So what did SAGE come up with a month ago? Well, it was a lot more than saying “circuit break”. They actually produced a long list of ideas to consider. For each they looked at the benefits and drawbacks and presented this to government along with a note that gave a suggested short list. The full list of options considered were:
- Lockdown – total open ended
- Lockdown – total limited to two weeks (probably repeated on a 6 week cycle) – the so-called circuit breaker
- Limiting mixing within the home
- Limiting outdoor mixing and large events
- Working from home
- Alternate work weeks (week at work – week at home) half of staff in the workplace half at home at any one time
- Close bars, pubs, cafes and restaurants
- Close indoor gyms. leisure centres, fitness etc
- Close places of worship / community centres
- Close non-essential retail
- Close close contact personal services
- Close all or some schools
- Close schools where there is an outbreak
- Close class/year group in school where there is an outbreak
- Week on week off for schools, half class sizes
- Close further education
- Close higher education
- Quarantine new university students
- Close childcare
- Prohibit visits to hospitals and care homes
- Re-introduce shielding at home
- Improve the COVID-secure scheme
- Require face coverings indoors
- Extend list of indoor places where face coverings are needed
- Restrict public travel to key workers
- Impose 5 mile limit for non-essential travel
- Restrict travel between UK nations or regions
Some of these are more effective than others. Some are surprising. It is absolutely clear that restrictions in the education sector could bring the R level below 1 in the view of SAGE.
So what did they produce as a short list for consideration by government:
- A circuit breaker (looks like it might be a 3 week one to start with, repeated regularly)
- Work from home (until a vaccine is distributed)
- Banning all contact in homes with others not in the support group (short term till levels drop)
- Close all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms and personal services (short term till levels drop)
- Universities and colleges to use on-line teaching unless essential (short term till levels drop)
There are some interesting statements in the paper, such as:
Single interventions are unlikely to be able to reduce incidence. If schools
are to remain open, then a wide range of other measures will be required.
The paper is quite clear that measures could be introduced at a regional level. It is also very clear that taking action or not taking action – it will be the poor that will suffer in both cases.
As part of the paper they presented the results of studies to show where infection was taking place
- In the household (one family member infecting the others) accounts for about half of the cases
- Work activities like health and social care
- Leisure activities such as bars and restaurants
They suggest the restrictions that are introduced will need to last 6-9 months.
It makes interesting reading. The paper effectively says that schools must not close and also says schools closing (maybe just secondary) will be enough to reduce R below 1. So this got me thinking about something I said the other day – why don’t we move the narrative from negative to positive? Instead of considering making schools close can we work toward a way of making schools places where infection will not spread?
Look at the list of restrictions being introduced and ask yourself – if we took the money needed to support the businesses being closed and applied it to making education safer would that be enough? If that could just lower the R value to less than 1 would it be money well spent?