The Director of Public Health will present a report, (Document “N”) providing an update on COVID-19 in Bradford District.  It describes the response to the first wave of the COVID 19 pandemic between March and September and includes the latest data on cases, admissions and deaths. 

The report also sets out how the Bradford District COVID-19 response is being managed during the second wave, explaining the leadership role of the COVID-19 Management Group and the ten working groups that feed it. 

The report concludes with a section on horizon scanning, considering developments which may impact on how we control COVID-19 in the future.

Members are requested to consider and comment on the report.

(Kathryn Ingold - 01274 437041)

The Director of Public Health presented a report, (Document “N”) providing an update on COVID-19 in the Bradford District.  It described the response to the first wave of the pandemic between March and September and included the latest data on cases, admissions and deaths.  It was acknowledged that the situation was changing rapidly and that since the publication of the agenda some changes to the statics would have occurred.

The report also set out how the Bradford District COVID-19 response was being managed during the second wave, explaining the leadership role of the COVID-19 Management Group and the ten working groups. 

The report concluded with a section on horizon scanning, considering developments which may impact on how COVID-19 was controlled in the future.

The report revealed that the district had seen a reduction in the COVID-19 infection rate but the Director, Public Health, warned people against being complacent as hospital admissions rates continued to rise. 

The statistics in the report included 167 hospital in patients with 14 people in intensive care.   This was compared to 105 patients at the peak of the first wave. 

A Member queried how that figure compared to other years and questioned if the figure was due to normal winter pressures or were hospitals struggling more than usual.  It was confirmed that hospitals were reporting additional pressure to the seasonal expectations and that some elective procedures had been stopped.  That would result in additional further pressure with people needing to access future routine care that had stopped due to the crisis.

The vaccination process was discussed and concern was expressed that not all GP surgeries would have the storage facilities required. Contingency plans for that situation were questioned and it was confirmed that the currently favoured vaccine would need to be stored at extremely low temperatures.  It was explained that there was an additional vaccine which was able to be stored in a manner which surgeries could accommodate and plans were continuing to be developed.

A Member referred to a door to door COVID-19 test he had taken and questioned the rationale for people receiving that service.  It was explained that up to date information was used to identify the areas with the highest infection rates and that residents were given notice that testing would be conducted in their area.  The Assistant Director, Neighbourhoods and Customer Services, explained that providing two days’ notice of testing had increased the take up rate from 1000 to 2000 in one week alone.  He agreed to pass Members comments about the helpful nature of those conducing the tests to colleagues. 

A Member who was also a doctor at a local hospital reported that he had witnessed a number of younger people being admitted to intensive care wards and suggested that information be communicated to warn people of the dangers.   He questioned how logical the restrictions were as his wife was able to mix with pupils at a large secondary school throughout the week but was unable to visit her granddaughter at the weekend.  He also expressed concern that a child isolating following an outbreak at school would not have those restrictions imposed on family members who could then spread the virus.  He suggested that school infections could be reduced by restricting pupils and that young people should be vaccinated before older people who he felt were less likely to spread infection.

In response it was acknowledged that it could be difficult to understand the logic of restrictions.  It was explained that the Government were concerned that children would be left behind with their education and all schools were risk assessed.  The vaccine would be targeted at older people to keep them as safe as possible.

A Member referred to the work of the COVID-19 response hub and commended officers for the work in their communities.  He suggested that they visit a future meeting to discuss their work and it was agreed that an invitation for them to meet with Members would be sent.

The connectivity of all partners in Bradford was applauded and how they had communicated with residents and dealt with rumours and false information was praised.

Measures to reassure people with learning disabilities were discussed and a Member referred to some people he knew being unaware that they had a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) note on their patient records.  Assurances were provided that during the second wave of the virus there had not been any increased deaths of people with learning disabilities.  The Assistant Director, Neighbourhoods and Customer Services, agreed to feedback comments about people being unaware of DNR notices and as the Strategic Director, Adult Services, was present at the meeting it was assumed he would do the same. 

The Assistant Director, Neighbourhoods and Customer Services, continued with a presentation to update Members on the work of his colleagues and provided assurances that plans for occurrences such as the pandemic had been in place for some time.

It was reported that the Youth Service, Customer Services and Neighbourhood Teams were well connected and had good relationships with the voluntary sector.  Teams had quickly adapted to working seven days a week, working late and at night and arrangements were working well. 

The Communications Team had worked to quell rumours and misinformation and provided reassurance to residents 

Information reported recently that those most likely to break lock down restrictions were 50 to 69 year olds was discussed.  It was believed that young people felt stigmatised as super-spreaders when in fact it had been found to be older people who were more likely to visit a relative or collect shopping.  Members were assured that services were in place to support people isolating and for them to access food, medicine or other services.

Communications in own languages from officers who knew areas well had been helpful in gaining the trust of communities.  The Assistant Director expressed his pride in his colleagues for contacting over 10,000 residents and 1,000 businesses in one week and explained that they had visited residents in cold weather and dark evenings to provide safety advise and to allow them to access essential services. 

Members discussed mass testing measures and it was suggested that the local knowledge of Ward Members would be useful at an early stage.  Incidents of testers being unfamiliar with neighbourhoods were raised.   It was questioned how areas for testing were selected and it was explained that intelligence was analysed and areas of high or increasing infections were targeted.  Information from tested areas suggested that 10% of tests were positive and was high compared to the district as a whole. The contact also provided an opportunity to engage in conversation and discuss support which might be needed such as dog walking; shopping or addressing loneliness.

A Member with medical experience expressed astonishment at the 10% positivity figure believing that those figures suggested every resident would shortly have had the disease or that the tests were flawed. 

In response, it was explained that Public Heath had expected a figure of 5%. There were massive variations across the district with some areas having a 2% positive test rate and others up to 20%.  It was felt that the higher rate reported evidenced that the correct areas had been targeted and that it was a good use of resources. 

A Member referred to the previous comments about 50 to 69 year olds being most likely to break lockdown restrictions.  He believed that people were frustrated that since April they had been unable to meet other people of their age group.  He believed it would have been particularly difficult for people who did not work or have the advantage of a garden.  He reported that he had contacted the Leader of Council at the start of lockdown to ask for people to be given guidance on places near their homes they could visit for exercise or to pass the time. 

The Director of Public Health agreed with those comments and feared that there could be real mental health implications because of restrictions. 

The Portfolio Holder, Healthy People and Places, explained that Council officers had distributed packs to isolated people with suggested activities.  Online resources had also been provided. 

In response to concerns about the mental health implications it was agreed to provide Members with statistics on suicide and to break down those figures by age group and provide comparisons with previous data to allow that issue to be considered further. 

Resolved -

That a further update on Covid-19 in the Bradford District be scheduled into the Committee’s Work Programme for consideration at a future meeting.

ACTION: Strategic Director, Health and Wellbeing