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.

Public concern about Coronavirus drops sharply, but it remains the biggest issue facing Britain

 From IpsoMori - interesting to see poverty and inequality moving up in the list of concerns.

The March 2021 Ipsos MORI Issues Index records the first significant drop in concern about Covid-19 since June 2020.The proportion who name the coronavirus as a big issue for the country has fallen from 72 per cent in February to 49 per cent this month. One third see the pandemic as the single biggest issue (34%), a decrease from almost six in ten last month (57%).

 

While economic concern has held steady, there has been a fall in the proportion of the public naming Brexit as an issue. This month 26 per cent cite the UK’s exit from the EU as a worry, the joint-lowest score for this issue since the vote to leave in 2016 (concern was also at this level in April 2020). This month’s score is seven percentage points lower than last month – and half the level of concern recorded in December 2020 (60%).

 

There has been an eight-percentage point increase in mentions of the NHS as a big concern: 24 per cent mention it as an issue. Fieldwork occurred between 5 and 11 March, covering the period when the Government announced a one per cent pay rise for NHS staff.

 

Other issues that have risen significantly from last month include Poverty and inequality (up 6ppt since February), education (up 4 ppt), unemployment and immigration (both up 3ppt),

 

 

 

 

While concern about Coronavirus has fallen across all groups since last month, there is a distinct pattern by age, with older and younger Britons now significantly less concerned than those in the middle age brackets. The proportion mentioning the pandemic as an issue stands at 44% among 18-34s, 59% among 35-54 year olds, and 43% among the over 55s. By contrast, in February these figures were 70%, 76% and 72% respectively.

 

Those aged 65 and over are among the least likely to mention the pandemic as a big issue; 39% do so, meaning it is their joint-top concern alongside the economy (also 39%).

 

 

Brent announces Community Champions to tackle health inequalities

 

 

 A borough-wide network of community champions to tackle health inequalities in Brent has been announced by the council.

 

The Brent Health Matters programme aims to address health inequalities – which are avoidable, unfair and systematic differences in health between different people. The pandemic has not only exposed health inequalities, but in many cases made them worse.

 

The first wave of coronavirus arrived early in Brent and the borough was hit hard. The virus particularly affected deprived areas with a high proportion of BAME residents, with Church End and Alperton seeing the highest numbers of cases and deaths in the whole of London.

Work has already begun in Church End and Alperton with volunteers taken on as Community Champions to help connect local people with services that can improve their health and also to understand better what help and support people need. (See the case studies below for examples)

 

Cllr Neil Nerva, Brent’s Cabinet Member for Public Health, Culture and Leisure, said:

 

The Brent Health Matters programme is a joined up approach from Brent Council, NHS partners and the community to tackle health inequalities.

 

Community Champions sit at the heart of the programme – helping us understand the local needs and perspectives of these communities. We’ve already seen some great examples of acting on feedback from the community, including the launch of a health and wellbeing telephone advice line, myth busting communications, PPE supplies and events such as our webinars about the COVID vaccine.

 

Recently, Brent Council successfully bid for a share of Community Champions funding from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Brent received the highest share of all the 60 councils that were allocated funding across the country, with an award of £733,333.

 

Cllr Nerva explained: 

With the additional funding we will be able to rollout the programme from two wards to the whole of the borough.

This will see us recruit and train up to 40 paid Health Educators and launch a grants programme for community groups and individuals to develop new and innovative ways of addressing health inequalities.

 

We will also be able to develop a rolling programme of mental health and wellbeing awareness training and conduct a series of outreach days in our communities.

Shahrar Ali challenges UKIP's Magnus Nielsen on overseas aid

UKIP candidate Magnus Nielsen  (Hampstead and Kilburn) told people attending last night's Catholic hustings at the Church of Transfiguration, Kensal Rise, that they should dig into their own pockets to provide Overseas Aid, reducing addressing inequality to a personal matter rather than a government obligation.

Green candidate Shahrar Ali (Brent Central)  responded by saying that world poverty was a systemic issue based on inequality and globalisation that would be worsened by climate change.

Nielsen has a history of controversy, particularly regarding Islam LINK and  appears quite a different kettle of fish to the apparently rather more benign Stephen Priestley, standing for UKIP in Brent Central.

The Daily Mirror has published a video of an anti-Islam speech by Nielsen HERE

Green Party: Holistic approach to education and poverty will redress the balance for children

Responding to Tristram Hunt's article on Green Party education policy, Green Party schools spokeperson Samantha Pancheri said:

Tristram Hunt’s attack on our education policies demonstrate how out of touch Labour are with ordinary people and suggest that schools should take on the responsibility of mopping up the damage caused by soaring inequality.

When we have teachers taking food into class to feed hungry children , or consoling sobbing pupils at the end of the day because they don’t want to go home to a cold, dark house, it is startlingly obvious that there is a much larger problem in today’s society. Teachers are not social workers, and we should not be placing these demands on them. It is only by looking at the problem holistically, and by taking bold steps to eliminate poverty that we can begin to redress the balance for children.

Our education policies work in tandem with those designed to lift families out of poverty and close the wealth inequality gap. By taking that strain off schools and teachers, we can begin to support all children in accessing the same high quality education that teachers strive to deliver.

Teachers have welcomed our policies and recognise that the focus is on providing a child-focused school system, relieving the workload on teachers, and reducing bureaucracy to put accountability into local hands. The academy system, introduced by Labour and furthered by the coalition government, has failed to improve standards for schools and outcomes for children.

With 40% of newly qualified teachers leaving the profession within 5 years, and 25,000 unqualified teachers working in state schools and academies, our education system is floundering and is in urgent need of sensible reform.

Samantha will be answering questions on Green Party policy for the Education Guardian. Here are the details:

In the run-up to the election, Education Guardian has arranged for readers to interview education spokespeople of the political parties. Is there a key question they seem to be avoiding so far? Do you feel they need to provide some evidence for their views? Ask whatever you like. First up is Samantha Pancheri of the Greens. Coming soon: other parties. Tweet us your questions using the hashtag #guardianeduGreens, or email alice.woolley@guardian.co.uk with GREENS in the subject field.
We can’t wait to see what you come up with … Questions by noon on Friday 30 January please. Over to you.

The challenge of inequality in education - a timely offer

I don't normally allow advertising on this website but I think the offer below is worthwhile for teachers, governors and others involved in education if Brent.  The message comes from Robin Richardson of Insted LINK who was a far-sighted and progressive Chief Inspector of Schools in Brent.

“Politicians in all four of the UK’s education systems are faced, as you know all too well, by both short-term and long-term challenges. It was always thus, of course … The long-term challenges are about the capacity of schools to grapple with the impact of technology on education; increasing inequality combined with decreasing social mobility; preparation for work at a time of phenomenal change in labour markets; and literacy and numeracy amongst the lowest attaining 20 per cent of young people.

“… Against the backdrop of short-term and long-term challenges such as these, we urge you to take seriously your legal and moral responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010. This is not, we emphasise, an add-on matter – it’s not additional to the other challenges. On the contrary, you simply cannot deal effectively with the other challenges unless you start with the Equality Act, and put and keep it at the very heart of all you do.”

Thus begins the editorial introduction to the next issue of Race Equality Teaching (RET). The issue is about the whole equalities agenda in education, not about race equality alone. Normally RET is only available through an annual subscription of £39.  But this issue is available for only £5 if orders are placed before printing begins on 8 September. If you’d like to take advantage of this offer, please click on this link and follow the instructions by clicking then on ‘Add to basket’ at the top of the page: http://ioepress.co.uk/books/race-equality-teaching/ret-special-issue-322/.

There are nine articles in this special issue and all are written by specialists in the topic they are concerned with. The authors and titles are as follows:

Sameena Choudry: Watching and checking on progress

Artemi Sakellariadis: Issuing a ticket but keeping the door locked

Catherine McNamara and Jay Stewart: One person’s journey at one school

Karamat Iqbal: Working out what to do with us immigrants

Gilroy Brown and Maurice Irfan Coles: Our children should know themselves

Mark Jennett: Pink is for girls and jobs are for boys

Sue Sanders and Arthur Sullivan: The long shadow of Section 28

Lizz Bennett and Laura Pidcock: Critical thinking and safe spaces

Sarah Soyei, Kate Hollinshead and Yvette Thomas: Identity-based bullying

Personalised copies of the issue will be sent to political leaders, and to bodies such as Ofsted and the EHRC.

There will be a follow-up special issue of RET later in the year, similarly about the whole equalities agenda and similarly available at a vastly reduced price. It will include articles on the pupil premium grant; spiritual, moral, social and cultural development; and religion and belief equality in the light of the Trojan Horse affair in Birmingham in summer 2014. Also there will be a round-up of recent resources, reports and materials and, based on both issues, a set of recommendations to the government and Ofsted. More information at http://ioepress.co.uk/books/race-equality-teaching/ret-special-issue-323/.

Did you celebrate 'Buy Nothing Day' and resist consumerist pressures?

As commercial companies tried yesterday to foist 'Black Friday on us, an American import supposed to mark the beginning of pre-Christmas consumption, Ad Buster publicised their Buy Nothing Day which took place today. LINK

They stress that the day isn't anti-shopping  as such or anti small shops but about creating awareness about the effect of consumption on the environment and its basic inequality.

This is how they explain the Day:

It's time to lock up your wallets and purses, cut up your credit cards and dump the love of your life - shopping.

Saturday November 30th 2013 is Buy Nothing Day (UK). It's a day where you challenge yourself, your family and friends to switch off from shopping and tune into life. The rules are simple, for 24 hours you will detox from shopping and anyone can take part provided they spend a day without spending!

Everything we buy has an impact on the environment, Buy Nothing Day highlights the environmental and ethical consequences of consumerism. The developed countries - only 20% of the world population are consuming over 80% of the earth's natural resources, causing a disproportionate level of environmental damage, and an unfair distribution of wealth.

Of course, Buy Nothing Day isn't about changing your lifestyle for just one day - we want it to be a lasting relationship with you consumer conscience - maybe a life changing experience? We want people to make a commitment to consuming less, recycling more and challenging companies to clean up and be fair. The supermarket or shopping mall might offer great choice, but this shouldn't be at the cost of the environment or developing countries

I wonder if we should celebrate this at the Wembley's London  Designer Outlet next year?

Central Middlesex A&E closure announcement makes People's Inquiry even more important

Jeremy Hunt's announcement today that Central Middlesex Accident and Emergency ward is to be closed will come as a bitter disappointment to Brent health campaigners, particularly after the euphoria which greeted the Lewisham Hospital campaign's court victory yesterday.

Hunt's decision shows that that the Tories have absolutely no understanding of the needs of an area such as Harlesden/Stonebridge and the social and health inequalities that make an easily accessible local facility so important.

Campaigners will be considering next steps along with those fighting for Hammermith hospital but meanwhile after the announcement  it is even more  important that as many people as possible submit evidence to the People's Inquiry into the London Health Service. Details LINK and attend the local meeting of the Inquiry which will be held. Send your views using this LINK

• Friday Nov 8: 2pm-7pm, Ealing Town Hall, New Broadway, Ealing, W5 2BY. View map:

This is the trenchant evidence to the Inquiry submitted by Harlesden resident Sarah Cox:

I am a 76 year-old retired early years teacher. I worked for more than 30 years in Brent schools and have lived for more than 40 years in Harlesden. I am also an outpatient at Central Middlesex Hospital.

As such, I was extremely concerned about the likely effect of the changes enshrined in the Shaping a Healthier Future consultation and also about the consultation itself.

I followed the consultation carefully, read the documents and attended meetings called by NHS NW London and public meetings organised by local health campaigns. Overall, the consultation was more like a public relations exercise. Its questionnaire was designed to reach a desired conclusion rather than to look at the real health needs of the vast area it covers.

I am very concerned about accountability. NHS NW London made the decision to go ahead with the changes, but went out of existence before the process of introducing them had even begun. Who will be accountable if they turn out, as many of us believe they will, to result in damaging cuts to our health services, rather than improvements?

Although I will concentrate on the likely effects of changes to the area in which I live, I believe that all the changes will have knock-on effects on neighbouring areas and I am strongly opposed to the whole package. My husband was referred from Central Middlesex Hospital where he was diagnosed with laryngeal cancer, to Charing X where he was expertly treated. The co operation between the two hospitals was exemplary. Cuts to any of the hospitals will increase the strain on the others and on the ambulance service.

I believe that the case for fewer specialist hospitals further apart has been made for stroke, heart attacks and some serious injuries and services have been developed in line with that. Ambulance crews know the best place to take such patients and expert paramedics are able to stabilise them before transporting them to the best hospital. However, I do not believe that the extrapolation to other conditions such as serious asthma attacks, is justified. The surgeons want a concentration of expensive high-tech facilities in fewer, larger hospitals. What they ignore is the vital importance to patients' recovery of being in a setting that is accessible to friends and relatives. There has been a great deal of publicity recently about poor standards of care on understaffed wards. The best insurance against inadequate care is the vigilance of patients' families.

In fact, although we are told that the plans are based on clinical evidence, they are really based on a desire to cut costs. It the plans go through, nearly 1,000 beds and 3,994 clinical jobs will go from hospitals in NW London, saving £1billion over three years. The remaining hospitals will not be able to cope, the ambulance service will not be able to cope, the 111 service is already inadequate and yet we are told that it is crucial to the success of providing alternative services in the community. 

One of the declared aims of the Shaping a Healthier Future strategy was to reduce health inequalities, but moving health provision away from the areas of greatest deprivation and lowest life expectancy, will in fact increase health inequalities.

As a resident of Harlesden Ward and having worked on the Stonebridge Estate, I am most concerned with the loss of services at Central Middlesex Hospital and the impact on the people of Harlesden, Stonebridge and the surrounding area. The Brent Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and in particular the Harlesden Locality Profile (accessible through the Brent Council website www.brent.gov.uk) shows that Harlesden and Stonebridge wards are among the 10% of most deprived wards in the country. They have high levels of unemployment and of long term disease and disability. They also have a higher than average birth rate, and a larger than average percentage of young children and large families and higher rates of teenage pregnancy. Yet the maternity and paediatric services have been taken away.

Areas of poverty and poor housing like these have, it is widely recognised, higher levels of respiratory disease and mental health problems among other health problems. The government welfare cuts will increase these problems.

If health inequalities are to be overcome, health services should be provided where the need is greatest. If access to health services is difficult, people living in poverty and facing many other problems are less likely to seek help and relatively minor problems can become more serious.

Some of the reasons why it is wrong to close A & E departments at CMH and Ealing (these arguments apply to other hospitals in areas of deprivation):

·        A & E services are the first port of call for patients with mental illnesses and they are likely to find it harder to travel further for help.

·        When patients attend A & E, other problems e.g. cancer are often detected and can be treated before they become more serious.

·       There is no simple public transport link from the Harlesden or Stonebridge areas nor from Central Middlesex Hospital to Northwick Park and cabs are far too expensive for people dependent on benefits, so people who are taken ill or have an accident themselves or whose children are taken ill or have an accident will be forced to call an ambulance adding to the pressure on the ambulance service.

·       Transport difficulties not only affect patients, they make it hard for family and friends to visit patients. Support and care from family and friends are important for helping patients to recover. Negotiations with TfL even on the simple extension of the 18 bus route to Northwick Park Hospital have been unsuccessful, so patients and their families and friends from the area around CMH will continue to find access to Northwick Park extremely difficult.

Northwick Park is already struggling to meet targets and ambulances are being diverted back to CMH from there and from St Mary's. If all the proposed closures go through, how will Northwick Park cope with the added burden on A & E maternity, paediatric services, surgery and intensive care?

How will the ambulance service cope with the extra demand? It’s struggling already.

Has there been consultation with the Fire Service about the effect of the proposed changes? 

Schools were not consulted by the Shaping a Healthier Future team, yet during the school day, thousands of children become their responsibility and if any are taken seriously ill or have accidents, school staff will have to go with them to an A & E department further away.  

Out of hospital care

Of course it is always best to keep people out of hospital if appropriate alternative care and treatment can be provided in the community and of course we need more preventive services. We are promised all sorts of out of hospital care to take the place of the lost hospital services, but will the resources really be there? There is already a shortage of trained, skilled community health workers, health visitors, midwives and specialist nurses as well as GPs. Will the CCGs really be able to train and pay for those we need when they are facing constant budget cuts? Successful treatment and care for patients out of hospital demands integration with decent social care services, but the swingeing cuts to Local Authority budgets mean that social care services are at best barely adequate and unlikely to aid recovery and recuperation for patients who have been treated out of hospital or discharged early from hospital.

Getting information about the CCG’s commissioning decisions before they are made is extremely difficult. There are massive documents with quantities of acronymic alphabet soup and a hierarchy of meetings, some useful, most completely opaque to the interested patient or campaigner and suddenly, before you know it, another service has been outsourced and privatised.

However often we are assured that the changes to the NHS are clinically driven, it seems clear that the real drivers are financial the transformation of the NHS into a cash cow for the private sector so that even if it remains free at the point of use for patients, it will be run for profit.

Sarah Cox

Riots: The danger of growing inequality mixing with a culture which puts consumerism above citizenship.- Caroline Lucas

As I posted Barry Gardiner's comments on the disturbances earlier it is only fair that I report what Caroline Lucas, the only Green MP, said in the same debate on August 11th:

We reject and condemn the horrendous violence, arson and looting that we have seen on the streets of Britain. But we must seek to understand why this happened to prevent it being repeated. If we stop at denunciations and crackdowns, nothing will be learned about why sections of our own population feel they can riot, loot and treat their neighbours and communities so appallingly.

The bigger picture has to be considered. Britain is deeply unequal. Last year, London's richest people were worth 273 times more than its poorest. Given the growing evidence, from Scarman onwards, that increasing inequality had a role to play in at least some of the rioting, the government must commit to an impact assessment of any further policies to establish if they will increase inequality.


If individuals are defined as consumers not citizens, there is danger that those who cannot afford to consume feel they have no stake in their community and become more likely to turn against it.


The Prime Minister has said this is 'Not about poverty but about culture.' But it is about both. It is about inequality and culture and how dangerous it is when you mix growing inequality with a culture which puts consumerism above citizenship.