Are face masks going to part of the new normal?

Like, I suspect, many of my readers, there's always seemed to be something odd about the Far East concept of wearing face masks when out in public during the winter months. We tend to take for granted the idea that we can see people, when they're smiling, or nervous, or disinterested, without a barrier. Perhaps that what makes some people uncomfortable around Muslim women who are masked, although I fear that it's simply an excuse for intolerance.

But I had spotted a report from Australia in late summer that suggested that there was a link between face mask wearing and far lower incidences of colds and influenza in the population. Of course, that might have been a coincidence, but data from the United States suggests that it has contributed to an enormous drop in the incidences of hospitalisation due to respiratory problems this year. And yes, the fact that most of us are staying at home is probably an even bigger factor, but it is food for thought.

I don't envisage governments requiring us to wear face masks after this pandemic is mastered, although if Covid-19 and its mutations become endemic, there might be more thoughts on that point, but I do wonder if the more cautious among us might not consider doing so going forward, at least during the winter months. If vaccination strategy requires an ongoing programme, as influenza does, then perhaps more of us will.

With that partially in mind, and because I needed "something pretty" as a treat, I purchased these from the London Transport Museum shop. The moquettes are, from top to bottom, the New Victoria, the District and the Routemaster, and I have to admit from an initial "test wear", they're pretty comfortable.

I admit to having bought some socks to go with them, and whilst my friends and colleagues won't get to see their true majesty for a while yet, it'll be something to look forward to as and when I see them again.

So, if I am going to want to wear a face mask going forward, at least I'm going to do it with style...

"Don't stand, don't stand, don't stand so close to me..."

So, here we are, ten months into the pandemic, ten months since my gallant employers decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and sent me home whilst the situation blew out. Well, so much for that - I'm not expecting to be back in an office with other people until at least the Autumn.

And that's going to present some challenges. Now I haven't got as far as associating other people with death, but my appetite for crowds have never been great, and I've grown accustomed to keeping others at something rather more than arms length. But, at some point, life is probably going to return to something resembling what was normal, and I'm going to have to reconcile myself to commuting to and from a large building full of people whose aversion to risk might well not match my own.

It'll probably be alright, with the vaccination programme rolling out, but it will be difficult at first. Like most modern workplaces, HMRC likes open-plan layouts, with staff tightly packed together - efficient in cost terms but not necessarily conducive to concentration - and hot-desking to get even more value out of that space. Getting used to that, after what may be up to two years of working from an office across the patio from our home, will need to be a gradual, measured process.

And, if Covid-19 becomes endemic, like the common cold, it may simply not be practical to expect a bunch of middle-aged people like myself to operate in that way, even if we wanted to.

What that probably means is a hybrid form of working, where I appear occasionally, booking a desk as I need it, but otherwise staying in the Creetings, operating as HMRC Creeting St Peter. Perhaps I'll hang out a shingle - in accordance with the Departmental style guide, obviously.

Luckily, technology has moved with the times. Due to hot-desking, we don't use fixed computers, operating with Surface Pros instead, which allowed most of a large Government Department to go from office-based to home-based overnight, our letters are received at a central point and scanned there, and any letters we issue ourselves are sent through the ether to a large shed somewhere in the West Midlands where they are printed, enveloped and posted (which also allows bulk postage savings).

All of our guidance is online, there are experts on the other end of a team call, we don't have telephones - calls are made via Microsoft Teams and automatically forwarded to our official iPhones if we're not able to access our Surface Pros, and whilst our managers adapt to remote management, the distractions of workplace life are replaced with the challenge of self-motivation and isolation.

Things are never going to be the same again, are they?...

Ros in the Lords: Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation and Linked Households) (England) Regulations 2020

Ros’s first speech of 2021 was a brisk affair in the midst of yet another debate on Statutory Instruments linked to the ongoing pandemic. The Lords has spent a lot of time attempting to guide the Government into acting either more efficiently or more effectively, often. Both at the same time. In this contribution, Ros was trying to explore what more individuals might do voluntarily to keep safe at this trying time...

My Lords, there is no doubt that the appearance of this new variant has taken us into a very difficult situation. As welcome as the vaccine is, we have to acknowledge that getting the whole country protected will not be a very quick process. Therefore, the measures that we take, individually and collectively, while we wait to be vaccinated are absolutely key. 

I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, what work is going on to reassess the protocols and procedures that have been developed for workplaces, schools, places of worship and so on to ensure that systems which were fit for purpose with the original virus continue to be so with one that is more transmissible? 

Secondly, on an individual basis, I acknowledge that this is anecdotal but I am hearing a lot of stories about people who contract Covid and say that they have no idea how they caught it because they have been really careful and have followed all the guidance and procedures. Is any reassessment going on of the sorts of behaviours that many of us have fallen into the habit of adopting? Are those preventive measures still fit for purpose or should we be protecting ourselves and others differently? 

Finally, on a different matter, there is a huge role to be played in a vaccine rollout by volunteers, not just as injectors but in a whole range of ways. My plea to the Government is not to rely on a centralised system of the kind we saw last year, as that just does not work. There is a lot of good will but it needs to be harnessed and used locally, because that is where it can be used to best effect.

If only the Government would actually follow the science more closely...

And so, we're back in lockdown again, just as we were in March. The problem is that, given the mixed messages and failure to set an example at the top, the public willingness to adhere to the letter of the guidance is fragile at best.

Walking in Needham Market at the weekend, it was noticeable that people aren't allowing others the required two metre separation, that people are passing each other in narrow spaces without masks, and that multiple households are meeting. Whilst I don't take the view that draconian enforcement is appropriate, the seeming lack of self-awareness is problematic.

You may not care about the rules, but you really ought to respect those who intend to adhere to them, and might have very good reason for doing so. I take the view that, by keeping myself at a safe distance, I am less likely to become a burden to an already hard-pressed National Health Service. There are, quite evidently, plenty of people whose need for treatment is urgent and they don't need me taking unnecessary risks.

The guidance on outdoor recreation and exercise is going to be a bit tougher this time. March and April were dry and bright last year, which made walking rather more tempting, and with longer days, you could at least dodge any inclement weather that might come along. Now, the local footpaths are a morass of mud following persistent and heavy rain, the sun sets at 4 and the single track roads that lead out of the village are not recommended to pedestrians after dark. We will persist, however.

What I do begrudge though is the Government's failure to react in a timely manner to the advice that they're being given. With the Prime Minister unwilling to do or say anything that might be unpopular unless forced to, and his persistently annoying tendency to over promise and underdeliver - why does he keep offering up timetables for a return to normality that are never going to be met? - I sense that every surge is worse than it might have been and the restrictions more burdensome.

That tendency to overpromise has impacted on the vaccination programme too. The initial indication was that I might reasonably expect to be vaccinated in May. To be honest, I now don't expect to be vaccinated until the Autumn, if then. I'll wait my turn patiently - what else is there to do? - but if you keep raising people's hopes and expectations, you shouldn't be surprised if they respond badly to the subsequent disappointment.

Indeed, can you really trust this Government not to mess up the vaccination programme?

Ah well, at least work carries on regardless...

The Self-Employment Income Support Scheme - why 40% is both not enough and too much...

It’s got to be admitted that the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme has been one of the most effective contributions in addressing the problem of how to support those whose livelihoods have been most affected by the pandemic. Set up quickly, easy to claim and requiring no knowledge of tax whatsoever, it has now processed more than five million claims, and been a real lifesaver to those who have successfully claimed.

It isn’t without its flaws - anyone who started self-employment after 5 April 2019 is excluded, as well as a sizeable proportion of those who started during the 2018/19 tax year. And, in fairness, some of the kinks were ironed out as time went by to reduce some of the more egregious oversights. A scheme which might fairly have been described as “quick and dirty” at the outset was honed to a fairly precise implement within weeks.

There is little doubt that the scheme was a generous one to start off with, and it did need to be given the impact of lockdowns on the ability of many self-employed people to get out and about. It was something of an eye-opener to encounter people whose earnings came from carrying out tasks that were impacted in ways that might be hard to evaluate without talking to the person concerned.

By the time the second scheme went live, in mid-August, some sectors were beginning to either return to something like normal, whilst others were adapting and innovating to repurpose their businesses. For them, a grant representing 70% of their declared average earnings for a quarter was, in truth, profitable - if your profits were reduced by less than 70%, you were suddenly in profit. On the other hand, if your job required you to perform in people’s homes, you might be struggling, and 70% of your earnings was very useful. And, naturally, for those who were scraping by pre-COVID, there hadn’t been an awful lot of slack in the family budget anyway.

And so, when it was originally announced that the third scheme, expected to go live in mid-November, would pay out just 20% of average earnings, there were concerns. For some of the self-employed, particularly in white collar activities, things were beginning to return to something like normal and a little support to cover additional costs was welcome but not as critical. On the other hand, if you’re, say, a mobile hairdresser, with a mostly elderly customer base, the ability to function is very limited - your income and profit are almost certainly down a lot more than 20%, and you probably weren’t making that much to begin with.

So, even at 40%, there will be those who are ironically better off than they would be ordinarily, and those who will be in pretty desperate straits. The challenge for the Government is to find a way of targeting support to those most in need.

And that’s where you run into difficulties. A one size fits all scheme is easy to operate, and the beauty of the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme is that it uses information already held in HMRC’s computer systems through individual Self Assessment tax returns. The basic criteria for eligibility are really simple too;

• you must have submitted your 2018/19 tax return by 23 April 2020 (some twelve weeks after the statutory deadline);
• your average annual profit from self-employed activities must have been under £50,000 over the period from 6 April 2016 to 5 April 2019; and,
• at least half of your income, either in 2018/19 or over the three years to 5 April 2019, must have come from self-employment.

You can claim online as long as you can verify your identity with either a U.K. passport, a U.K. driving licence (with a photograph) or via your credit history - it takes five minutes or less. And, if you can’t self-verify online, lovely people will handle your claim over the telephone.

In order to target support, you need more data, and probably some human intervention, which is where things get tricky. People don’t always tell you everything that they might, or describe their activity somewhat vaguely, none of which matters much when they’re declaring income, but when you’re trying to categorise them, it offers challenges. And, with computerisation having stripped out many of the clerical staff who might hence have been available to assign to such work, there is a question of capacity.

And so, the Government is torn between the cost of supporting people whose needs vary from virtually nothing to nearly everything and all points in between, and its perceived need to staunch the flow of cash out of its coffers. So far, the impact of a gradual withdrawal of support has been relatively low but, as the pandemic hovers over an upcoming winter, and people’s financial reserves, if they ever existed at all, are increasingly burned through, there will be increasing hardship, and increasing clamour to act.

It’s a challenge that I wouldn’t fancy myself, but in the ever-changing situation that we find ourselves in, with a potential “no deal Brexit” getting closer, the Chancellor, the Treasury and senior HMRC officials may have to find ways of squaring the circle sooner rather than later. You can only wish them the best of luck, because I fear that they may need it...

Is the urging back to our offices in any way altruistic?

I am a bureaucrat, thus my days are usually spent in an office, in a town centre location. I go for a walk at lunchtime every day, mostly to get my 10,000 steps a day, but occasionally to pick up the odd thing that I need - a loaf of bread, perhaps, or a birthday card, or a sandwich. At least, I did, until five months ago. I haven’t been back to my office since.

It has been an interesting time. Without the need to catch a community bus at about 7.45 every morning, I can sleep in a little and still start work at 8.30, and I can finish at 5 and make dinner, leaving time for an after dinner stroll around my village. I save a sizeable chunk by not having to commute, about 10% of my gross salary, some of which is spent on slightly higher utility bills, and extra groceries.

I can, if I prefer, work different patterns, depending on what I’m doing, or can break up the day into chunks, working say a four hour shift in the morning, taking a long lunch break, and working another four hour shift in the afternoon, if that suits. Think of it as an extended version of flexible working hours - my employer gets my time when I’m more motivated to work and I am thus, theoretically, more productive.

Richard Littlejohn and a bunch of other people whose views can usually be categorised as right-wing, believe that I should be “back at work”. Admittedly, most of us in the despised public sector never actually got furloughed - one of those nice tax officers helping people with their claims under the Job Retention Scheme and the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme is me, for example. His assumption, that if you’re not in the office, you’re not working, is pretty bloody offensive, if you ask me.

Of course, there are casualties. All of those outlets which exist to service office workers may well not survive and those that do will have to adjust. On the other hand, a lot of people working in the service sector can’t afford to live in, or even near, the inner city, and thus ironically are commuting to follow those working there. Potentially, that means that I might use a barber in Stowmarket or Needham Market instead of in Ipswich, or buy a sandwich there. Somebody will still need to cut my hair, or make my sandwich, but they won’t be commuting either and they can either reduce their prices to reflect their reduced overheads, or maintain prices and make greater profits.

And, if your livelihood depends on commercial property, you might have a bit of a problem. On the other hand, if you’re renting out office space by the hour, day or week, like WeWorks (for example), you might have more opportunities for business. Housing costs will be reduced if you really don’t need to live in expensive urban areas, and work-life balance is likely to be enhanced for many.

It isn’t a utopia. For some people, working from home is challenging. Creating a clear division between work and home is difficult if both are located in exactly the same space. Being in the same place as your loved ones all of the time can have an impact on relationships - we all need some personal space and time sometimes - and for those of whom see work as an escape from an otherwise dull or depressing life, the loss of that escape can lead to mental health issues.

Some will prefer the office existence, others will be happy to go in two or three days a week, varying on their personal circumstances. What it does offer is freedom and choice, two things that right-wing commentators are usually rather keen on. Clearly, it wasn’t the sort of choice and freedom they had in mind. Or, perhaps, the idea of freedom and choice was intended for them alone.

But, ultimately, a key decider of our working future is what is profitable or advantageous to our employers. If they see an advantage to having more staff working from home, be it in terms of reduced costs or higher productivity, they’ll probably encourage it, and all of the whining from the likes of Richard Littlejohn will have absolutely no effect.

Matt Hancock tells me that I have a civic duty to follow the instructions. There's a word for that sort of person...

Look, let's be honest, I have no desire to catch COVID-19. Likewise, as someone who believes that community is important, I don't want to spread it either. I have responsibilities, as a public servant and as the Chair of my Parish Council, and should set an example. And so, I will.

But I will say this, it sticks in my throat that someone who is giving me instructions is, simultaneously, defending the right of the Prime Minister's senior advisor to disregard them as he sees fit.

And yes, you might reasonably say, I would be less than entirely friendly towards the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I'm not a supporter of his party. On the other hand, I do talk to my neighbours who, for the most part aren't terribly party political. And their responses have been interesting, in that there is genuine unhappiness about Dominic Cummings - "one law for them, another for us" is the general (unbidden) response.

The good news is that his stupidity and lack of integrity isn't likely to change people's behaviour here at least - we're a cautious bunch for the most part. And, in truth, given that public opinion has rather led the Government rather than the reverse, perhaps that doesn't come as a surprise. But what it does mean is that people will have an excuse if they're asked by Matt and his mates to do something that they aren't enthusiastic about.

And what will the Government do if parents decide that they'd rather not send the children back to school in the absence of clarity over their safety there, or if people choose not to comply with the instructions of contact tracers? That's when the loss of moral authority bites, and with it the ability to persuade. Loyalty is a two-way street.

The public don't like hypocrisy, and they certainly don't like being treated as fools. And whilst the issue of Dominic Cummings' job security might blow over, especially given how desperately senior members of the Cabinet are trying to defend him, observers of the 1992-97 Major Government will remember what happens when the public first lose respect for, and then start laughing at, an administration.

And so, I will comply for now, for the sake of my family, my friends, my neighbours and my community. But I will not forget, or forgive, those who made it clear how little respect they had for our sacrifices.