Reader TTS

Ministers have left it too late for a “circuit-breaker” lockdown to be fully effective when schools break up for half-term, the senior scientific adviser evaluating the measure has said.

Graham Medley, a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), said that ministers had “missed the boat” for a pre-planned two-week lockdown, which would be designed to

reduce pressure on the NHS while giving businesses and families time to prepare. Sage published minutes on Monday showing that three weeks ago it had called for a circuit breaker. His

remarks will increase pressure on the government to explain why it failed to follow the advice. Professor Medley led a team which showed that a two-week full lockdown, introduced on October

24 to coincide with half term, with stay-at-home orders and school closures, could reduce deaths for the rest of the year from about 19,900 to 12,100. The policy was backed by Sir Keir

Starmer, the Labour leader. But it is now too late to give businesses and the public enough notice for it to work as envisaged, Professor Medley said. “It would be very useful

epidemiologically, but [October 24] is probably too soon for people and businesses to plan effectively to reduce the most negative impacts,” he told _The Times_. “Most pubs get monthly

deliveries so they need at least a month’s notice not to buy the beer that they won’t sell, etc.” Advertisement Other options could include bringing Christmas holidays forward, government

advisers said. “We missed the boat of making it a precautionary break for this half-term,” Professor Medley said. “But we haven’t missed the boat of it epidemiologically as a strategy . . .

You don’t need to be a rocket scientist [to realise that the country is heading for] the majority of people living under much more severe restrictions.” Other members of Sage support the

strategy. The government’s scientific advisers broadly agree that a two-week “circuit-breaker” could buy the country time. But they also warn that it would not solve problems, only delay

them. Longer-term changes, they say, will be needed to manage the virus this winter. Professor Sir Ian Boyd, who sits on Sage, said that regionally-focused circuit breakers could be useful

but that longer-term changes in how people interact would be needed to keep the virus in check. “My view is that focussed circuit breaker style interventions in areas where prevalence is

high and rising fast would be helpful, obviously,” he said. “But if everybody just returns to their original way of behaving after it is over, then all that a circuit breaker will do is

delay the process of rising disease.” This could be useful, he added. “But it is a sticking plaster to deal with the problem that people need to be much more conscious of their contact with

other people and reduce the rate of contact. Advertisement “Circuit breakers are about the government taking control when it would be much better if people themselves took control,” he said.

Professor Sir Mark Walport, also a Sage member, said that ministers faced “appallingly difficult” decisions. “Sage looks at the pandemic through the lens of the pandemic — how do we bring

it under control? Sage does not contain economists . . . If you are a politician, you have to walk the extremely tight tight-rope between controlling infection and avoiding dire economic

consequences. There is clear concern, though, that measures at the moment are not bringing things under control.” Mark Woolhouse, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the

University of Edinburgh, who sits on Sage’s Spi-M modelling subcommittee — but who like all the experts quoted here spoke to _The Times _in a personal capacity — agreed that circuit breakers

would reduce transmission. “A reasonable thing to hope for from a two-week circuit breaker that you might get a four-week break before things return to where they were at the beginning of

the circuit breaker — this was known ages ago: we were modelling this back even before the first lockdown in March,” he said. “You want something to be different at the end of that four-week

period. And you have to be very clear what that is.” Advertisement One option might be to try to reduce cases to a level where test and trace systems could be effective in managing local

flare-ups. “However, I have to say that, given where we are now, a two-week circuit breaker seems to me most unlikely to achieve that,” Professor Woolhouse said. Another argument is that

hospitals would be given time to reorganise and regroup. “That’s not a very satisfactory aim — because we’re still saying we’re going to have a public health emergency, we’re just going to

delay for a few weeks.” He suggests that the time might be well spent looking at other aspects of government policy. “Compliance with quarantine and self-isolation rules is poor and that’s

absolutely on the front line of our fight with this virus. Can we change either the regulations or the incentives or the support for people to self isolate?” Not all of Spi-M back a

circuit-breaker now. Steven Riley of Imperial College London, said he would focus on getting measures right for Liverpool, Manchester and Lancashire. “I can see some good arguments for a

short national lockdown, but I’m not certain it’s the correct thing right now and I wouldn’t want leaders distracted from urgent local decisions.” Advertisement Jonathan Read, a Spi-M

member, said that applying a circuit breaker at any time would reduce infection rates, but the decision was not purely epidemiological. “With any exponential process, like epidemic growth,

early action is always better than late action,” he said. “However, I appreciate there are competing demands, such as economic and welfare considerations. Again, the decision to impose a

circuit breaker, or not, is not just an epidemiological decision, it is a political one.” Adam Kucharski, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who sits on Spi-M, said that

one way or another, changes will come. “If cases are rising and you delay making decisions …eventually the virus will force you to make them. “Much stronger measures will soon be needed in

some areas simply to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. And if measures will eventually have to come in anyway, acting earlier can bring targeted options for control back into play sooner, like

improved testing and tracing. As we saw in the spring, the longer infections rise, the more prolonged effort it will take to get them to come back down.” Professor Medley said that, planned

in advance, a circuit breaker could help people cope better. “There is a chance to build a national narrative about how we handled the epidemic,” he said. Advertisement “Are we going to

bump from enforced lockdown to enforced lockdown? Or are we going to say, ‘Actually, what we did was went into short periods of strict lockdown to keep the prevalence low, and that’s how we

got through it.’” A study by Professor Medley and members of a modelling group suggests a strict lockdown from October 24 could cut hospital admissions for the rest of the year from 132,400

to 66,500. Lockdown with schools and shops open but hospitality sites closed could cut deaths to 15,600. “Such breaks may allow other methods that work best with low numbers (such as

test-trace-and-isolate) to reassert control,” the report said. The different scenarios Assuming the number of cases increases at 3 per cent a day, where the growth rate (rather than the

reproduction number, or R) is 0.03, and no action is taken, deaths for the rest of the year are projected to rise to 19,900. WITH AN APRIL-STYLE LOCKDOWN, DEATHS WOULD FALL BY 7,800 TO

12,100 Restrictions included the closure of all schools, pubs, restaurants and shops selling non-essential goods. People had to stay at home except for limited purposes. Gatherings of more

than two people in public were not allowed, and this included weddings. Only immediate family members could attend funerals. One form of exercise a day was allowed, for example a run, walk

or bike ride, either alone or with members of your household. Hotels and bed and breakfasts were shut. WITH THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE IN PLACE AT THE END OF MAY, DEATHS WOULD DROP BY 6,600

TO 13,300 Unlimited outdoor exercise was permitted and anyone who could not work from home was “actively encouraged” to return to the workplace. People were allowed to meet one other person

they did not live with, in an outdoor setting with social distancing observed. WITH THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE IN PLACE IN MID-JUNE, DEATHS WOULD DROP BY 4,300 TO 15,600 Fashion stores,

betting shops and charity stores were open with social distancing in place. Groups of up to six people from outside one household could meet outdoors in public and in private gardens in

England, so long as people from different households maintained social distance. People who had been shielding could meet people from another household outdoors. WITH THE RESTRICTIONS THAT

WERE IN PLACE IN AUGUST, DEATHS WOULD DROP BY 2,300 TO 17,600 Theatres, casinos and bowling alleys could open in England with socially distanced audiences, as could gyms, pools and sport

facilities. Wedding receptions of up to 30 guests were allowed and beauty salons could offer “front of face” treatments such as eyebrow threading. With half-term plans in the balance,

parents are getting nervous about holidays, outings or childcare clubs they have booked and possibly paid for between October 26 and 30. CAN I GET A REFUND IF MY TRIP IS CANCELLED? Families

were routinely denied refunds during the first wave of the pandemic, such as for flights and hotel bookings, even though the law should be on their side. Since many companies refused to

issue refunds earlier in the year, or insisted on giving people vouchers, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) decided to issue guidance on when to expect a refund during the

pandemic. WHAT ABOUT HOLIDAY CLUBS? Generally speaking, wherever a contract has not been fulfilled, you are entitled to a full refund. So if your child’s tennis holiday club is cancelled,

you are entitled to get all your money back, because the business has cancelled your agreement without providing any services. This right to a refund applies even if the business is forced

to cancel the club because of government guidance. Charging parents in this situation is “likely to be unfair and unenforceable”, the CMA said. WHAT IF LOCAL RESTRICTIONS MEAN I CANNOT GET

TO THE CLUB OR HOLIDAY RESORT? The position gets more legally complex where a service can be provided, but the parents decide not to go ahead. A family in Cardiff may be prevented from

sending their child to a club in southwest England because of local restrictions. But the resort is open, meaning the services are still on offer. In this case, the first step would be to

reason with the holiday company or club to try to get a refund or postpone the trip. CAN I CHALLENGE A COMPANY IF I’M REFUSED A REFUND? Consumers do have the right to get a refund if a

contract they have signed is deemed to have been “frustrated”. The CMA says this applies to a situation where a person would be at serious risk if they went on holiday — for example if they

are waiting to receive the results of an NHS Covid-19 test. In England and Wales, frustration is set out in the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943. In Northern Ireland the relevant

law is the Frustrated Contracts Act (Northern Ireland) 1947. Ultimately, parents would need to go to court and prove their case if a business still refuses to offer a refund after pointing

out these laws. CAN I BE FORCED TO PAY THE FULL BALANCE ON TOP OF MY DEPOSIT? Finally, families who have paid deposits, but cannot go on a holiday or get to a holiday club, should not be

required to pay the full cost of a trip if they cannot attend, or it is cancelled. The CMA makes it clear that it is unfair for businesses to require people to pay in full if they cannot

make use of a service, and says deposits should be a small percentage of the total price.