So, at around 8pm last night, Boris Johnson put on his solemn face on TV and announced that for the third time during this horrible pandemic, England would be placed on lockdown. This is not quite as strict a lockdown as seen last March, with certain elements of society allowed to remain open where they were closed last time, but it's near as dammit - with schools told to close until at least the February half term.
In essence, the numbers suggest the PM had little choice but to go draconian. Positive case numbers and numbers in hospital (if not - yet - the numbers on ventilation) suggest we're hitting the peak of the second wave meaning the NHS is under severe strain. The situation is perhaps not as acute as it was in March/April - but it's not far off. I think there have been issues that could have been handled better, albeit mostly in the messaging. I was, and remain, incandescent at the messaging around the Christmas "relaxation". From the outset the message should have been "No Christmas unless things improve" rather than making a pledge that couldn't be delivered. My anger was not at the rules put in place, rather that just two days previously the PM made it clear he was not going to change his mind, before promptly doing so just after MPs (who'd have erupted) were sent home.
There is, of course, a big reason to suggest we're entering a final push with regard to suppressing the virus and returning to some sort of normality - the presence now of two vaccines in circulation in the UK means we are well on our way to protecting the most vulnerable, meaning that for those of us for whom the virus is an inconvenience rather than an immediate threat to life, the day we can "live with it" is surely not too far off.
The School Conundrum
The main change from the fairly draconian Tier 4 restrictions, under which the bulk of the country were placed in the last week or two, and the national lockdown, is the closure of schools to all bar those who are vulnerable and/or the offspring of key workers. The closure is a key point of debate - on the one hand it has been argued that with the new variant of Covid it is more transmissible by children, hence it would be difficult to stop numbers escalating by allowing children back into school. On the other hand it is argued that a balance has to be struck between the physical health of schoolchildren and the emotional and educational damage a closure could inflict. My daughter's school had put in place already a delayed return and mass testing, and performed very well last term in managing the virus, I'm confident they could have opened in a week or two with structures in place to mitigate against impact.
However, I'm also not particularly concerned purely for my 13 year old daughter about her education when moving to online rather than face to face teaching. She is a good independent learner, she has a good laptop, and she has her own bedroom which serves as study space.
However, we're the lucky ones in terms of our child being kept off school - there will be thousands, perhaps millions, who will be seriously disadvantaged. For many, especially in primary schools, the emphasis is on home learning rather than online - difficult to manage when both parents are working (even if both working from home), and/or juggling other commitments, such as pre-school age children. Then there are others who don't have 24/7 access to IT, or who share bedrooms and therefore have no space to study independently. And therein lies the crux - the educational gap is already large, and will only get a lot larger as a result of stifling the education of those whose education is best served in the classroom. In short, it's a difficult balancing game, with those making the decisions damned if they do, damned if they don't.
The Vaccination Priority Issue
I have seen a lot on social media around people promoting the idea that teachers and school staff should be elevated in the priority list for vaccinations. I understand the emotive issue around this, but it also betrays a lack of understanding about the vaccinations, what they can and can't do, and why the priority list is as it is.
Essentially, the injection is not a magic wand that makes the virus disappear. It doesn't even stop you catching the virus. And, most importantly, it doesn't stop you passing the virus on to others. What it does do is provide your body with the necessary capability to stop the virus developing within you and making you ill (often to the point of death). Therefore the government has made clear the priority list for people receiving the vaccination based on the number of people who need to be vaccinated in order to save a life or, in other words, to first vaccinate the people for whom Covid is a likely killer.
So, first of all we have elderly people in care homes (and their carers), then people over 80 years old alongside healthcare workers, then those over 70 and those with severe healthcare issues for whom the virus would likely kill them, and so on until everyone over 50 has been taken care of.
The one "anomaly" in there is healthcare workers. However these are people who on a daily basis come into contact with members of the public who are already compromised with such a high viral load that it is potentially lethal - and naturally the higher the viral load you encounter, the more likely you are to suffer badly yourself. It therefore stands to reason that healthcare workers should be prioritised alongside the elderly.
The key element is in mitigating for those who need mitigating against the virus. And this is why the argument for pushing teachers and school staff up the priority list, admirable as it sounds, is a counter-productive measure. For most people in education settings, catching the virus is not a game-changer (or potentially lethal), and therefore for every fit and healthy 25 year old (whose symptoms would be moderate to non-existent) who is vaccinated, one 70 year old for whom Covid could kill them doesn't receive it. In addition, the fit and healthy 25 year old could still carry, and pass on, the virus to the 70 year old, who could then die. The whole object of the vaccination, to save lives, will not have done its job.
On the other hand, if you give the 70 year old the vaccination, coming into contact with an infected 25 year old ought to have no negative repercussions for either party. The vaccination will have done its job.
When you therefore weigh up that the vaccination is there firstly to protect the vaccinated individual from harm, you need to assess that it's those who actually need to be protected from harm that should be at the top of the list - and in this case it's pretty clear that your chances of survival from the virus go down the older you are, and whether you have underlying health conditions that compromise your immune system. Therefore in order to maximise human life and health, we need to hold firm to the priority list as it is now, and not compromise on this to vaccinate people whose need is not actually as great in terms of their immediate threat to their life.
Anyway, if the government and its agencies are able to keep to their promise of getting the top four vulnerable groups vaccinated by mid-February, here's hoping we're out of the woods in weeks and months rather than years. For me, there are several things I want to do: sit in a pub with my mates (with no "substantial meal"), watch the mighty Exeter City live (sod's law it will be at yet another insipid display at Wembley), head down to my Mum's place in Dorset, enjoy a full Cricket season, and celebrate Katy's 50th birthday in July with the party we booked ages ago. It's not too much to ask, is it?
