scholarly journals From ‘herd immunity’ to ‘stay home’ to ‘stay alert’: United Kingdom’s response to COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-58
Author(s):  
Robert O. Nartowski ◽  
Lucy Huby ◽  
Ruairidh Topham ◽  
Szymon Golen ◽  
Katrin Brückner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Herd Immunity ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Measures ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Bed Capacity ◽  
The Government ◽  
Governmental Response

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in various public health responses around the globe. Due to the devolved powers of the United Kingdom, the response has been centralized but simultaneously greatly differing across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The following article examines the governmental responses to the outbreak, the public health measures taken, data collection and statistics, protective equipment and bed capacity, the society’s response, and lastly, the easing of the lockdown restrictions. In terms of the governmental response, the COVID-19 pandemic was initially met with less urgenon/populacy and social distancing, along with the development of herd immunity, were first mentioned. As the virus continued to spread, the government started imposing stricter measures and a lockdown was implemented. Tests were conducted using a five pillar typology. The collection of information, particularly on COVID-19 associated deaths, varied across the United Kingdom and among the governmental organizations due to differing definitions. In term of hospital bed availability, the rate of hospitalizations was the highest from late March to early April of 2020. Temporary hospitals were constructed, however, they mostly went unused. The United Kingdom society was generally compliant in adapting to the lockdown and trust in the government rose. Nonetheless, as the lockdown progressed, trust in the government began to fall. After several months, the rate of infection decreased and the lockdown in the United Kingdom was lifted in accordance with ‘Our plan to rebuild: The United Kingdom Government’s COVID-19 recovery strategy’. The slogan ‘Stay at Home. Protect the NHS. Save Lives’ was replaced with ‘Stay Alert. Control the Virus. Save Lives’.

The Duchy of Lancaster Records

1947 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Somerville
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
County Council ◽  
Component Part ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Rich Diversity ◽  
Public Record ◽  
The Rich ◽  
The Government

Two hundred and fifty years ago a record-keeper sat amid the boxes, the cupboards and the shelves which housed his charges, compiling ‘an account of all or most of the records in the Duchy office and how to find them’. The result was invaluable for searchers in the Duchy of Lancaster records, but lacking order and arrangement, as its author was the first to admit, it is not a systematic description of these records and it says very little about their history. There is therefore some justification for attempting a comprehensive view of these records. The rich diversity of interest which the Duchy bears is fully reflected in the range of its records. It has indeed been said that ‘what the records of the United Kingdom are at large, these records of the Duchy are in miniature’. That is a bold assertion, difficult to sustain. For one thing, the Duchy never knew the complicated processes of the royal exchequer, and it must be obvious that the Duchy could not repeat in parvo the whole pattern of the nation's life. Yet the analogy gives a hint of the records' scope, and it becomes closer if we take the Duchy records to include those of the Palatinate of Lancaster. It is true that in the Public Record Office, which contains most of the records under discussion, the two series are treated separately, and the Guide, repeating a distinction drawn in 1868 in the Deputy Keeper's Report, says that the Duchy records ‘are entirely distinct from the records of the County palatine, which, although public, are purely local, whilst the Duchy Records, though private, concern the government and jurisdiction of the entire dominion of the Duchy and embrace the County Palatine as a subordinate regality’. This statement, which the grammarian finds imperfect as an example of the chiastic construction, is equally unsatisfactory to the archivist or historian if we understand it to refer to the palatinate, and not to the administration of the modern county council. We ought no more to segregate the palatinate simply because it was an organ of public administration than we should, say, a private hundred, and the description itself recognises the county palatine as a component part of the Duchy. How the judicial records of the court of Duchy chamber were any less public than those of the chancery court in Lancashire, is not explained. The distinction, in fine, is fallacious.

scholarly journals Excess Mortality in England during the 2019 Summer Heatwaves

Climate ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Natasha Rustemeyer ◽  
Mark Howells
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Excess Mortality ◽  
Summer Period ◽  
The Public ◽  
National Statistics ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Excess Deaths ◽  
Related Mortality

There is increasing evidence that rising temperatures and heatwaves in the United Kingdom are associated with an increase in heat-related mortality. However, the Public Health England (PHE) Heatwave mortality monitoring reports, which use provisional death registrations to estimate heat-related mortality in England during heatwaves, have not yet been evaluated. This study aims to retrospectively quantify the impact of heatwaves on mortality during the 2019 summer period using daily death occurrences. Second, using the same method, it quantifies the heat-related mortality for the 2018 and 2017 heatwave periods. Last, it compares the results to the estimated excess deaths for the same period in the PHE Heatwave mortality monitoring reports. The number of cumulative excess deaths during the summer 2019 heatwaves were minimal (161) and were substantially lower than during the summer 2018 heatwaves (1700 deaths) and summer 2017 heatwaves (1489 deaths). All findings were at variance with the PHE Heatwave mortality monitoring reports which estimated cumulative excess deaths to be 892, 863 and 778 during the heatwave periods of 2019, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Issues are identified in the use of provisional death registrations for mortality monitoring and the reduced reliability of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) daily death occurrences database before 2019. These findings may identify more reliable ways to monitor heat mortality during heatwaves in the future.

Baseline Rates of Campylobacter and Salmonella in Raw Chicken in Wales, United Kingdom, in 2002

2004 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 1226-1228 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. J. MELDRUM ◽  
D. TUCKER ◽  
C. EDWARDS
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Seasonal Variation ◽  
Public Health Laboratory ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Laboratory Service ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Food Standards ◽  
Similar Peak

The Public Health Laboratory Service in Wales, in cooperation with local authorities and the Food Standards Agency Wales, carried out a survey to establish baseline figures for the contamination of raw retail chicken with Salmonella and Campylobacter available within Wales, a devolved part of the United Kingdom with a population of ~3 million. Seven hundred thirty-nine samples were obtained between November 2001 and December 2002. Overall, 71% of samples were contaminated with Campylobacter, and 8% were contaminated with Salmonella. There were no significant differences between fresh and frozen carcasses and between samples taken from retailers or butchers. There was seasonal variation in the level of Campylobacter contamination of fresh chicken, with a peak in June and the lowest positive rates in January, March, and December. There was no similar peak observed in frozen samples or for Salmonella.

scholarly journals Excess Mortality in England During the 2019 Summer Heatwaves.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Rustemeyer ◽  
Mark Howells
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Excess Mortality ◽  
Cumulative Number ◽  
Summer Period ◽  
The Public ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Excess Deaths ◽  
Related Mortality

There is increasing evidence that rising temperatures and heatwaves in the United Kingdom are associated with an increase in heat-related mortality. This study aims to retrospectively quantify the impact of heatwaves on mortality during the 2019 summer period using daily death occurrences. Second, it compares excess mortality during the 2019 heatwaves to excess mortality during the 2018 and 2017 heatwave periods. Lastly, it compares the excess mortality in the 2017-2019 heatwaves to the estimated excess deaths for the same period in the Public Health England (PHE) Heatwave mortality monitoring Reports. The cumulative number of excess deaths during the summer 2019 heatwaves were minimal and were substantially lower than during the summer 2018 heatwaves (1,700 deaths) and summer 2017 heatwaves (1,489 deaths). All findings were at variance with the PHE Heatwave mortality monitoring reports which estimated cumulative excess deaths to be 892, 863 and 778 during the summer period of 2019, 2018 and 2017 respectively using provisional death registrations. Issues have been identified in the use of provisional death registrations for mortality monitoring and the reduced reliability of the ONS daily death occurrence database before 2019. These findings may identify more reliable ways to monitor heat mortality during heatwaves in the future.

scholarly journals Ecologies of Public Trust: The NHS COVID-19 Contact Tracing App

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Samuel ◽  
Frederica Lucivero ◽  
Stephanie Johnson ◽  
Heilien Diedericks
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Trust ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Social Phenomenon ◽  
Isle Of Wight ◽  
The Public ◽  
Trust Relationship ◽  
Health Measures ◽  
General Support

AbstractIn April 2020, close to the start of the first U.K. COVID-19 lockdown, the U.K. government announced the development of a COVID-19 contact tracing app, which was later trialled on the U.K. island, the Isle of Wight, in May/June 2020. United Kingdom surveys found general support for the development of such an app, which seemed strongly influenced by public trust. Institutions developing the app were called upon to fulfil the commitment to public trust by acting with trustworthiness. Such calls presuppose that public trust associated with the app can emerge if the conditions for trustworthiness are met and that public trust is simplistic, i.e., linearly the sum of each member of the publics’ individual – U.K. government trust relationship. Drawing on a synthesis of the trust literature and fifteen interviews with members of the public trialling the app on the Isle of Wight, this paper aims to explore what trust mechanisms and relationships are at play when thinking about public trust in the context of the U.K. COVID-19 app. We argue that public trust is a complex social phenomenon and not linearly correlated with institutional trustworthiness. As such, attention needs to widen from calls for trustworthy infrastructures as a way to build public trust, to a deeper understanding of those doing the trusting; in particular, what or whom do people place their trust in (or not) when considering whether using the app and why. An understanding of this will help when trying to secure public trust during the implementation of necessary public health measures.

scholarly journals COVID-19 and the ‘Myriad’: A Comparative Assessment of Emergency Responses from Europe and South America

Legalities ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-143
Author(s):  
Kim Barker ◽  
Enrique Uribe-Jongbloed ◽  
Tobias Scholz
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
South America ◽  
Privacy Concerns ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Ways Of Working ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Share Data ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Emergency Measures

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted – across intricate borders, different geographies, and legal jurisdictions – that there is only so much that can be done in the way of governance to tackle the challenge posed by a virus. The pandemic is a global problem, one which has affected almost every country in significant and seldom-felt ways. Governments have been forced to react, to respond with emergency measures, temporary rules and legislation, and impose restrictions on freedoms. It has brought to the fore a range of responses, locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. What is particularly evident across the unfolding of the pandemic is the divergent approaches in introducing governance measures to control behaviour, to share data and information, and to report on the pandemic while holding decision-makers to account. Much of the reporting of government reactions to the pandemic has focussed on emergency restrictions, lockdowns, the suspension of ‘normal’ gatherings, public health data, and tracing apps. Each of these is bundled up with concerns over the interferences with freedoms, a lack of scrutiny and holding to account of governance bodies and lawmakers, and privacy concerns. The new ways of working, governing, and communicating emergency rules is a COVID-19 legacy for governments, but is it one that will shift our expectations? The balance between fundamental freedoms has been – to an extent – pitted against the public health agenda and the nature of the emergency response by governments across the world, but particularly in Germany, the UK, and South America. This article explores the nature of the government responses through emergency measures (and restrictions) and tracing programmes in three countries: Germany, the United Kingdom, and Colombia. The assessment – and comparison – of three countries, across two diverse regions – offers a unique discussion from the perspective of pandemic responses to the COVID-19 emergency. The pandemic itself provides an opportunity to compare countries, governance responses, and legalities that may not otherwise be possible. The myriad of responses seen throughout the pandemic offers a unique opportunity for comparative discussion – this paper provides that discussion, but in so doing, assesses whether it is possible to recommend a ‘one size fits all’ approach to governance emergencies.

What Are You Reading?

2014 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-397
Author(s):  
Kim Solga
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Social Classes ◽  
Coalition Government ◽  
Tuition Fees ◽  
Private Partnership ◽  
Tony Blair ◽  
The Public ◽  
Margaret Thatcher ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Government

In May 2010, a general election in the United Kingdom produced a coalition government headed by David Cameron's Conservatives and (nominally) the Liberal Democrats under deputy PM Nick Clegg. The coalition (still in power in 2014) quickly plunged the nation into a period of postcrash austerity the likes of which had not been seen for generations. When I landed at Heathrow in June 2012 to start a new job at Queen Mary University of London, the ground was thick with casualties—and getting thicker. Significant challenges to the U.K. welfare state have been launched before, of course: most visibly and famously under Margaret Thatcher, perhaps more insidiously and tenaciously under Tony Blair. Blair, having learned the lessons of Thatcher's blunt brutality, was a consummate salesman of the public–private partnership, but in 2010 the facade of “feel good” neoliberalism was almost instantly in danger of cracking. Shortly after the election, Clegg backtracked on his promise not to raise tuition fees, allowing the government to triple university students' annual bills to £9,000. By the end of that year protests had taken over the streets; Brits of all social classes were struggling, and angry.

scholarly journals Temporal cluster of wound botulism in the United Kingdom

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
S O’Brien ◽  
Alasdair Reid ◽  
A C de Benoist
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Environmental Health ◽  
Disease Surveillance ◽  
Communicable Disease ◽  
Laboratory Service ◽  
Wound Botulism ◽  
The Public ◽  
Temporal Cluster ◽  
The United Kingdom

Five clinical cases of wound botulism have been reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health since the beginning of February 2002 (1,2).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document