Donate

Schools Told to Plan for More Remote Learning and for Return of Face Masks

The Department for Education (DfE) has instructed schools to be prepared for the reintroduction of face masks in classrooms and for the return of remote learning in case of “local outbreaks of Covid”. The Times Educational Supplement has the story.

In an email bulletin sent to schools this afternoon [by the DfE] they have been told to ensure they have management plans outlining how they would operate if any of the restrictions in the new Contingency Framework document were to be introduced in their area.

The updated framework also sets out how councils and public health directors can make decisions to introduce Covid safety measures at a single school or cluster of schools but where there is a need to address Covid across an entire area decisions will be taken by ministers.

The new framework tells schools to ensure they have plans in place for:

~ Reintroducing asymptomatic testing sites.

~ Reintroducing mask-wearing in communal areas and/or classrooms.

~ Limiting residential visits, open days, transition days and performances.

~ Limiting attendance to primary school pupils in Reception, Year 1 and Year 2.

~ Limiting attendance secondary school students in Years 10, 11, 12 and 13, as well as vulnerable pupils and the children of key workers.

The document also says that schools should plan for the reintroduction of shielding but says that a decision to bring this back can only be done by the national Government.

In a daily bulletin sent to schools, the department says: “We have updated the contingency framework following the Government’s announcement on enhanced response packages to tackle the Delta variant in some areas.

“The contingency framework describes the principles of managing local outbreaks of Covid in education and childcare settings. It covers all types of measures that settings should be prepared for, which includes those that may be recommended as part of an enhanced response area.

“All education and childcare settings should have outbreak management plans outlining how they would operate if any of the measures described within the contingency framework were recommended in their area for any reason.

“Secondary schools and colleges should ensure their outbreak management plans cover the possibility that it is advised that face coverings should temporarily be worn more widely in settings in their area and that asymptomatic testing sites (ATS) may be required.”

It also says that additional guidance has been issued to the Directors of Public Health advising that they work in partnership with schools and colleges before reinstating ATS.

Schools had previously been told, earlier this year, that they must not implement any of the Covid containment measures without “explicit agreement” from the DfE but the new framework sets out how this can be done at local level if it only involves a small number of schools.

As we reported earlier today, London councils are also hoping to build “temporary body storage facilities” in the event of an “excess deaths situation”, largely due to concerns about the Indian Delta Covid variant. Just when we should be unlocking, the authorities appear to be gearing up for further restrictions.

The Times Educational Supplement report is worth reading in full.

By Michael Curzon  /  19 June 2021 • 19.55
         
101 comments

The Flawed Reasoning Behind Vaccine Passports

We’re publishing an original piece today by a lecturer at a Russell Group university about the poor reasoning of those who advocate for vaccine passports. Here’s an extract in which he draws attention to the use of false dilemmas in an attempt to persuade people to embrace a Covid status certification scheme.

Debates about vaccine passports often involve people experiencing a false dilemma. Consider a professor at the Harvard Law School for whom the alternative to a vaccine passport system is “stay at your home, or don’t come to college, or don’t come to the employer at all”. For those who want to do such extravagant things as go out, continue one’s education, or go to work to earn a wage, there may seem to be no acceptable alternative.

Many people, it seems, see the debate as one between accepting vaccine passports or facing a punishing future of restrictions, social disruption and isolation, and all their social and economic harms – ones that disproportionality impact ethnic and racial minorities. Given just those two options, vaccine passports will doubtless seem the lesser of two evils. But those aren’t the only option: a false dilemma is imposed by obscuring alternative possibilities. Israel, for one, recently announced the early closure of its Green Card system, barely five months after introducing it, due to encouraging case data and vaccine uptake rates. One obvious alternative is therefore to study up-to-date data on cases, hospitalisations, and deaths and weigh these against vaccination rates and plausible collective immunity levels.

We’re often susceptible to false dilemmas: many of us tend to stick to the options given to us. It also takes expertise, research, and exercises of the imagination to identify alternatives. Moreover, many prefer simplified decision-making situations in which there’s a limited set of simple alternatives. Sometimes, artificially simplified options are acceptable: not all false dilemmas concern important topics (what shall I do tonight – watch Netflix or have a bath?). But vaccine passports raise important issues, so we must take more than the usual amounts of care when considering them. If there are other ways to ‘return to normal’, then vaccine passports are not the only way and perhaps not the best way.

Worth reading in full.

By Toby Young  /  19 June 2021 • 16.51
   
46 comments

Westminster City Council Advertises Contract for Building of Body Storage Facilities in Case of an “Excess Deaths Situation”

Amid warnings of a third wave of Covid infections in the U.K., fuelled largely by the fear of the Indian Delta variant and, of course, the prospect of new variants, such as the one recently discovered in Russia, Westminster City Council has advertised a new contract opportunity for the construction of “temporary body storage facilities” in the event of an “excess deaths situation”. Here is some of the information provided on the Gov.uk website.

The Authority seeks to procure a framework agreement for temporary body storage in the event of an excess deaths situation for the 32 London boroughs and the City of London, led by Westminster City Council. The framework agreement will appoint a single provider and will be for a period of four years. This will be a contingency contract, only called upon in the event that an excess deaths situation arises in the future and existing local body storage capacity needs to be augmented.

The over-arching aim of this tender is to provide a single framework supplier that will be able to provide temporary body storage facilities to house deceased in the event of an excess deaths situation. The deceased will be stored with dignity and respect, at locations to be determined based on local London needs at the time and will require some design elements to accommodate local site conditions and constraints, while being capable of rapid deployment, construction and commissioning to an agreed standard. This framework will be procured by the Authority as the pan-London lead, but all London local authorities may call off against the framework.

This will be a contingency cover framework and as such, there is no minimum guarantee of any level of spend or call-off under the framework agreement.

The Council estimates that the total value of this contract (excluding VAT) will be around £6 million and it is not set for renewal. But how likely is it that this is just another local government overreaction?

Worth reading in full.

By Michael Curzon  /  19 June 2021 • 11.28
         
93 comments

Government Considering Exempting Fully-Vaccinated Brits From Quarantine Rules after Contact with Covid Carriers

The gap between vaccinated and unvaccinated Brits is set to grow even further under new plans to exempt people who have received both doses of a vaccine from having to self-isolate for 10 days after coming into contact with Covid carriers. Those who are exempt will have to abide instead by a strict testing regime and will still have to isolate if a test result comes out positive.

The Health Secretary is said to be “very keen” on this approach. All that is needed, according to reports, is for Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer for England, to give his seal of approval. The MailOnline has more.

Britons who have received both jabs would be exempt from self-isolation for a 24-hour period after each negative test result. 

Tests would be required every morning for one week if a person is told by Test and Trace that they have been near someone with the infection.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock is said to be “very keen” on the new approach which would help to lift coronavirus restrictions.

But the proposal can only go ahead after Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer for England, is content with the outcome of a study of 40,000 people…

Initial results from the study are predicted to come in next month and the research is set to finish by the end of this summer. 

A Whitehall source told the Times: “The vaccines are extremely effective and we want to keep people safe whilst minimising interruption to their lives. 

“So of course it is an attractive option if shown to be safe.”

It follows 62,000 people having to self-isolate last week after coming into contact with Covid carriers. 

Another source added: “It’s obviously very appealing if it’s safe so we need to show that before we bring it in.

“Matt is very keen on it and there is a strong appetite in some corners.”

Worth reading in full.

By Michael Curzon  /  19 June 2021 • 10.24
     
101 comments

NHS App Gains 2.7 Million Users Following Addition of Vaccine Passport

Almost three million people have signed up to the NHS app since the addition of the “NHS Covid Pass” section, showing a user’s vaccine status, as well as recent test results. The Guardian has the story.

The app, separate from the NHS Covid app, began enabling people to show proof that they had received the vaccine from May 17th, in order to travel internationally or attend sporting events, such as Wimbledon and Euro 2020 matches. The app already had other functions in order to access medical services, such as booking GP appointments.

Between May 17th and June 14th, almost five million distinct users logged on to the app, with the Department of Health and Social Care stating that more than six million users had been reached in total.

The Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, said: “Technology undoubtedly plays a huge role in how we deliver healthcare now and in the future and it is great to see so many people downloading, using and benefiting from the NHS app.

“It is vital we embrace the momentum we have built-in using technology and innovation in the health and care sector over the last year as we look beyond the pandemic to improve treatment, care and the experiences of patients.”

While the Gov.uk website mentions only that the app allows users to show their vaccine status “if required for international travel”, the Chief Executive of NHSX (the digital arm of the health service) says: “It has been good to see it used to open up sporting events, facilitate travel, and encourage the use of NHS services online.” Last month, a senior Whitehall figure said it is “almost certain” that vaccine passports will be required in domestic settings, such as for events of more than 1,000 people.

The Guardian report is worth reading in full.

By Michael Curzon  /  19 June 2021 • 08.51
           
65 comments

News Round-Up

By Jonathan Barr  /  19 June 2021 • 04.21
 
44 comments

America is Open, So Why Aren’t We?

Lockdown Sceptics received a fantastic response to our call for news from the reopened states in America with which to shame our own timid Government as it delayed reopening for yet another month. We published the first as a taster on Wednesday. Now we bring you the rest.

A Road Trip to Florida and Texas

Mark – a Brit who lives in Connecticut and recently visited Florida and Texas – writes:

I spent the start of the pandemic in Manhattan, NY, where the initial response mirrored the U.K.’s. It was frightening, and to me seemed possibly OTT, but given the explosion of terrifying news and the predicted Armageddon I definitely didn’t consider myself a lockdown sceptic. There was no particular turning point, more just the steady stacking up of evidence that whether or not lockdowns ‘worked’ in terms of a non-zero reduction in R, they very clearly didn’t justify their extreme costs. By the time we got to May and police would harass me for not wearing a mask walking alone down a near-empty street while politicians across the world were getting exposed on a daily basis flouting their own rules, I was a resolute sceptic and found your site one of the few places that would keep me sane while L.A. was filling skateparks with sand the Spanish were disinfecting beaches.

My first trip to Orlando, Florida early in 2021 felt like I’d entered a parallel universe – it was hard to believe I was in the same country as the Northeast, coming from a micromanagement regime that treated me like a leper even once restaurants had their ‘opening’ with the full Monty of plexiglass, 25% capacity, digital menus/ordering and drink-only bans. To be clear, some Covid theatrics remained in Florida, particularly with corporations, but they were largely unenforced – think masks in hotels, six-foot queue marks in banks etc. Although there were no legal restrictions on mass gatherings, there weren’t a huge number of gigs or comedy shows, and the basketball was at pretty limited capacity. Although I didn’t agree with it, I still appreciated what it showed – if individuals or a business took a different view of the risks to me, they were free to limit their own behaviours or capacity without arbitrary rules forcing them to, and I could spend my money in busy venues with a better atmosphere.

Possibly the biggest difference was the attitude of people. In Connecticut and New York many people feel Covid entitles them to a level of rudeness about non-conformists that would’ve been unimaginable pre-pandemic, and even more, like the U.K., seemed to almost enjoy the constant discussion of Covid news. In Florida it certainly wasn’t ignored, but people treated one another like regular humans, and Covid was an aspect of life rather than the aspect. I felt welcomed and had a great trip.

If the above is a good example of how much better life can be when Covid is still very prevalent and other countries imprison people in their homes, my experiences on my recent trip, with Texas and Florida’s approaches now fully justified and cases far lower, highlight the absurdity of the current state of the U.K.’s lockdown-lite when Covid levels are extremely low.

In Texas we enjoyed packed nightclubs, unrestricted baseball games, and had an amazing night in Dallas on May 8th watching the sold-out boxing in front of 70,000 fans (see snap above).

Masks aside (more on that later), in most places Covid effectively didn’t exist. People with symptoms isolate and get tests, and if positive they warn their recent contacts – everyone else gets on with their lives and from my perspective is far happier because of it. Florida – theme parks excepted – was much the same. I challenge anybody who supports anything close to the U.K.’s current approach to visit Texas or Florida and still defend it.

America is Open, So Why Aren’t We?Read More

By Will Jones  /  18 June 2021 • 23.24
         
24 comments

E.U. Fails in Court Ruling to Secure 120 Million Doses of AstraZeneca Vaccine – But Bloc Still Claims Victory

The European Union has failed in a legal attempt to obtain 120 million doses of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine by the end of this month. Despite this, the President of the European Commission has claimed victory for the bloc, saying that the ruling demonstrates the drug maker’s failure to meet its commitments. Sky News has the story.

The two sides have had a rocky relationship over the past few months, with the E.U. accusing the vaccine maker of not producing supplies fast enough.

AstraZeneca was contracted to do its best to deliver 300 million doses to the bloc by the end of June, but it had to revise down its target to 100 million doses due to production problems.

A Brussels court rejected an E.U. request for at least 120 million vaccine doses by the end of this month – something the company has claimed as a win.

Instead, the drug maker said the judge ruled it should deliver only 80.2 million doses by September 27th.

AstraZeneca said it would “substantially exceed” that amount by the end of this month and that the court backed its assertion that the European Commission “has no exclusivity or right of priority over all other contracting parties”.

However, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the ruling supported the E.U.’s view that AstraZeneca had failed to meet its commitments.

“It is good to see that an independent judge confirms this,” she said.

“This shows that our European vaccination campaign not only delivers for our citizens day by day. It also demonstrates that it was founded on a sound legal basis.” …

AstraZeneca has now been told by the court to deliver 15 million doses by July 26th, another 20 million by August 23rd, and a further 15 million by September 27th.

If the company misses these deadlines it will face a penalty of €10 (£8.57) per dose not delivered, the European Commission said.

Worth reading in full.

By Michael Curzon  /  18 June 2021 • 19.55
     
14 comments

NHS Doctor: Matt Hancock is “Not Fit for Public Office and Needs to be Removed Before He Inflicts Further Harm on the People of this Country”

NHS GP Dr Helen Westwood, a member of HART, has written a letter to her MP Sir Graham Brady expressing her concerns about the possible Government plans for mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers and others. She previously wrote to him at the end of April and received a reply from Vaccines Minister Nadhim Zahawi that we published on Lockdown Sceptics offering the paper-thin reassurance that the U.K. “currently operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations”. “Why does he need to use the word ‘currently’?” she asked. “Are there plans for mandatory vaccination in future?” There were indeed, and she is not impressed – to the point of calling for Health Secretary Matt Hancock to be shown the door before he does any more damage. Here is her letter in full.

Dear Sir Graham,

I refer to my earlier correspondence dated March 2nd and April 26th regarding the concerns I have about the COVID-19 vaccination program.

I am grateful to you for raising these concerns with the Minister for COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment. Sadly Mr Zahawi seems to be either unwilling or unable to respond to my questions. Perhaps he is just delaying until the vaccine rollout has reached the whole adult population as it is due to imminently.

Mr Zahawi said in his letter to you that “the UK currently operates a system of informed consent for vaccinations”. Clearly the current proposals to make vaccinations compulsory for care home workers and possibly frontline NHS workers is completely counter to this. If a medical intervention is mandated for one group in society why not others? What about visitors to care homes? Delivery drivers? Shop workers? The list will go on and on.

I would like to draw your attention again to Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. It states that “any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice”. If an individual is being coerced into undergoing vaccination, through fear of losing their livelihood, then they are not giving “free and informed consent”. In effect, the person administering the vaccine in such circumstances is committing the criminal offence of Assault and Battery. We know that the pharmaceutical companies have been granted legal indemnity by the Government but what indemnity does the vaccinator have in this situation?

In my opinion to ask anyone to undergo a medical intervention for the benefit of others is profoundly unethical. Population immunity, achieved through high vaccine take-up, is a by-product rather than the primary reason for immunising an individual. This ethical problem is particularly pertinent to the arguments given for rolling the program out to children, but is also relevant to the majority of healthy working-age adults. The mortality risk from COVID-19 in this cohort is lower than that for seasonal influenza. People are being persuaded to have these vaccines to protect society at large. Why is nobody in Government paying attention to the significant morbidity and mortality being reported on the Yellow Card system in relation to the administration of the vaccines? Young healthy people are being exposed to risks, both known and unknown, in taking these vaccines yet have little to gain in terms of personal benefit. Dr Tess Lawrie wrote an open letter to MHRA Chief Executive Dr June Raine saying that “the MHRA now has more than enough evidence on the Yellow Card system to declare the COVID-19 vaccines unsafe for use in humans”. At the very least we should be pausing to review the data before coercing young care home workers into having this vaccine when the results of the phase 3 trials are not yet known or understood.

In my discussions with patients who have undergone vaccination I have come to realise that many are unaware that these vaccines do not yet have full marketing authorisation. Sadly, the vaccine trials have now been compromised by being unblinded and control arm participants being offered the active drug. Given that these vaccines are still in their experimental phase, surely point 1 of the Nuremberg code applies: the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. How is this in any way compatible with mandatory vaccination?

According to Dominic Cummings, the Prime Minister referred to Matt Hancock as “fucking hopeless”. Having heard the Health Secretary say that there is a “material difference” in the duty of care owed by the state to those who have not yet been offered the vaccine compared to those that have not taken up the offer of vaccination, I would go as far as to say he is dangerous and a menace. He is not fit for public office and needs to be removed from his post before he inflicts further harm on the people of this country. The GMC’s Good Medical Practice guidance states that Doctors must “treat patients and colleagues fairly and without discrimination“. I do not think there is an exception to this based on vaccination status. Similarly the NHS constitution says that “the NHS provides a comprehensive service, available to all” and that staff has a “duty not to discriminate against patients or staff and to adhere to…human rights legislation”. With regard to patients it says “you have the right to accept or refuse treatment that is offered to you, and not to be given any…treatment unless you have given valid consent”. Perhaps the Health Secretary ought to familiarise himself with these documents.

Having read my comments you will not be surprised to learn that I still do not intend to take this vaccine currently. I refuse to be bullied into undergoing a medical intervention against my will. It is against everything I would advocate for my patients. With record waiting lists in the NHS it would seem to me to be unwise to risk losing a proportion of the workforce by forging ahead with plans for making COVID-19 vaccination compulsory.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Helen Westwood

By Will Jones  /  18 June 2021 • 17.11
         
124 comments

Those Who Have Had AstraZeneca Vaccine – or No Vaccine at All – Banned From Upcoming Bruce Springsteen Show

Broadway is reopening in New York, but you’ll need to have received a vaccine approved by the country’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in order to go to a show. Bruce Springsteen will shortly be opening in a one-man show on Broadway, but audience members will be forced to show proof of vaccination to attend – and the AstraZeneca vaccine won’t count! The Telegraph has the story.

The show, billed as “an intimate night with Bruce, his guitar, a piano, and his stories” will run five nights a week at the St James theatre.

“At the direction of New York State, Springsteen on Broadway and the St James Theatre will only be accepting proof of FDA-approved Covid vaccines,” the website says.

Anyone who has received another jab, or is unwilling or unable to have a vaccine will not be allowed to attend.

The news has been met with disappointment just hours north, across the Canadian border, where more than 1.7 million people have had the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Only those who have had a Moderna, Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be allowed to go to the theatre.

Worth reading in full.

The nyc.com website says young children will be exempt from the vaccine rule, but no one else.

The only exception to the above will be for children under the age of 16, who must be accompanied by a vaccinated adult and also must provide proof of at least one of the following:

~ negative antigen Covid test taken within six hours of the performance start time, or

~ negative PCR Covid test taken within 72 hours of the performance start time.

By Michael Curzon  /  18 June 2021 • 15.14
         
88 comments