A verbal update will be given at the meeting on the current situation regarding the Covid-19 pandemic. The Committee is recommended to receive the update and comment as wished.
Minutes:
Directors gave verbal updates and the Committee made comments on the current situation regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, as set out below.
a) Update from the Director of Public Health
The Director of Public Health advised the Committee that in total there had been 6,557 confirmed cases of Covid-19 between the start of the pandemic and 7 September 2020.
116,168 tests had been processed through the Public Health England recording route, with an average of 670 tests being done per day. There had been issues nationally with testing capacity, but a lot of work had been done maintain local test facilities and the benefit of this had shown in the results being obtained.
Since the start of the pandemic, 839 Leicester residents had been admitted to hospital in relation to Covid-19. There had been 11 hospital admissions per week in August 2020 and over the last seven days there had been 10.
There had been 278 deaths in the city where the person had tested positive for Covid-19 within 28 days of death.
At the end of August 2020 there had been 25.4 cases per 100,000 people. There was a very sharp increase in numbers at the start of September 2020, but over the most recent seven days this had reduced to 100 cases per 100,000 people. Nationally, there currently were 34.4 cases per 100,000 people. In August, the city had had the 23rd highest number of cases in the country and although it currently had the 26th highest number of cases, the numbers were causing a lot of concern.
Door to door testing of city residents had been successful in keeping the number of cases down and would continue. However, it was felt that the safety messages needed to be widened in communities, which would also help address the widespread increase in anxiety.
A very successful contact tracing system had been established in the Council. However, cases being received from the national team were slightly older (over 24 hours), so were having to be pursued hard.
b) Update from the Strategic Director Social Care and Education
The Strategic Director Social Care and Education reminded the Committee that the Council had a role in monitoring the Adult social Care market, as almost all provision was made externally.
There were 103 care homes in the city and they were all contacted by telephone once or twice a week, to ensure that they had the resources they needed, (for example, staffing capacity, personal protection equipment (PPE), or training). During the pandemic, there had not been any point at which care providers had been genuinely at immediate risk of running out of PPE.
Providers registered through the Care Quality Commission could access PPE through the national portal. Other providers could access PPE through the local authority, so the Council was making sure that those providers knew about this provision and could access it.
Officers also ensured that care homes had adequate staff, using bank staff when needed, though ensuring that these only worked in a single care home, in order to reduce the risk of transmission between facilities. On occasion, office staff also had been loaned to care homes.
A lot of care was taken over infection control. It had been proposed that nationally, under the Adult Social Care Winter Plan, the infection control grant would be extended to the end of the year. Information on the city’s allocation was awaited from the government.
Fees had been increased, in order to cover the very significant cost of the work being done in relation to the pandemic. As the care providers were external to the Council, the Council did not have the resources to cover the costs involved. It had been made clear that this was a temporary increase.
Regular testing of care home staff and residents was undertaken, with staff being tested weekly and residents being tested every four weeks. The Council had been instrumental in establishing this policy nationally.
There had been a sudden very large increase in the number of cases of Covid-19 in care homes during the first week of September 2020, but officers had been able to react within a day to make sure that the homes had the support they needed. During the second week of September the numbers had reduced and this week were nearly back to where they had been before the spike.
Delays in getting results of tests from the national testing system were causing problems, both in terms of getting tests done and in terms of consequential delays in acting on positive results. If staff tested positive but had been asymptomatic, they could have been working in a care home during that time. There could be a further issue if there was a large spike in numbers of cases in care homes at the same time as a full outbreak in the community, as this could reduce the available staff capacity below safe levels, but work was being done with care providers to prepare for such a situation.
Despite the precautions being taken and work being done, it appeared that some people currently preferred to stay at home, rather than go in to a care setting. Given the perception of risk associated with care, and the restrictions on visiting people in care homes, this was understandable. Efforts were being made to ensure that family carers had access to any required support.
Children’s social care had moved to an online service, or doing “window calls”, where the participants could see each other but the phone call was Covid-secure. This had been quite beneficial, as having officers in a room together could be quite intimidating for some families and people could be more comfortable being in their own home.
A campaign had been held to maintain safeguarding referrals. Initially there had been a drop in the numbers being made, but they were now back to their usual level. All referrals were investigated.
There was a continuing reduction in the number of Looked After Children. This was in contrast to some other local authorities, which had seen a sharp increase.
There had been a very low number of infections among young people in schools, with only 1% having tested positive for Covid-19. Only 17 young people aged under 18 had been hospitalised due to Covid-19 and there had been no deaths from it in that age group.
The city had 112 schools and to date there had been 107 cases related to schools. These involved 65 children, 42 staff and over 60 schools, although most schools only had one or two cases. It appeared that infections acquired in the community were being identified before there was transmission within schools.
School attendance was falling. At the start of the term it had been 91%, but had now reduced to approximately 79%. This fall was greater than the national average, but could be due to the local restrictions that the government had put in place in response to the number of cases in the city. Only one school was not open due to the number of infections.
It was recognised that schools not opening could have a significant impact on the wider economy, so officers were making sure that the only pupils or staff who were sent home were those who needed to be, either because they had symptoms or had been in close contact with someone who had tested positive.
There had been a very significant fall in attendance in the nursery sector. These often were very small businesses, so this reduction in numbers could cause problems for the providers, as very limited government support was available. There also was concern that this would result in very limited pre-school care being available after the pandemic.
c) Update from the Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services
The Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services reminded the Committee that the Regulatory team was working in partnership with other agencies, such as the Police.
This work included the following:
· A number of interventions had been made, which included 4 prohibition notices being issued to businesses that should not have been operating between 23 March and 19 June;
· Over 170 concerns had been received about social distancing in work premises, nine of which had been referred to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE);
· Information packs for businesses had been produced that set out key messages, such as reminders to wash hands and socially distance. The Elections team had been helpful in delivering these packs and the Communications team had been very helpful in ensuring that information reached the business community;
· Covid-19 checks had been made at high risk sites. Most of these were intelligence-led investigations, with enforcement only being undertaken where required. A total of nearly 1,300 covid-secure inspection visits had been made. The HSE regulated some premises, but Council officers had made 54 visits to high-risk premises that the HSE was unable to access;
· The work of the regulatory team continued to focus on high-risk premises, with 938 reactive inquiries having been actioned;
· A lot of support had been received from the Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service, which had carried out some covid-secure inspections, (for example, at hotels);
· The Council had been one of the first local authorities to use new legislation that allowed protection orders to be issued to help manage the pandemic. 11 directions had been issued to 11 premises on London Road in relation to large, unmanaged queues and a Public Space Protection Order had been issued. Intensive work also had been undertaken to ensure that restaurant bookings were being managed correctly;
· The team also had been working closely with Public Health officers, using data to ensure that any responses made were proportionate and in the right location;
· Assistance also was being given to enable closed businesses to reopen;
· Legislation continued to change. For example, a 10.00 pm curfew was coming in to force on 24 September, people were still not able to meet in groups of more than six and from 28 September it was a legal requirement for premises to be covid-secure; and
· This work would continue going forward, for example, in relation to key events or celebrations where intelligence could be used to assist in issues such as maintaining social distancing.
d) Update from Director of Finance
The Director of Finance noted that vulnerable people covered by shielding arrangements would be released from shielding requirements on 5 October 2020. Currently, only Leicester and Blackburn still had advisory shielding in place, but the environment was now more covid-secure than it was when shielding was first introduced in March 2020. Everyone in the city who previously had been shielding had been advised of the change and the last food delivery would be on Friday 2 October.
e) Update from Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance
The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance explained that a challenge facing officers currently was “message fatigue” and the complexity of messages being delivered. Some stronger messages therefore would be circulated about the increasing number of cases of Covid-19 in the city.
A lot of work was being done with community stakeholders, including proactive visits to venues such as places of worship to ensure they were covid-secure.
Councillors were thanked for helping to get the messages out to local communities.
f) Response from the City Mayor
The City Mayor stated how impressed he was with how officers and others had responded to the situation.
A review, led by Dame Mary Nye, had been commissioned by the government on the response to the “lockdown” in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. This report had been very complimentary about the work done by this Council and the way in which knowledge had been shared, which had informed responses in other parts of the country.
The Director of Public Health endorsed this, noting that no other areas appeared to have the developed the range of interventions used in Leicester. This had been hard work and was tiring for officers, but the positive feedback received was very welcome and encouraging.
g) General
The Committee thanked all involved in the Council’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic for their work.
The following points were then made in discussion:
o Are covid marshals working in shopping centres on the outer estates?
Response from the Director of Neighbourhood and Environmental Services:
Different staff had been working as marshals during the pandemic. The CCTV infrastructure also had been useful to supplement the work they had done in monitoring areas. Before the government had introduced its marshal programme, the Council had employed people to help with these activities, taking an intelligence-led approach.
Marshals were on the outer estates. Currently they were concentrated in the north-east area of the city, but could be deployed in key shopping areas across the city as needed.
o The production of information in community languages had been very important in the success of getting this information to people.
o What were the reasons for the high number of cases of, and deaths from, Covid-19 in the city?
Response from the Director of Public Health:
The number of deaths in the city were on a level with other areas. A tracker had been produced that showed the local picture, but care needed to be taken to ensure that comparisons of these figures with those nationally used the same analytical methods.
o Studies in China had shown that wearing face masks had a significant effect in reducing the number of cases of Covid-19. The Council therefore was asked to provide funding to enable people to buy masks of a sufficient standard to give them as much protection as possible from the virus.
Response from the Director of Public Health:
There was a requirement for a higher level of protection if doing closer, invasive work, such as that by dentists or beauticians, but most people did not need the higher level of protection.
Face coverings stopped droplet transmission and, where reusable, should be washed before reuse. Keeping a distance from other people still was a priority, so most of the time a face covering, rather than a mask, was sufficient.
o There had been a number of cases where people were turned away from the walk-in test centre in Belgrave. Why was this?
Response from the Director of Public Health:
A lot of work had been done with the national testing team to keep testing capacity as high as possible. Consequently, there were more testing stations around the city than were found in most areas, but this still could not meet the full demand. The government was very clear that only symptomatic testing should be undertaken now.
o One important achievement was that every request for a food parcel had been met.
o The Council in a good position to manage a second wave of Covid-19 because of the work done during the first wave.
o What would be the impact of population movement to the city as the university year started?
Response from the Director of Public Health:
The large increase in Covid-19 cases following the return of students to some other universities nationally was a concern. However, the local universities had engaged very well with Public Health officers, developing plans in case of outbreaks and continuing to work alongside the Council.
o Media representation of Black and Minority Ethnic communities in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic had caused some people to respond negatively to these communities.
Response from the Director of Public Health:
Work to challenge these misconceptions was ongoing, but it was recognised that it would take time to counter media representations and ensure parity of treatment.
AGREED:
That all involved in the response to the Covid-19 pandemic be thanked for their work and achievements.
Councillor Kitterick left the meeting during discussion on this item