East Devon District Council’s planning committee on Wednesday morning granted planning permission to allow a vacant shop in the centre of the town to be turned into a micro-pub.

The unit on Chard Street has been empty September since September 2019 and was most recently a women’s clothing store, and councillors heard that the micropub plans would give an active use to the vacant building.

Mathew Dalton-Aram, agent for the applicant, said: “The UK High Street was facing difficulties before coronavirus for retail businesses to remain viable. Micropubs though are bucking the trend and this pub is intended to be a space for conversation and socialising over a drink where the community can meet on a localised and personalised basis. This will give an active use for the vacant building.”

Questions were raised about how social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic would be applied in the premises, as well as the fact that the premises only have one entrance and exit.

But Chris Rose, the council’s development manager, said the concerns about the size and constrained layout of the unit and its ability to function as a micro-pub without adverse effect on amenity and the safety of both customers and members of the public could be addressed by means of appropriate planning conditions, with the other issues raised are covered by separate legislative regimes and as such should not be sought to be controlled by the planning system.

Recommending approval, he added: “The proposal would bring a vacant commercial unit within the town centre back into active use and against the background of wider changes in the retail market and its declining role in the town centre, it is considered this is likely to retain activity in the town centre will have benefit in supporting its overall function.”

Cllr Andrew Moulding said that this would be bringing a vacant shop into good use and he thought that a micropub will be very popular, while Cllr Ian Hall added: “Axminster has far too many units left empty. The High Streets are struggling and we are trying to get people into the town, and just around the corner is something similar – Costa Coffee – but they serve coffee and not alcohol.”

Cllr Mike Howe added: “If they cannot overcome the risk assessment issues, they cannot open, so it is their problem to overcome and not ours as none of it relates to planning. This is brilliant and let us try and reinvigorate it, and I hope they can overcome the safety issues that I am sure the fire brigade will have.”

Councillors voted by 10 votes to three abstentions to approve the change of use plans.

Proposals to speed up the implementation of District Heating Networks planned in East Devon’s West End have been unanimously approved.

East Devon District Council’s Planning Committee on Wednesday morning unanimously backed plans for a Local Development Order (LDO) for District Heating Networks.

The LDO will reduce the regulatory processes and delays associated with the submission of planning applications and facilitate faster implementation of the District Heating networks, councillors were told.

Already the Skypark Energy Centre provides hot water and heating to housing in Cranbrook and commercial buildings at Skypark as well as a private wire to the Lidl distribution centre, while the Monkerton Energy Centre is in the process of being commissioned and will provide hot water and heating to housing around Monkerton and Pinhoe and also commercial buildings at the Science Park.

Chris Rose, the council’s development manager, in his report to the meeting, said that this would enable further roll out of decentralised heating systems in East Devon’s West End and would assist in the delivery of the key aim of East Devon Council Plan 2020 – 2040 to achieve carbon neutrality by 2040.

He added: “Decentralised heating systems can provide significant carbon emission reduction compared to conventional heating systems and can therefor aid the transition to a low carbon economy.

“Despite the system currently being heated by mains gas there are overall energy system efficiencies with associated carbon benefits, for example heat recovery and a reduction in wasted heat. District Heating Networks benefit from economies of scale with one central boiler operating far more efficiently than individual boilers

“It is far more practical, cost saving and energy saving to install the DHN during the construction phase of development rather than trying to retrofit a system and as the network is enhanced and enlarged it enables greater economies of scale and therefor greater low carbon benefits.”

Approval of the LDO would eliminates the requirement to obtain planning permission to install certain infrastructure and would ‘speed up the process for the infrastructure to allow the transition to a low or zero carbon future’, Mr Rose added.

Recommending approval, Cllr Mike Howe said that the committee had two choices – either approve this and then try and force the companies using the DHN to use renewable energy, or install gas boilers in every single house. He said: “That would be wrong so this is a no brainer. This is not perfect but a step in the right direction,” adding that the current planning system could not demand any developer build zero carbon homes as the council has no policies calling for it.

Cllr Olly Davey added that he thought that the DHN could be compatible with moving to a low carbon future, and added: “Hopefully in the not too distant future the facility in Cranbrook will be switched over to low carbon, and when it does, every house will become low carbon.”

Councillors unanimously backed the LDO which grants Permitted Development rights for District Heating transmission and distribution networks for development such as the installation of pipes, cables and wires, heat exchange equipment, street furniture, and ancillary engineering works in the defined area of land around Cranbrook and Clyst Honiton in the West End of East Devon.

Development is not permitted by this Order where any above ground cabinets, buildings, structures or enclosures would be greater than 1 metre in height above ground level, any above ground cabinets, buildings, structures or enclosures would be greater than 2.5 cubic metres in external volume; or any pipework installed above ground and outside any enclosure is greater than 2 metres in length.

In a phase-one trial involving about 1,000 British volunteers, a University of Oxford vaccine appears to have stimulated the desired response from the immune system, The Times understands.

The subjects are understood to have shown encouraging levels of neutralising antibodies, thought to be important in protecting against viral infection, and there were no serious side-effects.

The results also indicated that another aspect of the immune system, known as T-cells, was mobilised. The researchers have yet to prove that this combined immune response is enough to protect against infection but if it had not been found it would have been a setback. “The Oxford team are very much still in the fight,” a source said.

For him now to be the chair of the Commons health and social care select committee that is responsible for advising on how to deal with the mess he left behind, and to set himself up in his article as some sort of people’s champion, is incredible. If he could let us all know how he manages to get a good night’s sleep with that legacy from his past, I’m sure millions of people, patients and staff, who are suffering the effects of his tenure as health secretary would benefit, as would the NHS, which could thereby probably save a fortune in prescriptions for antidepressants and sleeping pills.
John Westbrook
Manchester

• Jeremy Hunt writing in the Guardian? I’m speechless, and only slightly mollified by Alan Marsden’s letter on the opposite page citing Hunt, among others, as culpable.
Jeanette Hamilton
Buxton, Derbyshire

• Jeremy Hunt “welcomes” the fact that the prime minister has committed to finding a long-term solution to the crisis in social care. In the election campaign, Boris Johnson said he had a solution to social care, which is rather different. He also said he had an “oven-ready” deal with the EU. These statements were of a different order to “get Brexit done” – some sort of vague promise. Since he now says he is committed to finding a solution to social care, and we don’t yet have a deal with the EU, they were simply not true. Or, to put it more bluntly, they were lies.
Norman Gowar
London

• Jeremy Hunt has a short memory. He advocates introducing Andrew Dilnot’s proposal for a cap on care costs. But the Dilnot proposal is already on the statute book – see section 15 of the Care Act 2014, passed by parliament while Mr Hunt was the health secretary. All that is needed to bring it into force is a current minister’s signature.
Christopher Packer
London

• Jeremy Hunt is right that we need “a once-and-for-all fix” for the care crisis, but his suggested solutions will not provide the answer. The Dilnot cap on care costs does not address inequity – it would particularly benefit wealthier older people and their families. It wouldn’t provide extra resources to the underfunded care system. Instead it would substitute public funding for private funding while adding a new and complex system of means-testing. And it wouldn’t support the much-needed integration of care with health. For these reasons, and others including its cost, the Conservative government in which Mr Hunt served did not implement the Dilnot cap.

A better approach would be to agree a new vision for care that enables older and disabled people and their families to get the support they want, when and where they want it. Then we could debate how to fund it fairly, simply and sustainably.
Stephen Burke
Director, United for All Ages

Ending the crisis in social care has been a long-held ambition of those who enter Downing Street from whichever party – and was certainly one of mine as health secretary. But coronavirus has removed any possible excuse for the delay, as it has brutally exposed the fragility of the sector – alongside the bravery and service of those who work in it.

As we grasp the nettle of social care reform and prepare for a second wave, we must learn the lessons of recent months.

When the peak of the pandemic approached and NHS beds were desperately needed, vulnerable people were discharged from hospitals into care homes without proper testing. Other countries introduced restrictions on care home visitors at an early stage in the pandemic, and required people being discharged to care homes to either have a negative test result, or to be quarantined for 14 days in a separate facility. It is essential that we adopt examples of best practice.

But we also need to be honest about the underlying issues in the sector. When, as health secretary, I negotiated an extra £20bn for the NHS to go alongside a new 10-year plan, I argued strongly that the social care sector should also receive extra funding. I was told this would follow – but, two years on, we are still waiting.

It is very welcome that the prime minister has committed to finding a long-term solution. But if he is going to deliver a new deal, we should be clear about what that entails: first, a long-term solution that addresses inequity in the current system, such as Andrew Dilnot’s eminently sensible proposal for a cap on care costs, or free personal care as recommended by the Lords economic affairs committee. It is highly significant that this cross-party committee chaired by Lord Forsyth, a self-described Thatcherite, advocated an expansion of state responsibility.

But second, and equally important, is the need to increase annual funding available to local authorities. The Health Foundation estimates that demographic pressures and rises in the “national living wage” alone will add £4bn a year by the end of this parliament, and will require significantly more to address the sector’s long-term needs. An inquiry into social care by the health and social care committee, which I chair, aims to identify how much extra money the government must commit over the next five years in order to fix the gap in social care funding and reduce pressure on the NHS.

Our annual winter crisis arises because the wraparound care people need is not provided, so they end up in A&E and cannot be discharged from hospitals to social care. The head of the NHS, Simon Stevens, has acknowledged that the issue needs to be resolved within the next year. As he told our committee, not to do so would be “inconceivable”.

We have heard some harrowing evidence. Take Anna, a doctor in her 30s who is unable to practise because of a genetic condition that causes chronic severe pain. Dependent on social care, her life is structured around hourly payments for showering, dressing or preparing food. She lives in fear of a cut in her care hours.

Or Dorothy, who, in her 90s, lived in her own home before a series of emergency admissions to hospital. She wanted to return home but the care she needed was never put in place. An array of NHS and local authority officials dealt with her case – her daughter counted 101 people in total. But, as Dorothy said: “Everyone who is meant to have helped has done harm.” Because, despite all those brilliant professionals, there was never any co-ordination or teamwork. Dorothy spent seven months of her last year in hospital before her death.

Better integration of hospital and social care services could have given her those months at home. The division between the NHS and social care goes back to its founding when medical care was made “free” but social care was means-tested. Now, with more people living for longer with multiple health conditions, this distinction has become artificial and destructive.

As has another distinction, namely the stark divide between care workers and hospital staff. Social care workers describe feeling like “underdogs” and “Cinderellas”, demoralised to see shops offering generous discounts to NHS staff but not to them. One care worker described people tutting at her for wearing her uniform in the street between home visits. Social care workers need a proper career path and to be given the recognition they deserve. The introduction of care certificates marked an important start, but more needs to be done.

It is no surprise that annual staff turnover is 30% in social care, rising to more than 40% in the home care sector. When “cost per minute” is the basis for payments to home care staff, do we really expect our older people to be looked after with dignity and respect?

Britain spends a lower percentage of GDP on social care than countries such as Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands. We Conservatives always said the purpose of the painful measures taken in 2010 was short-term: to put the economy on its feet so we would be in a better position to increase funding for public services. We have delivered that for the NHS – now we must be as good as our word for social care. A once-and-for-all fix for this crisis cannot come too soon.

The vast majority of emissions cuts from electric cars will be wiped out by new road-building, a report says.

The government says vehicle emissions per mile will fall as zero-emissions cars take over Britain’s roads.

But the report says the 80% of the CO2 savings from clean cars will be negated by the £27bn planned roads programme.

It adds that if ministers want a “green recovery” the cash would be better spent on public transport, walking, cycling, and remote-working hubs.

And they point out that the electric cars will continue to increase local air pollution through particles eroding from brakes and tyres.

The calculations have been made by an environmental consultancy, Transport for Quality of Life, using data collected by Highways England.

The paper estimates that a third of the predicted increase in emissions would come from construction – including energy for making steel, concrete and asphalt.

A third would be created by increased vehicle speeds on faster roads.

And a further third would be caused by extra traffic generated by new roads stimulating more car-dependent housing, retail parks and business parks.

New roads, more traffic?

Its authors say history shows that building roads almost always generates more traffic.

The report says even with the government’s most optimistic estimate of the adoption rate for electric vehicles, emissions from trunk roads and motorways in England are not on track to meet “net zero“ by 2050.

A government spokesperson told BBC News the report is based on old data.

“This assessment is wholly incorrect and doesn’t take into account the benefits from the massive surge in electric vehicles,” he said.

“The Road Investment Strategy is consistent with our ambition to improve air quality and decarbonise transport.”

The report’s lead author, Lynn Sloman, said the electric car revolution would happen too slowly for transport to achieve the UK’s carbon-cutting goals.

“If we are to meet the legally-binding carbon budgets, we need to make big cuts in carbon emissions over the next decade,” she said.

“That will require faster adoption of electric cars – but it will also require us to reduce vehicle mileage by existing cars.

“Unfortunately, the Government’s £27 billion road programme will make things worse, not better.”

The government accepts that overall mileage should be cut.

But it says the impact of the new roads programme on emissions will be a fraction of the report’s predicted figure.

The AA president, Edmund King, supports some road-building. He told BBC News said: “We believe post-lockdown that more people will continue to work from home, drive less and cycle and walk more.

“But even with investment in broadband and active travel, we will still need road investment – particularly to overcome the congestion hotspots to help get our goods to market.”

‘Mindless’ building?

Ms Sloman, who works regularly as a consultant for the Department for Transport, responded: “More roads just mean more cars. Decades of road investment have not solved congestion.

“Sustained lobbying for more money for roads, leaving less for public transport, cycling and walking, is one of the reasons we now face a climate emergency. We can’t afford any more to indulge this Toad of Toad Hall model of mindless road-building.”

She also says the government can’t ignore the continuing air pollution that will be caused by particles from the brakes and tyres of electric cars.

This pollution could actually be increased if the fashion for heavy battery-powered SUVs continues.

Ms Sloman said: “This is an institutional problem. There are people in the Department for Transport and Highways England who have built their careers on big road building budgets, and they won’t easily give them up.

“But there are also some officials – and perhaps some politicians – who are starting to recognise that the climate emergency means we need a radically different approach to transport.”

The Department for Transport is currently consulting on a decarbonisation strategy, and will publish its plan later in the year.

Who he, Lewis? And the news

The look on Chris Grayling’s face said it all. The former minister had breezed into the first meeting of the newly convened Intelligence and Security Committee in the Macmillan Room in Portcullis House, fully expecting to be the only Tory name on the ballot paper.

But it turned out that Macmillan’s ghost hovered over proceedings as much as his portrait, as the day of the short knives produced a spectacular shock. Grayling was a picture of incredulity and puzzlement as he saw Julian Lewis’ candidacy in black and white next to his, before the swift realisation kicked in that he had been outmanoeuvred.

The ensuing secret ballot yielded the inevitable result: 5 votes for Lewis (his own, plus three Labour and one SNP vote), 4 for Grayling (himself, plus three Tory MPs). The election of the person who now oversees MI6, MI5 and other UK security agencies was itself a masterpiece of cloak and dagger politics, precision timing and superior intelligence gathering. The Tory whips were furious, and No.10 more furious still at this very British coup.

Grayling had made clear his own intention to be chair two days ago, but Lewis had left it until the day of the committee’s first meeting to inform its clerk that he was putting himself forward. There was no prior notice for the government, as unlike select committees, the ISC picks its own chairman from its own members.

It was a moment of which Lewis’s old friend John Bercow would have been proud. Just as Bercow became Commons Speaker on the back of Labour votes, the veteran Tory backbencher clinched the chairmanship of arguably the country’s most important parliamentary watchdog thanks to Opposition backing.

Lewis, 68, was undeniably better qualified to chair the ISC than Grayling. A former member of the committee from 2010 to 2015, a former defence select committee chairman and a former Naval reservist, he has long experience of security and intelligence issues. Even Grayling’s allies admit his closest involvement with security issues was when he was transport secretary (which does mean being on the emergency Cobra committee from time to time).

Lewis was so respected that he secured the nomination of the prime minister for the committee, which is unusual in parliament in that its entire membership requires the prior approval of No.10 in consultation with the leader of the Opposition. Although it is up to the Commons and Lords to then approve its membership, the sifting process – on grounds ostensibly of national security – makes it unique.‌

It is perhaps that prior approval that fuelled the strong sense of betrayal felt in Downing Street when the news came through. The decision to swiftly withdraw the whip from Lewis underscored the anger, with No.10 sources muttering that his “duplicity” had to be punished. Most embarrassingly of all, chief whip Mark Spencer had been caught cold on an issue where whipping was in theory not allowed – the statute that governs the ISC states expressly that the chair of the ISC is “chosen by its members”, not No.10.

Whips have been suggesting that Lewis had assured them he would vote for Grayling, only to renege on the promise. The MP may refuse to answer that charge if asked about it, but he and the Opposition members may have left no traces of collusion. The committee itself is shrouded in adherence to the Official Secrets Act, so the ironies are multiple.‌

Lewis is so idiosyncratic that he is the only one of 650 MPs in the Commons not to allow constituents to contact him by email, insisting instead that they use letter, fax or phone to do so. He is thought unlikely to have left an evidence trail of any plans for the committee chairmanship.

Lewis’s security experience attracted him to the Opposition members, but it was his “fierce independence” and “consensual” approach that was the clincher. And throughout his career the New Forest East MP has certainly been no leader’s poodle. He was among the hardcore Brexiteers who consistently voted against Theresa May’s Brexit deal, but he also voted against David Cameron’s bid to launch military action in Syria, and against the Lib-Con coalition increasing student tuition fees. Maverick is his middle name.

Yet Lewis also had early experience of pulling off audacious actions behind enemy lines. As a graduate research student, he managed to infiltrate the Labour party in the 1970s, helping ‘moderates’ recapture part of the Newham North East local constituency party where MP Reg Prentice was targeted by the Left. Ultimately, Prentice had the crucial vote that brought down James Callaghan and ushered in Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 victory.

There is little likelihood of Lewis crossing the floor to join Labour as Prentice did, but the stripping of the Tory whip means he is now as officially “independent” as an MP as much as he was figuratively. Some Conservative MPs are already speculating that the whole affair proves the need to axe Spencer as chief whip and perhaps move him in what is seen as a more likely reshuffle, possibly to Defra.

The decision by Johnson to remove the whip was also further evidence of his own ruthless approach to party management, last seen when former cabinet ministers like David Gauke and Philip Hammond were effectively booted out of the party over Brexit, despite their willingness to return to the fold.‌

The difficulty for No.10 now is just what next step to take. In theory it could take the “nuclear option” and oust Lewis from the committee by tabling a Commons motion of selection, replacing him with another Tory MP, and thereby allowing a fresh internal election of a new chairman of the ISC. A 90-minute debate would be needed, followed by a vote on the floor of the Commons.

The danger is that would lay bare just how party political the chairmanship would be, itself seen by even some of the PM’s allies as a move that could undermine the committee and its relationship with the intelligence agencies – all of which need to be protected from any charge of party politics in their scrutiny.

The government would have to act very quickly too, and it may be too late to get any motion on the Order Paper in time. Tomorrow morning the ISC meets to discuss when to publish the ‘Russia report’, believed to cover donations to the Tory party among other issues. It is likely that the committee will recommend very swift publication.

In the latest James Bond movies, the chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee is Gareth Mallory, played by Ralph Fiennes. Mallory goes on to replace Judi Dench as ’M”. Few would consider Lewis to be as dashing as Fiennes’s character and he would make an unlikely spy. But no matter what happens to him next, the spectre of high-handed incompetence is again haunting Boris Johnson’s government.

The research indicates that a small, single-unit increase in people’s long-term exposure to pollution particles raises infections and admissions by about 10% and deaths by 15%. The study took into account more than 20 other factors, including average population density, age, household size, occupation and obesity.

There is growing evidence from Europe, the US and China that dirty air makes the impact of Covid-19 worse. But the study of the outbreak in the Netherlands is unique because the worst air pollution there is not in cities but in some rural areas, due to intensive livestock farming.

This allows the “big city effect” to be ruled out, which is the idea that high air pollution simply coincides with urban populations whose density and deprivation may make them more susceptible to the virus.

The scientists are clear they have not proven a causal link between air pollution and worse coronavirus impacts. Conclusive evidence will only come with large amounts of data on individual people, which is not yet available, rather than average data for regions as used in the analysis.

But scientists said it was important to do the best research possible as understanding the link may be important in dealing with further Covid-19 outbreaks and could signal where subsequent waves will hit the hardest.

Many scientists agree that air pollution is likely to be increasing the number and severity of Covid-19 infections, as dirty air is already known to inflame the lungs and cause respiratory and heart disease that make people more vulnerable. But not all agree that the evidence so far is good enough to demonstrate a large impact.

“What I was struck by was this really was a strong relationship,” said Prof Matthew Cole, who conducted the research with his colleagues Ceren Ozgen and Eric Strobl at the University of Birmingham, UK. Unlike most studies to date, the paper has been reviewed by independent scientists and accepted for publication in a journal, Environmental and Resource Economics.

The team concluded: “Using detailed data we find compelling evidence of a positive relationship between air pollution, and particularly [fine particle] concentrations, and Covid-19 cases, hospital admissions and deaths. This relationship persists even after controlling for a wide range of explanatory [factors].”

The most prominent previous study was conducted by Harvard University researchers and found an 8% increase in coronavirus deaths for a single-unit rise in fine particle pollution. Cole said: “We used data at much finer resolution, with the average size of the 355 Dutch municipalities being 95 km2 compared to the 3,130 km2 for a US county.”

“This means we can more precisely capture each region’s characteristics, including pollution exposure,” he said. The new analysis also uses Covid-19 data up to 5 June 2020, allowing it to capture almost the full wave of the epidemic.

An additional factor considered was the Netherlands carnival gatherings that take place in late February, particularly in the livestock farming regions in the south and east of the country. This is where coronavirus cases were highest and where air pollution is highest, due to the ammonia emitted from livestock farms, which forms particle pollution. Coles’ team used statistical methods to estimate the impact of these gatherings. “But it did not knock out the effects of pollution, which I really thought it would,” he said.

Among the other factors taken into account were average income, level of education, smoking, share of population receiving incapacity benefits and closeness to international borders.

“As analyses of a possible link between air pollution and Covid-19 progress we are beginning to see much better studies emerge,” said Prof Frank Kelly, at Imperial College London, UK. “This new study appears to be the best to date.”

He said the work used high quality data and controlled for multiple possible confounding issues. “Further research elsewhere is required to confirm these findings, but we have now reached a point in the pandemic where datasets are robust enough to ask the question,” he said.

Prof Francesca Dominici, who led the Harvard Study, praised the work as “very good” and agreed that it added to her team’s work. She said it was important to examine the relationship between air pollution and Covid-19 outcomes across many countries, as each country’s data would have its own strengths and weaknesses and different confounding factors can be at play.

“Air pollution is not yet getting enough attention because of the slow peer-review process [for academic studies]” Dominici said. “But hopefully as this and other studies are published, the topic will get more attention and most importantly will affect policy.”

However, Prof Mark Goldberg, at McGill University in Canada, warned that averaging data across a region masked the variations among individuals and could mask other potential explanations for the correlation between dirty air and coronavirus. He is concerned that over-interpreting the correlation distracts from other important factors.

“The issue with severe cases is social and economic deprivation – which correlates with air pollution – and [underlying health] conditions,” he said. “I see it in Montreal: the poorest areas with high numbers of people living together, on low incomes and working multiple jobs were hardest hit.”

Cole accepts that only individual-level data will conclusively resolve the question of a link. “We can’t rule out [some unknown factor] until the data gets better. But it’s difficult to know what that would be.”

It was the first meeting of Honiton Town Council since the Coronavirus lock down began, it was also the first time the council has held a meeting online.

Due to the coronavirus pandemic councillors voted to suspend an Annual General Meeting of the council. Council AGMs usually involve the election of a new mayor and deputy mayor but due to the current circumstances councillors voted to suspend the meeting.

This means that the current mayor, John Zarczynski, will keep his position for another year. However, due to the resignation of councillor Duncan Sheridan Shaw earlier this year councillors had to elect a new deputy mayor.

Councillor Carol Gilson was voted in as the new deputy mayor, with six councillors voting in favour of her appointment, two against and one abstention.

Councillors Taylor, Gilson, Dolby, Coombs and Carrigan appeared to be tuning into the meeting from the same house with each councillor taking it in turns to be in the hot seat. This congregation of councillors in one house was criticised by a fellow councillor and by a member of the public.

After the appointment of councillor Carol Gilson as deputy mayor proceedings turned to the issue of re-establishing the council’s HR Committee.

Councillors Kolek and Pollington requested that the committee be made up of all members of the full council due to a number of recent high profile resignations. This proposal was quashed by their fellow councillors.

Councillors then voted on re-establishing the HR committee under a previous frame of reference, meaning that the HR committee would be made up of councillors holding committee chair positions.

When the vote came to councillor Gilson she was absent from the call, the deputy town clerk, Heloise Marlow, moved on and eventually came back to councillor Gilson when she reappeared on the conference call.

When asked where she had been she told councillors she had been ‘locked in the toilet’. The town clerk admonished councillor Gilson and asked that she please inform the meeting’s chairman before leaving a meeting in future.

Councillor Gilson then voted against re-establishing the HR committee under the previous frame of reference but quickly realised that she had in fact intended to vote in favour of the motion.

This led to much confusion. The town clerk remarked: “I honestly don’t know what to do now.”

Despite councillor Gilson’s botched vote the motion was still carried.

It’s a dramatic turnaround – Mr Trump previously mocked others for wearing masks, and suggested some might wear such personal protective equipment to show their disapproval of him, even after the US Centers for Disease Control recommended face coverings.

Meanwhile, the UK government was initially reluctant to advise the general public to wear face coverings, even as other countries in Europe did.

It introduced rules requiring people to wear face coverings on public transport in June, and now says people in England must wear face coverings in shops or face a fine.

Globally, many authorities – including the World Health Organization (WHO) – initially suggested that masks were not effective in preventing the spread of the coronavirus. However, they are now recommending face coverings in indoor spaces, and many governments have even made them mandatory.

What’s changed – and why?

The number of governments recommending face coverings has gone up significantly over the past six months.

As of mid-March, about 10 countries had policies recommending face coverings – now more than 130 countries and 20 US states do, says Masks4All, an activist group of researchers that advocates the use of homemade masks during the pandemic.

Some studies also suggest that people’s attitudes have changed.

“Countries with no previous history of wearing face masks and coverings amongst the general public rapidly adopted usage such as in Italy (83.4%), the United States (65.8%) and Spain (63.8%),” says a report by the Royal Society – one of the leading science bodies in the UK.

The changes appear to be partly due to a better understanding of how Covid-19 spreads.

Initially, the WHO said masks should only be worn by medical workers, or people who had symptoms like coughing and sneezing.

However, in recent months, there’s been increased evidence that many people with the virus do not have symptoms – but can still be contagious – and masks can stop them from passing it on to others. The WHO changed its guidance in June.

Meanwhile, there is more awareness that the risk of transmission is higher in poorly ventilated indoor spaces – and evidence to suggest that the virus could be spread by tiny particles suspended in the air.

This means that if everyone wears face coverings it will “protect against the most common mode of transmission – droplets – and to some extent maybe aerosol droplets,” says Kim Lavoie, chair of behavioural medicine at the University of Quebec at Montreal’s psychology department.

Prof Lavoie adds that “there has been increased research” into face coverings, including observational studies which indicate “countries with high mask wearing seem to have lower infection rates”.

Furthermore, a number of scientists now say there is “some evidence” that masks can protect the wearer as well as those around them.

There is also growing acceptance that the pandemic could continue for a long time – and, if so, face coverings could be seen as something necessary to help people adapt, and reduce risks as businesses and schools re-open.

“Covid’s not going anywhere – we’ll probably have a vaccine in years, not months,” says Prof Lavoie, who has been leading the iCARE Study, an international survey into Covid-19 related behaviours. “So all these principles need to be integrated and adapted to the new normal life.”

Why do countries have such different attitudes?

Even as government policies have changed – there’s a big gap in how willing people are to wear masks.

About 83% of people in Italy, and 59% in the US, say they would always wear a face mask outside their home – but only 19% of people in the UK say the same, according to the Covid-19 Behaviour Tracker – a project run by the Institute of Global Health Innovation at Imperial College London with polling company YouGov.

“The US, UK and Canada have been relatively slow to accelerate mask wearing versus, for example, Spain, France and Italy,” says Sarah P Jones, a health behaviour researcher at Imperial College London, and one of the creators of the tracker.

She says mask wearing can vary based on how vulnerable people feel about an illness, whether they believe the costs outweigh the benefits, and how readily available masks are.

In countries with steep rises in mask wearing, people may have experienced “rapid increases in perceptions of severity and vulnerability”, “rapid policy changes mandating use of face masks”, and a sense that “I see lots of other people doing it, so it must not be a big deal to wear a mask”.

Prof Lavoie agreed that places that “got hit quickly and hard”, like Italy, may have adopted mask wearing more readily.

Finally, people in countries that experienced the 2003 Sars pandemic – or other respiratory outbreaks – were readier to start wearing masks.

“In East Asia, there’s plenty of recent memory of respiratory pandemics, and a cultural awareness that masks are a good idea,” says Jeremy Howard, a research scientist at the University of San Francisco, and one of the Masks4All founders.

By contrast, “there’s just no recent history of respiratory pandemics in the West” and many Western and international institutions have “almost entirely ignored East Asian scientists”, he argues.

Many countries were particularly cautious over recommending face masks because of a lack of clinical trials proving their effectiveness, says the Royal Society’s report.

However, “there have been no clinical trials of coughing into your elbow, social distancing and quarantine, yet these measures are seen as effective and have been widely adopted,” it adds.

Why are some still reluctant to wear masks?

A majority of countries now recommend or require face coverings in some situations.

However, most people still appear much more willing to use hand sanitiser, social distance or wash their hands regularly, than wear face masks, according to data from both the Covid-19 Behaviour Tracker, and iCARES.

People feel that hand washing and social distancing are things they can easily control, says Prof Lavoie.

By contrast, “mask wearing is a little more complex – you have to find and purchase a mask, put it on and dispose of it a certain way, and they’re uncomfortable to wear.”

And the changing guidance from the WHO and many governments could have caused difficulties.

Many experts believe that governments were reluctant to recommend face coverings because they feared there would be a shortage of PPE equipment for medical workers – but by suggesting that they were ineffective at preventing transmissions, they now sound inconsistent.

“Mixed messaging, not being transparent about data, or how the government makes certain policy decisions, can undermine trust” and make it harder to convince people to wear face coverings now, Prof Lavoie says.

Mr Howard believes that many governments in the West were slow to act on masks until they were badly affected by the pandemic.

Nonetheless, he thinks that Boris Johnson and Donald Trump can have a positive impact now by wearing masks publicly.

“Role models are absolutely real,” he says, and ever since Mr Trump wore a mask, “a lot of folks who were previously anti-mask are now saying that was a patriotic thing for him to do.”

This is especially important now that the US is experiencing a new wave of infections, he adds.