Open wide?
This past week since the government announced their "road map" to ease restrictions has seen huge debate on its appropriateness and the country's readiness for such changes to take place.
First of all, let's address the horrendous soundbite that is the "road map" to come out of lockdown. I refuse to use it without quotation marks because, from the announcement last Sunday evening, it is anything but a guide showing us the way forward. There were so many "side roads" and "T junctions" and "traffic lights" that the term "road map" is highly inappropriate.
So, some observations and reflections that I have pondered over this past week.
Dates
The dates set out at specific "junctions" on the "map" were optimistic at best. How can a predetermined time gap between each step of the plan (albeit with the caveat that these changes would happen "from" not "on") be truly based on scientific evidence? We have been told that the crucial R rate of infection is actually a retrospect figure and relates to the rate at which the virus was spreading approximately two to three weeks ago. Add to this that the impact of any changes in social behaviour take two to three weeks to show the effect also. How can it be that the scientists are sure that on June 1st (3 weeks after May 11th) it will be perfectly safe to ease restrictions further, when they will only then be getting the data to see if the changes from May 11th have not had a negative impact on the status of the virus in our country?
If scientific evidence were truly the basis of decisions and changes made to our situation as a result of Covid-19, then there would not have been suggested dates thrown into the mix from the off. A sensible government would surely have stipulated that following a change, a period of time must pass to allow for data to show the impact. Upon analysis of this data, a decision could then be made on when to implement the next stage. Which would be announced with an appropriate amount of advanced warning so that those affected can prepare for it. As it stands, if the changes scheduled for June 1st do go ahead as planned, confirmation will come 48 hours before that (not including the weekend) - May 28th is the date cited in government guidance that has been published this week. We could argue that the planning for June 1st is happening now following the announcement, yet I feel that there are still far too many uncertainties for this planning to carry any weight at this stage. I could be so wrong on this front, however from my perspective there isn't a clear way forward - despite the "road map" showing us the way.
Seeing others
The idea of seeing friends and family has become somewhat of a farce this week. Being told we can see our parents one at a time. But not in the garden because that is not a public space. Being told we can meet someone from another household in a public space as long as we are socially distanced. Being told we can't have visitors to our homes, regardless of whether we are showing symptoms, unless we have booked by appointment to have some strangers (who we trust far more than our family and friends, naturally) come to view our home because we are in the process of selling it. Being told I can go into someone's home if they are paying me to clean it.
On reflection, apart from the angles involving the housing market and people who have to enter somebody's home in order to do their job, I don't think there's much different going on here. If you're caught sat down on the grass two metres away from your friend you won't be asked to move on if spotted by the police. As for not being able to visit family, there is a lot more inter-household mingling going on than any of us might realise. I only have to look at my little cul-de-sac for evidence of this. While at first I got a little irate at the idea that my neighbours were clearly flouting the rules of the restrictions, I've come to realise that they may be exercising control over how much they expose themselves otherwise to minimise the risk to each other when they come together. For instance, before last Sunday's announcement I had pondered the rumours of what was to be announced. It crossed my mind that if my household declined the opportunity afforded to us by the reported new measures, could we instead go and visit our parents who are needing to shield themselves because of their age? I'm certain the answer would have been a resounding "no". If I were going out to work, this wouldn't cross my mind for fear that I might be asymptomatic and carrying it. But having been at home for the past eight weeks, having gone to work twice in that time, and stayed home for fourteen days afterwards (my husband has done all the supermarket runs) and still displayed no symptoms, I can't but help think I'm safer to see my parents in their home at this point.
Work
What a farce the idea of some businesses starting to function again was. On Sunday evening, the prime minister said "from tomorrow" businesses in particular industries would begin to function again, adhering to strict guidelines to ensure the safety of their employees. By Monday lunch time it was "from Wednesday". Yes, he messed that one up. I don't know enough people working in the construction industry to know how this news affected them. Nonetheless, given that construction in particular is an industry heavily regulated by health and safety protocol, I would hope most of them would have had the sense not to rush to be open for business from Wednesday, leaving it until Thursday or even Monday if that's what it took to mitigate the risks as far as possible.
The phrasing of this part of the announcement did make me chuckle. "If you can't work from home then from tomorrow you should return to work." Not more than four minutes later it was being announced that the aim is for the hospitality and leisure industries to start opening up from the start of July. Based on the first announcement, if I work on the popcorn counter of the cinema, I should have gone back to work the next day even though it's not open. It was clumsy instruction, plain and simple. Would this not have been clearer: "If you work in the construction industry, you should consider returning to work from tomorrow once your employer has informed you of the measures in place to mitigate the risk to your health." We know exactly who should be expecting a call from their boss that way.
Schools
This is the element of the announcement that has created the most fierce debate of the week. I will likely do another post in a couple of days to talk about expanding school provision as part of the response to Covid-19 as there's so much I find myself processing about education provision at the moment. There are strong arguments from both sides. Sadly, many in the teaching profession see their "call to arms" to be of economic benefit rather than educational. Let's remember that schools were not closed in the purest meaning of the term. The gates were not locked on Friday 20th March and remain so to the point that we are worried the locks have rusted and re-entry cannot be gained. Every school has provided a safe place for the children of key workers and vulnerable children during this period. Every school, despite accusations from particular public figures, found themselves introducing the element of remote learning with less than 48 hours notice. Schools have tried to maintain contact with students to provide reassurance that their support network is still there, even if it's not in quite the same way as before.
I'm having difficulty seeing the benefits of allowing a larger number of pupils to return to school and being educated face to face for a few weeks before the summer holiday. Teachers have been trained to teach in a way that does not promote social distancing well. There are schools that ran their operations like prisons (as I saw described on Twitter this morning) before Covid-19, and these schools may manage to operate more successfully in accordance with the flimsy guidance from the Department for Education. Unfortunately, the majority of schools are finding it very difficult to interpret the guidance in a way that won't lead to them being criticised. There seems to be a public perspective that opening schools more fully will be the answer to returning to normal. I can't help feeling it is nothing short of a euphemism for wanting their free childcare back. It is difficult not to be cynical about the government's motivations with regard to schools and the lack of clarity on the scientific evidence that underlies this decision. The Secretary of State for Education has not helped either, denying that June 1st would see a massive shift in provision on May 6th, but then on May 10th this assertion being completely overturned. There is a rumour, though, that the DfE wasn't aware of the plans for June 1st until the prime minister's pre-recorded message was aired last Sunday evening and as such, analysis of the scientific evidence by the scientific advisers in the department had not been carried out. If true, this could be a significant factor in the appalling guidance that was published (and then revised because it included text from documents published in 2014 and 2015 on issues not even closely related to school closures or pandemics).
Schools responded with monstrous strength and gumption given they were given less than 48 hours notice of the end of normal teaching. Lockdown has seen teaching transformed because, by and large, staff are not required to be in school every day as usual and are instead spending significant amounts of time sat at a computer sending work to pupils, designing engaging interactive lessons, providing voiceovers to presentations or holding live lessons. My reaction to some of these responses has been that it is taking the element of home learning too far but more on that later. If the widening of access to learning in a school setting is expanded as of June 1st, there is going to be a significant shift in the provision of remote learning for the year groups still at home. There won't be enough staff resources to maintain the levels of contact that there have been during the lockdown period.
That's enough on schools for now. Like I said, I'm still trying to process everything and having watched the latest press briefing led by the SoS for Education this evening, there is now even more to ponder with regard to how I continue to do my job as best I can.
All in all?
The opposition called for a clear plan to lift lockdown. They didn't ask for dates. They asked for a clear, step by step approach that would assure the safety of the population to the highest possible degree. This wasn't unreasonable; everything changed so quickly in the space of a week in March that the population needs to know how things are going to be reversed. The government could so easily have provided this. Instead, what we've been given is a rough draft, scribbled on the back of a beer mat.
Be kind. Stay safe.
First of all, let's address the horrendous soundbite that is the "road map" to come out of lockdown. I refuse to use it without quotation marks because, from the announcement last Sunday evening, it is anything but a guide showing us the way forward. There were so many "side roads" and "T junctions" and "traffic lights" that the term "road map" is highly inappropriate.
So, some observations and reflections that I have pondered over this past week.
Dates
The dates set out at specific "junctions" on the "map" were optimistic at best. How can a predetermined time gap between each step of the plan (albeit with the caveat that these changes would happen "from" not "on") be truly based on scientific evidence? We have been told that the crucial R rate of infection is actually a retrospect figure and relates to the rate at which the virus was spreading approximately two to three weeks ago. Add to this that the impact of any changes in social behaviour take two to three weeks to show the effect also. How can it be that the scientists are sure that on June 1st (3 weeks after May 11th) it will be perfectly safe to ease restrictions further, when they will only then be getting the data to see if the changes from May 11th have not had a negative impact on the status of the virus in our country?
If scientific evidence were truly the basis of decisions and changes made to our situation as a result of Covid-19, then there would not have been suggested dates thrown into the mix from the off. A sensible government would surely have stipulated that following a change, a period of time must pass to allow for data to show the impact. Upon analysis of this data, a decision could then be made on when to implement the next stage. Which would be announced with an appropriate amount of advanced warning so that those affected can prepare for it. As it stands, if the changes scheduled for June 1st do go ahead as planned, confirmation will come 48 hours before that (not including the weekend) - May 28th is the date cited in government guidance that has been published this week. We could argue that the planning for June 1st is happening now following the announcement, yet I feel that there are still far too many uncertainties for this planning to carry any weight at this stage. I could be so wrong on this front, however from my perspective there isn't a clear way forward - despite the "road map" showing us the way.
Seeing others
The idea of seeing friends and family has become somewhat of a farce this week. Being told we can see our parents one at a time. But not in the garden because that is not a public space. Being told we can meet someone from another household in a public space as long as we are socially distanced. Being told we can't have visitors to our homes, regardless of whether we are showing symptoms, unless we have booked by appointment to have some strangers (who we trust far more than our family and friends, naturally) come to view our home because we are in the process of selling it. Being told I can go into someone's home if they are paying me to clean it.
On reflection, apart from the angles involving the housing market and people who have to enter somebody's home in order to do their job, I don't think there's much different going on here. If you're caught sat down on the grass two metres away from your friend you won't be asked to move on if spotted by the police. As for not being able to visit family, there is a lot more inter-household mingling going on than any of us might realise. I only have to look at my little cul-de-sac for evidence of this. While at first I got a little irate at the idea that my neighbours were clearly flouting the rules of the restrictions, I've come to realise that they may be exercising control over how much they expose themselves otherwise to minimise the risk to each other when they come together. For instance, before last Sunday's announcement I had pondered the rumours of what was to be announced. It crossed my mind that if my household declined the opportunity afforded to us by the reported new measures, could we instead go and visit our parents who are needing to shield themselves because of their age? I'm certain the answer would have been a resounding "no". If I were going out to work, this wouldn't cross my mind for fear that I might be asymptomatic and carrying it. But having been at home for the past eight weeks, having gone to work twice in that time, and stayed home for fourteen days afterwards (my husband has done all the supermarket runs) and still displayed no symptoms, I can't but help think I'm safer to see my parents in their home at this point.
Work
What a farce the idea of some businesses starting to function again was. On Sunday evening, the prime minister said "from tomorrow" businesses in particular industries would begin to function again, adhering to strict guidelines to ensure the safety of their employees. By Monday lunch time it was "from Wednesday". Yes, he messed that one up. I don't know enough people working in the construction industry to know how this news affected them. Nonetheless, given that construction in particular is an industry heavily regulated by health and safety protocol, I would hope most of them would have had the sense not to rush to be open for business from Wednesday, leaving it until Thursday or even Monday if that's what it took to mitigate the risks as far as possible.
The phrasing of this part of the announcement did make me chuckle. "If you can't work from home then from tomorrow you should return to work." Not more than four minutes later it was being announced that the aim is for the hospitality and leisure industries to start opening up from the start of July. Based on the first announcement, if I work on the popcorn counter of the cinema, I should have gone back to work the next day even though it's not open. It was clumsy instruction, plain and simple. Would this not have been clearer: "If you work in the construction industry, you should consider returning to work from tomorrow once your employer has informed you of the measures in place to mitigate the risk to your health." We know exactly who should be expecting a call from their boss that way.
Schools
This is the element of the announcement that has created the most fierce debate of the week. I will likely do another post in a couple of days to talk about expanding school provision as part of the response to Covid-19 as there's so much I find myself processing about education provision at the moment. There are strong arguments from both sides. Sadly, many in the teaching profession see their "call to arms" to be of economic benefit rather than educational. Let's remember that schools were not closed in the purest meaning of the term. The gates were not locked on Friday 20th March and remain so to the point that we are worried the locks have rusted and re-entry cannot be gained. Every school has provided a safe place for the children of key workers and vulnerable children during this period. Every school, despite accusations from particular public figures, found themselves introducing the element of remote learning with less than 48 hours notice. Schools have tried to maintain contact with students to provide reassurance that their support network is still there, even if it's not in quite the same way as before.
I'm having difficulty seeing the benefits of allowing a larger number of pupils to return to school and being educated face to face for a few weeks before the summer holiday. Teachers have been trained to teach in a way that does not promote social distancing well. There are schools that ran their operations like prisons (as I saw described on Twitter this morning) before Covid-19, and these schools may manage to operate more successfully in accordance with the flimsy guidance from the Department for Education. Unfortunately, the majority of schools are finding it very difficult to interpret the guidance in a way that won't lead to them being criticised. There seems to be a public perspective that opening schools more fully will be the answer to returning to normal. I can't help feeling it is nothing short of a euphemism for wanting their free childcare back. It is difficult not to be cynical about the government's motivations with regard to schools and the lack of clarity on the scientific evidence that underlies this decision. The Secretary of State for Education has not helped either, denying that June 1st would see a massive shift in provision on May 6th, but then on May 10th this assertion being completely overturned. There is a rumour, though, that the DfE wasn't aware of the plans for June 1st until the prime minister's pre-recorded message was aired last Sunday evening and as such, analysis of the scientific evidence by the scientific advisers in the department had not been carried out. If true, this could be a significant factor in the appalling guidance that was published (and then revised because it included text from documents published in 2014 and 2015 on issues not even closely related to school closures or pandemics).
Schools responded with monstrous strength and gumption given they were given less than 48 hours notice of the end of normal teaching. Lockdown has seen teaching transformed because, by and large, staff are not required to be in school every day as usual and are instead spending significant amounts of time sat at a computer sending work to pupils, designing engaging interactive lessons, providing voiceovers to presentations or holding live lessons. My reaction to some of these responses has been that it is taking the element of home learning too far but more on that later. If the widening of access to learning in a school setting is expanded as of June 1st, there is going to be a significant shift in the provision of remote learning for the year groups still at home. There won't be enough staff resources to maintain the levels of contact that there have been during the lockdown period.
That's enough on schools for now. Like I said, I'm still trying to process everything and having watched the latest press briefing led by the SoS for Education this evening, there is now even more to ponder with regard to how I continue to do my job as best I can.
All in all?
The opposition called for a clear plan to lift lockdown. They didn't ask for dates. They asked for a clear, step by step approach that would assure the safety of the population to the highest possible degree. This wasn't unreasonable; everything changed so quickly in the space of a week in March that the population needs to know how things are going to be reversed. The government could so easily have provided this. Instead, what we've been given is a rough draft, scribbled on the back of a beer mat.
Be kind. Stay safe.
Comments
Post a Comment