Just in tiers with it all now ....

[dancemom]

New Thread, same old situation....

I really wish they would update the public on what has to be achieved! There are several local businesses around us watching the numbers saying our LA is close to being tier 1.......except that ship has sailed and the govt hasn't bothered to outline it to businesses yet which really isn't fair they only have the old system to refer to!

I did overhear a tiny thing Jason Leitch said today on the committee meeting. He was asked if we would be going back to tiers or levels and he said yet, but that the system would be 'better' because they have better data now.

I didn't get to hear the rest as I was logging off. But I guess we are going back to tiers, er, at some point!

Thanks for all your insights @AudacityOfHope. Really interesting.

Thanks for the new thread dancemom.

I've been reading audacity et al's report. A lot of the recommendations do make sense, though it'll be interesting to see how the rather "wooly" policy objectives are actually taken forward. I like the idea of independent oversight of the response. Can't believe there wasn't support for careful reopening of schools, though?! Wtf is that about?
( from p23 "A recommendation that “the Scottish Government should carefully consider how schools are reopened, involving children and young people in the decision-making process” was put forward, but this could not garner support from all the participants")

It looks as if the presenter for the "strategies" section was just Devi, (p13) so it's probably unsurprising that the "elimination" strategy was supported - especially as 2 of the 5 strategies seem impossible - (we can't have "no substantive strategy" as we already have restrictions with the associated impacts of those, and we can't exclude it from getting into the country in the first place, though apparently 16 of the 19 participants thought we could!). Possibly the participants were asked to use input from the other experts to weight the various options, but it's not clear that that was asked... just whether it was possible (or a good idea?) in scotland. There also doesn't seem to have been any consideration of picking and mixing from the different strategies - though maybe that is what was meant by "elimination, setting out an acceptable level of infection" which sounds like a kind of "suppression max" strategy rather than true elimination (which doesn't seem possible to me, like others have said).

It's also unclear how the weighting of the 4 harms was done (audacity?). That seems a slightly odd way of going about it as presumably they are all linked. The way it's presented sounds like a covid death is worth "more" than a death from anything else - as direct harm is weighted higher than indirect health harm, for example - and I'm sure that's not what was intended. I'd have thought it would be better to weight potential impacts arising? (eg avoid death, then avoid hospital overcrowding, then avoid long term illness, then avoid loss of education, then avoid business closure etc etc).

Sooooo many questions! But it does seem like NS is now treating it as a done deal , so that's that... That'll be the adult, open conversation we're having.

" Can't believe there wasn't support for careful reopening of schools, though?! Wtf is that about?"

That was because the group couldn't come to a consensus about the exact recommendation: some people wanted to include a clause that said we should consult children and young people about going back to school, and others (i.e. the parents!) didn't think that was right considering they'll be going back if schools are open and their parents say so!

We had to move on as we were running out of time so agreed to reflect accurately that we debated it but didn't reach consensus so couldn't include a specific recommendation. That's all.

"There also doesn't seem to have been any consideration of picking and mixing from the different strategies"

Not right.

The exact wording is:

The Scottish Government should implement an elimination strategy as far as possible in 2021 and where this is not feasible should aim for maximum suppression of the virus.

So it is indeed a blend of two of the strategies.

Sorry to answer separately, I'll forget what I'm answering otherwise.

"It's also unclear how the weighting of the 4 harms was done"

Basically we had an online platform where every single concern, idea, etc we discussed was put up. We then had one week to go in and rate each problem in terms of how it would impact the four harms (some things might tackle all four a bit, or only one, or a few, for example) and rate the potential levers or solution in the same way.

That's how they came up with how 'important' we rated the four harms. But in actuality it went like this:

Covid 9.7
Societal impact 7.6
Other health 7
Economic 6.5

It wasn't that we sat down and went 'well, the economy is on two-thirds as important' it's more that's what was reflected in the problem and solutions we ended up discussing I guess. It was more organic than deliberate and that's just how it shook out.

But surely that clause could have been dropped while keeping the non contentious bit? The recommendation that there is on education now doesn't say anything about reopening schools, but is hot on "improvement" which, I have to say, always worries me a bit.

The Scottish Government, universities and schools should use the pandemic as an opportunity to make improvements to education and lifelong learning by building on current reviews of assessment processes and blended models of learning. This should also include looking beyond digital access to address other barriers to remote learning, such as language and home environments.

Yes, things can always be improved, and I agree there are things that can be learnt from changes to education that could be good in the long run (DH works in a university, and there are covid things that they are now considering keeping - like submitting work electronically, and recorded "information imparting" lectures which the students are generally much happier doing from their bedrooms, while returning ASAP to face to face interactive work/ labs/ workshops etc which is where the real value in a uni education is). But I don't think not carefully reopening schools should be one of those changes!

@AudacityOfHope how many experts gave input into the question of overall strategy (elimination etc.)? Was there an advocate for living with the virus or was it mostly led by Devi Sridhar? Just trying to understand why this message is so different from the expert opinion coming from England.

Well, do you really think it's likely that schools won't be opened carefully because it doesn't explicitly say so in this one piece of material? That would give a random like me an extraordinary amount of power

I'm pretty sure they're going to be cautious about reopening - we can already see that by the way they're staging it.

We couldn't include it as it was because we didn't all agree, and we didn't have time to include tons of ideas as it was. Some stuff had to go. We already went almost two hours over (which nobody minded but it could potentially have never ended!)

I totally get why people voted for an elimination strategy as it sounds like the least bad option available

My fear is that the Nicola et al use that as justification for keeping us under restrictions for the foreseeable. I really am coming to resent the extent to which everyday activities are restricted, the way folk are suspicious and critical of people who are seen to not follow restrictions or are reasonably critical of every aspect of life being controlled by the government. Eradication sounds great if it were possible but I can’t see that being compatible with ordinary life, you know including things like celebrations, live music, meals out with friends, foreign travel.

Hmm I honestly don't really remember @Y0uCann0tBeSer10us

We were allowed to ask any witness anything, so we did ask lots of people what they would choose, probably a dozen people anyway.

I asked the travel industry expert what one change she would make (assuming she would say vaccine passports or something) and she said 'close the borders'. So it wasn't that people only talked directly to one thing, the conversations went all over the place and were really broad I suppose.

Who was the travel expert audacity? It's made me think that we should be having a world wide (virtual) vaccine political conference including the charity sector with vaccine experience to see how we can get the world vaccinated because all this close the borders stuff is so likely to fail.

Was the travel industry expert someone that actually makes their living from the sector? Because if so, the close-the-borders response strikes me as a remarkably unusual viewpoint for someone to take whose livelihood would be completely wiped out by doing so for any length of time.

Excuse my cynicism but it does make me wonder if the experts weren't rather carefully selected for their viewpoints.

@AudacityOfHope

Sorry to answer separately, I'll forget what I'm answering otherwise.

"It's also unclear how the weighting of the 4 harms was done"

Basically we had an online platform where every single concern, idea, etc we discussed was put up. We then had one week to go in and rate each problem in terms of how it would impact the four harms (some things might tackle all four a bit, or only one, or a few, for example) and rate the potential levers or solution in the same way.

That's how they came up with how 'important' we rated the four harms. But in actuality it went like this:

Covid 9.7
Societal impact 7.6
Other health 7
Economic 6.5

It wasn't that we sat down and went 'well, the economy is on two-thirds as important' it's more that's what was reflected in the problem and solutions we ended up discussing I guess. It was more organic than deliberate and that's just how it shook out.

Ah, thanks! I'm being a bit thick, though... Can you give an example of a "concern" or an "idea" or a "problem" or a "potential lever" or a "solution" ? They all seem very different things! So someone may have a "concern" about catching covid and being unable to care for a relative - but that in itself doesn't really impact on the 4 harms (though it would encompass direct and indirect health harm, economic and social harm) - so I assume you're talking about different kinds of concerns.

I'm just having difficulty visualising the kind of thing you were asked to do.

I can see that, for example, allowing children in schools could be perceived to exacerbate covid spread in the community potentially, hence making the direct impact from covid worse, but would decrease social harm (loss of education, loss of friendships and social skills, loss of women in the workforce increasing sex inequality etc) and economic harm (parents not being able to work due to childcare, families becoming poorer etc) and likely other indirect health harm (mental health, for example, though some may also be concerned about the increase in cases leading to increased hospitalisations and therefore reducing treatment of other health conditions) - but I can't picture how all of these things were weighted (and surely that's not within the expertise of the 19 of you anyway?!)

Well I feel very lucky to get some inside information on how the process worked and how it came about so thank you @audacityofhope for providing it. I know it's not been set up by you but I do find reports don't reflect all the considerations so it's been really great to get some further insight.

I don't agree with some of the recommendations but I think everyone has their own opinion on these things. I hope that they do take some of the recommendations forward especially around communication, advice from scientists and clear set out limits to ease out of lock down.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to us all on here as well!

These threads move too fast to keep up

@AudacityOfHope can you remind me of the options other than elimination?

I see NI is extending lockdown til 1st April (are schools opening there?) so wonder if NS will extend ours.

@AudacityOfHope

Well, do you really think it's likely that schools won't be opened carefully because it doesn't explicitly say so in this one piece of material? That would give a random like me an extraordinary amount of power

I'm pretty sure they're going to be cautious about reopening - we can already see that by the way they're staging it.

We couldn't include it as it was because we didn't all agree, and we didn't have time to include tons of ideas as it was. Some stuff had to go. We already went almost two hours over (which nobody minded but it could potentially have never ended!)

Well, no (or at least I'd hope not... no offence intended). But it just seems odd that it wasn't included as an absolute priority recommendation. I'm pretty sure the SG will continue to reopen carefully eventually . And as you say, it's just the recommendations of the panel, not definitely what government policy will be. But I'm just surprised that on this thing the CP didn't seem to accord with what SG policy seems to be (not even that controversially!) and that it was left to the end of the discussion to be missed out because you ran out of time.

I suppose it may not have been seen as so critical by panel members without children, though, so maybe we're just in a bit of a school-obsessive bubble here as we see the impacts on the children first hand.

@Sootess

Sorry if I've missed this. Can anyone explain if there's been cost, benefit analysis on Zero Covid? What will we need to do as a society for each option? Schools in part time next winter? Hospitality outdoors only for the next year? No family from overseas can visit for how long? No overseas travel for 2 years? University all online for next year too? Everyone working from home for the next year or 2? I expect timescales are very difficult because we'll be at the mercy of the rest of the world sorting themselves out, just as Aus and NZ are at moment.

Cost benefit analysis is probably not Covid seems to be the second most important thing to SG. And actually the cynic within makes me thing their actually thinking if covid in Scotland is lower than England it's a good excuse to have a hard border at Carlisle with tests before you come north.

@Scottishskifun

Well I feel very lucky to get some inside information on how the process worked and how it came about so thank you *@audacityofhope* for providing it. I know it's not been set up by you but I do find reports don't reflect all the considerations so it's been really great to get some further insight.

I don't agree with some of the recommendations but I think everyone has their own opinion on these things. I hope that they do take some of the recommendations forward especially around communication, advice from scientists and clear set out limits to ease out of lock down.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to us all on here as well!

Yes, I agree! Thanks audacity.

it's a good excuse to have a hard border at Carlisle

Is that actually legal? Does anyone know?

It would certainly create some interesting logistical issues on the movement of goods, last I checked there weren't many operational ports in Scotland.

@MaxNormal

Was the travel industry expert someone that actually makes their living from the sector? Because if so, the close-the-borders response strikes me as a remarkably unusual viewpoint for someone to take whose livelihood would be completely wiped out by doing so for any length of time.

Excuse my cynicism but it does make me wonder if the experts weren't rather carefully selected for their viewpoints.

I think, according to the list of experts on p 25 of the report she may have been Professor Anna Leask, Professor of Tourism Management, Edinburgh Napier University. So an academic rather than someone who's livelihood directly depends on tourism itself. Obviously that doesn't mean her views are less valid, and I've heard her talk on rebuilding tourist attractions etc after covid and she is obviously well respected, but it will be a different interest to the manager of a travel agent, for example, or a self employed tour guide. Also, with a captive audience in Scotland, Scottish tourist attractions could do OK in the short term, so an expert in tourism management could be interested in a change in marketing strategy, maybe!

That does rather concern me though, that the panel of industry-specific experts were all from an academic background rather than industry leaders at the sharp end of the economic realities.

The infrastructure to support everyone in Scotland holidaying within the country is so, so far from there I don't even know where to begin with it. She'd better have some damn good ideas.

@kurtrussellsbeard from the last thread, its nose and throat.

Thank you for the thread dancemom.