To think UKHSA should have issued better advice in advance of the current extreme weather

[ProudCat]

First up, I'm a secondary teacher. Secondly, my adult son is severely disabled and hugely impacted by the current extreme weather. Thirdly, there was no such thing as the blitz mentality of 'keep calm and carry on' - it was pretty much a propaganda invention and a very good one at that.

Yesterday, I logged on to the Met Office's app to see that temperatures and feels like where I live were higher than temperatures and feels like where my family live, but I was under an amber heat alert and they were under a red heat alert. This changed at 9am in the morning, after the schools had opened. So that's my first issue, because it seems as if the heat alerts had followed any sort of logic (i.e. a certain temperature and feels like produces a certain heat alert) we wouldn't have ended up evacuating at lunch time. Heat alerts are put in place by UKHSA.

My second issue is that this was foreseen. We all knew at the weekend that there would be a significant rise in temperatures, most likely record breaking. Why could the UKHSA not have taken a logical approach at this time. For example, if temperature are going to reach 35 degrees, then we will definitely need to operate under a business recovery plan. Instead of doing this, they prevaricated, leaving people unclear, especially local authorities and school academies, who ended up having to make the call according to common sense rather than solid government-led guidance. This isn't good enough. Everyone was literally waiting to be told exactly what the guidance was and it never came through. This led to last minute decisions and disruption for families (in the case of education). What's the point of a huge organisation like the UKHSA if it's not actually able to carry out the function of its role in a timely manner.

Finally, it concerns me that decisions about public health, which should be coordinated by a health agency, are being made locally and piecemeal. This shouldn't be happening. In an 'industry' - such as education - there should be standing risk assessments and identified control measures already in place, and these should be informed by the appropriate public body. It shouldn't be left to individual schools to 'make it up as they go along' in the total absence of proper guidance from the LA - who themselves are at a bit of a loss because they haven't got any guidance either. Instead, we have (understandably) disgruntled parents and carers who suddenly find their lives upended with last minute notifications that they're struggling to respond to.

Come on UKHSA, get your act together.

Yes, lets all have air conditioning that uses vast quantities of electricity and make climate change worse. Marvellous idea.

We need to tackle the cause, not stick a plaster on one of the symptoms.

And I'm not entirely sure the OP understands the meaning of the word 'forecast'.

@ProudCat maybe that agency isn't fit for purpose - I don't know

I'm a big fan of not commenting on things when I don't have any knowledge!

But I thought you were asking for specific planning to be made based on whether or not it was for example 31 or 35. And nobody knows that for sure. I'm obsessed with weather because I live in a boiling hot new build with thermal bricks. Many days, nobody knows.

I thought you were saying you wanted the agency to make a concrete plan based on the weather forecast. Have I misunderstood?

Why would they close all schools? My nearest primary has full air conditioning, they are allowing all kids to stay on site until 6pm (movie in the hall) even if not registered for asc. Secondary is closing because it’s older, no aircon plus the fc are old enough to be home alone .. except they weren’t at home, they were swimming next to the no swimming sign apparently!

Post this six years ago and you would have been called a granny killer
Where was the fangirling for personal responsibility then?!

So you don't want us to have air conditioning in schools and hospitals? I remember when I lived in Nigeria, guys in sheds at the side of the road selling bootleg whisky had air conditioning. You'd like for our infrastructure to be worse than that? OK then.

I perfectly understanding the meaning of the word forecast. In my original post you'll see me talking about how the contemporaneous alerts were incorrect. For some reason people then started to talk about how the forecasts either had or hadn't been there for days. I was responding to them. If the contemporaneous alerts are only updated after the event, how would you refer to that? A correction? That suggests a mistake. That's the point of my post.

I was suggesting that:

a) decisions around what constitutes an amber or red heat alert should be consistent.

b) a guidance framework for extreme weather should tie into these ACCURATE alerts and contain more than 'keep the blinds down and drink lots of water'.

c) plans should be specific. if it's 25-30 degrees then there should be an adaptable business recovery plan for that. if it's 30-35 degrees, then there should be an adaptable business recovery plan for that. if it's 35-40 degrees ... you get the picture. there's no reason for us to just be making it up as we go along. we know what the risks are in each scenario. why can't we just have a shared understanding of what should happen in each case? to be honest, i think i know why, it costs money to protect people, and climate change is something people have been avoiding for a long time now.

I didn't suggest they should close all schools. Has someone broken into England and stolen all the logic? If x, then y. If a school has full air conditioning, then that school should stay open. If a school has no air conditioning, then that school should shut.

except they weren’t at home, they were swimming next to the no swimming sign apparently!
^^ great parenting skills on show right there.

Finally, it concerns me that decisions about public health, which should be coordinated by a health agency, are being made locally and piecemeal

Taking schools as the example, every building is different. All grounds are different. Why on earth would decisions on whether a school building can safely operate be made centrally?

My confusion is that there has been schools, in amber areas that didn’t become red, that have either closed or reduced hours.

If your school didn’t, whilst on amber, and went ahead with the Y10 mocks, that’s an LA/school issue as it does appear that others had the same alert warning and made different arrangements.

A forecast is a calculated estimate of what might happen based on the data currently available, previous trends, the likelihood of what might happen, and some statistical analysis. That estimate will be updated on a regular basis.

Do you understand the meaning of the word 'estimate'?

That sounds to me like the data from yesterday indicated one thing, so at 8 the advice was based on that, because no one was at work until after then. At 8/8:30 they came into work, looked at the overnight data and updated forecast and revised their assessment. But surely the head has the authority to make a decision to protect health and safety - someone on-site must have H&S responsibility. It’s a legal requirement surely. If they chose not not make a decision then that’s on them, IMO.

For clarity, I meant decisions about what constitutes a health emergency. Does extreme heat with a red alert constitute a health emergency? If so, what measures are in place to reduce the risk of that emergency? These must be determined locally, but the reality of a health emergency has to be determined centrally. Obviously, if there's disagreement with this, then there's no reason for the UKHSA to exist and that would save us £2 billion a year.

Nope. All secondaries in the city were open first thing. All were evacuated at lunchtime. Obviously that's 10,000+ kids.

Please read the posts. The UKHSA don't make forecasts, they issue alerts. Not sure why you keep going on about forecasts.

In terms of local plans, yes, of course, using logic, set out in a framework, as I've now said more than once. If x, then y. For example, if you "have a couple of rooms with air con, a shady playground and a old Victorian building which stays fairly cool on the lower floors" (this is x), then you probably don't need to close. But if you have no air con, no shade and a building that actively traps heat (this is x), then you should close. Instead, what we have, is "Schools should remain open and let as many children attend as possible, where safe to do so." To me this seems very woolly from a public health perspective that costs us nearly £2 billion to fund every year.

I don’t get your point here. Surely your whole bit about whether you have air con etc is precisely what “where safe to do so” means. Your scenarios are far too prescriptive. What if a school meets your criteria of a couple of rooms with air con and old Victorian building, but has other rooms with no air con and a modern extension building. Is that x or y (or does some local knowledge and decision making need to step in)?

The guidance for schools has been available for years. Ukhsa suggest plans are in place for different settings like schools and they account for all levels of heat health alerts - and same with cold. If your school doesn't have this and decided to remain open and hold mocks that is a school decision. It isnt a ukhsa and local authority one. Presumably made by dfe pressure around closures and attendance
There cant be a blanket rule that as soon as it reaches 25 degrees then x happens to all schools and 30 degrees y happens. Because all schools are different. Some have all air conditioning and lots of children atrending living in flats ithers have 1 room or non air conditioned.

There was no change, therefore, how can amber suddenly move to red

Because weather forecasting isn't an absolute science?

The alerts are based on the forecast and a risk assessment including how likely the temperature is to be dangerous to health. They normally align with the met office alerts but have slightly different boundaries.
The temperature this time has also felt hotter than 2022 due to the humidity which is harder to predict I think and your argument about a set action fot each temperature wouldnt wotk with the humidity

I've been exceptionally impressed about the cascading of info actually. My child started new medication recently and I had no idea high temps could cause issues with this. But I got warnings days in advance thanks to the UHHSA weather warnings leading to relevant charities making announcements about it.

Your x equals y doesn't make any sense. It was need to be so ridiculously long that it would be meaningless. Far too many factors to consider for individual e.g. schools.

When I was at school each individual head teacher made common sense decisions about these sorts of things. For example when it was cold and the boiler broke kids went home. Or when it snowed heavily the rural children went by bus early in case they couldn't get home later.

I think the drama over-the-counter weather seems to have brainwashed folk.
I hate hot weather and I am in the middle of the red zone and TBH I am not finding it as bad as the hype.
I think everyone is just trying to wangle a day off.

Because they issue those alerts based on data that cannot, by its very nature, be 100% accurate. And it is that which seems to be a sticking point for you.

In the space of 12 hours, the forecasted high temp for my region for today (Friday), has gone from 27, to 32, and now to 31.

Showing bloody 37 here for today.

Weird anti-UKHSA focus…Met Office gives clear explanation of how heat health alerts are issued, and why they are updated often, may change over time, and are much more complex than just how hot it’s going to be / feel like on any given day:

“The UKHSA Heat Health Alert system is an England only service, designed to highlight the potential impacts of heat on human health, particularly for vulnerable groups. Issued in collaboration with health agencies, it focuses on the cumulative effects of heat rather than just peak daytime temperatures.
Alerts are graded at yellow, amber and red levels, allowing a broader range of potential impacts to be communicated. This means an alert can be issued even when temperatures are not exceptionally high, but conditions are still likely to pose risks.
For example, a prolonged spell of moderately high temperatures can lead to increased health impacts over time. Similarly, very warm nights can reduce the body’s ability to recover, raising the potential for heat-related illness. In such situations, a Heat Health Alert may be issued without a corresponding Met Office extreme heat warning.”

This is exactly my point. Where safe to do so. Might it be reasonable to expect our public health bodies to define what they mean by safe in this situation?

Elsewhere people have said it should be down to individual heads. How many of them do you think are qualified in health and safety?