms said they had “no choice” but to keep selling the lifesaving gear abroad because their offers of help had been repeatedly ignored by the Government.

It comes as the Government faces growing criticism over the PPE crisis with hospitals close to running out of critical equipment, and doctors forced to choose between exposing themselves to the virus or “letting a patient die on their watch”.  

On Sunday, 12 million pieces of PPE were delivered to the health care sector, down from 33 million less than a fortnight ago. 

Ministers have insisted that the shortage of PPE has been caused by global supply issues as nations scramble to source reusable gear from factories in China. Former London Olympics chief Lord Deighton has been brought in to boost PPE production in this country. A much-needed shipment of 140,000 gowns arrived from Myanmar on Monday.

However, UK wholesalers revealed that their warehouses were already full of millions of pieces of PPE bought from China which were now being delivered every day to EU countries for use by frontline health workers.

Three lorries registered in Italy arrived on Monday at a warehouse owned by Veenak International, a Birmingham-based pharmaceutical wholesaler, where they took delivery of 750,000 surgical masks before heading back across the Channel.

Last week alone the firm packed five million surgical masks, more than a million FFP2 respirators and more than half a million FFP3 respirators stored inside three warehouses in Birmingham and outside Heathrow Airport on to lorries registered in the EU, a source revealed.

The company, which distributes pharmaceutical products across the UK and Europe, buys PPE from factories in China and takes a new delivery every week. Currently it has millions of pounds’ worth of PPE sitting in its warehouses, sources said.

Pictures taken inside the Veenak warehouse show boxes of PPE bought from China emblazoned with the message: “British keep fighting! You are not the only one that is fighting, we will be with you! We are waves of the same ocean!” The equipment inside is now due to be sold overseas.

Shan Hassam, chief executive of Veenak International, did not wish to discuss commercial arrangements but added: “We are a very patriotic company and we want to do all we can to help the NHS.

“We stand ready to prioritise our British customers if given the opportunity to do so.”

The company has managed to supply the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust with a number of face shields and goggles after sidestepping the government’s procurement process, it is understood. 

Dr Simon Festing, chief executive of the British Healthcare Trades Association, confirmed that “a number of our members” are continuing to sell PPE abroad after offers of help went unanswered.

“It’s an extremely difficult time for businesses and if they can’t supply to the UK then their commercial arrangements are likely to continue,” he said.

Meanwhile an analysis by The Telegraph appears to show a significant decline in the supply of PPE, with the number of items delivered on Sunday April 19 down by more than 50 per cent on 10 days ago. 

During a conference call with manufacturers on Monday, Cabinet Office officials admitted gowns would now need to be made in the UK amid a global shortage of crucial fabrics and machinery.

Officials are understood to be considering widening requirements so that textile factories can produce woven gowns using materials available in this country.

A source at the UK Fashion & Textile Association said the UK had been left “at the back of the queue” for the crucial materials and machines used to make fluid-repellent non-woven gowns after ministers initially pursued orders from China.

“It may well now be too late to get this off the ground properly,” the source said.

Meanwhile, a diplomatic row between the UK and Turkey broke out on Monday night after an RAF plane was finally dispatched to pick up 84 tonnes of lifesaving kit.

Turkish officials claimed that the UK had only submitted a formal request for the equipment on Sunday after Downing Street blamed “problems on the Turkish end”.

Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, said: “We know for a fact that the first orders of additional PPE were placed on January 30. If those orders had actually come in to time and quality, then we wouldn’t have been in this position.”

Chancellor Rishi Sunak said the Government would “pursue every possible option” to secure more PPE for the UK.

At Monday’s Downing Street press conference, Mr Sunak said: “This is an international challenge that many other countries are experiencing.

“Alongside the efforts of British businesses, and our embassies around the world, we are working hard to get the PPE our frontline NHS and social care staff need.”

Last month the EU imposed an export ban on some medical protective equipment in a bid to keep sufficient supplies within the bloc. In the US, President Trump has banned “unscrupulous actors and profiteers” from exporting critical medical gear used to protect wearers from the coronavirus, although restrictions on Canada and Mexico have since been relaxed.

Greg Clark, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, said it was “clearly wrong” that vital PPE supplies are being taken out of this country when hospitals are in desperate need.

“It’s extremely unfortunate that firms are selling PPE to other countries after failing to make headway with the authorities,” he said.

“I’d caution against banning exports of PPE altogether, though. If you do that, other countries might reciprocate and we’d be in an even worse situation.”

A new website, developed with the help of the military, is being rolled out over the next few weeks to improve distribution and will enable primary, social and community care providers in England to order critical PPE.

Go back

Your message has been sent

Warning
Warning
Warning
Warning

Warning.

Just when you think things couldn’t get any worse….

An invasive Australian flatworm which threatens native species has been found under a cowpat on Dartmoor.

Invasion of the imported flatworm

Ben Webster, Environment Editor  www.thetimes.co.uk 

The worm, which may have arrived in an imported pot plant, has been previously found in urban areas in the UK but this is the most rural sighting, suggesting that the species is spreading.

It grows up to 8cm long, has a flattened, shiny pink-orange body and feeds on earthworms, which are essential for soil health.

The Dartmoor worm was discovered near Chagford by a neighbour of Nick Baker, a naturalist and TV presenter who identified it as the non-native species Australoplana sanguinea.

There are more than ten non-native flatworm species in the UK and once introduced they can reproduce rapidly.

Andrew Whitehouse, of the conservation charity Buglife, said that the discovery “indicates that this species is spreading into our countryside where it poses a threat to our native worms”.

“Buglife are calling on the government to ban imports of pot plants, and ensure that our country’s biosecurity is sufficient to protect our wildlife,” he added.

The charity said the Australian worm was not as great a threat as Obama nungara, a South American flatworm that eats snails and earthworms.

 

Coronavirus: 38 days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster. The History is being written.

Last week a senior adviser to Downing Street broke ranks and blamed the weeks of complacency on a failure of leadership in cabinet. The prime minister was singled out.

“There’s no way you’re at war if your PM isn’t there,” the adviser said. “And what you learn about Boris was he didn’t chair any meetings. He liked his country breaks. He didn’t work weekends. It was like working for an old-fashioned chief executive in a local authority 20 years ago. There was a real sense that he didn’t do urgent crisis planning. It was exactly like people feared he would be.”

Insight | Jonathan Calvert, George Arbuthnott and Jonathan Leake www.thetimes.co.uk 

On the third Friday of January a silent and stealthy killer was creeping across the world. Passing from person to person and borne on ships and planes, the coronavirus was already leaving a trail of bodies.

The virus had spread from China to six countries and was almost certainly in many others. Sensing the coming danger, the British government briefly went into wartime mode that day, holding a meeting of Cobra, its national crisis committee.

But it took just an hour that January 24 lunchtime to brush aside the coronavirus threat. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, bounced out of Whitehall after chairing the meeting and breezily told reporters the risk to the UK public was “low”.

This was despite the publication that day of an alarming study by Chinese doctors in the medical journal The Lancet. It assessed the lethal potential of the virus, for the first time suggesting it was comparable to the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, which killed up to 50 million people.

Unusually, Boris Johnson had been absent from Cobra. The committee — which includes ministers, intelligence chiefs and military generals — gathers at moments of great peril such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters and other threats to the nation and is normally chaired by the prime minister.

Johnson had found time that day, however, to join in a lunar-new-year dragon eyes ritual as part of Downing Street’s reception for the Chinese community, led by the country’s ambassador.

It was a big day for Johnson and there was a triumphal mood in Downing Street because the withdrawal treaty from the European Union was being signed in the late afternoon. It could have been the defining moment of his premiership — but that was before the world changed.

That afternoon his spokesman played down the looming threat from the east and reassured the nation that we were “well prepared for any new diseases”. The confident, almost nonchalant, attitude displayed that day in January would continue for more than a month.

Johnson went on to miss four further Cobra meetings on the virus. As Britain was hit by unprecedented flooding, he completed the EU withdrawal, reshuffled his cabinet and then went away to the grace-and-favour country retreat at Chevening where he spent most of the two weeks over half-term with his pregnant fiancée, Carrie Symonds.

It would not be until March 2 — five weeks later — that Johnson would attend a Cobra meeting about the coronavirus. But by then it was almost certainly too late. The virus had sneaked into our airports, our trains, our workplaces and our homes. Britain was on course for one of the worst infections of the most insidious virus to have hit the world in a century.

Last week a senior adviser to Downing Street broke ranks and blamed the weeks of complacency on a failure of leadership in cabinet. The prime minister was singled out.

“There’s no way you’re at war if your PM isn’t there,” the adviser said. “And what you learn about Boris was he didn’t chair any meetings. He liked his country breaks. He didn’t work weekends. It was like working for an old-fashioned chief executive in a local authority 20 years ago. There was a real sense that he didn’t do urgent crisis planning. It was exactly like people feared he would be.”

One day there will be an inquiry into the lack of preparations during those “lost” five weeks from January 24. There will be questions about when politicians understood the severity of the threat, what the scientists told them and why so little was done to equip the National Health Service for the coming crisis. It will be the politicians who will face the most intense scrutiny.

Among the key points likely to be explored are why it took so long to recognise an urgent need for a massive boost in supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers; ventilators to treat acute respiratory symptoms; and tests to detect the infection.

Any inquiry may also ask whether the government’s failure to get to grips with the scale of the crisis in those early days had the knock-on effect of the national lockdown being introduced days or even weeks too late, causing many thousands more unnecessary deaths.

We have talked to scientists, academics, doctors, emergency planners, public officials and politicians about the root of the crisis and whether the government should have known sooner and acted more swiftly to kick-start the Whitehall machine and put the NHS onto a war footing.

They told us that, contrary to the official line, Britain was in a poor state of readiness for a pandemic. Emergency stockpiles of PPE had severely dwindled and gone out of date after becoming a low priority in the years of austerity cuts. The training to prepare key workers for a pandemic had been put on hold for two years while contingency planning was diverted to deal with a possible no-deal Brexit.

This made it doubly important that the government hit the ground running in late January and early February. Scientists said the threat from the coming storm was clear. Indeed, one of the government’s key advisory committees was given a dire warning a month earlier than has previously been admitted about the prospect of having to deal with mass casualties.

It was a message repeated throughout February, but the warnings appear to have fallen on deaf ears. The need, for example, to boost emergency supplies of protective masks and gowns for health workers was pressing, but little progress was made in obtaining the items from manufacturers, mainly in China.

Instead, the government sent supplies the other way — shipping 279,000 items of its depleted stockpile of protective equipment to China during this period in response to a request for help from the authorities there.

The prime minister had been sunning himself with his girlfriend in the millionaires’ Caribbean resort of Mustique when China alerted the World Health Organisation (WHO) on December 31 that several cases of an unusual pneumonia had been recorded in Wuhan, a city of 11 million people in Hubei province.

In the days that followed, China at first claimed the virus could not be transmitted from human to human, which should have been reassuring. But this did not ring true to Britain’s public health academics and epidemiologists, who were texting one another, eager for more information, in early January.

Devi Sridhar, professor of global public health at Edinburgh University, had predicted in a talk two years earlier that a virus might jump species from an animal in China and spread quickly to become a human pandemic. So the news from Wuhan set her on high alert.

“In early January a lot of my global health colleagues and I were kind of discussing ‘What’s going on?’” she recalled. “China still hadn’t confirmed the virus was human to human. A lot of us were suspecting it was because it was a respiratory pathogen and you wouldn’t see the numbers of cases that we were seeing out of China if it was not human to human. So that was disturbing.”

By as early as January 16 the professor was on Twitter calling for swift action to prepare for the virus. “Been asked by journalists how serious #WuhanPneumonia outbreak is,” she wrote. “My answer: take it seriously because of cross-border spread (planes means bugs travel far & fast), likely human-to-human transmission and previous outbreaks have taught overresponding is better than delaying action.”

Events were now moving fast. Four hundred miles away in London, on its campus next to the Royal Albert Hall, a team at Imperial College’s School of Public Health led by Professor Neil Ferguson produced its first modelling assessment of the impact of the virus. On Friday January 17 its report noted the “worrying” news that three cases of the virus had been discovered outside China — two in Thailand and one in Japan. While acknowledging many unknowns, researchers calculated that there could already be as many as 4,000 cases. The report warned: “The magnitude of these numbers suggests substantial human-to-human transmission cannot be ruled out. Heightened surveillance, prompt information-sharing and enhanced preparedness are recommended.”

By now the mystery bug had been identified as a type of coronavirus — a large family of viruses that can cause infections ranging from the common cold to severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars). There had been two reported deaths from the virus and 41 patients had been taken ill.

The following Wednesday, January 22, the government convened the first meeting of its scientific advisory group for emergencies (Sage) to discuss the virus. Its membership is secret but it is usually chaired by the government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, and chief medical adviser, Professor Chris Whitty. Downing Street advisers are also present.

There were new findings that day, with Chinese scientists warning that the virus had an unusually high infectivity rate of up to 3.0, which meant each person with the virus would typically infect up to three more people.

One of those present was Imperial’s Ferguson, who was already working on his own estimate — putting infectivity at 2.6 and possibly as high as 3.5 — which he sent to ministers and officials in a report on the day of the Cobra meeting on January 24. The Spanish flu had an estimated infectivity rate of between 2.0 and 3.0, whereas for most flu outbreaks it is about 1.3, so Ferguson’s finding was shocking.

The professor’s other bombshell in the report was that there needed to be a 60% cut in the transmission rate — which meant stopping contact between people. In layman’s terms it meant a lockdown, a move that would paralyse an economy already facing a battering from Brexit. At the time such a suggestion was unthinkable in the government and belonged to the world of post-apocalypse movies.

The growing alarm among scientists appears not to have been heard or heeded by policy-makers. After the January 25 Cobra meeting, the chorus of reassurance was not just from Hancock and the prime minister’s spokesman: Whitty was confident too.

“Cobra met today to discuss the situation in Wuhan, China,” said Whitty. “We have global experts monitoring the situation around the clock and have a strong track record of managing new forms of infectious disease . . . there are no confirmed cases in the UK to date.”

However, by then there had been 1,000 cases worldwide and 41 deaths, mostly in Wuhan. A Lancet report that day presented a study of 41 coronavirus patients admitted to hospital in Wuhan, which found that more than half had severe breathing problems, a third required intensive care and six had died.

And there was now little doubt that the UK would be hit by the virus. A study by Southampton University has shown that 190,000 people flew into the UK from Wuhan and other high-risk Chinese cities between January and March. The researchers estimated that up to 1,900 of these passengers would have been infected with the coronavirus — almost guaranteeing the UK would become a centre of the subsequent pandemic.

Sure enough, five days later, on Wednesday January 29, the first coronavirus cases on British soil were found when two Chinese nationals from the same family fell ill at a hotel in York. The next day the government raised the threat level from low to moderate.

On January 31 — or Brexit day, as it had become known — there was a rousing 11pm speech by the prime minister promising that withdrawal from the European Union would be the dawn of a new era, unleashing the British people, who would “grow in confidence” month by month.

By this time there was good reason for the government’s top scientific advisers to feel creeping unease about the virus. The WHO had declared the coronavirus a global emergency just the previous day, and scientists at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine had confirmed to Whitty in a private meeting of the Nervtag advisory committee on respiratory illness that the virus’s infectivity could be as bad as Ferguson’s worst estimate several days earlier.

The official scientific advisers were willing to concede in public that there might be several cases of the coronavirus in the UK. But they had faith that the country’s plans for a pandemic would prove robust.

This was probably a big mistake. An adviser to Downing Street — speaking off the record — said their confidence in “the plan” was misplaced. While a possible pandemic had been listed as the No 1 threat to the nation for many years, the source said that in reality it had long since stopped being treated as such.

Several emergency planners and scientists said that the plans to protect the UK in a pandemic had once been a priority and had been well funded for the decade following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. But then austerity cuts struck. “We were the envy of the world,” the source said, “but pandemic planning became a casualty of the austerity years, when there were more pressing needs.”

The last rehearsal for a pandemic was a 2016 exercise codenamed Cygnus, which predicted the health service would collapse and highlighted a long list of shortcomings — including, presciently, a lack of PPE and intensive care ventilators.

An equally lengthy list of recommendations to address the deficiencies was never implemented. The source said preparations for a no-deal Brexit “sucked all the blood out of pandemic planning” in the following years.

In the year leading up to the coronavirus outbreak key government committee meetings on pandemic planning were repeatedly “bumped” off the diary to make way for discussions about more pressing issues such as the beds crisis in the NHS. Training for NHS staff with protective equipment and respirators was also neglected, the source alleges.

Members of the government advisory group on pandemics are said to have felt powerless. “They would joke between themselves, ‘Ha-ha, let’s hope we don’t get a pandemic’, because there wasn’t a single area of practice that was being nurtured in order for us to meet basic requirements for a pandemic, never mind do it well,” said the source.

“If you were with senior NHS managers at all during the last two years, you were aware that their biggest fear, their sweatiest nightmare, was a pandemic, because they weren’t prepared for it.”

It meant that the government had much catching-up to do as it became clear that this “nightmare” was turning into a distinct possibility in February. But the source said there was still little urgency. “Almost every plan we had was not activated in February. Almost every government department has failed to properly implement their own pandemic plans,” the source said.

One deviation from the plan, for example, was a failure to give an early warning to firms that there might be a lockdown so they could start contingency planning. “There was a duty to get them to start thinking about their cashflow and their business continuity arrangements,” the source said.

A central part of any pandemic plan is to identify anyone who becomes ill, vigorously pursue all their recent contacts and put them into quarantine. That involves testing, and the UK seemed to be ahead of the game. In early February Hancock proudly told the Commons the UK was one of the first countries to develop a new test for the coronavirus. “Testing worldwide is being done on equipment designed in Oxford,” he said.

So when Steve Walsh, a 53-year-old businessman from Hove, East Sussex, was identified as the source of the second UK outbreak on February 6, all his contacts were followed up with tests. Walsh’s case was a warning of the rampant infectivity of the virus: he is believed to have passed it to five people in the UK after returning from a conference in Singapore, as well as six overseas.

But Public Health England failed to take advantage of our early breakthroughs with tests and lost early opportunities to step up production to the levels that would later be needed.

This was in part because the government was planning for the virus using its blueprint for fighting the flu. Once a flu pandemic has found its way into the population and there is no vaccine, the virus is allowed to take its course until “herd immunity” is acquired. Such a plan does not require mass testing.

A senior politician told this newspaper: “I had conversations with Chris Whitty at the end of January, and they were absolutely focused on herd immunity. The reason is that with flu, herd immunity is the right response if you haven’t got a vaccine.

“All of our planning was for pandemic flu. There has basically been a divide between scientists in Asia, who saw this as a horrible, deadly disease on the lines of Sars, which requires immediate lockdown, and those in the West, particularly in the US and UK, who saw this as flu.”

The prime minister’s top adviser, Dominic Cummings, is said to have had initial enthusiasm for the herd immunity concept, which may have played a part in the government’s early approach to managing the virus. The Department of Health firmly denies that “herd immunity” was ever its aim and rejects suggestions that Whitty supported it. Cummings also denies backing the concept.

The failure to obtain large amounts of testing equipment was another big error of judgment, according to the Downing Street source. It would later be one of the big scandals of the coronavirus crisis that the considerable capacity of Britain’s private laboratories to mass-produce tests was not harnessed during those crucial weeks of February.

“We should have communicated with every commercial testing laboratory that might volunteer to become part of the government’s testing regime, but that didn’t happen,” said the source.

The lack of action was confirmed by Doris-Ann Williams, chief executive of the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association, which represents 110 companies that make up most of the UK’s testing sector. Amazingly, she said her organisation did not receive a meaningful approach from the government asking for help until April 1 — the night before Hancock bowed to pressure and announced a belated and ambitious target of 100,000 tests a day by the end of this month.

There was also a failure to replenish supplies of gowns and masks for health and care workers in the early weeks of February — despite NHS England declaring the virus its first “level 4 critical incident” at the end of January.

It was a key part of the pandemic plan — the NHS’s Operating Framework for Managing the Response to Pandemic Influenza, dated December 2017 — that the NHS would be able to draw on “just in case” stockpiles of PPE.

But many of the “just in case” stockpiles had dwindled, and equipment was out of date. As not enough money was being spent on replenishing stockpiles, this shortfall was supposed to be filled by activating “just in time” contracts, which had been arranged with equipment suppliers in recent years to deal with an emergency. The first order for equipment under the “just in time” protocol was made on January 30.

However, the source said that attempts to call in these “just in time” contracts immediately ran into difficulties in February because they were mostly with Chinese manufacturers, which were facing unprecedented demand from the country’s own health service and elsewhere.

This was another nail in the coffin for the pandemic plan. “It was a massive spider’s web of failing; every domino has fallen,” said the source.

The NHS could have contacted UK-based suppliers. The British Healthcare Trades Association (BHTA) was ready to help supply PPE in February — and throughout March — but it was only on April 1 that its offer of help was accepted. Dr Simon Festing, the organisation’s chief executive, said: “Orders undoubtedly went overseas instead of to the NHS because of the missed opportunities in the procurement process.”

Downing Street admitted on February 24 — just five days before NHS chiefs warned a lack of PPE left the health service facing a “nightmare” — that the UK government had supplied 1,800 pairs of goggles and 43,000 disposable gloves, 194,000 sanitising wipes, 37,500 medical gowns and 2,500 face masks to China.

A senior Department of Health insider described the sense of drift witnessed during those crucial weeks in February: “We missed the boat on testing and PPE . . . I remember being called into some of the meetings about this in February and thinking, ‘Well, it’s a good thing this isn’t the big one.’

“I had watched Wuhan but I assumed we must have not been worried because we did nothing. We just watched. A pandemic was always at the top of our national risk register — always — but when it came we just slowly watched. We could have been Germany, but instead we were doomed by our incompetence, our hubris and our austerity.”

In the Far East the threat was being treated more seriously in the early weeks of February. Martin Hibberd, a professor of emerging infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was in a unique position to compare the UK’s response with Singapore, where he had advised in the past.

“Singapore realised, as soon as Wuhan reported it, that cases were going to turn up in Singapore. And so they prepared for that. I looked at the UK and I can see a different strategy and approach.

“The interesting thing for me is, I’ve worked with Singapore in 2003 and 2009 and basically they copied the UK pandemic preparedness plan. But the difference is they actually implemented it.”

Towards the end of the second week of February, the prime minister was demob happy. After sacking five cabinet ministers and saying everyone “should be confident and calm” about Britain’s response to the virus, Johnson vacated Downing Street after the half-term recess began on February 13.

He headed to the country for a “working” holiday at Chevening with Symonds and would be out of the public eye for 12 days. His aides were thankful for the rest, as they had been working flat-out since the summer as the Brexit power struggle had played out.

The Sunday newspapers that weekend would not have made comfortable reading. The Sunday Times reported on a briefing from a risk specialist that said Public Health England would be overrun during a pandemic as it could test only 1,000 people a day.

Johnson may well have been distracted by matters in his personal life during his stay in the countryside. Aides were told to keep their briefing papers short and cut the number of memos in his red box if they wanted them to be read.

His family needed to be prepared for the announcement that Symonds, who turned 32 in March, was pregnant and that they had been secretly engaged for some time. Relations with his children had been fraught since his separation from his estranged wife Marina Wheeler and the rift had deepened when she received a cancer diagnosis last year.

The divorce also had to be finalised. Midway through the break it was announced in the High Court that the couple had reached a settlement, leaving Wheeler free to apply for divorce.

There were murmurings of frustration from some ministers and their aides at the time that Johnson was not taking more of a lead. But Johnson’s aides are understood to have felt relaxed: he was getting updates and they claim the scientists were saying everything was under control.

By the time Johnson departed for the countryside, however, there was mounting unease among scientists about the exceptional nature of the threat. Sir Jeremy Farrar, an infectious disease specialist who is a key government adviser, made this clear in a recent BBC interview.

“I think from the early days in February, if not in late January, it was obvious this infection was going to be very serious and it was going to affect more than just the region of Asia,” he said. “I think it was very clear that this was going to be an unprecedented event.”

By February 21 the virus had already infected 76,000 people, had caused 2,300 deaths in China and was taking a foothold in Europe, with Italy recording 51 cases and two deaths the following day. Nonetheless Nervtag, one of the key government advisory committees, decided to keep the threat level at “moderate”.

Its members may well regret that decision with hindsight, and it was certainly not unanimous. John Edmunds, one of the country’s top infectious disease modellers from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was participating in the meeting by video link, but his technology failed him at the crucial moment.

Edmunds wanted the threat level to be increased to high but could not make his view known as the link was glitchy. He sent an email later making his view clear. “JE believes that the risk to the UK population [in the PHE risk assessment] should be high, as there is evidence of ongoing transmission in Korea, Japan and Singapore, as well as in China,” the meeting’s minutes state. But the decision had already been taken.

Peter Openshaw, professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College, was in America at the time of the meeting but would also have recommended increasing the threat to high. Three days earlier he had given an address to a seminar in which he estimated that 60% of the world’s population would probably become infected if no action was taken and 400,000 people would die in the UK.

By February 26 there were 13 known cases in the UK. That day — almost four weeks before a full lockdown would be announced — ministers were warned through another advisory committee that the country was facing a catastrophic loss of life unless drastic action was taken. Having been thwarted from sounding the alarm, Edmunds and his team presented their latest “worst scenario” predictions to the scientific pandemic influenza group on modelling (SPI-M), which directly advises the country’s scientific decision-makers in Sage.

It warned that 27 million people could be infected and 220,000 intensive care beds would be needed if no action were taken to reduce infection rates. The predicted death toll was 380,000. Edmunds’s colleague Nick Davies, who led the research, says the report emphasised the urgent need for a lockdown almost four weeks before it was imposed.

The team modelled the effects of a 12-week lockdown involving school and work closures, shielding the elderly, social distancing and self-isolation. It estimated this would delay the impact of the pandemic but there still might be 280,000 deaths over the year.

The previous night Johnson had returned to London for the Conservatives’ big fundraising ball, the Winter Party, at which one donor pledged £60,000 for the privilege of playing a game of tennis with him.

By this time the prime minister had missed five Cobra meetings on the preparations to combat the looming pandemic, which he left to be chaired by Hancock. Johnson was an easy target for the opposition when he returned to the Commons the following day: the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, labelled him a “part-time” prime minister for his failure to lead on the virus crisis or visit the areas of the UK badly hit by floods.

By Friday February 28 the virus had taken root in the UK, with reported cases rising to 19, and the stock markets were plunging. It was finally time for Johnson to act. He summoned a TV reporter into Downing Street to say he was on top of the coronavirus crisis.

“The issue of coronavirus is something that is now the government’s top priority,” he said. “I have just had a meeting with the chief medical officer and secretary of state for health talking about the preparations that we need to make.”

It was finally announced that he would be attending a meeting of Cobra — after a weekend at Chequers with Symonds where the couple would publicly release news of the engagement and their baby.

On the Sunday there was a meeting between Sage committee members and officials from the Department of Health and the NHS that was a game-changer, according to a Whitehall source. The meeting was shown fresh modelling based on figures from Italy suggesting that 8% of infected people might need hospital treatment in a worst-case scenario. The previous estimate had been 4%-5%.

“The risk to the NHS had effectively doubled in an instant. It set alarm bells ringing across government,” said the Whitehall source. “I think that meeting focused minds. You realise it’s time to pull the trigger on the starting gun.”

At the Cobra meeting the next day, with Johnson in the chair, a full “battle plan” was finally signed off to contain, delay and mitigate the spread of the virus. This was on March 2 — five weeks after the first Cobra meeting on the virus.

The new push would have some positive benefits such as the creation of new Nightingale hospitals, which greatly increased the number of intensive care beds. But there was a further delay that month of nine days in introducing the lockdown as Johnson and his senior advisers debated what measures were required. Later the government would be left rudderless again after Johnson himself contracted the virus.

As the number of infections grew daily, some things were impossible to retrieve. There was a worldwide shortage of PPE, and the prime minister would have to personally ring manufacturers of ventilators and testing kits in a desperate effort to boost supplies.

The result was that the NHS and care home workers would be left without proper protection and insufficient numbers of tests to find out whether they had been infected. To date 50 doctors, nurses and NHS workers have died. More than 100,000 people have been confirmed as infected in Britain and 15,000 have died.

This weekend sources close to Hancock said that from late January he instituted a “prepare for the worst” approach to the virus, held daily meetings and started work on PPE supplies.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “Our response has ensured that the NHS has been given all the support it needs to ensure everyone requiring treatment has received it, as well as providing protection to businesses and reassurance to workers. The prime minister has been at the helm of the response to this, providing leadership during this hugely challenging period for the whole nation.”

 

Fierce rebuttals mark change to UK Covid-19 media strategy

Key government advisers spent a portion of the weekend writing 2,000-plus-word, line-by-line rebuttals of two highly critical news newspaper stories, in what appears to be a marked shift in media management.

The responses to stories in the Sunday Times and Financial Times, posted to the government’s website without an author credit, are unlikely to reach anything like the audiences who read the original articles – but suggest deep concern in Whitehall regarding criticism of the handling of the pandemic.

Owl was in two minds about posting the Sunday Times article, eventually decided it was too long.

However, in a screeching U- turn Owl is posting the article as a companion piece. Close your eyes – keep it secret – Save our faces.

Jim Waterson  www.theguardian.com 

Furious government rebuttals of press stories are nothing new, nor is the practice of posting them to an official website. The difference this time is the manner in which the authors of the pieces dedicated themselves to going through each piece so meticulously.

One response was to a widely shared piece by the Sunday Times Insight team, which built the case that Britain wasted five weeks in appreciating the threat of the virus due to mismanagement and a focus on Brexit at the top of government. Sources said those involved in the “team effort” to respond to the piece included some of Boris Johnson’s political aides, one of Matt Hancock’s key advisers, and a number of government officials, who worked throughout the day to challenge some of the points made in the piece.

While some of the rebuttals were over semantics, others focused on specifics. One point complained that when the Sunday Times criticised the government for allowing 279,000 items of protective equipment to be sent from the UK to China in the early days of the outbreak, the newspaper failed to point out that 12m items had since come back in the other direction.

However, government ministers may find that doing their own journalism is an equally fraught process. One of those quoted in the government’s rebuttal was Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet medical journal. Horton himself is now rebutting the rebuttal, accusing the government of “deliberately rewriting history in its ongoing Covid-19 disinformation campaign”.

The second piece that angered ministers was an article by Peter Foster in the Financial Times, which criticised the government’s attempts to persuade industry to build new ventilators for hospitals. In a sign of changing attitudes to media, the government’s 2,900-word rebuttal to this piece focused as much on Foster’s tweets about the story as the original piece – potentially recognising that the number of people who read an individual article on a news website can often be smaller than the number of people who see a Twitter thread.

Although both rebuttals were widely shared in political and journalism circles on Twitter, they are unlikely to reach a mass audience. The original Sunday Times piece already clocked in at just over 5,000 words. The government’s response – setting out what they claimed to be a “series of falsehoods and errors” in a piece that “actively misrepresents the enormous amount of work that was going on in government at the earliest stages of the coronavirus outbreak” – was 2,000 words long.

Instead, a recently departed government press aide speculated that the real purpose may have been to blunt the impact of the critical narrative taking hold in other outlets and being repeated by broadcast news outlets that reach millions of people.

A government source said they had always responded to articles perceived to be inaccurate: “The length of our rebuttal depends on how much we have to correct and how much any article misrepresents what’s actually going on.”

 

Coronavirus facemasks for public ‘risk NHS shortage’

As predicted – Owl: 

Ministers have been warned by NHS bosses that advising people to wear facemasks to slow the spread of coronavirus risks jeopardising critical supplies to the health service.

Chris Smyth, Whitehall Editor | Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor | Kat Lay, Health Correspondent www.thetimes.co.uk

Government scientists will examine the evidence about masks today before making a formal recommendation on whether the public should wear them.

The World Health Organisation is understood to be ready to issue fresh guidance on wearing masks in shops, on public transport and in other crowded spaces as part of measures to exit the lockdown.

NHS chiefs have raised concerns that advising people to wear masks as restrictions are eased could put their staff at risk amid a continued shortage of personal protective equipment.

Ministers have been urged not to recommend them to the public unless there is “clear evidence” that benefits outweigh the risk to the health service.

Chris Hopson, chief executive of the hospitals group NHS Providers, said: “If the government is going to consider advising the general public to wear facemasks it must fully assess the impact on the NHS. Fluid repellent masks for health and care staff are key to safety and to avoid the spread of coronavirus.

“Securing the supply of masks, when there is huge global demand, is crucial. This must be a key consideration. There needs to be clear evidence that wearing masks, along with other measures, will deliver significant enough benefits to take us out of lockdown to potentially jeopardise NHS mask supply.”

Last night Public Health England said that staff had the right to refuse to work in circumstances where they did not have safe equipment. At the daily Downing Street briefing, Yvonne Doyle, the agency’s medical director, was asked if she would “support their decision not to go in” if they did not feel safe.

She replied that people “have to make their decisions based on whether they are in a risky situation or not”. Scientists and doctors have called on ministers to back the use of homemade masks or non-clinical ones to avoid supply problems, something already recommended by US health authorities. However, there is concern that any endorsement of masks would encourage people to buy medical versions, which could send prices soaring.

While masks are not in short supply in hospitals, there are fears that that would change if they were recommended more widely. Hospitals are reported to be laundering and reusing single-use gowns up to three times and there are issues with the supply of other items such as respirator facemasks.

A government source said: “We are being guided by the science and there is an ongoing review of evidence, but the safety of the NHS and our NHS staff is our top priority.”

Sir Patrick Vallance, No 10’s chief scientific adviser, said last week that while there was “variable” evidence on whether masks slow the spread of the virus, it was “absolutely crucial that masks are available in hospitals”.

There is little good evidence that people can protect themselves by wearing masks, particularly without training in how to put them on and remove safely. However, there is better evidence that wearing masks can stop respiratory droplets reaching other people, leading to hopes that encouraging mass use could slow the spread.

Focus on the potential role of masks is likely to intensify as the WHO prepares to shift position and say that masks, including homemade ones, could have a role in tackling the virus as countries allow people to leave their homes.

The WHO presently says that “the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks” including “diversion of mask supplies and consequent shortage of masks for healthcare workers”. It is due to soften its tone and accept a potential role for masks given they are being widely used as a way out of lockdown.

The updated WHO advice will stop short of urging people to wear masks but will offer more detailed advice on using them.

Professor Trish Greenhalgh, of Oxford University, who has published an evidence review on masks, said homemade masks should be compulsory on public transport and in offices and shops. “Your mask doesn’t protect you but it protects other people,” she said. “A mask needs to be an item of clothing. It’s like a T-shirt, wear it and chuck it in the wash. Detergent kills Covid.”

She urged people to “make your own”, insisting: “No one should be wearing medical masks.”

While in Asian countries it has long been common to wear masks, they are increasingly being used as part of European exit strategies. The German state of Saxony has made them compulsory in shops and on public transport, and Spain is giving them out to commuters. In Italy 85 per cent of people say they wear masks in public, up from 26 per cent six weeks ago.

In Spain the figure has gone up from 5 per cent to 65 per cent, and in France from 5 per cent to 43 per cent, according to YouGov. In Britain 11 per cent are wearing masks, up from 1 per cent in early March.

 

Coughs and Sneezes Spread Diseases

At the beginning of April Owl wrote:

Owl thinks this [wearing of face masks] will become an active debate within the next few days. Maybe academic because we don’t have a stockpile. 

“It is a matter of orthodoxy at the UK Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) that surgical facemasks are a no-no as far as the public are concerned. Officials have long taken the view that paper masks do not protect against viruses and do not hold emergency stocks of them.”

This debate is starting in earnest now and shortage of masks is being cited as a reason for not advising them, so as not to deplete stock of clinical masks. (Clinical masks are not required for personal use)

Owl thinks that this is the sort of measure that will have to be considered as part of an exit strategy, particularly on public transport.

Coronavirus: Should we all be wearing masks now? – BBC …www.bbc.co.uk › news › health-51205344

Coronavirus is spread by droplets that can spray into the air when those infected talk, cough and sneeze. These can enter the body through the eyes, nose and mouth, either directly or after touching a contaminated object.

The UK government is not currently advising most people to wear masks. However, its chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance has a review is ongoing.

At the weekend, a group of more than 100 doctors wrote an open letter to The Times saying they were “alarmed at official inaction over the need for the public to wear homemade face masks”, which could be made by volunteer groups.

They said it was “illogical” to advise people to wear masks if they are showing symptoms, but not if they appear symptom-free.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan is among those who want people to wear masks outside when social distancing is not possible. He said this would reduce the chances of passing on the virus.

The WHO has not changed its advice, but its special envoy Dr David Nabarro believes that in society, “some form of facial protection is going to become the norm”. 

MPs investigate commercial property purchases by councils

Parliament’s spending watchdog has launched an inquiry into purchases of commercial property by local authorities, amid fears that the coronavirus pandemic will expose councils to a drop in income from their investments.

Owl is particularly interested.

Joanna Partridge  www.theguardian.com 

The public accounts committee will look into whether local government officials have the commercial skills required for such transactions, which have rocketed over the past four years. MPs will also question officials from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government over how much they monitor commercial activity among local authorities and their exposure to risk.

Local authorities have been on a shopping spree in recent years, buying up property such as shopping centres and office buildings as a means of increasing their revenues and to offset the impact of austerity measures introduced in 2010.

A recent report from the National Audit Office (NAO), which scrutinises government spending, found that local authorities spent an estimated £6.6bn on commercial property from 2016-17 to 2018-19, compared with £460m during the preceding three years.

The pandemic is expected to create a hole in councils’ budgets due to a huge shortfall in council tax income, along with lost revenues from missed parking and leisure fees during the coronavirus lockdown.

Ministers are expected to provide English councils with a £1bn bailout to prevent several of them from collapsing into insolvency due to soaring costs related to the coronavirus crisis, such as for providing extra social care and housing rough sleepers during the lockdown.

Even before the government lockdown created uncertainty about local authorities’ income, the NAO report warned of the risks associated with commercial property, which could leave councils badly exposed by a recession or property crash.

“Income from commercial property is uncertain over the long term and authorities may be taking on high levels of long-term debt with associated debt costs,” the NAO said.

Councils have been able to access low-cost funding from the government’s public works board, but critics argue it has caused them to bid higher amounts for property, and in some cases overpay.

Spelthorne council in Surrey, a tiny Conservative-controlled authority, has used these Treasury-backed loans to build a £1bn property portfolio, despite its annual operating budget of £22m. The council said last year that income from commercial property allowed it to offset £2.5m of government grants cuts, and raised more income than council tax.

Shropshire council has previously been criticised for spending £51m on three shopping centres in Shrewsbury, all of which had fallen in value by almost a quarter even before the pandemic.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk

However, the council countered that the fall in value was not a major concern and the assets would guarantee some annual income and enable redevelopment, to make Shrewsbury town centre more attractive.

A spokesperson for the Local Government Association, which represents English and Welsh councils, said: “Councils have faced a choice of either accepting funding reductions and cutting services – such as care for older and disabled people, protecting children, reducing homelessness, fixing roads and collecting bins – or making investments to try and protect them.”

Fears over council’s property investments are being replicated across the continent. The latest analysis from the real estate consultancy Green Street Advisors says that commercial property across Europe will “experience occupancy declines and rent declines in 2020 and 2021”.

 

Exeter: Pinhoe zero-carbon ‘smart homes’ developer ups ‘affordable’ units

Owl wonders whether Exeter City planners allow the two two-letter phrase “up to” in their applications as EDDC does?

Daniel Clark  eastdevonnews.co.uk 

A developer behind a bid to build for 40 zero-carbon ‘smart homes’ in Pinhoe, Exeter, has increased the number of ‘affordable’ dwellings proposed.  

City council planning chiefs delayed deciding the fate of the scheme on land between Pulling Road and Church Hill in February as they felt the initial 15 per cent allocation was too low.

Now Verto Homes has upped the number from six to 10 – a quarter of the overall number of units – following talks with the authority.

Exeter City Council’s planning police states new developments should be made up of 35 per cent of affordable homes.

Councillors also asked for a pair of electric car charging points to be provided per house, but the applicant says that this would be an ‘over-specification’.

Council officers are again recommending the planning committee approves the scheme when it meets virtually next Monday (April 27).

A report to members says: “Officers have discussed the affordable housing provision with the agent stressing that the original level proposed was unacceptable and, without a significantly enhanced offer, it is likely that the application would be refused.

“The applicant is keen develop this site within Exeter and accordingly has agreed to increase the number of affordable housing by additional four units on-site.

“It is acknowledged that even the reduced level does not meet the 35 per cent requirement, but it is considered that this latest offer represents a significant enhanced level of affordable housing than originally proposed and accordingly the scheme is recommended for approval.”

Verto Homes has also reduced the number of allocated parking spaces for residents by seven and increased visitor spots by three.

The report adds: “While it can be reasonably assumed that residents of this zero-carbon development may be more inclined towards a lower level of car ownership, these aspirations may not be shared by visitors to the site.

“The provision of two charge points would only serve to meet the extremely unlikely situation that both cars are driven to the point of almost empty and both return home at the same time and both vehicles require an urgent charge in order to proceed with an onward journey.

“It is therefore not considered practical or advisable to engineer a solution for such a rare customer behaviour.

“The fundamental issue remains that the construction of zero-carbon dwellings results in a reduction in affordable housing provision.

“However, this is considered an acceptable compromise which will result in both additional dwellings to meet the five-year housing supply and a housing product which meets the overall aims of the council commitment toward being carbon neutral.

“Accordingly, it is considered that the application is acceptable.”

 

Shut your eyes – Keep it Secret – Save our Faces

UK’s scientific advice on coronavirus is to be kept secret until after the pandemic is over (see below). In the context of the re-opening of parliament yesterday’s Guardian editorial contained this paragraph:

….during this time, ministers have governed mainly by press conference. Message management has been tightly controlled. In these circumstances, crucial issues of concern have often been brushed aside. These include casual prior preparation of the kind alleged over the weekend, continuing shortages of personal protective equipment, neglect of social care, reluctance to cooperate with European neighbours and, most recently, the terms of any exit strategy. Not surprisingly, this system suits ministers fine. But it fosters bad government, not good. Among other defects, it suggests ministers do not trust the public, that the cabinet is divided over next steps and that Britain is governed by incompetent or feeble leaders who are afraid to take decisions, especially in Boris Johnson’s absence.

Owl has looked at the definition of what information should be classified “Secret”. 

Very sensitive information that justifies heightened protective measures to defend against determined and highly capable threat actors. For example, where compromise could seriously damage military capabilities, international relations or the investigation of serious organised crime.

So Owl thinks this all about: Shut your eyes – Keep it Secret – Save our Faces!

UK’s scientific advice on coronavirus to be secret until after pandemic

Rhys Blakely, Science Correspondent www.thetimes.co.uk

The scientific evidence that has underpinned No 10’s response to Covid-19 will not be made public until the pandemic ends, the government chief science adviser has told MPs.

Sir Patrick Vallance said that the minutes of meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage) — the government’s most senior team of expert advisers — would only be released “once Sage stops convening on this emergency”.

In a letter to Greg Clark, the science and technology select committee chairman, Sir Patrick said that when the outbreak was under control the names of the scientists taking part in the meetings could also be released, he added, but only if those involved gave their permission.

Since the letter was sent on April 4, the government has been urged to reveal the scientific experts advising it on the Covid-19 amid concerns that ministers are consulting too narrowly. The only members of Sage to have been officially acknowledged are Sir Patrick and Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, who co-chair the group.

The Conservative MP Mr Clark is among those calling for all members to be made public. “In order to have some visibility into what institutions and disciplines are represented, it would be extremely useful to have the membership known,” he said.

Other scientists have questioned the wisdom of making Sage membership secret. Dame Anne Glover, professor at Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences and a former chief scientific adviser to the European Commission, said: “My fear is that we are limiting ourselves when we need fresh thinking.”

Sir Patrick told Mr Clark that he is following the rules for Cobra meetings, to which Sage supplies advice. “This contributes towards safeguarding members’ personal security and protects them from lobbying and other forms of unwanted influence which may hinder their ability to give impartial advice,” Sir Patrick wrote.

The experts who make up Sage change according to the emergency it is facing. Sir Patrick has said that about 80 scientists from more than 20 institutions are regularly being consulted on coronavirus through four sub-committees.

However, the documents published during the Covid-19 crisis on the Sage website so far are largely related to mathematical models designed to predict the course of the pandemic.

Professor Dame Glover said: “Fears of lobbying as mentioned by Patrick are misplaced I think. Openness supports trust and trust is really needed at the moment. It also opens up the possibility of very valuable challenge and input from ‘not the usual suspects’ which could be very helpful.”

She added: “If Sage was a cybersecurity committee or a defence committee I could understand security concerns, but it isn’t. It’s an advisory group that should bring the best thinking that we have from every area, not just epidemiology, to bear on a significant crisis.”

Sheila Bird, a former programme leader of the biostatistics unit at the University of Cambridge, said that calls to make Sage membership transparent had been ignored.

“We should know who is among the core Sage group. It would provide reassurance that the correct disciplines are represented,” she said.

A government spokesman said: “We have already released a wide range of key papers that have informed Sage advice and we are currently preparing the next set of evidence for publication shortly.”

The spokesman added that the group’s members had been identified as those “best placed to provide high-quality, trusted advice and have a wide-range of scientific and technical specialities to ensure Sage advice is well-rounded.”

 

£825m write-off for region’s NHS – not as good a deal as it looks 

From a correspondent:

So £825 million of South West NHS Trust debt written off.  That sounds good. 

Wait a minute:   the population of the South West is almost exactly 10% of that of the whole of England.

So if the government is handing out £13.4 billion to NHS trusts across the Country, then by rights we should be getting £1.34 billion, over half a billion more than we are getting.

That missing half a billion is almost exactly £100 for every man, woman and child in the South West.

The government has simply transferred money from us to everyone else.

We ALWAYS end up worse off like this.’