[quote Sweetpotatoaddict]@AudacityOfHope really interesting thanks for posting.
I'm not sure the sample size was in any big enough to be vaguely meaningful though. The thing that really jumped out at me was that nobody from frontline medicine contributed, were they all to busy? They were being asked to speak on the non direct impacts of covid 19, which I wonder may prove itself to be a huge underestimated impact.[/quote]
The report says that at the 30th January session, panel members were asked to identify people who they wanted to speak to on the 6th Feb (a week later). This included "front line medical staff" to ask about indirect health effects. Unsurprisingly, no front line medical staff they asked were able to attend, given that short notice. I'd have thought that had they been invited as "keynote" speakers for the main sessions, during the planning process, they may have been able to attend, having been given more notice to arrange shifts/ childcare/ family stuff. As you say, I wonder if that is why such little "weight" was given to reducing indirect health effects in the panel's recommendations - which seemed to focus only on "wellbeing" initiatives, and having a think about what to do about the backlog in health care ("develop a strategy and fund some research on the impacts").
Overall, I'm really surprised that so many "neutral" (as in looking at both sides dispassionately, and not having direct experience of working in any particular business through the pandemic) academics were included rather than business leaders, front line medics, carers, families with vulnerable children, students and so on to talk about their actual experiences and what could have been done better to help them - and the same into the future. It isn't surprising that the focus and weight was given to cutting viral spread at all costs without such real life consideration of impacts of doing that through ever tighter restrictions on lives.
So the tourism expert spoke about "measures that could be used in the travel sector, including quarantine hotels, travel
corridors and pre-departure testing" and not (according to the report) the impact that the travel restrictions have had and will continue to have on hotels, seasonal staff, leisure providers and so on. The focus on rebuilding and future opportunities seems to tastefully skirt over the fact that many people with livelihoods dependent on tourism won't be able to take advantage of these things, because they are no longer in business and have no money and nothing left to rebuild. Obviously, taking these people into account now won't necessarily help them individually, as the harm has already been done, but it may help prevent other people going the same way.