Manage Deaths Instead of Managing Life

The UK Governments Failure to Protect Communities and Care Homes during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Musa Khan Jalalzai, Musa Khan Jalalzai

• Publisher: VIJ Books (India) Pty Ltd
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9789390439799
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The older you are, the poorer you are and the more long term medical conditions you have, the more likely you are to be admitted to hospital or to die, if those conditions progress or if you get any new acute illness, including COVID-19. This is a covert manifesto for age discrimination and discrimination against the old, sick and disabled.......... Nearly 12 million people in the UK are over 65 and 3 million are over 80. That's a lot of people to dismiss casually. These include our parents, uncles, aunts, and grandparents, our current or future selves. These are citizens who have contributed to society, families, workplaces and the economy. They are as entitled to protection and care as the rest of us. Unless the Covid-denialists and lockdown sceptics can serve up some useful solutions with their rhetoric, they need to stop the discriminatory dog whistles. I can guarantee if it were a member of their own family who got sick, they wouldn't be saying "they have a pre-existing condition so let them die".David Oliver, an experienced NHS acute hospital consultant.

Chapter 1

Manage Deaths Instead of Managing Life: the UK Government’s Failure to Protect Communities and Care Homes during the Covid-19 Pandemic

National Security in its conventional mode is corresponding to the protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty of a modern state. During the proliferation of Covid-19, the government declared publicly plans to manage the Integrated Security, Defence and Foreign Policy Review (ISDFPR) to respond to emerging threats with strength and spring. With greater reason, the worldwide spread of Covid-19 played havoc with major globalizing processes, and immersion our civilization with all its aggrandizement and power. International travel has been in crisis since January 2020, while immigration faced new challenges. British economy is in a hot spot due to over one million job losses. Each of us is now living in a world of the untreatable virus—many bacterial and fungal infections that were previously considered treatable are no longer responding to the drugs designed to kill them. There have been lockdown, partial lockdown, or reduced services of patients and day-care facilities, with outpatients contacts reduced in some places.

Hospitals played their own role by purveying treatment to non-Covid-19 patients as well. On family level, the Covid-19 forced reorganization of life. Domestic violence and sexualized violence against children has been on the rise since March 2020. As the Covid-19 tiredness or sleepiness began to set in, the UK was experiencing another wave of COVID-19 on 05 November 2020. This time, the government’s measures and strategies were designed to effectively control viruses by imposing air and land surveillance to watch everyone by all means. Lockdowns caused more pain, mislaying of life, social and economic destruction. Lockdowns wreak havoc with people’s mental health; weaken their financial position and family life. The Centre for Mental Health estimated up to 10 million people in England needed either new or additional mental health support as a direct consequence of the crisis. The economic situation was not satisfactory, a culture of fraud, nepotism and cronyism developed gradually. Racism and extremism revolved in different shapes, while NHS shamelessly targeted black and Asian communities by taking back their right of treatment and hospitalization.

Newspapers and journals published articles and stories about the vulnerabilities of Asian and black communities flagrantly and profiled them as poor, weak, sick and source of the virus. Director of Health Jo Bibby, Grace Everest, and Isabel Abbs (The Health Foundation-Will COVID-19 be a watershed moment for health inequalities? 07 May 2020) in their analysis noted events viewed through the lens of inequalities to exhibit that Asians and Blacks were at much higher risk of catching and dying from the virus than whites. They also elucidated factors such as age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation known to be important. Critically, these factors combined in complex ways to put some people at much greater risk:

“There are so many separate, interconnected and constantly changing elements that it may never be possible to see the full picture. But one thing is certain, unless these current events are viewed through the lens of inequalities, we risk ending up in a place of even greater injustice than where we started. The global pandemic, and the wider governmental and societal response, is certainly bringing health inequalities into sharp focus. And it has been apparent from the early stages of the pandemic that some groups are at much higher risk of catching and dying from the virus than others. Factors such as age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation are all known to be important. Critically, these factors combine in complex ways to put some people at much greater risk. In addition, the measures taken to control the spread of the virus are having unequal socioeconomic impacts, which are likely to deepen health inequalities in the long term”.¹

Statements of Ministers and newspapers caused consternation. People became frustrated and demanded an immediate solution to the structural problem they were very much a part of. Newspapers criticism pointed to the flawed system itself (Hiroyuki Hamada, Global Research, October 23, 2020) which in turn resonated as a criticism against the self. “As we undergo flawed Covid-19 lockdown measures, the rich and powerful were showered with bailouts, while the rest of middle class endured neoliberal restructuring—losing wages, losing workers’ rights, losing legal rights and losing human rights”.² Big Brother Watch, a UK based civil liberties and privacy campaigning organisation, fighting for a free future, and is the guardian of privacy and defends freedoms at this time of enormous change in its recent research report (Emergency Powers & Civil Liberties Report, May 2020), highlighted legal and statutory developments, public health act 1984, which enforced lockdown restrictions and Health Protection Regulations-2020 made in England, Wales and Scotland and in Northern Ireland on 28 March 2020, and criticised lockdown regulations and argued these were unclear to give way for national debate:

“Two months ago, a series of statutory instruments were made under the Public Health Act 1984 to enforce the lockdown restrictions. These are the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) Regulations 2020 made in England, Wales and Scotland respectively on 26th March 2020 and in Northern Ireland on 28th March 2020. They remain in place but have been significantly amended. On 1st April, the Regulations for Scotland were approved by the Scottish parliament. On 21 April, the Regulations for Northern Ireland were approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly. On 29 April; the Regulations were approved by the Welsh Assembly. Astonishingly, the original Regulations for England were approved by Parliament seven weeks after being made by Government, long after the peak of the virus, on 14 May. The Regulations received a two-hour debate in the House of Commons on 4th May and a one and a half-hour debate in the House of Lords on 12th May. The Regulations have been so unclear as to give way for a national debate as to whether the Prime Minister’s chief advisor Dominic Cummings himself broke the law by taking a 500 mile round trip from London to Durham and a day trip to Barnard Castle. Whatever one’s view of the situation, it is deeply unsatisfactory that the lockdown Regulations are open to such confusion. The Joint Committee on Human Rights urged the Government to “introduce a method of making regulations which allows for more timely and stringent Parliamentary scrutiny which is proportionate to the significant restrictions on human rights which the regulations impose.” On 12th May the Secretary of State made a significant Amendment to the Regulations, easing the lockdown in England without any parliamentary scrutiny on the basis of unjustified urgency. The introductory text to the Amendment states, “by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.” This is patently false as Parliament was sitting to review the original Regulations on the very same day the Amendment was made.³

The Covid-19 hydra tested the resolve and strength of the UK’s Asian and Black Communities amidst shameless propaganda of British newspapers about their vulnerability against the Covid-19, but all strategies and plans failed to terrify them. In a report, Public Health England (PHE) acknowledged that the disproportionate effect the pandemic has had on black, Asian and minority ethnic (Bame) people, including making us more likely to become critically ill and to die. BBC (02 June 2020) quoted two reports which noted the vulnerability of Black people-almost four times more likely to die of Covid-19, according to the Office of National Statistics, while Asians were up to twice as likely to die, but they failed to profile them as a source of virus spread. As the crisis thrust British society into unfamiliar contexts, from panic to social distancing and restrictive state rules, it pitted individual interests against the groups and scepticism against trust. Tej Parikh, (Asia Times, 15 June 2020) highlights several aspects of the Covid-19 and the failed approach of the British government:

“Elements of the test, trace and contain trifecta have been present in most measures to quash infections. Yet national approaches, and outcomes, have been far from uniform. Differences in climate, population density, demography, healthcare and political competence, as well as varying cultural norms, values and customs, have prevented governments and citizens across the world from reacting in lockstep to the outbreak. For quarantining and social distancing, behaviour around compliance has been key. Many expect tough autocratic states to have an upper hand in limiting population movement, with stricter policing and deterrents. Recent research from Oxford University using Google Map movement data during lockdowns finds they have actually been less effective in reducing mobility. China with its highly efficient state, may be an exception, but repression and poor governance in authoritarian states generally eviscerate the social ties needed for cooperation. Democracies like Germany and South Korea, by contrast, have drawn on trust, built up partially through a legacy of delivering high-quality public services, to support cooperation. Yet, liberal societies have themselves exhibited varying levels of adherence to social distancing measures. Trust in government is on the decline in many, and the potential for asymptomatic carriers to spread infection places greater emphasis on individuals operating as if they have contracted the virus. As such, democracies with more group-orientated values tend to be more effective at containment according to the Oxford study. The UK and U.S have in particular faced challenges in enforcing lockdowns. In late March, mobility data from Citymapper showed Brits to be among the most active, in terms of journeys by foot and public transport, compared to other European nations. Police officers in the UK have equally been confused by the number of people breaching distancing measures. Meanwhile, the US has seen notable resistance to lockdowns, with mass protests in some quarters”.⁴

On 30 January 2019, Covid-19 was declared a public health emergency by the World Health Organization. The infection rate and death toll was substantial by the end of October 2020. This raised questions about the negative role both labour leaders and governments in power played in amplifying politicization and polarization of Covid-19. Attempting to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on societal inequalities was like looking through a kaleidoscope. The Transnational Institute (TNI) (17 June 2020) in its report noted aspects of militarisation of Covid-19, and the use of military force to defeat the lethality of pandemic. It meant the government was mistrustful of the UK police force. In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the profound engagement of military agencies in the fight against Virus, it was productive to weigh the responsibilities imposed on security agencies by state actors. The report also notes impacts of coronavirus on human life, transportation, job and businesses:

“The Covid-19 has become another touchstone for today’s deeply entrenched politics of militarised borders and anti-migrant racism. Not surprisingly political leaders have blamed the virus on foreigners and to claim justification for their racist politics. But it goes much deeper. European Union Member States of all political tendencies have also used the crisis to close off ports to rescue ships, making the Mediterranean even more deadly for refugees. In India, the pandemic has been used by the Modi government to further advance its hostility against Muslims, while millions of its own citizens are being stripped of their rights through the controversial National Register of Citizens.The lockdown directive effectively meant home quarantine for all, suspension of public transportation, strict regulation of food distribution and of essential health services, and a heightened presence of fully-armed uniformed personnel in strategically positioned checkpoints. While the government deployed measures to address the impact of the coronavirus to public health, it is the visible presence of police and military on the streets enforcing the lockdown which evinced a “militarization” of the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic”.⁵

In 2020, the UK National Health Service (NHS) shamelessly refused to treat elderly patients during the lockdown. A Sunday Times investigation revealed the extent to which the elderly were neglected by the NHS during the full lockdown. There were 59,000 extra deaths in England and Wales compared to yesteryears. This consisted of 26,000 excess fatalities in care homes and another 25,000 patients in their own homes. Politicians were realising the deep pain of these deaths. They were in remonstrance and challenged the authority of the government. Territorial Support Group–the paramilitary wing of the Metropolitan Police was dispersing peaceful anti-lockdown protestors. The abrupt prevalence of Covid-19, followed by lockdowns and restrictions across the country, reduction in political and financial activities, empty highways, and curtailment in travel, air, and land transport caused pain and consternation. Considerable number of British and European nationals put forward the court cases of their mothers, grand-mothers, fathers and grands-father, sisters and brothers-died in care homes due to the negligence of health workers, doctors and care homeowners. In care homes, as I cited earlier, thousands British nationals were left maroon to Covid-19 across the four provinces. Some relatives of the patients tabulated cases against the government and NHS administration that the departed were intentionally put relentlessly before the wave of coronavirus. Clare Dyer in his BMJ commentary (on 15 June 2020, Covid-19: Woman whose father died in care home launches legal review over government’s “litany of failures”) noted a woman whose father died in a care home launched a judicial review in the High Court over the government’s “litany of failures” in protecting the vulnerable elderly residents who were most at risk from covid-19:

“Cathy Gardner accused England’s health and social care secretary, Matt Hancock, NHS England, and Public Health England of acting unlawfully in breaching statutory duties to safeguard health and obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life. Her father, Michael Gibson, who had Alzheimer’s disease, died aged 88 of probable covid-19 related causes on 03 April 2020 at Cherwood House Care Centre, near Bicester, Oxfordshire. She claims that before his death the care home had been pressured into taking a hospital patient who had tested positive for the virus but had not had a raised temperature for about 72 hours. “I am appalled that Matt Hancock can give the impression that the government has sought to cast a protective ring over elderly residents of care homes, and right from the start,” Gardner said. “The truth is that there has been at best a casual approach to protecting the residents of care homes. At worst, the government has adopted a policy that has caused the death of the most vulnerable in our society.” The case was filed at the High Court on 12 June 2020, the day the National Audit Office published a report confirming that around 25 000 patients were discharged from hospitals to care homes at the height of the pandemic before testing became routine. The application for judicial review accuses Hancock, NHS England, and PHE of failure to take into account the vulnerability of care home residents and staff to infection and death and the inadequacy of testing and personal protective equipment availability at the time. It contends that there was a “disproportionate, discriminatory, and irrational” focus on freeing hospital capacity at the expense of risking the lives of care home residents and staff”.⁶

The government (Rosemary Mason and Colin Todhunter-Global Research, November 18, 2020) was extremely worried about a substance that could be contributing to a spiralling public health crisis that has been decades in the making. The more it tested, the more ‘cases’ it found. Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent to allow for the testing of the entire population.⁷ On 19 November 2020; Mailonline also reported a Virologist Dr. whose father, 88, died of Covid in a care home sues the government: “Dr Cathy Gardner believed the Government breached the human rights of thousands of vulnerable people including her father Michael Gibson who passed away in Oxfordshire on April 3 2020.The bereft daughters of two elderly men who died in care homes after Covid-19 outbreaks were taking Matt Hancock, the NHS and Public Health England to the High Court over their handling of the crisis. Dr Cathy Gardner said the Government breached human rights of thousands of vulnerable people including her father Michael Gibson, 88, who passed away at the Cherwood House Care Centre in Oxfordshire on April 3, 2020. Dr Gardner’s legal team claimed that prior to Mr Gibson’s death the care home was pressured into accepting a hospital patient who had tested Covid-19 positive but ‘had no temperature for 72 hours. Her father, a retired superintendent registrar of birth marriages and deaths, was a sitting duck to catch the illness despite never leaving the home, they claim. Fay Harris, 57, whose father Don, 89, a former Royal Marine, was one of 24 residents of a Hampshire care home who died in May 2020 after a Covid-19 outbreak, also joined the legal action seeking permission to bring a judicial review over whether Government policies exposed care home residents to a risk of harm.”⁸

The coronavirus in the UK and Europe purveyed reasonable grounds to violent extremism and radicalization. In October 2020, radicalized elements in Europe translated their anger into violent attacks, which was further exacerbated due to the consecutive lockdown where young people were in interaction with different groups and organizations by using the Internet and social media. The threat of violent extremism was occurring in different forms, while viruses were causing anger, fear, social isolation, and profound uncertainty. These factors contributed to more online activity. Radicalized elements, terrorists and extremists established their networks across Europe and within the United Kingdom to challenge the authority of the state and law enforcement agencies. They were in contact with different sarcastic elements and offered them money and military training. Analysts Carol Propper, Isabel Stockton and George Stoye (COVID-19 and disruptions to the health and social care of older people in England. IFS Briefing note BN309, The Institute for Fiscal Studies, November 2020) in their research paper noted dramatic changes in health care system in the UK as thousands of patients in the country have no access to hospitals and GP surgeries:

“Prioritisation of Covid-19 patients has led to widespread disruptions of health care for the over-50 population in England. Our analysis shows that almost one in six individuals in this group – implying a total of 3.6 million older individuals in England–have had some hospital treatment cancelled in the early stages of the pandemic. Older individuals, those in worse health and those who live in more deprived areas are more likely to require hospital care and have consequently been more affected by cancellations. Policies to catch up on missed care should prioritise these vulnerable patients to avoid disruptions during the pandemic exacerbating long-standing health inequalities. Disruptions to health care during the pandemic have not been limited to hospital services. In addition to cancelled hos...