COVID-19 boosters for those eligible at Brent Civic Centre Mondays & Tuesday. Book an appointment,

 

UPDATE:Lorber challenges attendance restriction. Brent Council recommends approval of application to build in Barham Park and restricts attendance at the Planning Committee considering it

 

The proposed four 3 storey houses in Barham Park

Residents who have made comments on funfair supremo and developer, George Irvin's, controversial application to build four 3 storey houses in  Barham Park, have been surprised to receive letters apparently restricting attendance at the Planning Committee that will decide the application on June 12th.

The letter (below) cites Covid restrictions but these were not in evidence at the Council's Annual General Meeting and currently not in evidence in the public areas of the Civic Centre.

The UK Government website says, 'There are no coronavirus (Covid-19) restrictions in the UK.' 

Despite widespread opposition to this proposal the Chief Planner is recommending approval.

 

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (as amended) THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

Re: 776 & 778, Harrow Road, Wembley, HA0 2HE 

 

I refer to the planning application for the above site which proposes:- 

 

Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and construction of 4x new three storey dwellinghouses, associated cycle and refuse storage, amenity space and boundary treatment 

 

The application will be formally considered at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 12 June, 2023 starting at 6pm. 

 

As a result of the current regulations allowing the Council to hold meetings of the Planning Committee remotely coming to an end, the Council is now required to hold this as a socially distanced physical (face to face) meeting. 

 

This meeting of the Committee has therefore been arranged to take place in the Conference Hall, at the Civic Centre. 

 

As we are still operating under existing Covid restrictions, capacity within the meeting venue has been strictly limited to ensure compliance with the necessary social distancing guidelines. 

 

We are therefore encouraging those who wish to observe proceedings to continue doing so via the live webstream which we will continue to make available on the Council’s website: 

 

https://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/democracy-in-brent/local-democracy/live-streaming/ 

 

It is possible to speak at the Committee Meeting, which (in advance of the current restrictions coming to an end) can continue to be undertaken online (including via the telephone) or now, as an alternative, in person at the meeting, subject to the restrictions set out in the Council's Standing Order. These provide for one objector and/or one supporter of the application to speak. The Chair has the discretion to increase this to two people from each side. In doing this, the Chair will give priority to occupiers nearest to the application site or representing a group of people. 

 

To address the committee you must notify Executive and Member Services by 5 pm on the working day before the committee meeting. Please email committee@brent.gov.uk or telephone the Executive and Member Services Officer, Mrs Dev Bhanji, on 07786 681276 during office hours. If you would prefer to attend the physical meeting to speak in person then please could you indicate this when notifying us of your request, as attendance will need to be strictly managed on the night. This may involve you having to wait in a separate area outside of the meeting room until you are called to speak.

 

The Chief Planner's recommendation for this application is to Grant Consent

 

 UPDATE:

 

Following expressions of concern from local residents about the restriction on attendance at the consideration of a very controversial planning application, Sudbury Lib Dem councillor Paul Lorber has written to Brent Council:

This is a very odd letter to be sent to Councillors and residents about a Planning Meeting.

There are no COVID restrictions in place and none were applied at the recent Council AGM.

This has confused resident concerned about this controversial Planning Application and given an impression that residents are being dissuaded from attending and show the strength of local opposition.

Can you please clarify the position and if the letter and references to COVID restrictions were sent in error a new notification sent out and if appropriate the item postponed to a later date.

Regards,

 

Paul Lorber

 

 

Access to green space among 4 key issues affecting Londoners' recovery from long-term impacts of Covid-19

 

This detailed map by research participant James shows a time-line and changes from pre-pandemic ‘life B.C. 2020,’ through ‘Stay at Home’ in lockdown to the ‘Stay Alert’ phase. These changes include the changing levels of air pollution and air quality through the three phases of the pandemic, noting the cleansing effect of lockdown and high levels of pollution in the ‘Stay Alert’ phase that exceed pre-pandemic levels. Images of a skull and cross bones in the far right and bottom left of the map point to the perceptions of danger.

 

Major policy changes are needed for London to recover from the long-term impacts of Covid-19, according to new research on how the pandemic affected communities across the capital.

 

As the UK Covid public inquiry starts to explore national planning and political decision-making, a Queen Mary University of London report published today calls for urgent action to tackle issues and inequalities in the capital made worse by the pandemic.

 

This follows a recent study in the Lancet finding “massive global failures” in government responses to Covid-19, with researchers urging investment and planning to reduce future threats, such as the looming “twindemic” of Covid and flu reported in the British Medical Journal.

 

The new ‘Stay Home Stories’ research draws on 67 in-depth interviews with Londoners spanning a wide range of ages, ethnicities, faiths and migration backgrounds*, using their personal experiences to understand the pandemic’s long-term impacts and recommend policies that will help the city recover.

 

The study also details the devastating impact of Covid-19 on the capital, with over three million recorded cases (more than 15% of England’s total cases) and almost 24,000 deaths from the virus (the highest regional mortality rate after adjusting for age differences) since March 2020 – and an even heavier toll on some communities and neighbourhoods, with higher mortality rates among Black and minority ethnic Londoners as well as those living in areas with higher social deprivation scores**.

 

Principal investigator Professor Alison Blunt from Queen Mary University of London’s Centre for Studies of Home commented: “Our study highlights many lessons from life in lockdown for local and national leaders and policy-makers. Covid-19 hit London particularly hard, and its impact deepened existing issues and inequalities across the city, so long-term change is needed if we are to truly recover from the pandemic.”

 

Professor Blunt and the wider research team are calling for national and local policy interventions on four key issues, which their study found to have significant impact on Londoners’ wellbeing:

 

1.    Housing inequality and precarity in the capital is infamous - and these problems deepened in lockdown when many people had to live in unsafe conditions, some struggling in overcrowded households while others faced the isolation of living alone.

2.    Green space is vital for mental health and social connection, but inequalities in the city leave many people without easy or safe access to gardens or parks.

3.    Tensions around race and immigration can feed mistrust of the police, NHS and other authorities in some communities - making them less likely to engage with important public health messages and support services.

4.    Community and faith organisations were lifelines in lockdown, and are key to pandemic recovery, but many providing this support are under unbearable strain.

 

The research outlines the policies needed at local authority, Greater London and national scales to start addressing these issues and building a stronger city in the wake of the pandemic.

 

Recommendations include:

• Making adequate space for home-working and access to green spaces (personal and/or communal) a priority in future housing policies and developments
• Providing extra support to meet the specific needs of single-person households, LGBTQ+ families, dual-household families and vulnerable households
• Including access to green spaces in policies on physical and mental health, neighbourhood cohesion and children’s welfare
• Making parks and other green spaces safe, welcoming and accessible for all
• Co-ordinating state care and support systems with those provided in the community, communicating and consulting with organisations on-the-ground
• Funding those on-the-ground to improve digital tools, translation services and accessibility
• Supporting the leaders of community and faith groups, particularly those who work alone
• Establishing a working group including all faith groups and people without religious beliefs to support the UK Commission on Bereavement, and funding work as needed to address the impact of being unable to grieve those lost in lockdown with traditional mourning rituals.

 

Professor Blunt explained: “The newly launched UK Covid public inquiry is due to look first at planning, preparedness and political decision-making – areas where our research, and wider evidence from the pandemic so far, suggests the government really fell short. Learning from those mistakes is vital, and now is the time to put protective policies in place that will support long-term pandemic recovery.”

 

To read the newly published report, and find out more about the wider research project, go to www.stayhomestories.co.uk.

 

* ‘At Home in London during Covid-19’ Page 4

 

 ** ‘At Home in London during Covid-19’ Page 9 (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3)

Labour leaflet's ambiguous claims over sources of funding to help residents

 

Under the headline 'Your Labour Council is reducing the cost of living in Queensbury' the Labour Party is distributing the above claims in its election leaflet distributed in the ward.

Some are at best ambigous and suggest help is from the council rather than via the council.  Take for example the £150 refund on Council Tax. The Council's own website is very clear this this comes from the government:

A Council response to a Freedom of Information request by Paul Lorber lists all the Covid-19 grants that have been available and is a valuable source for cross-checking claims over the forthcoming period.

You will note that the Brent Council appears to have been unsuccessful in spending some of the grants available for business, while the Schools Department has, rightly, spent to the full.  Overall the 'repayment' column, totally £70m is concerning - is this unspent money that the council had to pay back to the government?

Independent SAGE: The unequal impact of Covid-19 on women. Is 'herd immunity' the policy for school children?

 

 

The June 25th edition of the Independent SAGE  breifing was particulalrly valuable and interesting so I am sharing with Wembley Matters readers.  In addition it covers other forms of inequality and refreshingly also looks at the political background, including the impact of increasing centralisation of the NHS and its lack of internal democracy. One telling points waas that if 1% of DDP was invested in the social care sector it would produce more jobs than if the same amount was invested in construction.

Well into the session there is a discussion about the rising number of Covid-19 Delta variant in schools and in answer to a question about whether this was a policy of developing 'herd immunity' through children a scientist replies that they don't know if it is intentional, but  if that is what she wanted to do, that is how she would do it.

Another contributor mentions that there are 250,000 children missing school at present because of Covid and of those 8% are absent due to school closures. 

Disbelief in expressed that more is not being done to ensure proper ventilation in schools and a contributor mentions that in New York, a website gives parents the ventilation status of every classroom in every school which is vital given that this is an aerosol spread virus.

There is concern that the government has said secondary children do not have to wear face coverings in schools any more ,whilst advice is still that adults should wear them inside and outside.

On Tuesday because of the 5pm Euro2020 match kick-off thousands of fans will be arriving at Wembley Park by public transport just when pupils from Michaela, Ark,  Preston Manor and  Lycee Winston Churchill will be crowding on to the tube and buses to go home.

'This is not OK', as Independent SAGE might say.

EURO 2020: England v Czech Republic information for tonight's game

 From Brent Council

The England v Czech Republic game at Wembley Stadium at 8pm on Tuesday, 22 June will come under the government's Events Research Programme. 

Brent Council is once again working closely with its partners to ensure this Friday's game runs as smoothly and safely as possible. Ticketholders should check the UEFA website for the latest information.

COVID-19 Testing:

We're asking residents to please avoid visiting the COVID-19 testing site at Brent Civic Centre on match day, with the area likely to be busy. Alternative testing sites can be found on our interactive map.

Ticketholders must show either a Negative Lateral Flow Test or proof of full vaccination to be allowed entry to Wembley Stadium.

Parking and traffic:

Event Day parking restrictions will be in force on match days, and residents should make sure their permit is up-to-date/displayed. An email will be sent out to permit holders in the Controlled Parking Zone reminding them of this. Please do not travel to Wembley if you don't have a ticket for Friday's game. Extensive road closures will be in place around the stadium on the day of the match.

Ticketholders are being encouraged to travel by public transport or coach and Wembley Stadium will not provide parking for private vehicles during the event, except accessible parking. Nearby street parking is reserved for local residents and businesses. See here for Brent's parking restrictions on stadium event days.

Wembley Stadium Test Event on Sunday April 25th

 From Brent Council

 

On Sunday 25 April, the Carabao Cup Final will be held at Wembley Stadium (kick-off 16.30pm). This is the second of three pilot events at the Stadium, which are part of the Government’s Events Research Programme.

 

We have been working closely with the Football Association, as well as the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) in preparation for bringing spectators safely back to the Stadium.

 

There will be 8,800 fans in attendance – the majority being local key workers and residents. Everybody in attendance will be asked to show evidence of a negative Covid-19 test taken 24 hours prior to the event.

 

We will be carefully reviewing the data that the government collects as part of their Research Programme and this will inform planning for the Euro football tournament in June and July.

 

We are expecting the testing centre at Brent Civic Centre to be busy on Saturday 24 and Sunday 25 April with ticket-holders, and ask that anyone who is not attending the event to use alternative testing sites nearby. For alternative sites and to book, go to:brent.gov.uk/covidtesting  

 

We would also ask those not attending the event on Sunday to be mindful of the fact the area around Wembley Stadium will be busy.

 

Event Day Parking rules will not apply, but residents in the event zone should ensure their permits are up-to-date in time for the next Event Day on 15 May.

 

For information on other testing sites, please visit: brent.gov.uk/covidtesting

Independent SAGE: Safe re-opening of schools not an option for at least a month Another 100,000 Covid deaths possible by end of June 2021

 

 This morning's Independent SAGE Briefing

 

This is part of the statement issued this morning by Independent SAGE.  The full statement is available on their website HERE

INDEPENDENT SAGE

With a highly effective vaccine being rolled out, with more vaccines to be approved shortly, it is unconscionable that Covid-19 be allowed to run rampant through our communities just when protection is on the horizon. We urgently need a new plan to control Covid-19 into 2021 and aggressively drive down cases across England. 

 

Delayed and tentative decision making will result in the deaths of tens of thousands more people. 

 

Modellers from the SAGE modelling subgroup estimate that even under national Tier 4, another 100,000 people could die before the end of June 2021. In that scenario, hundreds  of thousands others would go on to suffer long term effects from Covid-19 and the NHS would be brought to its knees. The government needs to act now to prevent this catastrophe.  

 

We strongly urge that  the following strategy be adopted immediately.

1.  A nationwide lockdown with immediate effect is vitally necessary now. 
2. Schools contribute to the increasing transmission (R rate). We all want staff and children in schools safely, but sadly that is not an option now for at least a month. The unprecedented crisis requires Government immediately provide digital access for all children, recruiting retired teachers and others to help provide excellent online teaching, enabling children who can’t work from home to attend school along with vulnerable and key worker children. The Government should use January to make schools safe, e.g. extra space from unused buildings to enable 2 metre distancing, free masks and encourage all to wear them, multiple sanitiser stations and support for improved ventilation. There should be an immediate Government taskforce, including teaching unions, local authorities, governing bodies and parents, to implement this plan. 
3. There must be a clear strategy to mark the end-point of the new lockdown.  This is when the number of new cases has dropped to the point where all those with the disease and in contact with them are isolated, with support where necessary,  from the rest of the population.  A fully operative Find, Test, Trace, Isolate and Support system must be in place through local public health services and the army, which will need appropriate funding.
4. Meanwhile, an explicit strategy for vaccine rollout is required. Current rates of immunisation, whilst a good start, are insufficient to ensure coverage of priority groups by Easter 2021. The necessary primary-care-led upscale requires new resources and staffing now. Appropriate support and messaging to all communities is required to ensure sufficient uptake to establish population immunity, and minimise death, disease and long-term physical and mental ill-health. 
5. We must also support and contribute to the rapid roll out of the vaccine to low and middle income countries – the more Covid-19 is allowed to spread, the more opportunities it has to develop new mutations. 
6. We must institute an effective Covid control strategy at our borders. As in other countries, personal travel, especially international travel, must be monitored and regulated effectively, with advance application for travel to and from the UK, a negative PCR test prior to travel and managed isolation on arrival. 
   

 

The lesson should by now have been learnt by the decision makers.  Prompt action will be better for the health of the country and our economy.  Delay can only lead to further rapid growth of this pernicious disease, paralysing our ability to manage it.  

 

 

Schools in time of Coronavirus - Thursday October 15th

 

 

A topical event organised by Kensal to Kilburn Better 2020

Coronavirus has disrupted and interrupted our schools, creating huge challenges for pupils, teachers and parents. 

What is currently happening on the front line, and how well are people coping? 

What might the short and long term impacts be? 

How can we engage with and respond to issues such as the problem of unequal access under remote learning conditions, frequent changes of policy, and the disruption to one of the key pillars of local community life? 

 Is the reshaping of our schools by Covid-19 going to lead to any permanent changes, and if so, what might they look like? 

Might any positives come from this?

Panel: 

Judith Enright, Headteacher, Queens Park Community School

Stephen Haggard, expert in digital technology in education

Mark Nathan, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist

Lola Jempeji, Sixth Former & Student Leader

BOOK HERE

Muhammed Butt missing from council leaders' letter calling for an extension of Covid-19 evictions ban

Muhammed Butt has not signed the letter below despite the leaders of neighbouring Camden, Harrow and Ealing councils signing. Our other neighbour, Barnet, is of course Conservative led.  This letter comes after the Brent Poverty Commission's report emphasising housing as a major issue behind poverty in the borough.

I wonder why he hasn't signed....


Below is the full text of the letter sent to Robert Jenrick yesterday afternoon. (LINK)

Dear Robert Jenrick,

We are writing as the elected representatives of millions of people across England to press the urgent need for an extension to the ban on evictions, which is due to end on Sunday 23rd August. We welcomed the government’s decision to introduce the ban and to extend it. However, you have not used this time to prepare for what comes next.

In March, you promised “no renter who has lost income due to coronavirus will be forced out of their home, nor will any landlord face unmanageable debts.” However, you have so far not introduced the legislative changes and support for tenants that would make this a reality.

Before Covid, two thirds of private renting households, and eight in ten social rented households had no savings. In short, people renting their homes have little resilience to the shock of the Covid-19 crisis.

On top of this, renters are likely to be hardest hit. Compared to homeowners, renters are more likely to have seen their work status change significantly and income fall, according to research from Citizens Advice. Unfortunately, the government has done little to prevent people from falling into debt arrears during this crisis.

Shelter now estimates that nearly a quarter of a million people are at risk of eviction because of Covid economic impact. Already, while the ban is in place, an estimated 20,000 people have been made homeless during the pandemic. Once the ban is lifted, under current law, anyone with two month’s arrears can be automatically evicted through the courts.

As with the A Level, BTEC and GCSE results fiasco, the government has had several months’ notice of a growing crisis affecting thousands of people. We have long been warning that current policies will lead to a wave of evictions and homelessness this winter, potentially coinciding with a rise in COVID-19 infections. But this crisis is avoidable if you act quickly and decisively.

Together, as the elected representatives of millions of people across England, we are calling on you to urgently extend the ban on evictions, and make good on your promise, that no-one lose their home as a result of Covid.

We look forward to your response. We will work with the government constructively to support everyone affected by this situation.

Yours sincerely,

Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London
Steve Rotheram, Mayor of Liverpool City Region
Jamie Driscoll, Mayor of North of Tyne
Councillor Darren Rodwell, Leader of the Council, Barking & Dagenham
Councillor Ann Thomson, Leader of the Council, Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council
Councillor Gavin Callaghan, Leader of the Council, Basildon Borough Council
Councillor Ian Ward, Leader of the Council, Birmingham City Council
Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, Leader of the Council, Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Mayor Marvin Rees, Executive Mayor, Bristol City Council
Councillor Timothy Swift, Leader of the Council, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Georgia Gould, Leader of the Council, Camden Council
Councillor Sam Corcoran, Leader of the Council, Cheshire East Council
Councillor Louise Gittins, Leader of the Council, Cheshire West and Chester Council
Councillor Tricia Gilby, Leader of the Council, Chesterfield Borough Council
Councillor Alistair Bradley, Leader of the Council, Chorley District Council
Councillor Tom Beattie, Leader of the Council, Corby Borough Council
Councillor George Duggins, Leader of the Council, Coventry City Council
Councillor Tony Newman, Leader of the Council, Croydon Council
Councillor Simon Henig, Leader of the Council, Durham County Council
Councillor Julian Bell, Leader of the Council, Ealing Council
Councillor Martin Gannon, Leader of the Council, Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council, Greenwich Council
Mayor Philip Glanville, Executive Mayor, Hackney Council
Councillor Mark Ingall, Leader of the Council, Harlow Council
Councillor Graham Henson, Leader of the Council, Harrow Council
Councillor Anthony McKeown, Leader of the Council, High Peak
Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of the Council, Hounslow Council
Councillor David Ellesmere, Leader of the Council, Ipswich Borough Council
Councillor Richard Watts, Leader of the Council, Islington Council
Councillor Shabir Pandor, Leader of the Council, Kirklees Council
Councillor Jack Hopkins, Leader of the Council, Lambeth Council
Councillor Erica Lewis, Leader of the Council, Lancaster City Council
Councillor Judith Blake, Leader of the Council, Leeds City Council
Mayor Damien Egan, Executive Mayor, Lewisham Council
Councillor Richard Metcalfe, Leader of the Council, Lincoln Council
Mayor Joe Anderson, Executive Mayor, Liverpool City Council
Councillor Hazel Simmons, Leader of the Council, Luton Borough Council
Sir Richard Leese, Leader of the Council, Manchester City Council
Councillor Peter Marland, Leader of the Council, Milton Keynes Council
Councillor Nick Forbes, Leader of the Council, Newcastle Upon Tyne Council
Mayor Rokhsana Fiaz, Executive Mayor, Newham Council
Councillor Sean Fielding, Leader of the Council, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Susan Brown, Leader of the Council, Oxford City Council
Councillor Mohammed Iqbal, Leader of the Council, Pendle Borough Council
Councillor Tudor Evans, Leader of the Council, Plymouth City Council
Councillor Matthew Brown, Leader of the Council, Preston City Council
Councillor Jason Brock, Leader of the Council, Reading Borough Council
Councillor Allen Brett, Leader of the Council, Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Steve Siddons, Leader of the Council, Scarborough Borough Council
Councillor Ian Maher, Leader of the Council, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Julie Dore, Leader of the Council, Sheffield City Council
Councillor James Swindlehurst, Leader of the Council, Slough Borough Council
Councillor Paul Foster, Leader of the Council, South Ribble Borough Council
Councillor Iain Malcolm, Leader of the Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Chris Hammond, Leader of the Council, Southampton City Council
Councillor Ian Gilbert, Leader of the Council, Southend-on-Sea Borough Council
Councillor Peter John, Leader of the Council, Southwark Council
Councillor David Baines, Leader of the Council, St Helens Council
Councillor Sharon Taylor, Leader of the Council, Stevenage District Council
Councillor Bob Cook, Leader of the Council, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Councillor Graeme Miller, Leader of the Council, Sunderland City Council
Councillor Roger Truelove, Leader of the Council, Swale Borough Council
Councillor Brenda Warrington, Leader of the Council, Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Shaun Davies, Leader of the Council, Telford & Wrekin Council
Councillor Rick Everitt, Leader of the Council, Thanet District Council
Mayor John Biggs, Executive Mayor, Tower Hamlets Borough Council
Councillor Denise Jeffrey, Leader of the Council, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council
Councillor Clare Coghill, Leader of the Council, Waltham Forest
Councillor David Molyneux, Leader of the Council, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Simon Greaves, Leader of the Council, Bassetlaw District Council
Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, Leader of the Council, Bury Metropolitan Borough Council
Mayor Norma Redfearn, Executive Mayor, North Tyneside Council
Councillor Elise Wilson, Leader of the Council, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council
Councillor Doina Cornell, Leader of the Council, Stroud District Council
Councillor Russ Bowden, Leader of the Council, Warrington Borough Council

Brent Council will support schools, staff and parents whatever their decision on school return but make no recommendation

Cllr Butt (right) at Pakistan Independence Day celebrations

 Brent Council leader Muhammed Butt has said in an opinion piece on the Kilburn Times website that Brent Council will not force schools to re-open. Instead it will support them whatever action they decide to take. He does not make a clear recommendation not to re-open for a wider group of pupils as some councils have done.  BAME people in Brent are particularly affected by high death rates from Covid-19.

The Kilburn Times articlel LINK

For councils up and down the country this past week will have been dominated by the decision to begin opening schools up to more pupils.

And it’s not just local authorities – the schools themselves, teachers and the teaching unions, and of course parents will have all been wrestling with what is an incredibly complex set of circumstances. In my experience, in much of our work designing and delivering public services, there are choices where it’s obvious what is the right thing to do. Then there are choices where compromises are needed but it is still possible to determine which way to go. And there are those choices where all you can do is identify the least-worst option.

Of course, the vast majority of schools in Brent have remained open throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, supporting children of key workers and vulnerable children but the question is now whether schools are ready to safely take back more children in a phased basis starting with Reception, Year 1 and Year 6.

The overriding priority must be to keep everyone involved safe from harm, not least our children and young people but also, of course, school staff. But right now, because this situation is so complicated, that’s just not possible. Until a vaccine is available, sending more children back to school risks exposing them to infection. Yet, if we continue to wait until a vaccine is ready, we risk potentially lasting damage to their personal development and academic attainment – damage that disproportionately affects those from less well-off households, of which there are many in Brent. Both risks are very real. Either on its own would ordinarily be considered totally unacceptable. But we are now nearing a point where we have to pick one.

It is central government’s clear wish that schools begin to reopen from June 1. We are told that government is acting on scientific advice and that the known benefits of a return to formal education outweigh the estimated risks of coronavirus infection and transmission. Now, I do understand the imperative, especially because of how important a proper education is to a child’s life chances. Nonetheless, councils like ours, schools, teaching unions, and parent groups across the UK are pressing government to publish that advice as it is local authorities which have a clear role in supporting and advising schools locally.

In the meantime, we have to work on the assumption that the situation is as government says, and as such we have asked our schools to begin making the necessary preparations for a June 1 reopening. However, I want to stress that, until government can provide greater assurance, although we have instructed our schools to make these preparations, we do not plan on forcing them to actually reopen. We will instead support them whether or not they choose to do so at this time. Teachers can also rely on our unconditional support whether or not they are yet ready to return to the classroom. Parents too will have our full support whether or not they feel it’s safe enough to send their children back to school.

In summary, we believe the responsible course of action to be preparing the ground for a return to school in the near future. But we are not yet certain that the many benefits of returning outweigh the risks of doing so. We will keep our position under daily review, are committed to consulting widely, and will make clear any changes as and when they are made.

---

GP's 7 point plan to reduce death toll in care homes

NHS GP Dr Gero Baiarda an NHS GP at the Clarence Medical Centre in Windsor in this  opinion piece reveals how a GP’s role in keeping elderly care home residents well has become near-impossible, due to decisions made by national and local government, and what must be changed to reduce the number of elderly residents dying prematurely, or unnecessarily.  (Source:
 GPDQ -GP on demand service)

Setting the scene

At the beginning of this crisis, the UK public was informed that those most at risk were the elderly and anybody with an underlying health condition. 

It is likely that this information was intended to reassure the majority of the population who do not land in either of these camps. However, if you were on a mission to identify a sector of our community to which both categories were not only relevant, but were concentrated in one static location like a quarantined cruise liner, you would have to look no further than the UK’s residential or nursing homes.

Unsurprisingly, we learned last month that the number of elderly care home residents who have died from Covid-19 was possibly as much as five times higher than the Government’s official estimate.  When you figure that up until that point, only the first five suspected cases in every care home setting were being formally tested in order to identify an outbreak, it seems likely that even this is an underestimate.[1] 

Further compounding this low number of recorded deaths was the fact that official figures excluded long-term care home residents with Covid-19 who were admitted to hospital and subsequently died. New data published in the BMJ on the 29th April now states that there were 4,343 deaths from Covid-19 in care homes in England and Wales in just a fortnight.

However, with the poor access to testing that is still a reality for many elderly care home settings, the numbers could be higher still. In fact, research by London School of Economics academics suggests that if the UK follows international trends, care home deaths from Covid-19 could be closer to 50% of all UK cases. This would be in line with the figures emerging from Ireland, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Belgium, Norway and Canada, where the national proportion of total Covid-19 deaths is reported at between 33 percent and 64 percent.[2] 

Further supporting this hypothesis are figures from the Office for National Statistics which show that deaths from all causes in care homes rose by 48.5% in a week compared to a 10% increase (from 8578 to 9434) in hospital deaths during the same time frame, and an 11% increase (from 4117 to 4570) in deaths in private homes. Today we learn from official statistics that nearly 10,000 care home residents, or 26% of all cases, have died from Covid-19 in the UK since the crisis began, but that the true figure could be as much as 43,000.

As measures are introduced this week by the Prime Minister which will see tens of thousands returning to work, and a pathway to eventual relaxation of lockdown, it appears that deaths in this sector are still largely going overlooked. Below, I seek to provide a clear insight into why this has happened, what the current situation is, and what might be done to address the care home crisis that is continuing largely unchallenged. 

Why have the numbers of Covid-19 deaths in care homes been underestimated?

1. Inadequate testing 

• During a crisis in which even symptomatic frontline NHS workers have struggled to access testing, it is easy to see how elderly care home residents have been placed very far down the pecking order. And yet, without adequate testing of every symptomatic resident, how are we ever going to get close to the true number of deaths in UK nursing homes that have arisen from infection with Covid-19?

• The human impact of insufficient testing goes far beyond the repercussions of inaccurate statistics. Care workers with symptoms must isolate at home until they test negative, which then leads to fewer workers assisting more of the residents, with the inherent heightened risk of infection for all involved.

•  The UK government’s recent statement on easing lockdown measures has not clarified whether visiting elderly care home residents is now fully permissible. Elderly residents with symptoms who have not been tested are routinely isolated and no longer permitted visits from family members. Some of these residents will be in their final days of their lives for reasons other than Covid-19, and yet will not be allowed the comfort of having loved ones come visit them. In short, without adequate testing taking place on site, we often do not know what we are dealing with, and residents are still dying without saying goodbye in person.

• Family members play such a crucial role in end of life scenarios. Without their presence, the emotional strain on family and carers alike can be unbearable. A negative viral antigen test would help ease this enforced isolation and afford some dignity to our elderly in care homes, not to mention closure for their loved ones.

Any bereavement is hard enough, but can be unbearable when we are denied the fundamental right to say goodbye. 

2. Data Lag

• Deaths take time to register and appear on official statistics, especially in the current locked down climate.  According to the Department of Health and Social Care, it takes at least 11 days for deaths in care homes to enter the official data, with death registration taking a minimum of five days.

• The official UK Covid-19 death toll only started to include deaths outside hospitals a few weeks ago. As of the 15th April, Public Health England’s official figures claimed that there were only 3,084 care homes in England with confirmed cases. A month later, the official death toll for care home residents is 10,000.

• As recently as four weeks ago, the Office for National Statistics was still suggesting that 85 percent of all UK Covid-19 deaths were occurring in hospitals. Clearly, there was no way of corroborating this figure when there had been so little effort to gather accurate data from care homes. The new figures suggesting that 26% of all Covid-19 deaths have occurred in care homes is very much at odds with this earlier suggestion.

• World-renowned statistician, Sir David Spiegelhalter of the University of Cambridge, suggested on the 1st May 2020 that the incidence of  Covid-19 deaths was higher in UK care homes than hospitals. He continued that, although the Prime Minister suggested that we were over the peak in the UK as whole, deaths in care homes were yet to peak. His predictions appear increasingly to have the ring of truth.

What is perpetuating the crisis?

       1.       Lack of adequate planning and testing

• Care homes are as much on the frontline as General Practice, yet no contingency was put in place for this foreseeable situation. There is still no significant plan in place for how medical attention and testing should be delivered. We knew all along that the elderly and those with underlying health issues were the two most vulnerable groups.

• As of the week ending 19th April, only 505 care home workers had received Covid-19 tests in comparison to nearly 48,000 NHS staff and their families.[4] Even late last month, three quarters of more than 200 providers contacted by the BBC said none of their staff had been tested for the virus.

• What access is being offered is often far too distant for many carers to reach. Care home staff are being invited to testing sites sometimes 100 miles from their location. On site testing for residents and carers alike would seem the logical solution.

2. Inadequate medical input 

• The central principle of the practice of medicine is, ‘First, do no harm.’ Because of this, many medical colleagues have ceased the regular review of care home residents which, up until the crisis struck, occurred weekly. GPs are overwhelmed by fear of contaminating elderly patients with an infection from which they are never likely to recover.

• GPs have also known for months that care homes are hotbeds of Covid-19 infection. GPs and carers alike are then left in a situation where, if they do what every instinct suggests by attending to the sick elderly, they run the considerable risk of not only becoming infected themselves but also passing the virus on to their families at home. This fear is compounded by an often-inadequate supply of PPE at homes.

• The result has been massively decreased rates of GP visits to care homes, with telephone consultations taking their place, or video call if the home has technology in place. Residents and carers alike are feeling forgotten and abandoned. There have been moves within recent weeks to move to UK-wide remote ward rounds done over video-link. Some GP practices have delivered this kind of review throughout the crisis, but there has only been patchy provision of this sort of service throughout the UK as a whole.

3. Elderly care home residents are not being admitted to hospital

• Aside from emergency situations in which paramedics are called, GPs bear sole responsibility in the community for making the decision whether to admit patients to hospital.

• Although GPs are informed when their local hospitals are at maximum capacity, they are not usually made aware when occupancy crises have eased to more manageable levels,  and have tended to assume that hospitals are always full to the brim. In fact, many A&E departments throughout the UK are reporting record-low attendances.

• Subsequently, GPs do not have enough up-to-date information to make an informed choice as to whether they are seeking admission for an elderly and vulnerable patient to a hospital that is already straining at the seams. When all variables are considered, it may sometimes present less risk to the patient to stay at home. The fear that many GPs have had is that the elderly patient they choose to admit to a hospital with limited resources would be side-lined for younger patients seriously ill with Covid-19 who face a higher realistic chance of survival and recovery. There are only so many ventilators, and the famous ‘R Figure’ we have heard so much about in recent weeks is only just teetering below 1.

• Even if the GP does decide that the best place for the patient is in hospital, it is often the case that residents, their carers’ and family members are extremely reluctant to agree to admission for fear of contracting and dying from Covid-19 once admitted.

• There have been numerous reports of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) urging GPs and care home managers to ensure they have do-not-resuscitate orders (DNR) signed by their residents. This is often interpreted as a licence to avoid admission and allow nature to take its course at home.

4. Rapid, unsupported, and disconnected discharge from hospital

• On 17th March, NHS England wrote to hospital bosses and advised them to seek to actively discharge patients to free up 15,000 acute beds for people with Covid-19.

• Many of these patients were elderly, and part of the recommended guidance for effective discharge included giving patients the direct telephone number of the ward from which they had been discharged. They were urged to call if they need further help or advice rather than contact their GP or visit A&E.

• Many of those discharged have kept slavishly to this advice and continue not to seek any further medical help whatsoever even 2 months down the line.

5. Little or no PPE

• Personal Protection Equipment has only really been prioritised for hospital use since the crisis began, with even GP surgeries struggling to access adequate supplies, let alone care homes. However, it is close to impossible to care for elderly residents without subjecting both them and staff to considerable risk of cross-infection without it.

• PPE ideally should be changed prior to each new interaction with a resident, but scarce supplies in most care homes will not allow this. Carers are left to treat residents with little or no PPE or wearing the same gowns and masks for multiple patients. Spend a few minutes on social media and you will easily find care home staff sharing their experiences of washing their PPE each night before their next shift.

• Unlike any other frontline service, care homes are still required to pay VAT on any PPE that they manage to source. They are often also having to source this equipment privately and at exorbitantly inflated prices, something that is unsustainable for any period in view of the cash-flow crisis many of these homes are facing.

• Almost certainly because it is such a scarce and expensive resource, many care workers report that PPE is being locked away and rationed; they are being advised that they either do not need to use it because residents do not currently have viral symptoms, or that they should make gowns and gloves last all week. This puts residents and staff at risk. UNISON’s PPE alert hotline has received more than 3,500 messages from scared employees since it was established stating that they are worried for their residents, themselves, and their families.

       6. Care home staff sick, isolating or too scared to work

• Some carers are so frightened of contracting the virus that they are refusing to work, while others with symptoms but no access to testing are self-isolating.

• It should not be forgotten that this was a sector that already faced problems with recruitment because of low pay and long hours. The addition of considerable personal risk to life has led to some carers abandoning the role altogether.

• This means that the same high workload is now being shared between far fewer carers, which increases the risk of exposure to the virus for residents and care home workers alike. The same carers, often in inadequate or unchanged PPE, are having to deal with more residents in less time within the same working day.

7. No requirement for testing before admission to a care home

• UK Government guidelines suggesting new residents to care homes are tested for Covid-19 prior to their admission have only recently been put in place and are not being consistently applied. They are not even a universal requirement throughout all UK home nations, with Scottish care homes still permitting admission to residents without testing as recently as last week. Other elderly UK residents are still being admitted with the understanding that they will receive a test within a few days of arrival. This allows more than adequate opportunity for rapid spread within the home at which they arrive.

• This allows a clear avenue of infection into otherwise safely contained homes, especially when cash-flow is such a major issue for so many residences.

• It is inevitable that some of these new residents will be carrying the virus whether they have symptoms at the time of admission, or not.

What should be done? Here is a 7-step approach to reducing the death toll in the UK’s elderly care homes: 

It is often said that the mark of a civilised nation is how we treat our most vulnerable. The UK is failing our elderly and ‘at risk’ groups and, up until this week, was not even gathering the data that would prove this. There are six simple measures that should be taken to remedy the situation.

1. Adequate PPE - Care home staff are as much at risk as frontline clinicians in A&E, and yet are on a fraction of the salary. They should be afforded the same level of access to PPE protection without care homes facing the financial sanction of having to pay profiteers exorbitant prices or VAT to the Government.

2. Adequate Testing - All care home residents and staff demonstrating symptoms should have near instant access to testing. In the case of carers, this would allow them to continue to provide much-needed support, and in the case of residents, this would allow them to continue to draw comfort from their families if they test negative yet are ailing. Care homes could then set about isolating to their rooms only those who test positive.

3. Access to dedicated care home medical teams - Full PPE Hot Hubs and Hot Car visiting services dedicated to the treatment of patients with proven or suspected Covid-19 have popped up all over the country. There is no reason that similar dedicated provision could not be provided for care homes. This would provide considerable support, reassurance and comfort to residents, their families, and their carers alike.

4. Regular symptom checking - The Government suggested last month that all residents should be assessed twice a day for Covid-19 symptoms including cough, shortness of breath and a high temperature. This is all well and good, but there was no simultaneous pledge for provision of adequate PPE and access to rapid testing, something that would be indelible to such checks taking place safely. However, it is feasible that dedicated care home health teams could provide this service if they were established across the UK.

5. Improved, more regular communication between CCGs, GPs and hospitals - this would enable GPs to understand what capacity hospitals have when making important decisions regarding hospital admissions. The discharge procedure should also be reverted back to normal, meaning the GP is updated and can continue to provide care themselves or through the Hot Hubs and Hot Car visiting services.

6. Accurate Data - It is easy to ignore what we cannot see. The Government pledged on April 28th to publish accurate data on Covid-19 deaths in care homes alongside those occurring in hospitals. This data will include figures from the ONS and the CQC. Since 10th April, care homes have also been required to notify the CQC within three days of any resident deaths due to confirmed or suspected Covid-19 cases.  This is a very recent development and we are now many months into the crisis.

7. Integrated Health and Social Care provision - This crisis has taken the UK government and NHS infrastructure completely unawares, and we need to take steps now to minimise the chance of any future recurrence. Care homes feel detached and isolated because they really are very separate from other UK health and care provision. This has left them inadequately supported in terms of training and a consistent and reliable supply of PPE. This deficit in structuring was highlighted in an editorial published in the BMJ last month which suggested that, “The current emergency has exposed once again the need for a universal integrated health and social care service.”

---

[1]  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52289607

[2] (https://ltccovid.org/2020/04/12/mortality-associated-with-covid-19-outbreaks-in-care-homes-early-international-evidence/?subscribe=success#blog_subscription-3).

[3] https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/21/uk/uk-death-toll-coronavirus-statistics-gbr-intl/index.html

[4] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/coronavirus-tests-been-given-only-21865558

[5] http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinical/clinical-specialties/respiratory-/hospital-patients-discharged-early-to-free-up-beds-told-not-to-contact-gp/20040506.article