select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
The UK’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, gave a speech today outlining the next steps in the easing of restrictions and the changing of guidance related to COVID-19.
Dr Tony Williams, Consultant Occupational Physician at Working Fit Ltd., said:
“There are many benefits from working from home. The overall risk of spreading the virus will be less if fewer people are moving around outside, and the individual will be at less risk of catching the virus. There will be less pollution and use of natural resources from commuting. On the other hand there are substantial psychological benefits from getting out of the house and meeting friends and colleagues. Where people are coping well with the isolation, on balance they will be better carrying on working from home if they can, while if they are becoming increasingly anxious and depressed from the isolation they may be better off coming into the workplace.
“Some jobs will inevitably place workers at greater risk; these are generally where people cannot socially distance. Examples are taxi and bus drivers, those working in security, healthcare, sports professionals, singers and actors. Some workplaces make viral transmission easier, for example meat processing plants which are cold and damp. Some people are more vulnerable than others. The current clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) and clinically vulnerable (CV) guidelines are not 100% accurate, and there are some people who are on the CV list who are actually extremely vulnerable, while there are others, particularly the young, who are on the CEV list but are less vulnerable. Where people are returning to roles where they may be at greater risk they need to decide whether their vulnerability means they should have increased protection at work, or adjusted duties at work.
“Covid-age is a great tool to help individuals understand their own vulnerability. It is increasingly used by GPs, specialists and occupational health professionals to assess vulnerability and explain vulnerability in simple terms, see https://alama.org.uk/covid-19-medical-risk-assessment/.”
Prof Philip Thomas, Professor of Risk Management, University of Bristol said:
“I welcome the Government’s announcement that it is dropping its advice to work from home as from next month. It is essential to get the economy moving much more rapidly if we are to avoid the major loss of life that an economic depression will bring.
“Scientific risk analysis using the Judgement – or J-value has shown that the harm to human health from prolonged recession could be much worse than that due to the coronavirus.
“I am particularly pleased to see the extra £3bn funding pledged for the NHS and the commitment to keep the Nightingale hospitals going through the winter period. The Government needs to send out a clear message that the country will be able to cope with a second wave of Covid-19 of similar size to the first if this proves necessary.”
Dr Will Ponsonby, Immediate Past President, Society of Occupational Medicine, said:
“Now that prevalence of Coronavirus in the community is falling, it is time to consider how to safely return to the workplace. The return to work requires a careful risk assessment, both of the workplace and for the individual. Employers have a legal duty to ensure the workplace is safe; they should seek to minimise the risk of infection by implementing the hierarchy of controls. Those who are ill or have symptoms should self-isolate at home; social distancing should be observed; barriers should be put in place, the ventilation should be optimised, and PPE and the use of masks should be considered. It is also important to consider the risk of the commute for employees. The Society of Occupational Medicine (SOM) has a return to work toolkit which gives advice about how to control work place risks of Coronavirus, see https://www.som.org.uk/Returning_to_the_workplace_COVID-19_toolkit_FINAL.pdf
“For the individual risk assessment, the vulnerability of employees should be considered. Factors such as age, race, gender, and existing medical conditions should be taken into account. Those at high risk might have to continue to work at home, those with moderate risk may need to take up non customer facing roles. The personal risk assessment is best done by an Occupational Health Professional, using a tool such as Covid age, see https://alama.org.uk/covid-19-medical-risk-assessment/.”
Prof Robert Dingwall, Professor of Sociology, Nottingham Trent University, said:
“The problem here is that the government cannot really decide between the public health desire to control and regulate social and economic life in the interests of minimizing Covid-19 morbidity and mortality, and the desire of other stakeholders to liberate social and economic life and rebuild education, health and social care, and employment in the interests of minimizing other damage to individuals and society. This includes the people whose access to the NHS has been compromised by the focus on Covid-19 and the people whose health and well-being will suffer from the coming recession. Lockdown also has a high price in morbidity and mortality. We need, in particular, to think about its impact on the mental and physical health of children and young people, who are not the primary victims of Covid-19 but have been largely considered as collateral damage.
“There is, inevitably, an element of risk, but politicians are entitled to decide how much risk is tolerable. The emphasis on local decision-making rather than central planning and direction is welcome. There have been too many ‘one-size fits all’ rules since March. Governments can never have sufficient information to micro-manage social and economic life. It is to be hoped that this new framework will give businesses, services, consumers, users and employees more scope to develop practices that are tailored to local levels of risk and using local knowledge to negotiate a mutually acceptable level of biosecurity. In parts of the UK, it is now questionable whether there is any genuine community transmission or merely false positives from PCR tests. Over the summer, we should see those areas expand. This is likely to be a gradual process, which gives plenty of opportunities to identify emerging ‘hot-spots’ and deal with them through appropriately specific interventions. The survey evidence suggests that population behaviour changes more gradually than the discontinuous steps that have been involved in the release process – which introduces a significant mitigation of the risks involved.
“The challenge is for the UK government to sustain the transfer of risk and risk management to those best placed to undertake it in the face of inevitable demands for more central controls, more regulation and more directive messaging.”
Dr Simon Clarke, Associate Professor of Cellular Microbiology at the University of Reading, said:
“The announcement of a plan to return the country to something approaching normality by Christmas, means that individual employers will be tasked with deciding whether workplaces are sufficiently prepared and safe to welcome back a full complement of employees. The academic understanding of this coronavirus and disease is still developing and we have only known about this coronavirus for seven months so it continues to be important that new evidence emerges that has an impact on the safety of some form of normal life is shared for businesses and organisations. The UK Government needs to continue to provide clear guidance for companies about what this emerging evidence says and help them to consider it in a local context.
“Employers already have significant latitude to weigh up the current evidence against their local context and many businesses have reopened. However, some may be reluctant to see a full return to the office as there is a risk that they open themselves up to legal action as the Government puts responsibility back into business hands, something which their insurers will likely take a view on.
“With the six week school holiday nearly upon us followed by the usual waning of the year towards winter, there is also a concern that changes to social distancing and other measures to reduce transmission of the coronavirus will be relaxed at the time when they are needed most to control what could be a dangerous cocktail of seasonal colds and flu with Covid-19, which could see significant increases in transmission and case numbers could increase.”
Prof Jackie Cassell, Professor of Epidemiology and Deputy Dean of Brighton and Sussex Medical School, said:
On: “we are going to give employers more discretion, and ask them to make decisions about how their staff can work safely. That could mean of course continuing to work from home, which is one way of working safely and which has worked for many employers and employees. Or it could mean making workplaces safe by following Covid Secure guidelines. Whatever employers decide, they should consult closely with their employees, and only ask people to return to their place of work if it is safe.”
“Many workplaces can be made safe, and a lot of people working from home are looking forward to getting back to a workplace which is properly equipped for what they need to do. This is possible in many workplaces, though with reduced numbers of people on site. It will however be essential to have clear guidance so that people can check for themselves whether recommended safety measures such as distancing, one way systems and density are in place. Workers will need to have ways to report noncompliance and both workers and employers will need to be provided with support where a working environment is not compliant.
On: “From tomorrow, local authorities will have new powers in their areas. They will be able to close specific premises, shut public outdoor spaces, and cancel events.”
“I am very concerned indeed about the new powers to close outdoor public spaces. This should be limited to situations where there is a genuine risk that emergency services will be overwhelmed, as in Bournemouth a few weeks ago.
“The risk of outdoor transmission remains extremely low – despite the hot weather attracting people to the beaches, we have not seen increased transmission.
“Early in the pandemic when levels of coronavirus were much higher the government rightly ordered councils to keep parks open. If anything, the arguments for that are even stronger after 12 weeks of lockdown with rising levels of mental health problems. Many people completely rely on public spaces for exercise, solitude, calming children down or just a break from domestic life. The more densely populated your home and the area you live in, the more important this is. It is particularly important for (mostly) women stranded at home with children.
“Public concerns about transmission of crowds can easily tempt local and national government to close low risk spaces that are sorely needed. This should never be done. The outbreaks we are seeing relate to indoor workplaces, and not to public parks or beaches.”
Prof Graham Loomes, Professor of Behavioural Science at Warwick Business School, whose research specialises in decision making in the face of risk and uncertainty, said:
“Every time we relax the lockdown restrictions, we need to think about whether that increases the risk and, if so, what benefit we are getting in return, in terms of improving our economic and social welfare.
“Many of the relaxations suggested so far seem to be justifiable. They allow a number of people to return to their jobs or education, to restore their income, and allow them a bit more freedom of movement. I think they would probably pass a cost-benefit analysis as those benefits are worth the extra risks that are liable to accompany these measures.
“My concern is that although politicians say their decisions are “guided by the evidence”, we are not being given the evidence and it is hard to tell what the justifications are for what is being done.
“There will be more infections and illnesses and deaths, especially in some areas and in some age groups, but it is impossible to find out how much extra risk will be tolerated before, say, a local lockdown is triggered. What were the pros and cons considered in the case of the Leicester lockdown? What were the criteria for then unlocking some areas of Leicester but not others?
“The Government and their advisors should be upfront and tell the public the facts behind those decisions.
“If people are encouraged to believe that the risks are lower than they really are, in order to get them spending and going back to work, they may behave less carefully. Then they will get blamed, because it will somehow be their fault for not being careful enough, even though they weren’t fully informed of the risks.”
Dr Shaun Fitzgerald, Royal Academy of Engineering Visiting Professor, University of Cambridge, said:
“I completely agree with Sir Patrick. If working from home is feasible and not detrimental to the work, it would seem sensible to continue doing so.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-statement-on-coronavirus-17-july-2020
All our previous output on this subject can be seen at this weblink:
www.sciencemediacentre.org/tag/covid-19
Declared interests
Dr Tony Williams: Dr Williams is one of the Principle Authors and Project Manager of Covid-age.
None others received.