The Chief Executive and Director of Public Health will be in attendance to provide the Board with an update in respect of the Council’s response to COVID-19.
Minutes:
The Chief Executive delivered a
presentation to update the Board in respect of the Council’s response to
COVID-19.
The following information was
provided:
1.
What
was the number of positive cases of COVID-19 amongst teachers and teaching
assistants across Middlesbrough? The
figure from September 2020 up to 11 February 2021 was 310. Currently, 51 pupils and 15 staff across all
schools were isolating as a result of positive COVID-19 tests.
2.
Were
those drivers, contracted by the Council to transport (vulnerable) children and
adults, receiving vaccines? Whilst conversations had taken place with taxi
drivers in regards to vaccinations, most were in relation to regular school
transport, as opposed to vulnerable children and adults. As taxi drivers were not listed within
priority vaccination groups 1-4, and provision had been made previously (e.g.
PPE, screens and face coverings), it was deemed that sufficient mitigation was
already in place. With the anticipated
arrival of the mass vaccination centre in Middlesbrough on 22 March 2021, the
Council would be looking to push people in particular occupations to attend for
vaccination.
-
Communications
– aligning with national phased exit strategy;
-
Outbreak
control (statutory responsibility to update plan) – maintaining
testing/vaccinations and refreshing the Outbreak Control Plan;
-
Schools
– assistance with testing, summer catch-up activity support, holiday hunger
approach, etc.;
-
Business
– support in town centre reopening arrangements, Tees Valley vs. Middlesbrough
approach to exit arrangements;
-
Communities
– support for residents and associated services; and
-
Council
– reoccupation and re-induction of staff.
In light of
the above, it was explained that consideration was also being given as to how
those plans would link with the existing Recovery Strategy.
Following the update,
Members were afforded the opportunity to ask questions.
A Member referred to statistics
in respect of COVID-19 deaths in comparison to other Local Authorities and
queried why Middlesbrough’s regularly appeared to be the highest. In response, the Chief Executive indicated
that there were several reasons why a) there had been more instances of
COVID-19 per head of population than many other places, and b) why there had
been a higher rate of deaths. The first
revolved around Middlesbrough’s ‘ill population’, i.e. life expectancy in
Middlesbrough was approximately five or six years less than the national
average. Life expectancy within the town
varied by 14-15 years, and healthy life expectancy varied by up to 20
years. Reference was made to the high
prevalence of respiratory issues, such as COPD, which made individuals more
vulnerable to COVID-19. In terms of
individuals contracting the virus, it was also linked to deprivation;
unfortunately, Middlesbrough had many of the most deprived wards in the UK. Middlesbrough also had a significant BAME
population – as at the last Census, this was 13.8%. Finally, Middlesbrough was highly urbanised
and had the same population as Redcar, which was four or five times the size of
Middlesbrough geographically, and therefore more people were living closer
together. All those factors had come
together to produce the statistics that had been seen.
A Member referred to ‘The White
Feather Project’ and indicated that this currently operated seven days per
week, sometimes for 24 hours per day.
The Member wished to convey a message of thanks and to congratulate
those involved; the project had recently celebrated its one year anniversary.
In response to an enquiry
regarding Council meetings and a return to the Town Hall, the Chief Executive
explained that the legislation permitting remote meetings would expire in May
2021. It was possible that a hybrid
format for meetings would be followed in order to facilitate attendance, but
this was currently being explored.
A Member queried the action
being undertaken by Middlesbrough Council to encourage people to get
vaccinated. In response, the Chief
Executive highlighted that Middlesbrough Council was not responsible for
vaccinations – this was the responsibility of the NHS. However, through the Council’s Public Health
function and its normal business, the Council did wish to promote the
vaccination programme and get as many people vaccinated as possible. A communications strategy had been
established in respect of this, part of which involved the appointment of a
network of COVID-19 champions within local communities, which had worked work
during the initial outbreak stages and the communication of key hygiene
messages. Work was currently being
undertaken to examine the possibility of linking in with Middlesbrough Football
Club to promote uptake, and officers were also looking at placing localised
vaccination sites in communities across Middlesbrough, particularly where
take-up was low.
A Member referred to the
decisions taken by the Gold Command Group and the reference to Tees Valley vs.
Middlesbrough in respect of the business work stream; clarification was sought
regarding this. In response, the Chief
Executive explained that this was not concerned with competition; the TVCA was
providing support to businesses at this time, looking at the impact of COVID-19
on the economy across the Tees Valley.
TVCA had a business support line in place; the funds to support those
businesses were allocated directly to the Local Authorities to determine
expenditure. This reference was about
ensuring that the two did not link.
A Member referred to the
vaccination centre that would be opened in Middlesbrough and queried the
coordination of appointments, as some residents were currently required to
attend other areas, such as Darlington and York, which meant that some may miss
out if not able to travel. It was also
queried whether the vaccination statistics for Middlesbrough included those
residents that had attended other areas.
In response, the Chief Executive explained that in terms of the figures
for vaccinations, that was based on residency and not where they were
vaccinated. Appointments were arranged
via a national system for vaccinations - it was envisaged that the system would
look up where slots were available and offer one that was closest to the
individual’s home. Unfortunately,
Middlesbrough’s mass vaccination centre had arrived later than other areas;
however, this would be available and operational within the next two weeks. The centre would operate for 12 hours per
day.
A Member referred to
asymptomatic test sites and queried whether records would be kept for the
number of people attending. In response,
the Chief Executive advised that figures were recorded for the six asymptomatic
test sites in Middlesbrough; the example of 1000 people being tested at
Middlesbrough Sports Village, with 10 testing positive, was provided.
In response to a request for
clarification regarding the vaccination update, the Chief Executive indicated
that 16,000 of the 46,099 doses issued had been to over 70s; reference was made
to the percentage of doses that had been issued to each age group. Consideration was given to the national
performance of the vaccination roll-out in comparison to other countries and
territories.
A Member referred to Children
Looked After and welcomed the additional funding that had been made available
to this group. Regarding use of the
terminology ‘holiday hunger’, which was felt to be particularly negative, it
was queried whether more positive terminology could be utilised in future. In response, the Chief Executive acknowledged
this point, and made reference to an impending Executive report in which a
holiday activity fund would be discussed.
Dealing with hunger was just one aspect – other areas such as anxiety,
confidence building and wraparound support provided to children also needed to
be considered.
In response to a comment
regarding the current age range for vaccinations and the potential that school
teachers be may required to leave schools during peak times (suggesting that
weekend appointments be more appropriate), the Chief Executive explained that
officers had been pushing for a number of roles and occupations that did not
appear to be in priority groupings, such as school staff and refuse collectors,
to be moved up the list. In addition, efforts had also been made for weekend
vaccination appointments to be made available for such roles as teaching and
non-teaching school support staff.
Unfortunately, it was a national priority list that needed to be
followed and there was not a lot of local discretion.
A Member referred to vaccination
appointments and commented that, in order to make an appointment at a local
vaccination centre, booking via a GP could potentially assist.
A Member queried the definition of
PPE in educational settings. In
response, the Chief Executive advised that schools were responsible for
undertaking their own health and safety risk assessments, which meant that
there would be a wide range of PPE, including hand sanitiser, visors, gloves
and face masks. It was explained that
whatever PPE was needed, legally it was the responsibility of the employer to
undertake a COVID-19 risk assessment, identify the mitigation that was required
to make it COVID-19 secure, and then provide that mitigation. There was a definitive list of standard PPE
and the Council did have a central depository.
The Member commented upon the face coverings being worn in some areas
that may not be of clinical grade.
With regards to the reopening
roadmap, a Member queried how matters could potentially proceed for wedding
venues and similar after 21 June 2021.
In response, the Chief Executive advised that he did not know anything
further than the Members, but felt that this would depend on the success of the
vaccination programme (and the percentage of the population vaccinated); the
test that the Government was going to apply before each phase of the easement
of lockdown commenced; and also on infection and hospital rates. In terms of the reoccupation of office space,
it was envisaged that a return to pre-COVID-19 levels would not be realised
because the virus would not simply disappear.
A return to the Civic Centre was not anticipated to take place until at
least September 2021, as Government guidance would first need to be released,
reviewed and then initiated. It was
possible that weddings would take place and nightclubs reopened, but
restrictions against attendance would be put in place.
A Member queried the percentage of BME individuals who had refused a
vaccine. In response, the Chief
Executive explained that, to date, the only statistics available in terms of
refusal related to care home workers; no figures had been provided in respect
of ethnicity.
The Chair thanked the Chief Executive for his attendance and
contribution to the meeting.
NOTED
**SUSPENSION OF COUNCIL PROCEDURE RULE NO. 5 - ORDER OF
BUSINESS**
AGREED that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule No. 5,
the Board agreed to vary the order of business to consider the remaining agenda
items in the following order: 10, 9, 11, 12 and 13.