Four of the top five towns in England with the largest population of the elderley are in Devon, new ONS data reveals with Budleigh ahead of Seaton and Sidmouth.

Dominic Kureen www.countypress.co.uk [and Western Morning News]

2-2 minutes

New Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures have revealed the towns in England with the highest proportion of over-65 populations, with Freshwater featuring in the top ten.

The 65+ demographic numbers in England’s towns have risen by nearly a third in the last two decades, while in smaller, non-coastal towns the older population has increased by over 40%.

Experts at the Centre for Ageing Better say more needs to be done across society to respond to the population age shift and ensure local places are able to support their residents to age healthily and enjoy later life.

Natalie Turner, head of localities at the Centre for Ageing Better, said: “There’s been a huge change in the population makeup of our towns in the last two decades when it comes to age.

“With many of us set to live years longer than our parents or grandparents, it’s crucial that the places we live are able to help us to stay healthy and independent as we age – from the homes we live in, to the streets and communities around us.”

Top-10 English towns with greatest % of people aged over 65

1. Budleigh Salterton, Devon — 45%

2. Hunstanton, Norfolk — 44%

3. Seaton, East Devon — 43%

4. Sidmouth, Devon — 43%

5. St Leonards, Devon — 42%

6. Mablethorpe, Lincolnshire — 42%

7. Sheringham, Norfolk — 40%

8. Freshwater, Isle of Wight — 40%

9. Ferndown, Dorset — 39%

10. Preesall, Lancashire — 38%

‘Eat Devon fish’ – councillor urges public to support fishermen after impact of Brexit and Covid

Daniel Clark, Local Democracy Reporter sidmouth.nub.news 

The impact of Brexit on Devon’s fishing industry won’t be fully seen until the restrictions associated with the response to the coronavirus pandemic are relaxed, according to a report to the county council.

But one councillor has said Brexit has been ‘a disaster’ for the industry, and said he wants the council to join local fishermen in calling on the Government to address the problems caused by new export rules, a lack of clarity over fishing quotas, and increased red tape.

The full council heard a report by Cllr Rufus Gilbert last Thursday, in which he said there were potential economic impacts and also opportunities for Devon as a result of the Brexit trade deal and changes to the fishing quota and catch regimes.

But Cllr Gilbert, the Conservative cabinet member for economy and skills, said it was too soon to ascertain the scale of the impact upon the sector and whether impacts are temporary, or likely to be longer lasting.

And he added that it was apparent that the fishing and fish processing sectors in the UK and EU have been seriously impacted by the effects of the Covid pandemic, and it was difficult to unpack the impacts upon the sector from post-Brexit trade friction and the very far-reaching drop-off in demand due to the pandemic.

Cllr Gilbert said that the easiest thing people could do now was to ‘eat Devon’s fish’, adding: “I urge everyone to help the fisherman by eating their fish.”

How has Brexit affected Devon’s fishermen?

In his report, he added: “In the immediate period after December 31, port operations seem to be working more smoothly at Channel ports after the Covid-19 disruption from December 23. There is however some initial disruption to some goods heading to Northern Ireland and the continent as a result of new paperwork and local reports of difficulties exporting some fish and shellfish due to delays in animal health regulations being implemented.

“UK fisheries products now face customs and SPS health checks upon EU entry. Post Brexit customs checks have since January 2021 been holding up seafood exports, as entire trailers need to be checked, rather than samples according to the Scottish Seafood Association. In addition, multiple technical issues such as bar codes not being recognised by border control as well as IT issues have prevented loads leaving French ports in teething troubles of the new system.

“It has emerged since the UK fully left the EU and the Brexit transition period that third countries, such as the UK, have to purify their shellfish catch domestically before it is sanctioned for export, despite no change to UK standards, or water quality subsequent to 31st December 2020. The process adds significant costs and delays, with some British businesses impacted warning that this will cause issues of viability.”

Cllr Gilbert added: “During 2020 and in 2021 to date, demand for fish has fluctuated significantly and is generally down due to the pandemic impacts on closed fish and chip shops and restaurants, both in the UK and in other countries. As and when full re-openings take place demand is likely to change and potentially increase, and the fishing industry is operating at approximately 15 per cent of normal because of weather, time of year, Covid and the obvious hurdles of additional excess paperwork not being fully understood.

“There are potential economic impacts and also opportunities for Devon from the current trade friction and changes to the fishing quota and catch regimes. We are as yet unable to ascertain the scale of impact upon the sector and whether impacts are temporary, or likely to be longer lasting, including any potential future uptick in UK demand and changes in trends towards the consumption of different species.

“Most importantly it is, however, apparent that the fishing and fish processing sectors in the UK and EU have been seriously impacted by the effects of the Covid pandemic and associated lockdowns upon the restaurant, hotel and catering trade and knock-on demand for fish. It is as yet difficult to unpack the impacts upon the sector from post-Brexit trade friction and the very far-reaching drop-off in demand due to the pandemic.”

‘A lot of fishing boats aren’t going out’

Cllr Rob Hannaford, leader of the Labour group, had asked for the report on the effects of the new EU trade deal on Devon’s fishing industry.

He said: “It was a question that we needed to ask, but I am taken aback by the deal and how affected the fishing industry has been by the export rules and quotas and red tape.

“I hope it can be resolved quickly as lots of fishing boats aren’t going out at the moment, and unless we get the exports done correctly, once we are out of the pandemic, we won’t be able to take advantage of them.”

He added: “The poor deal Brexit has been a disaster for our fishing industry, and all the people, businesses, and communities that rely upon it. I want Devon County Council to join with local fishing industry leaders in calling on the government to address the growing crisis in the fishing sector due to complicated new export rules, a lack of clarity about fishing quotas, and an increase in red tape.

“Post-Brexit export arrangements have meant a dramatic increase in the amount of paperwork needed before Devon seafood can be exported into the EU. Fishing industry leaders say that these new regulations are costing more money and causing shipments to be delayed or even cancelled, putting significant pressure on an already struggling sector.

“These changes are affecting all aspects of Devon’s fishing industry but are being felt most acutely by our award winning shellfish producers. That’s why we are calling on the government to step in now and provide more additional support. The fishing industry plays a vital role in our economy in Devon and immediate action is needed to secure its long-term future.”

Share:

A ‘bigger and better’ Sidmouth sea defence scheme is back on the table after changes to the eligibility for funding from various bodies including the Environment Agency.

Philippa Davies sidmouth.nub.news

East Devon District Council revealed the news in a public meeting with the Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan Project Advisory Group on Thursday, February 25.

It means Sidmouth could get the vital coastal defences it needs, better protecting the town from major storms and the East Beach cliffs from further erosion.

The advisory group voted overwhelmingly in favour of pausing the current working draft option to look again at alternatives that were previously felt to be unaffordable.

An urgent report is now set to go before the district council’s Cabinet asking for councillors to decide whether they want to investigate options previously dismissed because of insufficient funding, including but not limited to offshore rock islands.

What happens now?

The current preferred option at Sidmouth is to invest around £9million in a coastal defence scheme which would involve beach replenishment, periodic beach recycling, a new rock groyne on East Beach and modifications to the River Sid training wall.

It would also include raising the height of the splash wall along the seafront slightly and topping it up with temporary storm barriers or strong glass panels when needed.

If the council’s Cabinet agrees to investigate and test the feasibility of other options, it will take up to six months for engineers and specialist consultants to review and assess the alternatives.

Following the studies and investigations, a report would then be presented to the Sidmouth and East Beach Management Plan Project Advisory Group. Its members would be asked to recommend what the town would prefer to do – whether that would be to go ahead with the original preferred option or use the additional funding on a different option which may be more beneficial to Sidmouth’s coastal defences.

The council’s Cabinet will make the final decision on which option goes ahead.

What would the timescale be?

Time is an important factor. If the current preferred option gets the green light, construction could start within two years. There would also be a potential for the new extra funding to be used for future maintenance, ensuring the beach can be recycled/recharged.

However if a different and more expensive option is chosen, construction could take around four years to start.

The Cabinet will be recommended to agree that, if the chosen option incurs further delays to the project, a temporary structure could be placed at the base of the cliffs, to help protect the River Sid wall, low-lying properties in the town and the properties above Sidmouth’s eroding cliffs.

Councillor Geoff Jung, East Devon District Council’s portfolio holder for the coast, country and environment, said: “As the East Devon councillor responsible for coastal protection, I would like to thank the advisory group for their contributions and assistance in providing the guidance and help on how we are to proceed with the scheme to protect Sidmouth seafront and East Beach.

“The scheme that was originally underfunded and unpopular has now been provided with extra funding. This will enable an improved design that may overcome the more controversial elements of scheme.

“Although the beach and the cliffs are protected as a World Heritage site of the Jurassic Coast, it is hoped temporary time-limited permission will be able to satisfy the regulations and conditions of the designated site, so we are able to progress work not otherwise possible with a permanent scheme.

“Once the final scheme is finally approved the stone used in the temporary revetment could then be used elsewhere within the scheme.”

Mobile community Covid testing centres offering results within an hour are set to visit Honiton, Exmouth, and Axminster after a successful trial in Exeter.

eastdevonnews.co.uk 

A new unit was tried out at Devon and Cornwall Police’s Middlemoor HQ on Friday, February 19.

It has been bought by the county council and, from this week, is hitting the road offering rapid testing to the public in areas with the highest rates of coronavirus.

More mobile facilities are ‘expected to come online soon’, says the authority.

They will be available in Honiton, Exmouth, Axminster, Okehampton, Tavistock and Ivybridge ‘in the coming weeks’.

Devon County Council (DCC) says mobile testing centres will be a ‘vital part’ of its efforts to offer rapid testing.

It will target anyone who leaves their home to work or volunteer, and who may come into contact with others.

A DCC spokesperson said: “Around one in three people who have coronavirus do not show any symptoms and may unwittingly be spreading the infection.

“Regular rapid testing identifies those non-symptomatic carriers of the virus – and anyone regularly in contact with others is encouraged to take these quick tests twice a week to prevent the potential spread of the virus.

“And if they do test positive, they are required to self-isolate immediately to prevent them from transmitting it to others.”

Devon’s director of public health Steve Brown said: “These new mobile test centres will help us to offer more rapid Covid-19 tests in more locations to those who need it.

“The tests are quick, painless and easy to book with results back within an hour via text or email.

“By being regularly tested it could prevent you unintentionally passing the virus to others.

“But please remember, while a positive test will require you to self-isolate at home, a negative test does not remove the need to continue following national guidance around social distancing, wearing a face covering, and washing your hands properly and regularly. These simple steps are still vital in preventing the transmission of the virus.”

The mobile centre trialled at Devon and Cornwall Police’s Exeter HQ saw specially-trained members of the constabulary test Middlemoor-based officers and civilian staff.

Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Steve Parker said:

“We welcome the co-operation of Devon County Council in providing this testing service to our officers and staff.

“Working closely and collaboratively with our partners has been a critical part of the multi-agency response to the pandemic throughout the last year.

“The support will enable at least some of our staff to have a test and allow them to be reassured if they are negative for Covid-19, but also take immediate, preventative action if they test positive.

“We continue to explore any avenue which could help protect our staff from exposure to Covid-19 and in turn enable us to continue to provide frontline service delivery to the communities of Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.”

More information on community testing in Devon is available here.

Town halls would be able to seize empty shops and bring them back into use, under Labour plans to revive decaying high streets.

www.independent.co.uk

The party will accuse the government of overseeing “a decade of decline” that has weakened the economy and society – vowing to give local councils beefed-up powers to act.

Under changes to come into force in August, restaurants, banks, gyms, creches and offices will also be fast-tracked for residential use.

That policy will see high streets “sold off to the highest bidder for poor quality housing without planning permission”, the shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds will allege.

Vowing to fight back instead, she will say in a set piece speech: “Britain’s high streets are at the heart of local communities

“It is not just a string of shops and post offices, it’s a place that people want to have pride in. The high street goes to the heart of Labour’s vision to make Britain the best place to grow up and grow old in.”

Labour believes a new “empty shops order” can enable councils to seize the initiative and ensure premises are used either for shopping, small businesses or “other enterprises”.

The idea was put forward a decade ago by Mary Portas, the broadcaster appointed by David Cameron to carry out a high streets’ review, but never enacted.

Ms Dodds will propose that town halls would first work with the owner of an empty shop, to restore it to use – but, if that fails, take it over and carry out any necessary works.

Councils would be permitted to charge rent and, after recouping the cost of carrying out any improvements, that rent would then pass to the property owner.

Last summer, the prime minister sparked a row by announcing that redundant buildings would be demolished and rebuilt without a normal planning application.

Pubs, libraries and village shops “essential to the lifeblood of communities” would be protected – but the move was condemned by campaigners who protested it was already far too easy to build poor quality homes.

Speaking in London, Ms Dodds will say: “The Conservatives have presided over a decade of decline in Britain’s high streets that has left our economy insecure and the foundations of our society weakened.

“Labour’s plan would help secure the future of the high street. It would give local communities a proper stake in their town centres, support new businesses to open up on our high streets and help rebuild our economy post-pandemic.”

The Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon and Cornwall is urging people to report incidents of dog theft to police officers in order to help them better understand the scale of the problem in the region.

Police commissioner urges public to report dog thefts

Molly Dowrick www.devonlive.com 

Alison Hernandez, who has been the commissioner for Devon and Cornwall Police for almost five years, says she has heard “numerous” accounts of potential dog theft incidents in the region – but officers appear “sceptical” about the size of the problem.

Ms Hernandez has penned an extensive report on the need for “harsher penalties” for pet theft and is urging local people to complete a national survey on dog theft.

She says she wants to stamp out pet theft in the South West region and is calling for urgent reform to ensure pet theft is treated as seriously as it should be.

In her statement – which you can read in full on her campaigns website here – Ms Hernandez says pet theft is currently the worst it has ever been, with 80% of pets stolen never being returned to their owners.

Ms Hernandez said: “Pet theft is not treated with the seriousness it deserves and reform is urgently needed.

“During the pandemic, dog ownership and prices have risen significantly – pet theft is now the worst it has ever been, rising in some areas by 250%.

“Tragically, just one in five pets are ever returned to their owner. Only about 1% of pet thefts lead to charges.

“I know how much my family love our cat Mylo and would be devastated if he was stolen, along with many cat and dog owners.”

She continued: “Because punishments are often related to the monetary value of a pet, they usually result in trivial fines rather than imprisonment.

“Although the Theft Act of 1968 allows a maximum penalty of up to seven years, this never seems to happen. The majority of prison sentences awarded are less than six months. This Act is over 50 years old and may need amendment.

“Pet theft is Low Risk and High Reward, attracting organised crime.”

Ms Hernandez comments come after a Freedom of Information request from our crime reporter Carl Eve which disclosed that Devon and Cornwall Police logged 73 dog theft crimes in 2020, covering a total of 78 dogs.

Of these incidents, the most common place for a dog theft crime was a dwelling (36 incidents) and from a road (12 incidents), though other dogs were reportedly taken from farms and gardens as well as a dog taken from each of the following categories: a beach, a business, a shop, a stable.

Ms Hernandez’s comments come after people across the region have flooded neighbourhood groups on social media with reports of alleged dog thefts.

Last month, many Plymouth residents said they feared their homes had been marked as targets for potential dog-snatchers after spotting strange cable-ties affixed to lampposts allegedly outside homes with dogs.

But police soon confirmed that there was no evidence to suggest people putting up cable-ties had a sinister motive or that these the cable ties marked houses for dog thieves.

Tips to keep your dogs safe from theft

from the RSPCA:

• Don’t leave your dog outside a shop on his own or in a car alone
• Teach your dog a reliable recall for when you are out walking
• Check your garden to make sure it is secure and if you have a gate then fit with a lock
• Neuter your pet as this can reduce the likelihood of roaming
• Make sure your pet is wearing a collar with an ID tag and that it is up to date: it is a legal requirement for a dog to have an ID tag with your name and address on it (The RSPCA also recommends including your mobile phone number on any ID tag as this can help reunite you with your pet quickly should he ever get lost or stolen)
• Microchip your pet and keep the details up to date, so that if your pet does go missing or is stolen then there is a higher chance they can be reunited. It is a legal requirement to have your dog microchipped in England and Wales.

Frustrated by the government’s reluctance to hold a public inquiry into the coronavirus pandemic any time soon, and worried about a “rapid rewriting of history”, a group of legal and medical professionals have taken it upon themselves to conduct their own.

Chris York www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

The People’s Covid Inquiry will on Wednesday night begin the first of eight virtual hearings to be held over the next 16 weeks, examining every aspect of how the pandemic has affected the UK and what Boris Johnson’s government did and didn’t do to stop it.

The initiative, organised by the campaign group Keep Our NHS Public (KONHSP), comes amid growing calls for an immediate public inquiry so that lessons can be learned and applied in an attempt to limit further loss of life.

When asked last month if a public inquiry would be held, a government spokesperson told HuffPost UK ministers had been “clear” that there would be “opportunities in the future to look back, analyse and reflect on all aspects of this pandemic”.

They added: “As the prime minister has said, this will include an independent inquiry at the appropriate time.”

When that “appropriate time” actually is has not been specified.

“We don’t think the government will hold a public inquiry for a long time, until it’s not politically damaging to them,” Dr John Puntis, a consultant at Leeds Teaching Hospital and Executive Committee member of KONHSP, told HuffPost UK.

“They couldn’t come out of one well.”

Wednesday’s inaugural session is titled: “How well prepared was the NHS?” It will examine Conservative policy in the decade leading up to the pandemic as well as how the government coped when it began. 

It will be chaired by Michael Mansfield QC and feature health experts as well as frontline workers and bereaved relatives who will share their own personal experiences.

• Jo Goodman – co-founder Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice
• Professor Sir Michael Marmot  – director, UCL Institute of Health Equity, UCL Dept of Epidemiology and Public Health
• Holly Turner – children’s mental health nurse/CAMHS
• Professor Gabriel Scally – president Epidemiology and Public Health Section Royal Society of Medicine, visiting professor of Public Health, University of Bristol, member of Independent SAGE
• John Lister – health journalist and campaigner

“It’s not just about experts,” said Puntis. “It’s also about taking testimony from ordinary people so we have nurses, frontline workers, bereaved families – it’s about giving them on opportunity they wouldn’t necessarily get in an official inquiry.”

Puntis acknowledges that without the resources available to the government, the People’s Covid Inquiry can’t hope to conduct as thorough an examination as a full public inquiry could achieve, but he says doing what they can now is crucial.

“It’s important to have it now while it’s fresh in people’s memories and document it and then this will be a body of evidence that we will pass on to the Department of Health [and Social Care] and the Commons health select committee,” he said.

“We then hope this will prompt them to hold an inquiry or feed into a subsequent and much better resourced inquiry.”

A major concern has been prompted by comments health secretary Matt Hancock made this week when he denied there had been a shortage of PPE in the early days of the pandemic.

“History’s already being rewritten,” Puntis said.

“Last spring and summer there were healthcare workers who could not get PPE. I’ve got junior doctors in my family who did not have the right PPE – they still don’t, actually.

“And you’ve now got Matt Hancock saying: ‘No, there wasn’t a shortage.’ I am very worried about this rapid rewriting of history.”

Every two weeks for the next 16 weeks, the People’s Covid Inquiry will examine a different area, including: 

• Is ‘Zero Covid’ possible?
• Impact on the population 
• Impact on frontline staff and key workers
• Inequalities and discrimination
• Privatisation of the Public’s Health 

At the time of writing, 120,757 people had died in the UK within 28 days of testing positive for Covid-19. But alongside the grim daily death tolls, the government has been keen to share news of the so-far-successful vaccine rollout and the PM’s roadmap out of lockdown announced on Monday.

“The vaccination rollout is being framed by the government as: ‘Forget everything bad that’s happened, we’ve done a great job,’” Dr Puntis said.

“Whereas actually, the death toll absolutely refutes that.”

The government is battling ‘vaccine hesitancy’. How does sneaking through a massive deal with a controversial spy tech firm help?

Mary Fitzgerald www.opendemocracy.net

Imagine you’re doing something unlawful – how do you avoid getting sued? Lately, if you’re Boris Johnson’s government, it seems you try sneaking it through before anyone notices.

Unfortunately for them, it didn’t work this time. We’ve just issued a lawsuit over their £23m NHS data deal with controversial ‘spy tech’ company Palantir.

We’re taking the government to court because, right before Christmas, they quietly gave this CIA-backed firm a major, long-term role in handling our personal health information, and in England’s cherished National Health Service.

The government claimed the initial Palantir ‘datastore’ deal, signed last March, was a short-term, emergency response to the pandemic. But December’s new, two-year contract reaches far beyond COVID: to Brexit, general business planning and much more.

And, as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals today, it comes after years of Palantir lobbying top UK and NHS officials, courting them in London, San Francisco and Davos – over dinner and watermelon cocktails.

Health secretary Matt Hancock and his advisers must have known it wouldn’t look good.

Palantir is best known for powering US intelligence operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its founder Peter Thiel, a Trump-backing Silicon Valley billionaire, famously once wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Palantir’s tech has been accused of creating ‘racist’ feedback loops in US ‘predictive policing’ software. Its own staff have criticised its role in Trump’s brutal deportations of undocumented migrants.

How does all this sit with the current drive to combat ‘vaccine hesitancy’ among Black, Asian and migrant communities in the UK? Striking quiet deals with firms like Palantir, especially with no real public dialogue, risks demolishing trust in the NHS among the very communities where the government now urgently seeks to shore up trust.

As Kailash Chand, former deputy chair of the British Medical Association, put it: “The secrecy around what the government is doing with NHS data, working with companies like Palantir, will damage what trust is left amongst ethnic communities, for migrants, and in the NHS family as a whole. It makes it difficult for people like me to convince ethnic minority people that this is being done in their best interests.”

The NHS is at a crossroads

This isn’t just about Palantir. The future of the NHS is being written now, in the latest chapter of the pandemic. The government has put us on notice that sweeping changes to our health service are on the way. They present both opportunities and grave risks.

The government has a legal duty to consult us, citizens and NHS users, before they strike massive deals which affect that future. In doing so, they need to take important steps (like conducting ‘data protection impact assessments’) to ensure our health information and our rights are protected. They haven’t done this for the Palantir datastore: that’s why we’re bringing this case.

More broadly, our elected leaders need to explain their long-term plans for our cherished NHS – enabling genuine public debate about them.

The government’s published plans for overhauling the NHS include new rules for handling the nation’s health data, and involve handing over almost all power over the NHS to Matt Hancock. By scrapping many NHS procurement rules, they open the door for big tech firms to take ever-greater slices of the NHS pie – including access to our health data for profit, and unaccountable influence over vital healthcare decisions. These are issues in which the public deserves a say.

Our NHS: worth more than a watermelon cocktail

How did we get here? Was it really, as some suggest, that the government suddenly turned to Palantir in an emergency because there was no other choice?

It seems not. As the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s reporting reveals, Palantir has been intensively lobbying top UK and NHS officials.

On 2 July 2019, the night before the launch party of NHSX – the UK’s flagship digital health initiative – emails released through Freedom of Information show Palantir hosting the chair of NHS England, Lord David Prior, for dinner and cocktails. (Prior is a Conservative peer and former junior minister.)

Palantir’s UK chief, Louis Mosley, emailed his pitch the very next day: “I’m more convinced than ever that the UK is uniquely placed to pioneer the next generation of medical discoveries and treatments.” [The next two paragraphs of Mosley’s email are, strangely, redacted].

Prior responded just hours later to thank Mosley “for the watermelon cocktails” and added: “[redacted] If you can see ways where you could help us structure and curate our data so that it helps us deliver better care and provides a more insightful data base for medical research, do be in touch.”

The correspondence is clear. The UK government was keen to lay a path in the NHS for Palantir – undermining official claims that the Covid datastore was an emergency fix with no long-term plans in prospect.

Health data, yes – but only with public trust

There are countless ways in which trustworthy and public-spirited use of data could benefit the NHS, and all of us, in tackling disease and delivering better public health outcomes. Several important patient juries on the use of health data consistently show that people are cautiously open to data use for the right reasons: to improve care, and so long as benefits are distributed equally and fairly to all patients.

But proceeding without public trust undermines our chances of achieving any of this. It doesn’t help that, under the new Palantir contract, we have no idea what is going into the long-term datastore: for the first time, the government has completely redacted the list of health-data sources fed into it.

This approach carries echoes of the ‘care.data’ debacle from 2013 to 2016. This was another massive health data centralisation plan involving big private firms that failed because the government didn’t consult on its plans and communicated them badly – and lost public trust as a result. So many people opted out (some 1.2 million patients) that the NHS abandoned the programme.

The NHS story could go two ways. We could channel all the solidarity and goodwill – expressed not just in thousands of claps and posts but in community support groups and voluntary initiatives – to build an NHS that is well-funded, well-staffed and fit for the future. But this future is only possible if we, the public, are in the driving seat.

If our legal challenge is successful, it’ll be an important step towards making sure our NHS health data can be used only in ways the public can trust. After a year of repeated ‘COVID cronyism’ scandals and massive failures – from Serco’s disastrous mishandling of ‘test and trace’ to last week’s ruling that Hancock acted unlawfully over PPE – it’s time for a different approach.

Plans to install electric vehicle charging points across seven car parks in the district are set to go before East Devon District Council’s (EDDC) Cabinet.

eastdevon.gov.uk 

This is one of a number of exciting projects, recommended for approval or investigation by the authority’s ‘Car Parking Task and Finish Forum’ (TAFF).

An investigation into how the car parks can be used at off peak times, such as the occasional evening cinema, farmers market or car boot sales has also been recommended by TAFF.

It is hoped it could generate additional income while also providing exciting services that residents and visitors can enjoy, although mindfulness would be needed so it does not encroach on existing businesses.

As well as this, the TAFF are keen to look at whether a small area of some car parks could be considered for hiring out electric bicycles so residents and visitors could explore the local area on two wheels rather than four.

The group has also recommended a number of trial contactless machines be installed to minimise the need for residents to touch buttons while paying for parking.

If given the go-ahead is given by Cabinet, the first part of the project will see charging points installed across seven car parks that are able to serve 14 vehicles at a time.

The TAFF hope the charging points will serve both residents and visitors alike, whilst reducing carbon emissions as the public move to using more electric and hybrid vehicles – supporting the EDDC emergency climate declaration and action plan.

The installation of the charging points comes as part of the Innovate UK funded Exeter Rapid Charging Project to install and operate up to 30 further rapid charging units in EDDC’s public car parks in 2021.

The TAFF has also supported further plans for another six or seven car parks to be considered for future expansion of charging points to meet any gaps in provision.

Drivers will need to pay to use the charging points but will not have to pay for parking as long as they don’t exceed their charging time.

Councillor Val Ranger, who is the vice-chairman of the Car Parking TAFF and ward councillor for Newton Poppleford and Harpford, said:

Members of the TAFF were keen to congratulate officers for the work done on the future provision of electric charging points in our car parks.

TAFF have been working to ensure that public car parks owned by EDDC are effectively managed and providing a valuable service whilst paying for themselves.

Mindful of the sanitary situation and how best to protect car park users and council staff, East Devon council is keen to offer contactless solutions for paying parking charges to anybody who wishes not to touch the machines.

The TAFF suggested trialling these entirely contactless in some car parks with several machines, reducing or removing the need to touch buttons or screens when paying for parking.

Paying for parking remotely from a mobile phone for example also removes the need to queue at machines and allows users to top up and extend their parking time from the beach or restaurant without having to return to their vehicle.

Contactless card payment can be faster than paying in coins also- a benefit in busy car parks.

TAFF will also be reconsidering the signage at car parks, and fitting more prominent and clearly worded signs to advise residents of the lower cost options available to them such as annual permits.

“I won’t be buccaneering with people’s lives” Boris Johnson, Monday

Haroon Siddique www.theguardian.com 

On Monday, Boris Johnson announced his roadmap for lifting all Covid restrictions by 21 June but faced criticism from some Conservative MPs for not providing for a speedier return to normal life. Here is some of the evidence the government and its scientific advisers have been considering, outlining the risks of lifting restrictions too early.

Deaths

Based on modelling by Warwick University and Imperial College London, the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M), a subgroup of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage), warned that “rapid relaxation [of restrictions] results in a very large wave of hospitalisations and deaths”.

It said that if all restrictions were lifted by 26 April (scenario one), even under the most optimistic of assumptions, including 4m doses of vaccine a week from 22 March, there would be “another wave comparable in size to January 2021, resulting in a further 62,000 to 107,000 deaths in England”. More pessimistic vaccine efficacy led to a prediction of 102,000 to 176,000 further deaths.

Explaining the likely resurgence were restrictions lifted earlier, SPI-M says: “There are still many people in vulnerable groups who do not have protection; neither directly (either because they have not been vaccinated or because their vaccination has not prevented them from becoming infected then ill) nor indirectly from wider population immunity (because many younger age groups have not yet been vaccinated or infected).”

Hospital admissions

With warnings that the NHS is “on its knees” after three waves of the pandemic, ensuring it is not overwhelmed by a fourth wave is one of the key factors in the decision about whether to lift restrictions.

For its paper, discussed by Sage on 4 February, SPI-M asked University of Warwick and Imperial College to model four scenarios, with scenario one envisioning the earliest return to minimal measures (26 April) and scenario four the latest (2 August). SPI-M said: “All four scenarios modelled lead to a substantial resurgence in hospital admissions and deaths.” It found the models from the two universities to be in “remarkable quantitative agreement about hospital admissions”.

Daily admissions for Covid peaked at 4,134 on 12 January, but on Monday stood at 904. The most optimistic interpretation of scenario one in Warwick’s modelling suggested a resurgence in admissions later this year, peaking at between 4,000 and 6,500 admissions a day.

Hospital occupancy

In the same document, SPI-M said: “Unless vaccine efficacy is significantly better than assumed here, it is highly likely that hospital occupancy would be higher than that seen in January 2021, if all restrictions are lifted by the start of May, even under the optimistic vaccine rollout scenario modelled here of 4m doses per week from the end of March.”

The number of beds in England occupied by Covid patients peaked on 18 January, at 34,336. This has since fallen (the figure was 14,137 on Monday) but the modelling warned of a reverse if restrictions were lifted too early. Under the most optimistic interpretation of scenario one, Warwick’s modelling suggested occupancy of approximately 20,000 to 50,000 beds.

SPI-M wrote: “Relaxation of current restrictions would be safer the lower the prevalence and hospital occupancy reached before any relaxations commence. This would give a longer time window to respond if it becomes apparent that the relaxation of measures is leading to an unsustainable rise in hospital admissions. Lower prevalence of infection will also reduce the risk of the evolution of new variants.

“Hospital occupancy is still very high and will remain so for a significant length of time. SPI-M-O’s [the operational subgroup’s] medium-term projection of hospital occupancy in England on 8th March is between 5,600 and 12,1001.”

Avoiding another lockdown

It is universally agreed on all sides of the argument that avoiding another lockdown is vital, whether to preserve people’s mental health or to prevent businesses being forced into closure or to lay off employees. SPI-M makes clear that lifting restrictions in haste would risk a fourth national lockdown based on the modelling.

It states: “As restrictions are relaxed virus transmission will increase. The more slowly restrictions are relaxed, the greater the number of hospitalisations and deaths prevented by vaccination and hence it would be less likely that restrictions would need to be reimposed later to avoid hospitals being put under extreme pressure. Rapid relaxation results in a very large wave of hospitalisations and deaths.”

Johnson has left a minimum of five weeks between each stage of restrictions being lifted and this, again, is supported by the evidence presented by SPI-M. It says: “It is much less likely that restrictions would need to be reimposed if an approach were taken in which each step was followed by a careful evaluation of data before any further unlocking was allowed. Several weeks between steps are required to determine if that change has significantly increased transmission.”

Bringing an Australian wetland back to life

www.bbc.co.uk

In the shadow of Australia’s Grampians National Park lies Walker Swamp, a once-thriving wetland that was artificially drained and farmed for over a century.

But it is now welcoming new life once more, after a huge restoration project.

Its revival is one “message of hope” amid so much grim environmental news, ecologists tell the BBC.

Video by Isabelle Rodd

Letters www.theguardian.com 

Bruce Keogh (The NHS rose to the challenge of Covid, but its next test may be even harder, 18 February) makes salient points about the post-pandemic NHS, with emphasis on older people. The six tests are useful, but his focus on digital technology does not reflect the needs of older people, many of whom do not use it. In fact at times, it seems an administrative deterrent to manage demand rather than to enable patients to access services. Will the NHS fund digital training for older people?

His comments about keeping older people out of hospital are doomed unless four critical issues are dealt with: reform of the funding system for social care; doing away with the iniquitous system of “continuing healthcare”, classing those with dementia as not ill and robbing many older people of their life savings; raising the “carer’s allowance”, recognising that this care saves the NHS large sums every year; and moving healthcare staff from hospitals to the community, enabling GPs to provide a more comprehensive service.

Without these actions, the NHS will continue to be hamstrung in its efforts to reduce unnecessary admissions and long stays in hospital.

Ron Walton

Penarth, South Glamorgan

• There is a danger of missing the crucial issue of how integrated health and social care will be delivered at a local level. During the pandemic, the NHS introduced a system called “discharge to assess” (D2A). The immediate pressure was to get patients out of hospitals as soon as possible, but D2A is part of a continuing “home first” approach. D2A assumes that the majority of patients can be discharged straight home from hospital. It does provide for patients who may need more support before returning to home-based independence, but the numbers are assumed to be small and they are supported only on a limited basis.

Because of the closures of community hospitals and a lack of resources, too many people fall through the gaps between hospital and home, NHS and local authority, and are sent home without adequate support, or placed in care homes miles from where they live.

The promised reform needs to guarantee that integrated health and social care is properly provided after people are discharged from hospital, across the country, at a local level.

John Forsyth

Penzance, Cornwall

Almost all pheasants sold for food in the UK contain toxic lead shot, scientists have found.

Despite voluntary ban declared a year ago.

There is also concern that the large and increasing release of gamebirds and associated shooting practices may be having negative impacts on the UK’s native wildlife.

By Victoria Gill  Science correspondent, BBC News www.bbc.co.uk 

The discovery comes one year into a five-year transition to non-toxic shotgun ammunition – a move backed by nine UK shooting organisations.

Of 180 birds examined by the scientists, 179 were shot with lead.

One shooting group said finding humane and effective alternatives to lead would take time.

‘No detectable impact’

The team, consisting of scientists and conservationists based across England and Scotland, bought wild-shot common pheasants that were sold by game dealers, butchers and supermarkets around the UK.

With labs closed in lockdown, the scientists carried out the pheasant dissections in their own kitchens.

“We took out the shot and sent it off for analysis and 99% of the ammunition we extracted was lead,” said Prof Debbie Pain, from Cambridge University.

“So really that hasn’t declined at all since the shooting organisations signed up to the voluntary ban.”

That voluntary ban was a declaration in February 2020 by shooting and countryside organisations, which all committed to phasing out lead shot and transitioning “completely” to non-toxic alternatives. Those alternatives are already widely available and include steel, bismuth and tungsten.

That commitment, the scientists conclude, has not yet had any detectable impact.

Lead is toxic even at very low concentrations, as Prof Rhys Green from Cambridge University explained.

“Over time, it has been banned from a progressively lengthening list of products, including plumbing, paints on things like children’s toys and as an additive to petrol. And the maximum allowable concentration of lead in many foods has also been limited by an EU directive, which still applies in the UK,” he said.

“But game meat products are not included on that list of foods, for reasons that are unclear. Currently, the amount of lead in game meat sold for human consumption is not regulated by law.”

Lead shot also builds up in the environment.

“When lead is shot into wildlife, it can be eaten by predators like scavenging birds,” Prof Pain explained. “And a lot of lead gunshot falls into the environment and it can then be eaten by wildfowl and terrestrial birds and cause poisoning.”

media captionDanish hunter Niels Kanstrup explains why he believes lead shot is a “poison for hunting”

The evidence about lead in the environment has led to an EU-wide ban on the use of lead shot over wetlands. But, because that restriction did not enter into force before the end of the Brexit transition period, it will not apply in the UK.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (Basc), which previously argued against any change in the rules on lead ammunition, now supports the voluntary transition, but told the BBC that “change is difficult” and would take time.

“Lead shot is the traditional ammunition for live quarry shooting – it has been for generations,” said Steve Bloomfield from Basc. “[Our members] have to take time to try the alternatives – and those alternatives have to be effective and humane.”

In Denmark, hunters have had to use those alternatives since 1996, when lead shot was banned for all hunting.

Prof Green said he hoped these findings would speed up the move away from lead shot.

“I hope, within a few years, lead shotgun ammunition is not being used at all for game shooting in the UK,” he told BBC News.

“I have an open mind on whether this can be achieved through voluntary change or requires a government ban, but the evidence so far indicates that the voluntary approach needs to step up its effectiveness dramatically if it is to remain credible.”

Matt Hancock has faced outrage after claiming there was ‘never’ a national personal protective equipment (PPE) shortage during the pandemic.

Elisa Menendez metro.co.uk

The health secretary’s remarks were described by Labour as an ‘insult’ to frontline health and care workers who were forced to use ‘inadequate’ PPE, with some fashioning gowns out of bin bags.

His comments came amid questioning over a High Court ruling last week found he had broken the law over Covid-related contracts.

Mr Hancock told Sky News: ‘If I had my time again, absolutely I’d do exactly the same thing again. Exactly the same thing.

‘What I care about is making sure people have the protection they need. I care deeply about the staff of the NHS and the staff who work in social care and I care deeply that they have everything they need.

‘It was really tough but there wasn’t a national shortage at any point. There were difficulties in individual areas but there was never a national shortage.’

Hancock says he’d do ‘exactly the same thing again’ with PPE contracts

In further interviews today, he reiterated that ‘we were very close’ to a national shortage and it was difficult to deliver PPE ‘in the teeth of a national pandemic’.

However, he insisted it never got to that point as his team distributed supplies successfully – despite health and social care workers complaining of desperate shortages across the country which put their lives at risk.

Palliative care doctor, Rachel Clarke, called Mr Hancock’s remarks ‘categorically not true’.

Dr Clarke wrote on Twitter: ‘I say this as someone who *begged* local veterinary practices and schools for masks and visors.

‘Whose hospice nearly closed down through lack of PPE. This was happening up and down the country. It was horrendous.

‘The failures to provide PPE at the time were bad enough – but to lie about it now? Well that’s inexcusable.’

John Peek responded: ‘I’m a dentist and early in the pandemic, I gave visors and goggles to doctors who were working in A&E with totally inadequate PPE.’

Doctor Dominic Pimenta, chairman of charity the Healthcare Workers’ Foundation, said in a thread that the NHS ‘ran out of the correct PPE nearly instantly in many areas’.

He wrote: ‘Covid is airborne. Nearly 1000 U.K. healthcare workers have died as a consequence of inadequate PPE, one of the worst rates in the entire world.’

Rosena Allin-Khan MP, Labour’s shadow minister for mental health, said: ‘It is an insult to claim there was no shortage of PPE.

‘Many frontline workers had to ration protective equipment, putting themselves at risk.

‘Lots of it was inadequate and poorly fitting, and some NHS staff had to make gowns themselves from bin bags.

‘The fact is, it was a smash-and-grab for Tory donors and friends. And protecting workers who were putting themselves in harm’s way to look after people seems to have been an afterthought.’

Meanwhile, around 12 million masks being used in the NHS currently may not meet safety standards and have been withdrawn, reported the BBC.

Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: ‘This is yet another example of ministers buying duff PPE that is inadequate for protecting our hardworking NHS staff. Ministers should apologise and ensure every penny for every piece of unusable PPE is recovered.’

The health secretary’s comments came amid questioning over last week’s High Court ruling over his department’s failure to publish details of coronavirus-related contracts on time.

He insisted the case, brought forward by the Good Law Project, was not over the ‘substance’ of the contracts but because they were published ‘on average around a couple of weeks late’.

Mr Hancock insisted legal cases about transparency returns were ‘completely second order’ to saving lives and that his officials had been working long hours to procure PPE instead.

As part of the Government’s transparency policy, No 10 is required to publish the procurement of any contracts for public goods or services worth more than £120,000 within 30 days.

The judge said there was ‘no dispute’ that in a ‘substantial number of cases’ Mr Hancock had ‘breached his legal obligation to publish contract award notices within 30 days’.

The point of Brexit, according to its champions, was to liberate Britain from intolerable EU rules. One of these was that government contracts should always go out to transparent competitive tender. This was supposed to aid efficiency and avert the endemic corruption of certain European states. One such state now appears to be Britain.

Simon Jenkins www.theguardian.com 

Last November the National Audit Office estimated that since the coronavirus pandemic began, Whitehall had given out £18bn in procurement contracts, largely for PPE supplies and test-and-trace services, including to firms with little or no record of such work. It turned out that the government also secretly set up a fast conduit – a so-called VIP lane – for contracts to people personally known to ministers, peers and MPs.

Unsurprisingly, this became a crony bonanza. Of the £18bn spent, the NAO has traced £10.5bn awarded directly without competition. About one in 10 bids to supply through the fast-track system were awarded contracts, against one in 100 from open tender bidders. Meanwhile, the procurement consultancy Tussell found that of £15bn in health department contracts to buy PPE by October, only £2.68bn of the contracts had been published.

The sums are staggering, as is the potential for waste. In August it was reported that 50m face masks unsuitable for the NHS cost the Treasury £155m: they came from a contract worth £252m with Ayanda Capital, a firm with a senior adviser who was also an adviser to the UK Board of Trade at the Department for International Trade. The NAO found multiple shortcomings with deals signed with Ayanda and Public First.

Last week we saw court documents showing Dominic Cummings’ central role in awarding a contract for Covid focus groups to Public First, “a research company owned and run by two of his longstanding associates”. The contract is the subject of a judicial review, in a case taken by the public interest group the Good Law Project.

On Friday, a high court judge ruled that Matt Hancock, the health secretary, acted unlawfully by not publishing details of multibillion-pound government Covid contracts. The case was also taken by the Good Law Project, which highlighted three PPE contracts: “A £252m contract for the supply of face masks with a finance company, Ayanda Capital; a £108m contract with Clandeboye Agencies, which had previously supplied only confectionery products, and PPE contracts worth £345m with a company trading as Pestfix.” It claims that the government has failed to publish such contracts in a timely manner, hampering scrutiny and transparency.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Chamberlain said: “The secretary of state spent vast quantities of public money on pandemic-related procurements during 2020. The public were entitled to see who this money was going to, what it was being spent on and how the relevant contracts were awarded.” He also criticised the minister for not simply admitting the breaches of the rules instead of spending £207,000 of public money defending them.

A familiar feature of emergencies is that governments feel entitled to take powers that would not be merited in normal times. Hancock certainly deserves sympathy for what has for him been a nightmare year. But we are seeing a web of connections involving others in the Tory establishment in the awarding of contracts: the much discussed “chumocracy”. Hancock’s attempts to excuse his lack of transparency as being “second order to saving lives” ring hollow.

Public sympathy relies on such emergency powers not being abused – as clearly is happening in these cases. At a time when billions in taxpayers’ money is being spent fighting disease and relieving hardship, breaking rules designed to avoid corruption can only diminish public sentiment and sympathy.

The government clearly hopes that its success with the Covid vaccination will wipe out memories of its failures in the early days of the pandemic. Yet it may be the case that its slapdash approach to PPE contracts has contributed to the raw fact that Britain has one of the highest Covid death rates in the world. When this emergency is over, the most searching of all inquiries will be needed: only this will ensure that a government all too happy to avail of emergency powers will actually bring them to an end.

We are pleased to be able to tell you that the Court has granted a cost-capping order in our judicial review over the award of huge PPE contracts, without advertisement or competition, to Pestfix (a pest control company), Ayanda (an opaque private fund owned through a tax haven), and Clandeboye (a confectionery wholesaler).

goodlawproject.org 

After Government said it would cost an unbelievable £1million pounds to defend the case, we asked the Court to cap our exposure to Government’s legal costs at £100k. We are a small not-for-profit that relies on crowdfunding. After reviewing our fundraising efforts for the case so far and looking at what we have saved for a rainy day, this is the figure we could afford. 

Instead, the Court has granted a cost-capping order of £250k. It means that if we lose the case, we are liable to pay a quarter of a million pounds to Government, as well as needing to cover our own legal costs. Despite huge support from members of the public, generous individuals and organisations, we are still short.  

But we will not be bullied out by costs. This case, which we are bringing alongside EveryDoctor, is simply too important.

In awarding the cost-capping order, the Judge seemed to agree:

“All citizens are likely to have an interest in whether or not the procurement on the part of the government is done using good governance procedures and integrity. And therefore there is a real wider public interest that has been represented by the claimant group, which is a not-for-profit group, in bringing this challenge”

We will fight this case to its conclusion. The case will be heard in Court in May. If you are in a position to donate to the legal challenge, you can do so here:

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/108million/

Simon Jupp to Robert Jenrick The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

If you want to work with EDDC, there’s no time like now to start! – Owl

www.theyworkforyou.com

Simon Jupp Conservative, East Devon

Since I was elected, I have been speaking up for Exmouth and East Devon in Parliament, and working hard to secure support for our hospitality industry, Exeter airport and the mighty Exeter Chiefs. Exmouth continues to grow, and I want to work with East Devon District Council to help the town stay a great place to live and work. Could the Secretary of State provide an update on when the next round of funding to improve towns, transport and high streets will be made available?

Robert Jenrick The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

I very much enjoyed visiting East Devon during the general election campaign, and I look forward to seeing Exmouth’s application in due course. As I said then, Exmouth is exactly the sort of town that we want to benefit from the town regeneration funds that we have made available. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that we are driving forward our plans to boost town centre regeneration in every corner of the country. The levelling-up fund and the UK shared prosperity fund will build on the work of the future high streets fund and the towns fund, and the prospectuses for those will be published very soon. I hope East Devon District Council will work with him to grasp this opportunity and put in good proposals that we can consider carefully.

Boris Johnson Is Finally Being Cautious, But Has He Really Changed?

Extracts from Paul Waugh www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

“I won’t be buccaneering with people’s lives,” Boris Johnson said. Well, it’s taken 11 months, three Covid waves and more than 100,000 deaths, but he got there in the end. He won’t bucc it up this time, will he?…..

…..It may be that this famously unreflective PM has finally also looked into his own soul in recent weeks. Perhaps the most startling thing written about him last week was Fraser Nelson’s Telegraph column suggesting he has “started to blame himself” for delaying the first lockdown by a week: a decision that Imperial College London has claimed cost 21,000 lives. Whether he’s feeling guilty about locking down late this January too is an open question.

Yet while it will hearten many that Johnson has finally ditched his chaotic crisis management mode of governing, there lingers an unnerving thought: if even this optimism-biased prime minister has started to be cautious, the scientists’ warnings must be pretty worrying. And indeed, the Sage minutes and documents today confirmed just that.

The sheer precariousness of our current position, even with an amazing vaccine rollout, was laid bare in those Sage papers. Lifting restrictions by the end of April, as some Tory lockdown sceptics had demanded, would spark a huge new fourth wave of infections and risk doubling the death toll, they forecast.

Just as worrying were the minutes of the February 4 meeting that stated: “Relaxation of a significant number of restrictions over three months starting from the beginning of April could lead to hospital occupancy higher than the January peak whereas relaxation over nine months would result in a much smaller peak.” Relaxation over three months from April, doesn’t that sound like, er, the roadmap?

That same meeting also advised “an ‘adaptive management’ approach, responding to data, for example setting levels of infection or hospitalisation that would need to be reached before making changes”. “This makes it more likely that the epidemic can be kept under control,” it said. 

But the PM clearly felt that was a bit too sage of Sage because his roadmap lacks any such figures or numbers to measure progress. Instead, we got a series of tentative dates for each stage of unlockdown. So we didn’t get the data points, but we did get the dates. Which wasn’t really the soundbite promised.

Johnson was honest enough to stress to MPs that lifting lockdown will lead to more deaths, partly because even among those vaccinated there will be a “large minority” who remain insufficiently protected. Add in the uncertainty about the impact of the vaccines on stopping transmission and that looks even more candid.

Despite all the uncertainty, Johnson couldn’t at times hide his own desperation for certainty. In his Commons statement, he said he believed his roadmap was “a one way road to freedom”, that “will guide us cautiously but irreversibly” (he said the i-word three times). Yet when asked by SkyNews’ Sam Coates if he would resign if there was a fourth lockdown, the PM wriggled for some wriggle room, saying it was only his “intention” that this was a one-way roadmap.

He was similarly shifty when asked about financial support, even though his own plans would seem to imply that Rishi Sunak will next week have to announce furlough is extended through May and possibly until June 21, when hospitality firms can fully reopen and make a profit. Despite a small change to isolation support for parents of kids with Covid, there was nothing to match Jeremy Hunt’s call for an isolation salary replacement scheme.

There was even a hint of a throwback to our old friend “Whackamole” from some in government today, as we learned that new outbreaks of new variants could lead to local lockdowns. While there will be no return to tiers over the next few months (amid fears the dominant strain travels just too fast), there will be flexibility to crack down in some places.

In fact, I suspect it will be the lack of regional tiering that most triggers the next Tory rebellion. Notwithstanding recent drops, some regional admissions rates are stubbornly higher than others (the midlands are double the rates of London and the south east). If any of those five-week pauses produces data that suggests different outcomes for different areas, there could be trouble ahead. 

For now at least, the PM has a plan. Let’s see if he really has changed, and sticks to it.

Though Owl is always on hand to offer advice, our Simon has chosen a BBC Radio London presenter as his new “Head of Office”.

Let’s hope the advice he offers is to work for East Devon and with the District Council. We all remember that despite being chums with “Dave”, Hugo left no legacy of helping  East Devon.

Duncan Barkes moves on from BBC Radio London

radiotoday.co.uk 

BBC Radio London presenter Duncan Barkes has left radio in London after a ten year stint of broadcasting to the capital to become a political adviser.

Duncan joined Radio London in 2015 to present ‘London’s Late Night Radio Phone-In’ from LBC where he previously presented the late night and overnight shows since 2011.

Previous to this he hosted the overnight show on talkSPORT.

Since July 2020, he has been presenting the weekend early morning shows on Radio London which have also been broadcast on the BBC local radio network and on BBC 5 Live.

His other BBC work has included presenting ‘The Newsroom’ on the BBC World Service and also covering The Nolan Show on 5 Live.

He leaves the BBC to take up the role of head of office and adviser to East Devon MP and Member of the Transport Select Committee, Simon Jupp.

Commenting on his move, Duncan told RadioToday: “Whilst at Radio London I’ve covered two general elections, two terror attacks on the capital, the Grenfell Tower fire and the EU Referendum. I’ve also experienced some of the most challenging broadcasting of my radio career taking hundreds of calls from people affected by Covid-19.

“I am proud to say we took the audience figures of the late night slot to a record high and even broadcast our phone-in live from the back of a black cab.

“Prior to the BBC my LBC years were fantastic and I was chuffed to play a small part in the growth of the station. But it’s time for a change and I have a political itch that needs scratching. Once the pandemic restrictions have lifted, I am looking forward to spending time in the Exmouth constituency office enjoying the delights of East Devon along with some time in Westminster.”

Duncan will still be heard on the radio having recently joined Sussex DAB station V2 Radio to present a Sunday evening show and he also runs an online station called Unforgettable Radio.

This appears the most comprehensive report of the encouraging data emerging on the effectiveness of vaccination roll-out in the “real world”. – Owl

Clive Cookson and Anna Gross in London yesterday www.ft.com 

Vaccination against coronavirus provides high levels of protection against Covid-19 infection, illness and death, according to three UK studies released on Monday that provide scientific support for the government’s road map out of lockdown.

The first, carried out in Scotland, found that the Covid-19 vaccination campaign led to a “very substantial” drop in serious illness across all adult age groups. It is the clearest evidence yet that single doses of coronavirus jabs can significantly reduce the risk of hospitalisation, even among the elderly.

Two other studies released by Public Health England echo findings released last week by scientists in Israel where vaccination has been even faster than in the UK. PHE scientists reported that the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine reduced the risk of infection by more than 70 per cent three weeks after the first jab, rising to 85 per cent after the second dose.

Despite the promising news, the government also released studies by modellers at Imperial College London and Warwick university that indicated that another 30,000 people could die in the UK from Covid-19 before the end of June, based on the current vaccination rate and speed of lockdown easing.

The vaccination research in Scotland, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, is particularly relevant to assessments of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, which had less clinical trial evidence about efficacy in the elderly than some other vaccines. This had led some European countries to recommend against administering it to those over 65.

According to the research, conducted by the universities of Edinburgh and Strathclyde and Public Health Scotland, the chance of hospitalisation from four to six weeks after vaccination was 85 per cent lower after receiving one shot of the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine and 94 per cent lower after one shot of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine. 

The scientists said their findings were applicable to other countries using the two vaccines but the data were not robust enough to compare the two jabs’ efficacy head to head.

The second PHE analysis, based on routine testing data in people aged over 80, found that one dose was 57 per cent effective against symptomatic Covid-19 disease from about three to four weeks after the first dose. Early results suggested the second dose in over-80s improved protection against symptomatic disease to more than 85 per cent.

The two PHE studies only had enough reliable data to assess the BioNTech/Pfizer jab, which dominated the early stages of the UK vaccination programme, said Mary Ramsay, PHE head of immunisation. “But the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine data are also showing signs of a good effect,” she added.

The Scottish study looked at the health records of 5.4m people in Scotland, equivalent to 99 per cent of the population. About 1.14m of those people were vaccinated between December 8 and February 15.

“These are national data strongly demonstrating that the vaccines are providing a very substantial reduction in hospital admissions from day seven onwards,” said Prof Aziz Sheikh, director of the University of Edinburgh’s Usher Institute. “Overall we’re very very confident this is making a difference.”

There is international interest in the impact of the vaccination campaign in the UK, which was the first large country to begin vaccinating its population against Covid-19 with approved inoculations. The UK also unusually opted to extend the interval between doses from four to up to 12 weeks, in order to vaccinate more people with a single dose more quickly.

Sir Mene Pangalos, AstraZeneca’s head of research and development, said he was “extremely encouraged” to see the first evidence of the effectiveness of the vaccine in the “real world”, referring to the Scottish research.

“Comparable vaccine effects were seen across all age groups,” he said. “This data provides further evidence that the vaccine protects against severe Covid-19 outcomes, particularly in older populations who are at the highest risk.”

The PHE study of healthcare workers, called Siren, included 40,000 people who were tested for coronavirus every two weeks, whether or not they had symptoms, between December 7 and February 5. “We are showing a really strong effect in reducing infection,” said Susan Hopkins, PHE’s Covid-19 response director.

Ramsay said: “The BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine is stopping people from getting infected, while also protecting cases against hospitalisation and death. We should be very encouraged by these initial findings.”

Professor Arne Akbar, president of the British Society for Immunology, who was not involved in the research, commented: “Overall these new findings should provide reassurance around the UK’s decision to offer the two doses of the vaccine 12 weeks apart.”

But he added: “It is still the case that the highest and longest lasting protection from getting ill with Covid-19 will only be provided by getting two doses of the vaccine.”

Sir Patrick Vallance, UK chief scientific adviser, welcomed the findings about vaccination but warned that the backdrop to lifting restrictions remained difficult. “We are not starting all this, as of today, from a good position. We’re not now in a ‘let’s release everything’ [situation], we’re in a not-very-good position that is getting better,” he told a media briefing. 

The central message that emerged from all the scientific modelling that fed into government decision-making was to “start from a low baseline to try to get numbers down before you start releasing”, Vallance said. “Go slowly, go in blocks you can measure the effect after four or five weeks,” he added. 

Many epidemiologists expect infections to increase again as restrictions are eased, with R, the average number of people infected by an individual with the virus, rising above 1, and then dropping after more people are vaccinated.

Additional reporting by Sarah Neville