Dear friend,

I keep holding off from sending another Letter from Westminster in the hope that things might settle down into a more predictable pattern and I can review where we are at. But every few days, things change, and with the changes now in the North East – which may well get extended here sooner rather than later – it seems there is no right time, so I might as well plunge in.

And I thought it may be helpful to try a bit of myth-busting and ‘explainer’ to (try to) explain what is going on.

Overall, I share the view that Parliament now needs a greater say over what is happening, if only to iron out some inconsistencies. No-one still seems to know whether the public bars of hotels can allow guests to remain there to finish tea and coffee after 10pm before returning to their rooms. It may not seem the most fundamental of queries – but a good example of how the devil is in the detail.

I absolutely understand the points I have heard made about learning to live with the virus. The challenge is to do so in a way which protects those at greatest risk and provides reassurance to the public. The Chancellor has said we need to live ‘without fear’, although I recognise there is an increasing difference of opinion, both scientific and public, about how all this can be achieved.

Whilst I don’t disagree with the overall trajectory of government policy towards Covid, I am increasingly frustrated that many of the most contentious issues are pushed through under emergency legislation with no discussion as to the detail. Asking one hit questions of Matt Hancock if lucky enough to be one of the 50 pulled out the hat in the Chamber is insufficient. We need greater scrutiny, to be able to dig into the data, to understand what is driving Government policy and ensure it is acting in the most appropriate fashion. I recognise that consideration of alternative responses, such as that is Sweden, should be included in healthy debate – but also know that Sweden has not got all the answers, and a much worse rate than neighbouring Norway.

Many have asked about the discrepancy between Wyre and Blackpool entering the local lockdowns – surely they should have been treated the same? Blackpool has its own Director of Public Health (DPH) whilst Wyre comes under Lancashire’s DPH. It is the DPH who makes the initial recommendation to Ministers based upon each Tuesday’s set of figures regarding cases. On the 17th September, Wyre had 5.3% of tests coming back positive but Blackpool only 3.1%. Lancashire’s DPH saw many higher levels in other Lancashire boroughs and felt it appropriate to place all of Lancashire in local lockdown. Blackpool having a lower rate did not feel it justified and advised it was not necessary and should be considered again the following week. By that point, Blackpool had surpassed Wyre with 5.9% to Wyre’s 5.7%. It was then decided on that basis to also place Blackpool into local lockdown.

Now, it is understandable to come to a conclusion that the alleged surge in visitor numbers to the Fylde in that intervening week led to the increase. However, this is not necessarily the case. Firstly, visitor numbers have fluctuated throughout the summer, and we have had higher numbers than in the past few weeks without public health consequences.

The overwhelming majority of Blackpool’s new cases are actually in the outer suburbs and a consequence of transmission during households visiting each other in a domestic setting. There is no evidence of the tourism sector being a cause of this. Indeed, the only hospitality setting where there was an outbreak was Poulton’s night-time economy, which is not frequented by tourists.

Whilst we clearly see many pictures of visitors not adhering to how we as individuals interpret the guidelines ourselves, the virus does not take the trouble to select whom to infect on the basis of their bad – or indeed good – behaviour.
The Government can tweak restrictions. I had numerous queries about grandparents with child caring responsibilities who were concerned it would affect their children’s working arrangements. Clarification from Government this could continue was both welcome and swift.

People might be thinking why all of this is occurring when the virus is nowhere near its peak of April and May. Whilst this is true, you may recall criticism that Government did not act soon enough. It is now accepted that by waiting for numbers to tick up sharply before acting is too late. Local, more targeted and less severe lockdowns at an earlier stage may control the virus a little more – but this can only be ascertained about a fortnight later when the restrictions may have had an impact on cases, and then a further fortnight later when hospital admissions (and sadly deaths) will be able to be observed. My own concern is that rules and changing so think and fast each week it will be hard to attribute action and consequence to understand what, if anything, did make a difference.

I have also been asked about hospitality businesses taking contact details. It is now mandatory for them to do so, but you are not obliged to use QR codes or your phones. These are merely options – the only legal requirement is to take your contact details verbally.

The number of cases nationally is rising – but then that will always be the case even if there is only one new case. It is a very misleading phrase. If anything, the number of new cases each day has slightly diminished in recent days, so it is too soon to reach a definitive conclusion if this is a longer trend. However, the BBC’s graphs in particular can be seen as very misleading as they show the number of cases at a level comparable to the peak of the epidemic. What it doesn’t adequately explain is that back in April only those in hospital are being tested, we now have a mass testing regime, so will be picking up more cases. It is the percentage which are positive which is the more important. And yes – the testing system has been expanded significantly but is still struggling to meet demand, so needs to keep on expanding its capacity.
Government continues to walk a tightrope. No-one is happy that we seem to have had liberties taken away just as we were getting used to them again. Some scientists did warn of a second wave, but others did not. Indeed, we can all find a scientist to back up our own preferred hypothesis of what should be done. If Government ignores the bulk of scientific opinion, it is open to criticism. Equally, if the bulk of scientific opinion is too optimistic or indeed pessimistic, Government also takes the blame for listening to the scientists in the first place.

This is why I think we need clarity on the long term strategy. Are we learning to live with some level of infection whilst we wait for a vaccine – which may or may not arrive – or are we still seeking to suppress completely? There is clearly a balance to strike.
For some who contact me, there is no economic price too high we can pay to suppress the virus. Equally, others take a highly libertarian view that we should all just take our chances and survival of the fittest is the order of the day. I can endorse neither.
Total lockdown returns us to a situation where many other people with cancer or cardiac problems are not getting treated, and where we store up a host of long-term mental health issues. Mass unemployment itself, as the Marmot Review revealed so clearly, has a significant long-term health impact on people which can results in many years lived with ill-health as a result. There is no simple mathematical equation which can calculate an output which negates all of these consequences.

But to do nothing, scrap all government measures and just see what happens is a total non-starter. Those seeking this path cannot answer the most salient question of all which is unknowable: “What would our number of deaths been had we not gone into lockdown when we did and taken no measures at all”.

Between both extremes lies a path we should take. If we are to take as many people down that path as we can, however, we do need to be honest about where the path is going.

The number of cases nationally is rising – but then that will always be the case even if there is only one new case. It is a very misleading phrase. If anything, the number of new cases each day has slightly diminished in recent days, so it is too soon to reach a definitive conclusion if this is a longer trend. However, the BBC’s graphs in particular can be seen as very misleading as they show the number of cases at a level comparable to the peak of the epidemic. What it doesn’t adequately explain is that back in April only those in hospital are being tested, we now have a mass testing regime, so will be picking up more cases. It is the percentage which are positive which is the more important. And yes – the testing system has been expanded significantly but is still struggling to meet demand, so needs to keep on expanding its capacity.

I have tried to cover as many queries as I can, and of course, will always do my best to answer queries, but current levels of emails are back at an all time high so would ask for your patience. Most factual answers to questions – however local – can nonetheless be found somewhere on gov.uk/coronavirus which may save you waiting for us to respond to a query.

Please continue to take care, show kindness to those around you and stay safe.

 

Best wishes,

Paul Maynard MP
Conservative - Blackpool North & Cleveleys
07885 651 705