Published20 hours agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingBy Jim ReedHealth reporterThere was a “lack of urgency” in government as coronavirus started to spread across the UK, a senior scientific adviser has told the Covid public inquiry. Prof Neil Ferguson said he had become “extremely concerned” by 10 March 2020 – two weeks before the first lockdown.Some officials did not understand the data and “did not think it was as bad as it was going to be”, he added. He wrote directly to a Downing Street adviser to try to raise the alarm.The government announced the first UK lockdown on 23 March 2020.Senior officials, including then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson and then-Health Secretary Matt Hancock, will give evidence to the inquiry in December.NHS ‘could be overwhelmed’Prof Ferguson, director of the school of public health at Imperial College London, became a household name in the early stages of the pandemic with his modelling of the spread of Covid and as a member of the expert committee, Sage. Giving evidence to the inquiry on Tuesday, he said he realised by late January 2020 that the government’s early policy of trying to contain the virus would not be possible with the limited border checks and other measures in place at the time. In an email to chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty on 2 February, he said it was already “quite likely” the virus had been imported into the UK from China. Around the end of February he said he knew that the number of hospital cases was likely to overwhelm the NHS without stronger action to reduce transmission. By 10 March he said he was “extremely concerned” about the latest data. He told the inquiry he had been “frustrated” that some government officials had not “comprehended the figures”.”There was a lack of urgency, let’s put it that way,” he said. He emailed Ben Warner, a data scientist brought in to Downing Street by Dominic Cummings, asking him to make sure the prime minister was shown graphs with projections of between 4,000 and 6,000 deaths a day “under the strategies being considered”. “This event is in the natural-disaster category, and the cure (eg massive social distancing, shutdowns) could be worse than the disease,” he said in the email. Asked why he sent the message, Prof Ferguson said: “It felt uncomfortable, but at the time it felt like it needed to be said. I was increasingly concerned about this disconnect between the numbers we were actually presenting, and the reality of what that would actually look like.”Around that time the government shifted to a mitigation strategy – advising hand-washing and asking people to work from home if possible and self-isolate if they had a fever or cough. Mitigation was designed to slow the rate of infection and spread the number of cases over a longer period of time – or “squash the sombrero” on a graph, as Boris Johnson called it – in an effort to protect the NHS. On 16 March Prof Ferguson and his team published new research suggesting that 250,000 could die without more drastic action.The government started to impose stricter measures around that time. On 16 March the public were asked to stop all non-essential contact and on 18 March schools were closed, before the full lockdown was announced on 23 March. Prof Ferguson, who apologised to the inquiry for breaching Covid rules himself, denied stepping “over the line” as an adviser and telling ministers they needed to shut down the country. “I know I’m very much associated with a particular policy… but the reality was a lot more complex,” he said.”What I tried to do was… focus people’s minds on what was going to happen and the consequences of current trends.”This second stage of the Covid Inquiry is examining political decision-making during the pandemic, including the timing and effectiveness of lockdowns and other social-distancing restrictions. It is taking witness evidence in London until Christmas, before moving to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to look specifically at the decisions made by administrations in those parts of the United Kingdom. More on this storyCovid Inquiry focuses on government as stakes risePublished3 OctoberWhat is the UK Covid inquiry and how long will it take?Published27 September

Published8 hours agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesBy Jim ReedHealth reporterDecisions made by Boris Johnson, his government and his team of scientists in the early days of the pandemic are to come under intense scrutiny as the second part of the Covid inquiry begins.Until Christmas, the spotlight will be on key decisions made to try to control the spread of the virus, from lockdowns to border controls to face masks. But what is at stake for the ex-prime minister and his former team?On 7 March 2020, England beat Wales in front of 82,000 in a Six Nations rugby match at Twickenham. Mr Johnson was in the crowd shaking hands with England captain Owen Farrell.On the same day, newspaper front pages were full of one subject. “Official: It’s an outbreak,” said the Sun. “Millions told: work at home to fight virus,” said the Daily Mail.That weekend, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte announced a lockdown across the north of the country as Covid cases threatened to overwhelm hospitals.In the UK, where only two deaths had been confirmed, the message was still to wash our hands and carry on – cautiously – with our lives.The next week, horse racing’s Cheltenham Festival went ahead with 250,000 spectators, while 3,000 Atletico Madrid football fans flew to Liverpool for a Champions League match, when Spanish restrictions would have stopped them going to a match at home.Image source, Geoff BodmanGeoff Bodman, 59, was at both Twickenham and Cheltenham that spring and is sure he was infected with Covid at one of those events. Later that month he was put on a ventilator at a hospital in Cardiff, followed by two months in intensive care during which he suffered a stroke.”With hindsight, the government should have acted more decisively and put a block on things,” he says.”It would have been disruptive for a lot of people, but lives would have been saved.”The early responseHundreds of articles and books have already been written about the government’s early response to Covid. An investigation by MPs described it as one of the country’s worst public health failures.Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock published his version of what happened, and then had thousands of his WhatsApp messages leaked to the Daily Telegraph. Now though, the Covid-19 public inquiry, led by former judge Baroness Hallett, is opening its own investigation. The first part of the inquiry, examining just the planning for a pandemic, finished hearing witnesses back in July, with a final report due in 2024. This second part looks at the decisions made after Covid emerged with “particular scrutiny” of the period until 23 March 2020 when the UK went into full lockdown.It will ask:could different decisions have saved lives?if the government’s policy of “following the science” was a fair reflection of what really happenedwhether mandatory lockdowns, face masks and border restrictions really were effective in controlling the spread of Covid It will investigate whether the impact on the economy, education and mental health were ever properly considered.”I didn’t see another human being for 18 months, except for when I went to get my jabs,” says James Hollens, who has two types of autoimmune arthritis and a weakened immune system because of the medication he is taking.New research for the charity Versus Arthritis found there was a “sizeable impact” on the mental health of people – like James – who shielded through the pandemic. “We were told to just stay inside and wait for the next news conference,” he adds.”Not once did anyone reach out and check how we were doing mentally or physically.”This part of the inquiry will look at how at-risk groups were identified and the effect of lockdown and social distancing on those individuals. Crucially it will also examine “public confidence” in the government’s policies “including the impact of alleged breaches of rules and standards by ministers, officials and advisers”.What more can we learn?As a public inquiry, Baroness Hallett and her team have specific powers, including the ability to compel witnesses to give evidence under oath, and force the release of documents. That was seen earlier this year when the government lost a legal challenge to prevent the release of ministers’ WhatsApp messages and diaries in full. Expect those texts to form a key part of the questioning, with Mr Johnson, Mr Hancock and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak all likely to give evidence. There is significant potential for this to be embarrassing for the government, as it will shine a light on their decision-making, who did what, and what was said behind closed doors.Another two weeks is set aside to hear from advisers and civil servants, expected to include Dominic Cummings and former cabinet secretary Sir Mark Sedwill.Groups representing the families of some of the 230,000 who lost their lives are worried they may not have a proper chance to have their say. The UK-wide part of this second module runs until Christmas when the inquiry will then move to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to investigate the way they handled Covid.What happens in the end? A public inquiry is not a court case or a criminal trial and there are no sanctions at the end of the process. The chairperson does not have the power to send anyone to prison or impose a fine. Instead the idea is to establish the facts of what happened and learn lessons for the future. That is still not without risk for the people involved.At the end of each section an official report will be published which may well attach blame to institutions and to individuals.Those findings are likely to be seen by many as a historical verdict on the way the pandemic was handled.They could even – theoretically – trigger future civil or criminal proceedings.In a statement, a government spokeswoman said it was committed to learning lessons from the inquiry. “Throughout the pandemic the government acted to save lives and livelihoods, prevent the NHS being overwhelmed and deliver a world-leading vaccine rollout which protected the nation,” she added.Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.More on this storyCovid Inquiry: What have we learnt so far?Published20 JulyWhat is the UK Covid inquiry and how long will it take?Published5 days ago

Published24 SeptemberShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesBy Jim ReedHealth reporterThe number of people in hospital has gone up. Google searches have doubled in a month and booster vaccines have been brought forward because of a new variant. It might all feel a bit 2021. But – these days – how much do we really need to worry about Covid?Marjorie from Pembrokeshire had gone through the whole pandemic without catching the virus – until this month. “I thought I had natural immunity,” she says. “But I caught it from my granddaughter who had the same symptoms as mine.”In her case, that meant a headache, muscle pain and a loss of smell and taste.”I just didn’t realise I would feel so weak and lethargic,” she adds.How many people – like Marjorie – are catching Covid this autumn is impossible to know for sure. All those drive-in testing sites are long closed and those free boxes of lateral flow tests probably dried up months ago. The Office for National Statistics infection survey, which used to test a random sample of the population, was scrapped back in March.But we do still record the number of people who test positive in hospital across the whole UK, and that figure has been creeping up since the summer.”What does it tell me about the virus? It tells me it’s spreading and it tells me it still has the ability to make people very unwell,” says Stuart McDonald, an actuary at the consultants LCP, who has studied the data closely since the start of the pandemic. On 17 September, 3,019 hospital beds in England were taken up by someone with Covid. That number has tripled since July, but dipped last week, and is just a fraction of the 33,000 seen at the peak of the second wave in 2021.About a third of those patients were being treated mainly for the disease, with most testing positive after they were admitted for another reason.Covid boosters for over-65s as hospital cases riseWho can get another Covid jab this autumn?Why do some people get infected?Hospital trends give us a very rough idea of how much virus is around and whether infection levels are rising or falling. How likely we are to catch it, and how sick we get, then depends on a mix of complex factors – from genetics and age, to lifestyle and the environment in which we live.Research published in the journal Nature this year suggests about 10% of the population carry a gene which allows them to identify and eliminate the virus before they even start to develop tell-tale symptoms like a cough, sore throat or fever. GettyCovid immunity in the UK93%aged 12+ have received at least one vaccine82%infected at least once by Nov 2022Source: NHS Digital, ONSWe have all built up different levels of immunity over the last four years depending on our vaccine record and contact with the disease. “There’s probably no two people in the country whose history of vaccinations and Covid exposure are alike,” says Mr McDonald. “So I think it’s more difficult to predict what will come next than it has been at any previous point.”Image source, Getty ImagesThat immunity starts to fall soon after an infection or a vaccine. This is where the virus differs from measles or polio, for example, where jabs in childhood can protect you for life.Protection against catching Covid is likely to last just a few months – at best – although data shows protection against severe disease is more long-lasting.In part that is because the virus itself is constantly changing.Previous waves have been driven by different forms – or variants – which have undergone multiple genetic changes. Those mutations can alter the virus’s behaviour – making it spread faster, for example.But crucially they might also make it harder for our immune systems, which have been primed to respond to those older versions, to recognise and fight off. In late 2021, the Omicron variant did just that and infected millions, although that wave did not lead to a huge spike in hospitalisations and deaths. “Being exposed to the virus, either through vaccination, infection or a combination of both, is undoubtedly reducing the severity of disease when we get it,” says Alex Richter, a professor of clinical immunology at the University of Birmingham. More recently we have seen a series of smaller waves driven by close relatives – or subvariants – of Omicron.GettyBA.2.86 Covid variant18countries with confirmed cases54cases detected in the UK28infections at Norfolk case home0residents needed hospital treatment for CovidSource: GISAID, UKHSA, PHSIn August 2023, scientists around the world started tracking the spread of yet another version with a large number of mutations. Just 54 cases of BA.2.86, as it is now called, have been confirmed in the UK, including a large outbreak at a care home in Norfolk. Early lab tests appear to be reassuring – with signs it may be less contagious and immunity dodging than some originally feared.How well protected are we?The emergence of BA.2.86 meant a decision was made to bring forward the autumn Covid booster to better protect the most vulnerable this winter.But the new jabs are only available to people over 65 years old – it was the over-50s last year – and those with certain health conditions. That is a tactical decision, says Dr Adam Finn, professor of paediatrics at the University of Bristol.He explained: “When younger people who’ve already had infections and vaccines get Covid [again], they get a cold and a cough and might be off work for a few days.”There’s no real value in investing a lot of time and effort immunising them again when there are so many other things for the health service to be doing.”The reality is then that most under-65s will now end up boosting their immunity not through vaccination, but through catching Covid many times. How worried should we be?Prof Richter says it is now time to start thinking of Covid more like flu, where new forms of the disease, some worse than others, appear every year and new vaccines are rolled out for the latest winter strain.Covid will still be a problem for the most vulnerable, she adds, and hospitals, which will still need to deal with new infection waves.”We have bad flu years and good flu years,” she says.”There’s a good chance that once every four or five years, we’re going to have a bad dose [of Covid] and we are going to need to go to bed for a few days, otherwise most of the time, for most of us, I think it will be OK.”Every dose of the virus is not completely without danger, even for the healthy, with some research suggesting an increased risk of long-Covid symptoms like fatigue, shortness of breath and brain fog.But – in general – Prof Finn says each new infection should feel milder with the length of time you are sick reduced.”Each time you catch it, your immunity gets stronger and broader,” he adds.Sam, an IT worker from north London, managed to pick up infection number three on a trip to Turkey with her family this month.”The first time was really horrible, the second time it felt like flu, but by the third time I didn’t really think about it,” she says. “I just had a stinker of a cold and was all bunged up.”This is maybe what scientists meant when, at the very start of the pandemic, we were told that, one day, we would have to learn to live with Covid. The virus is not going away.But perhaps it is starting to become part of the background to our everyday lives.More on this storyCovid boosters for over-65s as hospital cases risePublished18 SeptemberWho can get another Covid jab this autumn?Published19 September

Published11 August 2023Shareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingBy Jim ReedHealth reporterJunior doctors in England are starting their fifth round of strike action with no sign of a breakthrough in their bitter pay dispute with the government. The doctors’ union, the BMA, made headlines earlier this year when it said pay had fallen so far behind inflation that its members would be better off serving coffee than treating patients. The government described that as misleading and said the average junior doctor earns between £20 and £30 an hour.In reality, that term – junior doctor – covers someone fresh out of medical school right up to those with a decade or more of experience. And pay is complicated, with salaries varying massively as medics move up grades when they become more skilled and start to specialise.BBC News asked two junior doctors, at different stages of their careers, to show us their wage slips and explain exactly how much they earn.We can’t take any more, says NHS as doctors strike Why talk of a UK doctor exodus is prematureThe new starterDr Robert Gittings graduated from medical school in Liverpool after studying for a master’s in infectious disease biology.Last summer, he started his first, or FY1, year as a junior doctor in London and is currently working on the infectious diseases ward as part of his rotation – where doctors get experience in different types of medicine.”In my hospital, we have a lot of tuberculosis patients, patients with uncontrolled HIV, and we also get pneumonias and, sometimes, we get a tropical infection coming in,” he says.Robert is paid a basic salary before tax of about £2,450 a month for a standard 40-hour week – or just over £14 an hour. Then there are additional roster hours – which are compulsory – taking his average working week to 48 hours. Under what the government calls a “final offer”, his pay will go up in October in two ways: a straight 6% pay rise and £1,250 permanently added to annual salaries – both backdated to April.But that falls well short of the 35% increase for which the BMA has been asking to make up for years of below-inflation rises. For Robert, the latest pay offer would be worth roughly £250 a month before tax.He also receives extra payments each month:Another £1.04 an hour to cover the higher cost of living in LondonAn extra £147 for night shifts – about £5 an hour in June before taxA fixed £122 a month as he has to work one in every five or six weekends”Sometimes night shifts can be really busy,” he says. “There have been times when I’ve had to manage a patient by myself who is deteriorating, and I have to do everything for them, just with advice over text message.”Junior doctors like Robert typically spend five or six years in medical school before starting their jobs.He says he graduated with about £50,000 of debt including tuition fees and – in June – paid back £75 in student loans from his salary.There are other deductions including £257 – or 9.8% of his wages – for a pension, with the NHS contributing 20.6% under the latest career average scheme, more than most private sector pensions.In June, Robert took home a total of £2,164 after tax and deductions. That works out as a total annual salary of roughly £37,000.He says he is now looking to take a year out to work abroad – probably in Australia. “I’m not confident the pay here is going to improve as much as I’d like it to,” he says. “I would really quite strongly consider staying [there].”The speciality registrarDr Kiran Rahim qualified from medical school in 2011 and now treats sick children as a paediatric registrar – one of the most experienced junior doctor grades.”I was at work yesterday and it was really, really busy,” she says. “I was managing A&E – so taking in all the paediatric referrals, all the sick kids who needed to be seen.”And then managing the acute stay ward, making sure the children were getting their treatment, accessing and booking scans for them.”Kiran has taken three years out to have children herself, and is now working part-time while she looks after her young family, meaning her training – and her time as a junior doctor – has been “elongated”.For an average three-day week, she is paid a basic salary before tax of roughly £3,315 a month – or just under £28 an hour – which is the same rate as a full-time doctor. Like Robert, she also receives London weighting.In July, she was paid another £292 for night shifts and £132 for working one weekend in every six or seven.She says the “vast majority” of junior doctors at her level end up working extra unpaid hours before they can go home at the end of the day.”I can’t just leave a sick patient because it’s unsafe, and it’s not fair on the people who are already fighting fire on the next shift,” she adds.As evidenced by her payslip, Kiran did pay more tax than usual in July after she says she worked extra shifts earlier this year to cover staff sickness – that money should be refunded later by HMRC. She has just finished paying off her student loan, although she says – like other junior doctors – there are unavoidable costs which do not show up on her payslip.She pays £433 a year to the GMC to be on the doctors’ register. There are charges to be a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and she has had to pay thousands of pounds in exam fees.Plus there is the cost of personal indemnity insurance – just under £700 a year – to protect her in case she is sued for medical negligence.In a typical month, Kiran says she takes home around £2,400 after tax and deductions for a 27-hour week. If she was working full-time then she would earn a total annual salary of roughly £69,000.”Pay is important but so are all the other things that make you want to go to work,” she says. “This is not the job I signed up to do 10 years ago and I have seen a decline in morale, in our working environment and in our working conditions.”The government says it has accepted the latest recommendations made by an independent pay review body and its most recent offer represents an 8.8% annual pay rise for the average junior doctor in England.”Our award balances the need to keep inflation in check while recognising the important work they do,” says Health Secretary Steve Barclay.Are you a doctor with a view on the strike? Are you a patient affected? You can get in touch by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk.Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also get in touch in the following ways:WhatsApp: +44 7756 165803Tweet: @BBC_HaveYourSayUpload pictures or videoPlease read our terms & conditions and privacy policy

If you are reading this page and can’t see the form you will need to visit the mobile version of the BBC website to submit your question or comment or you can email us at HaveYourSay@bbc.co.uk. Please include your name, age and location with any submission. Sign up for our morning newsletter and get BBC News in your inbox.More on this storyNHS consultants in England announce more strikesPublished17 July 2023Sunak pledges more doctors and nurses in NHS planPublished25 June 2023

Published15 minutes agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingBy Jim ReedHealth reporterJunior doctors in England are starting their fifth round of strike action with no sign of a breakthrough in their bitter pay dispute with the government. The doctors’ union, the BMA, made headlines earlier this year when it said pay had fallen so far behind inflation that its members would be better off serving coffee than treating patients. The government described that as misleading and said the average junior doctor earns between £20 and £30 an hour.In reality, that term – junior doctor – covers someone fresh out of medical school right up to those with a decade or more of experience. And pay is complicated, with salaries varying massively as medics move up grades when they become more skilled and start to specialise.BBC News asked two junior doctors, at different stages of their careers, to show us their wage slips and explain exactly how much they earn.Junior doctors to strike for four days in AugustWhy talk of a UK doctor exodus is prematureThe new starterDr Robert Gittings graduated from medical school in Liverpool after studying for a master’s in infectious disease biology.Last summer, he started his first, or FY1, year as a junior doctor in London and is currently working on the infectious diseases ward as part of his rotation – where doctors get experience in different types of medicine.”In my hospital, we have a lot of tuberculosis patients, patients with uncontrolled HIV, and we also get pneumonias and, sometimes, we get a tropical infection coming in,” he says.Robert is paid a basic salary before tax of about £2,450 a month for a standard 40-hour week – or just over £14 an hour. Then there are additional roster hours – which are compulsory – taking his average working week to 48 hours. Under what the government calls a “final offer”, his pay will go up in October in two ways: a straight 6% pay rise and £1,250 permanently added to annual salaries – both backdated to April.But that falls well short of the 35% increase for which the BMA has been asking to make up for years of below-inflation rises. For Robert, the latest pay offer would be worth roughly £250 a month before tax.He also receives extra payments each month:Another £1.04 an hour to cover the higher cost of living in LondonAn extra £147 for night shifts – about £5 an hour in June before taxA fixed £122 a month as he has to work one in every five or six weekends”Sometimes night shifts can be really busy,” he says. “There have been times when I’ve had to manage a patient by myself who is deteriorating, and I have to do everything for them, just with advice over text message.”Junior doctors like Robert typically spend five or six years in medical school before starting their jobs.He says he graduated with about £50,000 of debt including tuition fees and – in June – paid back £75 in student loans from his salary.There are other deductions including £257 – or 9.8% of his wages – for a pension, with the NHS contributing 20.7% under the latest career average scheme, more than most private sector pensions.In June, Robert took home a total of £2,164 after tax and deductions. That works out as a total annual salary of roughly £37,000.He says he is now looking to take a year out to work abroad – probably in Australia. “I’m not confident the pay here is going to improve as much as I’d like it to,” he says. “I would really quite strongly consider staying [there].”The speciality registrarDr Kiran Rahim qualified from medical school in 2011 and now treats sick children as a paediatric registrar – one of the most experienced junior doctor grades.”I was at work yesterday and it was really, really busy,” she says. “I was managing A&E – so taking in all the paediatric referrals, all the sick kids who needed to be seen.”And then managing the acute stay ward, making sure the children were getting their treatment, accessing and booking scans for them.”Image source, AFPKiran has taken three years out to have children herself, and is now working part-time while she looks after her young family, meaning her training – and her time as a junior doctor – has been “elongated”.For an average three-day week, she is paid a basic salary before tax of roughly £3,315 a month – or just under £28 an hour – which is the same rate as a full-time doctor. Like Robert, she also receives London weighting.In July, she was paid another £292 for night shifts and £132 for working one weekend in every six or seven.She says the “vast majority” of junior doctors at her level end up working extra unpaid hours before they can go home at the end of the day.”I can’t just leave a sick patient because it’s unsafe, and it’s not fair on the people who are already fighting fire on the next shift,” she adds.Kiran finished paying off her student loan this year, although she says – like other junior doctors – there are unavoidable costs which do not show up on her payslip.She pays £433 a year to the GMC to be on the doctors’ register. There are charges to be a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and she has had to pay thousands of pounds in exam fees.Plus there is the cost of personal indemnity insurance – just under £700 a year – to protect her in case she is sued for medical negligence.In July, Kiran took home £2,159 after tax and deductions for a 27-hour working week. That would work out as a total annual salary of roughly £69,000 if she was full-time.”Pay is important but so are all the other things that make you want to go to work,” she says. “This is not the job I signed up to do 10 years ago and I have seen a decline in morale, in our working environment and in our working conditions.”The government says it has accepted the latest recommendations made by an independent pay review body and its most recent offer represents an 8.8% annual pay rise for the average junior doctor in England.”Our award balances the need to keep inflation in check while recognising the important work they do,” says Health Secretary Steve Barclay.More on this storyNHS consultants in England announce more strikesPublished17 JulySunak pledges more doctors and nurses in NHS planPublished25 June

Published20 JulyShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, EPABy Jim ReedBBC NewsThe first phase of the Covid Inquiry has heard from its final witness.In total, 69 politicians, civil servants, scientists and other experts have been asked about the UK’s planning for a pandemic and the state of the healthcare system when Covid struck.Baroness Hallett and her team will now write up their findings, with an interim report expected in 2024. Here are six questions which they might try to answer, based on the past six weeks of evidence and testimony.WATCH: The Covid Inquiry key moments on BBC iPlayerLISTEN: The Covid Inquiry Podcast on BBC SoundsToo focused on flu? The inquiry heard that much of the planning for a pandemic was based on a 2011 document drawn up in case there was an outbreak of a new, more deadly form of influenza. Former Prime Minister David Cameron said that “group think” meant the government did not properly consider the risk of other viruses, with different rates of transmission and other characteristics. “This is so important – so many consequences followed from that,” he said.Typically, health authorities do not try to contain seasonal flu – instead relying on antiviral drugs and the flu jab, which could be adjusted to tackle a new pandemic form of the virus.Image source, EPAOther witnesses, including Dame Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), appeared to contradict Mr Cameron, describing the government’s flu plan as “actually pretty good”. Matt Hancock, former health secretary, meanwhile, said the bigger, more damaging mistake was the widespread assumption that Covid could not be stopped or contained when it started to spread. He said authorities were too narrowly focused on planning for the fallout, such as “can we buy enough body bags?”.”That was completely wrong,” he added.Lessons from Asia?Other countries managed more effectively to suppress the initial wave of Covid than the UK, reducing the number of deaths and – in some cases – avoiding strict lockdowns. Witnesses, including former health secretary and current Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, told the inquiry that the UK did not learn lessons from Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea, which had seen earlier outbreaks of two other coronaviruses – Sars and Mers. In those countries, faster contact-tracing and quarantine policies were subsequently deployed to promptly isolate cases and clamp down when Covid first emerged.In the UK, the civil service had previously run a mock-up training day – codenamed Exercise Alice – in 2016, in preparation for a major outbreak of the Mers virus.But the inquiry heard many of its recommendations, including advice to scale up testing capacity and examine different options for isolation, were not followed through. This video can not be playedTo play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.Did earlier austerity policies inflict damage? Another major theme was the strength – or resilience – of the healthcare system when Covid emerged in 2020. England’s former chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, was heavily critical of the state of the NHS at the time of the outbreak, saying it had been “divested” – with fewer doctors, nurses, beds and ventilators than similar countries.Academics Sir Michael Marmot and Clare Bambra produced a report stating that poorer regions and ethnic minority groups were disproportionally affected by a decade of austerity policies, with the UK entering the pandemic with “depleted” public services and rising inequality.Giving his evidence, George Osborne, who was chancellor from 2010 to 2016, said he “completely rejected” that description. “If we had not had a clear plan to put the public finances on a sustainable path, then Britain might have experienced a financial crisis [and] would not have had the fiscal space to deal with coronavirus when it hit,” he argued.What about the impact of Brexit? From 2018, government departments were being asked to step up planning for a so-called ‘no-deal Brexit’, under the codename Operation Yellowhammer. According to documents seen by the inquiry, a number of internal ‘workstreams’ in the Department of Health related to pandemic planning were therefore paused, or slowed, as staff were moved and other tasks prioritised.That paused work included plans to better prepare the adult social care sector for a severe influenza pandemic.The Pandemic Flu Readiness Board, a cross-government body made up of civil servants from across Whitehall, did not meet for a whole year up to November 2019 because their work was “reprioritised” to plan for leaving the EU without a trade deal. Image source, EPAScotland’s former first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, told the inquiry that the Scottish government was “not at all happy” about having to divert “time, energy and resources” in this way. But Conservative cabinet ministers Michael Gove and Oliver Dowden, both said that no-deal planning had increased staffing, compelled departments to work more closely together and secured supply chains for medical supplies. Additionally, Matt Hancock claimed that work on a no-deal exit was instrumental in preventing the UK running out of some intensive care drugs at the peak of the first wave of Covid.Better front-line planning? The inquiry also heard moving evidence from the families of some of those who lost their lives to Covid.This video can not be playedTo play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.Anna-Louise Marsh-Rees’s father, Ian, contracted the virus while being treated in hospital in Abergavenny for a gall bladder infection.Jane Morrison spoke about the loss of her wife, Jacky, who died in hospital in Dundee after being admitted for another unrelated condition – jaundice.Groups representing bereaved family members said poor infection control was a “glaring flaw” in hospital planning. They also described the handling of funerals – and how they were conducted during the pandemic – as traumatic, with relatives often unable to say a proper goodbye to loved ones. Image source, ReutersWhy wasn’t a lockdown planned for?Witnesses described national lockdowns as the most “extraordinary” policy of the pandemic. The political decisions which led to nationwide lockdowns will be explored in detail during the inquiry’s second phase in October. Already though, we know a strict lockdown – with widespread school and business closures – was never planned for in advance.Matt Hancock said there was “no prep for how to do one, no work on how best to lock down with the least damage”. England’s chief medical officer, Sir Chris Whitty, suggested it would have been near impossible for scientific advisers to plan in advance for something so radical without being asked to by a senior politician.The inquiry team will try to answer why – given it is the government’s job to consider these things – the longer term impacts of lockdown were not properly thought through before 2020.You can follow Jim on twitter and threads.Covid Inquiry: Were We PreparedWatch on iPlayer: Jim Reed looks at the key moments from the first part of the Covid inquiry.Available now on BBC iPlayer (UK only)More on this storyCovid inquiry: The UK pandemic in numbersPublished5 JulyWhat is the UK Covid inquiry and how does it work?Published1 hour agoRelated Internet LinksUK Covid-19 InquiryThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.

Published12 hours agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Family photoBy Jim ReedHealth reporterAnyone with suspected concussion must be immediately removed from football, rugby and other sports and rest for at least 24 hours, under new guidance for grassroots clubs. It says the NHS 111 help-line should be called and players should not return to competitive sport for at least 21 days. The UK-wide guidelines are aimed at parents, coaches, referees and players. Its authors say a “culture change” in the way head injuries are dealt with is needed.”We know that exercise is good for both mental and physical health, so we don’t want to put people off sport,” Prof James Calder, the surgeon who led the work for the government, said.”But we need to recognise that if you’ve got a head injury, it must be managed and you need to be protected, so that it doesn’t get worse.”Listen to BBC’s 5 minutes On Concussion from a KickaboutWhat is concussion?Concussion – a traumatic brain injury affecting mental function – can alter the way someone thinks, feels and remembers things.Only about 10% result in being knocked out and losing consciousness. Effects are usually temporary and most people recover fully with rest. The guidance, drawn up by a government-appointed panel of sports-medicine experts, is based on work in Scotland, which has had its own official recommendations in place since 2015.It says anyone with a head injury must be removed from playing and not participate in any further exercise or work activity until they have been checked by a onsite health professional or contacted the NHS 111 help-line.If the player displays “red-flag” symptoms – such as loss of consciousness, amnesia or difficulty speaking – they must be urgently assessed at the side of the pitch by a medic or taken to an accident-and-emergency (A&E) unit. Image source, Sport ScotlandWork to draw up new recommendations for all sports began after the death of Ben Robinson, 14, from Carrickfergus, County Antrim, in 2011, who collapsed near the end of a school rugby match.His death had resulted from “second-impact syndrome”, a rare condition where the brain swells rapidly after suffering multiple concussions in a short period of time, a coroner found.Ben’s father, Peter, has been campaigning to raise awareness of the risks ever since. “Concussion is a brain injury and all concussions are serious,” he told BBC News.”Most people recover to 100% and they are back playing their sport. But it’s the mismanagement of that injury that can lead to tragic circumstances, as with Ben’s case.”There’s a risk in all sports. But with greater awareness and education, we are moving forward and making it a safer place.”Image source, Getty ImagesFor 24 hours after being removed from the game, the new guidance says, the injured player must not:be left alonedrink alcohol drive a carThe advice is also to minimise smartphone and computer use for at least 48 hours, as staring at a screen can lengthen recovery time. The panel had had “big debates” about how long players should remain on the sidelines, amid concerns some may cover up or disguise the extent of their injuries, Prof Calder said.”There has now been a realisation that washing someone with a magic sponge is not the right approach. If you feel there has been a concussion, that player should be removed,” he said.”‘If in doubt, sit them out,’ is the new mantra.”Professional rugbyThe NHS and most sports authorities do not routinely collect data on the number of concussions in grassroots sport.But the charity Headway estimates 1.4 million people attend A&E in England and Wales with some type of head injury each year, with 95% of those classed as mild. Data from the Rugby Football Union (RFU) suggests a team of 15- to 18-year-olds will have a player concussed once in every 10 games on average, rising to one in every two or three in professional rugby. The new national guidance is designed as a base set of recommendations for all sports, which individual governing bodies can then add to if required. The RFU already runs its Headcase programme to raise awareness of concussion, while rules lowering the legal tackle height in community rugby are due to come into force from July. The Football Association introduced its own concussion guidelines in 2015. More recently it said under-12s should not be taught to head balls in training, while in England the advice in the adult game is fewer than 10 “maximum-force” headers in practice each week.Headway’s chief executive, Luke Griggs, described the guidelines as an “important step” but warned they needed to be accompanied by a full public health campaign. “This cannot start and stop with a document put on a government website or emailed to clubs,” he said. “This has to be a hearts and minds campaign to get people to understand the very important reasons for these guidelines.”Sports Minister Stuart Andrew said: “One of the things we’ll now be doing is reviewing how well this guidance has been absorbed and understood. “If there are tweaks we need to make, then of course we will do that.”Follow Jim on twitter. More on this storyPL ‘disappointed’ at temporary concussion sub ruling6 March’Force players with serious brain injuries to retire’16 September 2022

Published3 February 2023Shareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, ShutterstockBy Jim ReedHealth reporterA long-running public inquiry into what has been called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS has heard its final evidence. It is thought tens of thousands were infected with HIV and hepatitis between 1970 and 1991 after being given a contaminated drug or blood transfusion. The inquiry, which started in 2018, has reviewed thousands of documents and heard testimony from 370 witnesses.It now plans to publish its formal conclusions and recommendations in the autumn.Here are five important things that have been revealed by the inquiry over the past five years. 1. How big the contaminated blood scandal isA group of academics hired by the inquiry produced detailed estimates of the numbers infected in the 1970s and 80s. A total of 1,250 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders contracted HIV after being given a protein made from blood plasma known as Factor VIII or, less commonly, Factor IX.About half of that group later died of an Aids-related illness.At the time, the UK was not self-sufficient in factor concentrate, so it was often imported from the United States – where prisoners and other at-risk groups were paid to donate. Another 30,000 NHS patients probably contracted a different virus – hepatitis C – through the same contaminated treatment, or a blood transfusion after surgery or childbirth.It is thought about 2,050 of that group later died of liver failure or cancer caused by hepatitis C, before an effective treatment became widely available.Image source, Richard Warwick2. How many children were infectedResearchers found that 380 of those infected with HIV – about one in three – were children, including some very young toddlers.When that figure was read out at the public inquiry, there was an audible gasp from survivors and relatives in the room.At Treloar’s College, a state-run boarding school in Hampshire, 72 pupils – all haemophiliacs – later died after being given the contaminated treatment.The inquiry heard devastating testimony from survivors in a week of special hearings about the school.”I often just think, why me? Why am I still here?” said Richard Warwick, a former pupil who was infected with HIV as a young boy in 1978. “It’s just the guilt of losing all those friends. I can name 10 that I know who are just gone. It’s horrific.”Parents and pupils kept in dark at infected blood schoolI lost baby after contaminated blood transfusion’I’ll keep fighting until everyone is compensated’3. Who knew what and when?One of the key questions the inquiry will now have to answer is whether more could and should have been done to prevent those infections and deaths.Former Prime Minister Sir John Major drew more gasps from families watching his testimony when he described the scandal as “bad luck”.He later apologised for his choice of language.The inquiry was shown a letter written in May 1983 by Dr Spence Galbraith, then director of the UK’s Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, to the Department of Health. It warned that haemophiliacs were being infected with an ‘Aids agent’, as HIV was then called, and concluded that “all products made from blood donated in the USA… should be withdrawn”.There was no evidence the letter was acted on at the time. In his testimony, Lord John Patten, a junior health minister from 1983 to 1985, said he “unequivocally” believed ministers should have been told about the warning and said – if he had – he “would have pressed the panic button”.4. A ‘failure of democracy’There was detailed questioning of ministers and civil servants about the internal workings of government.Former Conservative health secretary Jeremy Hunt – now chancellor – was asked about official briefings he received as recently as 2012 suggesting the scandal had been an “unavoidable problem”. He described how state institutions can “close ranks around a lie” and said it was a “huge failure of democracy” that it has taken so long to get to the truth. Another ex-health secretary Andy Burnham, now the Labour mayor of Manchester, said successive governments had “comprehensively failed” the victims over five decades and suggested there may be a case for charges of corporate manslaughter in the future.This video can not be playedTo play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.5. How people will be compensatedHundreds of victims of the scandal have received annual support payments but – before this inquiry – no formal compensation had ever been awarded for loss of earnings, care costs and other lifetime losses.Many of those infected had had to give up jobs and live on benefits because of a series of health problems. In July 2022, inquiry chairman Sir Brian Langstaff made his first formal recommendation – an unusual move in the middle of a public inquiry. He said there was a “compelling case” to quickly make some interim compensation payments of £100,000 each. The government agreed and – in October 2022 – the first payments were made to about 4,000 surviving victims and widows. But many children, siblings and parents of those who had died have missed out. That included Laura Palmer, 39, who lost both her parents to HIV/Aids in August 1993, when she was nine years old. “There are still a lot of bereaved families excluded, so there is more work for us to do,” she told the BBC.In his final comments to the inquiry, Sir Brian said he plans to publish a second interim report dealing with the question of compensation “before Easter”. The inquiry team is then expected to produce a final report into the scandal, with a list of recommendations, at some point in the autumn.More on this storyBlood scandal: 1 in 3 infected with HIV was a childPublished9 November 2022Blood scandal victims to get £100k this weekPublished22 October 2022Black and Asian infected blood victims ‘let down’Published30 September 2022

Published38 minutes agoShareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, ShutterstockBy Jim ReedHealth reporterA long-running public inquiry into what has been called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS will hear from its final witness on Friday.It is thought tens of thousands were infected with HIV and hepatitis between 1970 and 1991 after being given a contaminated drug or blood transfusion. The inquiry, which started in 2018, has reviewed thousands of documents and heard testimony from 370 witnesses.It will publish its formal conclusions and recommendations in the summer.Here are five facts that have been revealed by the inquiry over the past five years. 1. The extent of the scandal A group of academics hired by the inquiry produced detailed estimates of the numbers infected in the 1970s and 80s. A total of 1,250 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders contracted HIV after being given a protein made from blood plasma known as Factor VIII.About half of that group later died of an Aids-related illness.At the time, the UK was not self-sufficient in Factor VIII, so it was often imported from the United States – where prisoners and other at-risk groups were paid to donate. Another 30,000 NHS patients probably contracted a different virus – hepatitis C – through the same contaminated treatment, or a blood transfusion after surgery or childbirth.It is thought about 2,050 of that group later died of liver failure or cancer caused by hepatitis C, before an effective treatment became widely available.Image source, Richard Warwick2. The impact on childrenResearchers found that 380 of those infected with HIV – about one in three – were children, including some very young toddlers.When that figure was read out at the public inquiry, there was an audible gasp from survivors and relatives in the room.At Treloar’s College, a state-run boarding school in Hampshire, 72 pupils – all haemophiliacs – later died after being given the contaminated treatment.The inquiry heard devastating testimony from survivors in a week of special hearings about the school.”I often just think, why me? Why am I still here?” said Richard Warwick, a former pupil who was infected with HIV as a young boy in 1978. “It’s just the guilt of losing all those friends. I can name 10 that I know who are just gone. It’s horrific.”Parents and pupils kept in dark at infected blood schoolI lost baby after contaminated blood transfusion’I’ll keep fighting until everyone is compensated’3. Who knew and when?One of the key questions the inquiry will now have to answer is whether more could and should have been done to prevent those infections and deaths.Former Prime Minister Sir John Major drew more gasps from families watching his testimony when he described the scandal as “bad luck”.He later apologised for his choice of language.The inquiry was shown a letter written in May 1983 by Dr Spence Galbraith, then director of the UK’s Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, to the Department of Health. It warned that haemophiliacs were being infected with Aids and concluded that “all products made from blood donated in the USA… should be withdrawn”.There was no evidence the letter was acted on at the time. In his testimony, Lord John Patten, a junior health minister from 1983 to 1985, said he “unequivocally” believed ministers should have been told about the warning and said – if he had – he “would have pressed the panic button”.4. A ‘failure of democracy’There was detailed questioning of ministers and civil servants about the internal workings of government.Former Conservative health secretary Jeremy Hunt – now chancellor – was asked about official briefings he received as recently as 2012 suggesting the scandal had been an “unavoidable problem”. He described how state institutions can “close ranks around a lie” and said it was a “huge failure of democracy” that it has taken so long to get to the truth. Another ex-health secretary Andy Burnham, now the Labour mayor of Manchester, said successive governments had “comprehensively failed” the victims over five decades and suggested there may be a case for charges of corporate manslaughter in the future.This video can not be playedTo play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.5. Compensation agreedHundreds of victims of the scandal have received annual support payments but – before this inquiry – no formal compensation had ever been awarded for loss of earnings, care costs and other lifetime losses.Many of those infected had had to give up jobs and live on benefits because of a series of health problems. In July 2022, inquiry chairman Sir Brian Langstaff made his first formal recommendation – an unusual move in the middle of a public inquiry. He said there was a “compelling case” to quickly make some interim compensation payments of £100,000 each. The government agreed and – in October 2022 – the first payments were made to about 4,000 surviving victims and widows. But many children, siblings and parents of those who had died have missed out. That included Laura Palmer, 39, who lost both her parents to HIV/Aids in August 1993, when she was nine years old. “There are still a lot of bereaved families excluded, so there is more work for us to do,” she told the BBC.Further recommendations on compensation are expected when the inquiry publishes its final report, which is likely to be around the middle of the year. More on this storyBlood scandal: 1 in 3 infected with HIV was a child9 November 2022Blood scandal victims to get £100k this week22 October 2022Black and Asian infected blood victims ‘let down’30 September 2022

Published6 October 2022Shareclose panelShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Family photoBy Jim ReedHealth reporterAt least 175 children with the blood disorder haemophilia were infected with HIV in the 1980s, according to documents from the national archives seen by BBC News. Some of the families affected are giving evidence at a public inquiry into what has been called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS. It was almost 36 years ago – in late October 1986 – but Linda will never forget the day she was told her son had been infected. She had been called into a consulting room in Birmingham Children’s Hospital, with 16-year-old Michael. As a toddler, he had been diagnosed with haemophilia, a genetic disorder that stopped his blood clotting properly. Linda assumed the meeting was to discuss moving his care to the main Queen Elizabeth Hospital in the city.”It was so routine that my husband stayed in the car outside,” she says. “Then, all of a sudden, the doctor said, ‘Of course, Michael is HIV positive,’ and he came out with it like he was talking about the weather outside. My stomach just fell.”We got in the car, I told my husband and we were silent all the way home. We never spoke – it was such a shock.”Tested positiveIt was still early in the Aids crisis – a few months before the government’s Don’t Die of Ignorance TV campaign brought the illness into every British living room. But the stigma of the disease was already very real.In 1985, dozens of parents had taken their children out of a primary school in Hampshire after a nine-year-old pupil – also a haemophiliac – had tested positive for Aids antibodies, as HIV was then known.Michael did not want his friends or family told. “That’s the way he coped with it – he kept it to himself,” Linda says.”He never told his friends or anything because he just wanted to feel normal.”Between 1970 and 1991, 1,250 people with blood disorders were infected with HIV in the UK after taking Factor VIII – a new treatment that replaced the clotting protein missing from their blood.Now, documents from the National Archives reveal that included at least 175 children who were given the medication by NHS doctors in hospitals, schools or haemophilia clinics.Tens of thousands of others are believed to have been exposed to hepatitis C, which can cause liver failure and cancer, either through the same treatment or a blood transfusion.About half of those infected with HIV died of an Aids-related illness before life-saving antiretroviral drugs became available. Drug usersAt that time, the UK was not self-sufficient in blood products, so Factor VIII was imported from the United States. Each batch was made from the pooled, or mixed, blood plasma of thousands of donors. If just one of those donors was HIV positive, then the virus could be passed on. Drug companies in the US paid individuals to donate – including some in high-risk groups, such as prisoners and drug users. Linda remembers being first told about Aids at a presentation at Birmingham Children’s Hospital in 1984 and warned to look out for certain symptoms. But she says the family were never made fully aware of the dangers – at one point, she was told by a nurse not to worry as “Michael was fine”. Through this whole time, her son continued to be treated with the same American medication. In his late teens, Michael started having health problems – from night sweats to glandular fever to a bad bout of flu.But he continued to live life to the full – travelling, listening to music and supporting West Bromwich Albion football club.”There was a big match at Wembley and he was very, very poorly,” Linda says. “So we decorated all the car up and he met his friends down there. It didn’t matter how he felt, if he could get there he would.”Later in his life, as his immune system started to break down, Michael lost weight and experienced fatigue and memory loss.Image source, family photoHe was transferred to Heartlands Hospital, in Birmingham, where Linda, who gave up her job as a cook in a care home, helped nurse him though the last few months of his life. “He said to me, ‘Mum, you’re never going to be a nan,’ and I just said, ‘Don’t worry about it.’ That’s all I could think of saying,” Linda says.Michael developed meningitis and pneumonia – both caused by the HIV he was infected with as a child. He died on May 26, 1995, exactly a week before his 26th birthday. Special sessionAlmost three decades later, Linda is giving evidence to the long-running public inquiry into the treatment disaster. She will appear alongside other parents, in a special session about the experiences of families whose children were infected in the 1970s and 80s. “I felt as though I needed to do it because I want to help get to the bottom of it,” she says. “We all want to know why it was allowed to happen and to keep on happening as well.”A Department of Health and Social Care Spokesperson said: “The infected blood tragedy should never have happened and the ongoing public inquiry was set up to get to the truth and give families the answers they deserve.”We are committed to co-operating fully with the inquiry and will carefully consider any recommendations.”Linda asked that her surname be withheldYou can follow Jim on Twitter.More on this storyInfected blood transfusions killed 1,820 – studyPublished17 September 2022’I’ve been a carer rather than a daughter’Published17 August 2022’I’ll keep fighting until everyone is compensated’Published17 August 2022