The Observer splashed this morning on the news that the Government is secretly planning to roll out ‘Plan B’, in spite of repeatedly claiming that it has no intention of doing so.
New evidence has emerged that the government is paving the way to implement ‘Plan B’ measures in England to combat the spread of COVID-19, amid warnings from health chiefs that a “vortex of pressures” is encircling the NHS.
In the clearest sign to date that Whitehall is actively considering additional measures, the Observer has learnt that the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) contacted local authorities on Friday to canvass their level of support for the “immediate rollout of the winter plan – plan B”.
The disclosure comes as senior doctors warn that operations are already being cancelled due to NHS staffing shortages and scientists warn of “a triple whammy” of respiratory illnesses this winter, with Covid, flu and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), which causes cold-like symptoms but can be serious for children and older adults.
You can read the whole story here.
How much should we read into the fact that the UKHSA – the successor to Public Health England – has consulted with local authorities about implementing ‘Plan B’? Is the agency just preparing for every possible scenario, just in case, or is it doing the Government’s bidding ahead of new Covid restrictions being imposed?
The former, according to Chancellor Rishi Sunak, who was asked about the story on Andrew Marr this morning. MailOnline has more.
Rishi Sunak insisted there was no need to move to ‘Plan B’ to cut Covid cases today – after health chiefs discussed whether there needed to be an “immediate rollout” of tougher measures to combat a surge in cases.
The Chancellor insisted that the data shows that bringing back working from home and introducing mandatory Covid passports was not yet required.
His comments to the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme came after it was reported that the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) contacted local authorities on Friday to canvass their level of support for the “immediate rollout of the winter plan – plan B”.
An ‘official – sensitive’ document seen by the Observer sought opinions from the leaders and chief executives of councils across England to be fed to the Cabinet Office before then [sic] end of the day.
But Mr Sunak today said: “The data does not suggest we should be immediately moving to Plan B.”
However a leading Government scientist said “some kind of Plan B” was needed immediately.
Professor Adam Finn, who is on the Joint Committee of Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said COVID-19 hospital admissions and deaths are rising, and warned against complacency in what he said is a “worsening” situation.
Meanwhile, the Labour Party is ratcheting up pressure on the Government to reintroduce restrictions, seemingly indifferent to the fact that the burden of such measures fall disproportionately on the least well off. MailOnline has more.
Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the Government should introduce its ‘Plan B’ to tackle the rising rates of coronavirus now.
Speaking on Marr, Ms Reeves was asked what Labour’s position was on reintroducing restrictions such as the wearing of face coverings and working from home.
She said: “Labour as a responsible opposition have always said that we would follow the science, and we’ve seen today that SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) are saying that some aspects of Plan B, like wearing masks on public transports and in shops, and also working from home more flexibly should be introduced.
“I think the first thing is the Government have got to do more to make Plan A work.
“If the scientists are saying work from home and masks, we should do that. So get A working better because the vaccination programme has been stalling, introduce those parts of Plan B.
“But there are also things not in A or B that need to be done, like paying statutory sick pay from day one and also better ventilation in public spaces.”
Asked directly whether Plan B should be introduced now, she said: “Yes, but let’s not let the Government off the hook with Plan A either.”
You can read both stories here.
The pressure on the Government to introduce ‘Plan B’ – and then, no doubt, another lockdown – is coming from the same sources it did this time last year: the NHS, SAGE, the DHSS, the Labour Party, the trades unions and, of course, the mainstream media. The Government is resisting the pressure for three reasons: (a) Matt Hancock and Michael Gove are no longer in the ‘Quad’ lobbying Boris and Rishi to lock down; (b) Boris is reluctant to squander the political capital he’s built up by supposedly avoiding the need for further restrictions by successfully overseeing a mass vaccination programme; and (c) the public mood has shifted a little, becoming marginally less pro-lockdown, as evidenced by recent polling.
But I’m not at all confident the Government won’t implement ‘Plan B’ – or worse – if infections, hospitalisations and deaths tick up again. Even though there’s zero evidence that mask mandates, vaccine passports and working from home do anything to suppress the virus, if daily infections climb above 100,000 the Government will calculate that it needs to be seen to be doing something, even if it will make no difference and cause enormous collateral damage. Consequently, we should all pray that infections start to tail off this week, as we know they will before long, just as they have in every previous wave regardless of whether the state introduces further restrictions or not.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well you know when people don’t have war or famine to concentrate on then they tend to get wound up in their own arse. It might well be interesting in a university seminar but the situation in the workplace isn’t going to improve ostensibly anytime soon. I will say though, working for the government, that there is a strong movement within to defy these rules and conventions because when something doesn’t accord with reality its time is limited.
How to square this circle is, it is increasingly apparent, one of the most serious challenges of our time and it is not readily apparent how […] we can rise to it.
This brings a famous quote of Billy the Gates to mind, namely (paraphrased from memory)
The obvious technical progress here would be to find a fast way to factor large prime numbers.
a completely clueless comment of His Billness (by then still at Microsoft) about the RSA public-key crypto algorithm which is based on the so-called factoring problem, ie, that it’s computionally infeasible to factor the product of two large prime numbers. Factoring the primes themselves is – of course – trivial as all prime numbers are only evenly divisble by 1 and themselves.
In the light of this: Squaring the circle is a famous geometrical problem dating back to mathematicians of classic Greece and it’s known that squaring a circle, ie, find a square whose area is the same as that of a given circle, is impossible. Hence, nobdoy can ever rise to it.
I would prefer the 20 pence version of this article. —–It is way too long winded. Sorry.
The scenario described raises the question of whether the complainant, having found alternative employment, deliberately found some minor reasons to extract compensation by being confrontational. In any case of yes he did, no I didn’t, the only way to prove the point is to have a live recording of the conversation or independent witnesses. The recent TV series Forensic CSI offers an exposition of this, with the analysis of CCTV and of phone records. I was involved with a damages claim made by a patient on behalf of whom I appeared in court, to find that what she had told me in clinic, and subsequently told her lawyer, about the disability caused by her RTA was a pack of lies. The defence had employed a private detective to follow and film her.
But if every workplace has to have CCTV and audio recording everywhere (presumably including the toilets) we are certainly in a dark place.
You cannot sort this out without stopping legal aid, wall to wall benefits and an unchecked and unregulated legal profession.
The real sufferers are the public who pay for this lunacy and still end up with the same poor services.
Wow, don’t most people wish the UK would put this much thought into running the country smartly rather than trying to create new ways to waste EVERYONE’S time and money? A big thank you to the legal profession who appear to be slim on the ground in representing the thousands injured and killed by the government issued covid vaxxes? Crickets on this, why?
Hi David. I think you have the answer, it is the lack of clear rules on what factors lead to a breakdown in ‘mutual trust and confidence ‘. Part of this is caused by the protected characteristic trump cards of the equality act, making things harder or unequal for everyone else. Instead reciprocity and the golden rule over ‘common basic rights ‘ should be applied, along with the private rights of association of the employer.
The other side of your consideration is that for many professionals it’s just not worth going to tribunal or law over this kind of thing. Things get out and within the connected world in which people work, you will never get another job again. The prospective tribunal awards never stack up to much unless you are on a trump card. Employment disputes are also littered with gagging orders and the Liberal application of the data protection act. The information about the employers poor behaviour to you, because it is also always about work in some sense, is private. You are not allowed to know and spread these bad things about us!
What is needed are clear rules which cover basic rights of everyone, not giving a trump card to protected characteristics a trump cards and a free court to enforce them. The fact that we are talking basic common rights including those of the employer would stop mission creep, and the fact that its a free court would stop employers taking the piss. Of course at the moment we have the complete opposite, mission creep and trump cards, and not a free court further enhancing trump card cases as the only ones worth winning.
Finally I would say that there is a legitimate cross over between private law and public law here. Private law should never overule basic common rights, its just that using protected characteristics and no clear definition of the basic rights implicit within continued ‘mutual trust and confidence ‘ will inevitably cause the current mess.