Each week LDV invites leadership candidates to submit one article. This is this week’s article form Layla Moran
This morning, I wrote to the Prime Minister in my role as the elected Chair of the Cross-Party Coronavirus Inquiry. Following over 1000 evidence submissions, we are recommending an urgent move to a ‘zero-covid’ strategy.
The evidence, from NHS frontline staff, care home workers, health bodies, charities, scientists, bereaved families and other individuals, has sometimes been difficult to read and listen to.
It has been shocking to hear about the impact of the lack of clear Government strategy in place to eliminate coronavirus from the UK. It has left the public confused and our NHS and care staff flying blind.
It was heartbreaking to hear from bereaved families, who know that more could have been done to protect their loved ones. But these stories must be heard, and lessons learned in time to protect others.
It’s why we set up the All-Party Parliamentary group last month, which now consists of over 60 cross-party MPs and peers. We’re holding a rapid inquiry over the summer months into the UK response to Covid-19, to learn lessons ahead of any potential peak this winter.
It is so important that we do this. Of course, there should and will be a full judge-led public Inquiry when the country is in recovery. But in the meantime, I believe MPs should be doing all we can to examine the Government’s response and make suggestions that will help save lives and improve our safety in the short term.
The evidence has informed our Zero-Covid recommendation, an approach similar to the one which has proved so successful in New Zealand. A Zero-Covid plan would involve eliminating community transmission of coronavirus, thereby moving the frontline of the fight against the virus to the UK’s entry points.
With the number of new infections in England remaining stubbornly high and with the risk of a second wave ever-present, pursuing a Zero-Covid strategy in England will provide clarity and reassurance to the UK public, reduce the risk of a second wave, and save lives.
The letter proposes practical examples as measures to be put in place, including:
- Accelerating the development of a locally-led and locally coordinated, but nationally supported Find, Test, Trace, Isolate and Support (FTTIS) programme in England, supported by a mobile phone application that would assist in contact tracing.
- Devolving public health outbreak control efforts such that the response to local flare-ups is led locally, rather than centrally. Provide local authorities with the power and resources to mobilise and scale-up operations as needed.
- Reinstating the daily coronavirus briefings as soon as possible and using clear, unambiguous, and simple messaging that is not open to interpretation. For example, ‘2 metres apart’ rather than ‘1 metre plus’.
You can read more about the letter and our recommendations in the Evening Standard and the Times and on the APPG website.
More broadly, this APPG and our Inquiry demonstrates and reinforces the value of listening to people, empathising with their situations, and working cross-party to get the Government to make changes which will improve their lives.
It is an approach I have always taken in politics and will continue to use as leader of the Liberal Democrats. Our next leader must listen, represent a broad base of voters, work collaboratively across party lines, challenge the right-wing Conservative Government and deliver – both for our Party in the media and at elections, and for the people in our country.
Members have until Wednesday at 1pm to vote for our next leader. If you haven’t already, please vote for me to move our Party and our country forward, together.
* Layla Moran is the Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
Peterborough Cathedral launches £300,000 appeal to allow it to stay open daily
The Government needs its growth *explanation*
The surprising similarity between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage
Daniel Stylianou
Alex Macfie
Mark Pack
David Blake
David Evans
10 Comments
I hope that the group are considering the correlation of poor health outcomes with poverty.
Also that there is clear agreement on how people can improve their immune systems. A consideration of this leads to the need to eliminate poverty in our country, so that we can all live healthier lives.
Big Pharma has announced that it does not care.
Glaxo was a British company. Smith Kline were American. The merged company is international and should have a care for customer s and potential patients around the world.
If you are Liberal you are international, you cannot be one without he other.
The company’s objectives should be reviewed. Just being profitable is not enough.
Covid-19 is an exceptional crisis.
Tom Harney 21st Aug ’20 – 2:37pm
The NHS is supposed to do this, but needs to include social care.
Economies made on prescription charges, dentistry and opticians were made by Labour governments before the Tory led coalition and they should be willing to live in the truth.
Layla,
Will there be alternative views in this group of 60? All mature, sober, measured, unemotional voices have been eradicated from this topic. According to the Office of National Statistics the UK epidemic completely ended eight weeks ago (Sweden’s ended on the 1st of July). But “cases” are continually reported. Of what? My next door neighbour tested positive. He lost his sense of smell for 24 hours.
For this we are tearing our economy into shreds and putting millions of useful productive people onto the scrap heap?
The 50,000 ‘extra’ deaths were almost 100% the already terminally ill or the very old. The oldest I saw reported as covid victim was 106. The one or two younger unexplained deaths get emotional headlines for days, when they constitute the tiniest fraction of daily deaths in those age groups.
Will one question considered by your group be?
“How were a group of drunk with unaccustomed power Professors allowed to cause so much economic misery for millions on the basis of the (slightly) premature deaths of 50,000 elderly out of a population of 67 million?”
Innocent Bystander not all deaths were terminally ill OAPS, the virus also caused severe damage to many people who survived on the form of weakened immune systems, permanently damaged lungs, people now facing disabilities for life. Doing what Sweden did would have been disastrous since they have 9.5million people and we have 67million so there’s hardly a comparison.
Sam,
I didn’t say “all”, which would have been strictly incorrect. I said ” almost 100%” which you can verify anywhere.
Any epidemiologist, politician or scientist who seriously thinks that covid took the life of a 106 year old need to have their “common sense” factor recalibrated.
As to long term effects, we will see, so far they are yet more dire predictions to keep this mass hysteria going. The ONS says it ended two months ago.
It’s very welcome to see that the group’s recommendations talk about local action. During lockdown communities instinctively responded by feeding those who couldn’t get out, making personal protective equipment for those on the front line and helping their local hospital in whatever way they could. In contrast the government’s centralised response left many without PPE as they tried to find large suppliers and their track and trace system failed.
On a more personal note, I like your use of the words ‘we’ and ‘our’ to talk about the enquiry group and it’s conclusions when you were responsible for initiating it and setting it up. We need a leader who practises inclusiveness. I’m glad I voted for you.
No his analysis above is false. Many people with ongoing health conditions are at risk as are people with disabilities. That’s why as someone on the younger side with cancer, I was put into the vulnerable and shielding group. So thanks for that lack of concern for those of us in the vulnerable group and the dismissal of millions of people mainly on the grounds of ageism.
“Zero Covid” does not seem like a plausible strategy to me. Various experts and sensible voices are warning that Covid will be around for a long time and we will have to live with it but it could be becoming less virulent.
Therefore attempts to suppress it altogether will be unsuccessful whilst having unforeseen consequences.
I also don’t think that anyone who thinks New Zealand’s approach is a great success is capable of serious analysis. They have been judged on how the virus spread in their summer when it was winter in Europe. Furthermore they have trapped themselves by closing borders which will decimate their vita tourist industry.
This seems a somewhat dubious exercise, far from a full indepedendant judge led inquiry. On what basis has this heart breaking testimony been analysed ? How have the, arguably, equally dubious conclusions been arrived at? Has the report been subjected to any type of review prior to publication? Has any account been taken of conscious and unconscious bias, both from the witnesses giving evidence and the politicians macking conclusions and putting forward reccomendations? This appears to me to be more of a massive virtue signalling exercise and less to do with any real robust and competent review of the efficacy of past government actions. We still don’t know what the real drivers and factors are that have determined international differences in infection level and death rate, so attempting to learn lessons on any but the most starkly obvious elements of contain, and delay seems as premature as the reccomendation for the U.K. to achieve zero COVID status,without destroying the economy is nonsensical.