1.46pm EST
13:46
Steve Chalke, founder of the Oasis academy trust of 52 schools across England, warned the lifting of restrictions would lead to immunosuppressed pupils turning away from schools and to home education because of health concerns.
It was “a huge gamble”, he said, adding that he feared many immunosuppressed pupils – and those living with vulnerable relatives – would be effectively excluded because of families’ fears.
I think it will become a forced form of exclusion of those who are vulnerable, those immunosuppressed children and staff who are put at increased risk. Also staff who are living with their own immunosuppressed children.
They will not be able to afford to take the gamble. I think we will see a group of children turning away from education. It will lead to a further rise in home education. It can be a route for those who are worried or scared.
All of this will play together in some unhelpful ways. The gamble in my mind is that attendance among many of the most vulnerable stops or goes down, so it becomes a form of exclusion. Removing the requirement for positive cases to self isolate puts them all at increased risk.
Updated
at 2.05pm EST
12.59pm EST
12:59
Here’s a look at how some members of the UK’s scientific community has responded to Boris Johnson’s lifting of restrictions in England:
Mark Woolhouse, professor of infectious disease epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, said he supported the further lifting of restrictions given current trends in the data, adding that even when restrictions have previously been lifted, public behaviour has remained cautious.
If that pattern is repeated – encouraged by robust public health advice and enabled by access to testing and support for those off work – then I don’t expect this latest round of relaxations to have a dramatic impact on the short-term course of the epidemic.
However Woolhouse said the most likely medium-term problem is the almost inevitable appearance of another variant, adding it is important public health agencies across the UK are able to respond within days when it happens.
If those plans include measures such as the rapid roll-out of self-testing kits – which worked extremely well during the omicron wave – then it is vital that the infrastructure is in place to deliver that very quickly indeed.
However Prof Rowland Kao, also of the University of Edinburgh, noted that evidence suggests Covid puts a greater stress on more deprived communities.
“For example, ICU occupancy and deaths are now increasingly due to people living in the most deprived areas,” he said, adding that is likely in part down to lower uptake of Covid vaccinations as well as fewer lateral flow tests in such areas.
As the requirements to isolate are released – and therefore with no compensation for isolating – and with the expectation that free testing will also be removed, this will likely most impact those who are under the most pressure to work in places where distancing is difficult and therefore potential exposure to infection high.
Kao added that they are also people in the areas which, because of existing health deprivation, are most likely to have severe outcomes.
While it is acknowledged that continued restrictions such as we have now are unsustainable in the long term, releasing all restrictions so quickly does represent a gamble and one that, if it fails, will likely have the most impact on those who are already disadvantaged.
John Drury, Professor of Social Psychology, University of Sussex, also voiced concerns over inequalities, noting policy changes can affect public perception of Covid.
Given that financial support –or lack of it – is a major driver of adherence to self-isolation, dropping the £500 compensation for self-isolation provided to a minority of people will reduce risk perceptions, reduce self-isolation, and likely lead to a spread of infection disproportionately amongst less privileged groups.
Updated
at 12.59pm EST