On 12 March, when An Taoiseach Leo Varadkar announced emergency public safety measures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, PPR went into lockdown. In hindsight, the decision to take our lead from Dublin, rather than London or Stormont, reflected a basic desire for swift and responsible leadership in the public interest.

Confidence in Westminster is never high on this island, and probably decreases in proportion to how far your interests diverge from the City of London, or how much your ethnicity differs from the Etonian Rule Britannia pupil prototype. A decade of austerity and a shambolic Brexit has demonstrated - for anyone still in doubt - that the terms ‘Tory government’ and ‘public interest’ are mutually exclusive. Dr Gabriel Scally, professor of public health at University of Bristol, observed on 31 March that while the Republic of Ireland was following WHO and the EU Centre for Disease Prevention guidance in “attempting to limit spread and terminate the outbreak as rapidly as possible” through identification, testing, tracing and isolation, the chief medical officer in England was briefing journalists that WHO advice did not apply to them – it was for low and middle-income countries alone:

“In shades of Orwell’s 1984, Whitehall does not want people learning about the views of WHO and the successful efforts to control the virus in other countries in case it undermines their novel and unevidenced approach.”

In truth, you would have to be a fool to trust your loved ones with public safety guidance provided by Johnson, Cummings, Hancock and the rest of that cabal.

As for Stormont, there was an expectation that the Executive would effectively relinquish strategic decision making to Westminster and/or be plagued by a division which has marred the devolution project from the beginning and prevented the full implementation of the now 22 year old peace agreement. That the DUP would adopt the strategy of their former “confidence and supply” partners in Westminster did not seem to be in question. How Sinn Féin would respond, and how effective smaller parties were at maintaining vigilant accountability was always going to be the unknown critical factor. As parties grappled with their positions in a fast moving environment, the parameters of the Executive’s response became apparent towards the end of March, and it was alarming:

"In the North, community testing and contact tracing were abandoned on March 13th and, as in the rest of the UK, testing will be largely reserved for hospital inpatients and health service staff. In the Republic with its network of over 40 community testing facilities, the aim is to reach 100,000 tests per week by the end of April, whereas the North has set a goal of performing just under 8,000 tests per week.”

So by mid-March, it was evident to many that neither Westminster nor Stormont were providing the clarity and leadership demanded by the crisis. When PPR got the guidance our guts told us we needed by the Dublin government, we jumped.

We were right and we were not alone. At each and every stage of the Covid-19 pandemic communities have acted before, and sometimes in opposition to, official guidance from the state and the interests of key private sector actors. Communal solidarity and civic responsibility - in our communities and in our health care facilities - are the reasons why we have managed to prevent so many unnecessary deaths on this island.

It is this solidarity, this inherent determination to put the welfare of our communities above the interests, and advice, of the powerful that will be necessary if we are to recover from Covid-19 and prepare to meet the next catastrophe facing humankind: climate breakdown.

Herd Immunity

That some version of ‘herd immunity’ was the conventional wisdom guiding the NI Executive’s early policy responses to the pandemic is evident from the Education Minister’s statements weeks prior to the lockdown. On 13 March, Education Minister Peter Weir said that school closures are “unlikely to be beneficial at this time and indeed might be counterproductive”.

Counterproductive? With completely inadequate supplies of Personal Protective Equipment in health care facilities, with no official guidance on social distancing, in the absence of any testing and tracing infrastructure, and - as we now know - a callous lack of preparedness within the residential care sector, we were told we should aim to increase the rate of infections. Hindsight may indeed be a wonderful thing, but we do not need the benefit of hindsight to see how dangerous this strategy was. Indeed Deputy First Minister Michelle O’Neill was unequivocal that schools should close as of 13 March.

However, the Education Minister’s determination to defer to Westminster’s strategy, meant pursuing by default a ‘herd immunity’ approach which according to senior Conservative Party sources, was a strategy promoted by Dominic Cummings at the time:

“Herd immunity, protect the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”

When Minister Weir told us that helping to stop the spread of the infection was “counterproductive”, we heard him giving us guidance to prepare for the preventable deaths of our family and friends who happen to be older or have underlying health conditions. Nobody in my circle in mid-March 2020 had any doubts about that. And that is why most of the families I know took the decision to withdraw their children from school before the Education Minister officially closed schools on 23 March - the same date the UK officially went into lockdown.

In defiance of this guidance, school principals and governors were themselves taking decisions to close schools, even while the Minister was refusing requests for exceptional closures. Parents and children worked with schools to move education online. School staff from the principals to teachers to classroom assistants scheduled skeleton staffing arrangements to provide safe schooling for children of essential workers. Our communities and our school families acted in unity, out of a determination to protect our loved ones, while the Minister waited on Cummings’ and Johnson’s lead.

How many families were needlessly bereaved, and deprived of the intimacy of a loved ones’ last days and the physical and spiritual comfort of our communal wakes, can never be stated for sure - but that some were is beyond question. And that is too many. The fact that the UK has the second highest Covid-19 per capita death rates in the world tells us all we need to know about the strategy that was being laid before us.

Workers defend public safety

While most employers worked with employees and the government guidance to protect health, safety and income, others adopted an approach which drew indirect censure from elements of the Executive and, most effectively, direct action from organised workers.

Agri-food giant Moy Park is a substantial beneficiary of Executive support. According to Invest NI the company has received £12m public support between April 2014 and March 2019. It would not be unreasonable to think that a company so indebted to the public for its success would feel inclined to be, or even forced to be, particularly attentive to the public welfare. On 25 March, two days after the official closure of schools, a thousand food production workers walked out of Moy Park over concerns regarding basic health and safety standards aimed at protecting workers and the public from increased infections during Covid-19 pandemic. UNITE official Steven McKeever said:

“Workers are refusing to return to work in unsafe conditions. This is an entirely foreseeable outcome of both management greed and total inaction from Stormont,”

The following day 60 workers staged a work stoppage over health and safety concerns at Linden Foods, another Invest NI beneficiary (£1m+ over the same period). Susan Fitzgerald, UNITE organiser, said:

“Government inaction is going to cost lives. There must be a full lockdown of non-essential companies and, where workers are deemed essential, every possible measure should be taken and enforced to protect them — or else they shouldn’t be there.”

[UNITE] …were unequivocal that a toxic mixture of employer greed and ambiguity from the government were combining to create intolerable conditions.

Both UNITE statements were unequivocal that a toxic mixture of employer greed and ambiguity from the government were combining to create intolerable conditions. Deputy First Minister Michelle O’Neill seemed fully aware of the activities of unscrupulous employers, warning on 26 March that:

“Let me say this to employers today – take responsibility for your workers… Today we are still hearing reports about workers being exploited during this public health emergency. They’re being given no option by their employers other than to go to work, whenever it’s not safe for them to do so. That has to stop. It must stop immediately. And shame on any employer that is exploiting their workforce at this moment in time. Non-essential businesses – close your doors, stop using your workers in this way, send them home and let them stay there. And if you don’t, we will have to take action against you.”

However, the lack of agreement at the heart of the Executive meant that by the end of March, Ministers were still deciding what constituted “essential” and “non-essential” businesses – an ambiguity that gave unscrupulous employers wiggle-room for exploitation.

Again, local communities were forced to take the initiative - in the interests of public safety - to protect the vulnerable in our community. In this instance, workers (many of them immigrant and low paid) were supported by their trade unions to circumvent the Executive’s policy ambiguity and leadership vacuum.

The same type of community-based, mutual-aid support occurred across multiple sectors of society: community organisations and local political parties quickly adapted to become providers of emergency food parcels, often in advance of welcomed official support from local Councils and the Department for Communities; community groups rallied to secure computer hardware and provide funds for wifi provision and data top-ups for marginalised groups like asylum seekers; kitchens, living rooms and community facilities were turned into production lines for personal protective equipment while Stormont orders from overseas were being placed. The list goes on.

Care Homes

In the month following lockdown our communities were being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: we have allowed our health service and its workers to be neglected and devalued for too long. Service cuts, short staffing, privatization, poor pay – they may all have been policies promoted and implemented by successive Westminster and Stormont governments, but they happened on our watch. We did not elect and we did not force those in power to value what we hold dear. So, in the moment, community support for frontline health care staff was, by necessity in the midst of a pandemic, limited to expressions of support and gratitude. Expressions of thanks and solidarity were offered every Thursday night while graffiti, murals, poems, window posters, songs and videos were produced daily by a deeply appreciative, and humbled, public.

The health care staff I knew were not comfortable with the applause; they were extremely thankful but, as vocational workers, they ask for nothing in return except dignity, respect and rights. No amount of applause can ever substitute for the knowledge that you are supported by your employer to provide the best care possible to the patients you serve. The commitment and dedication of our essential workers demanded institutional preparedness, leadership and resources. It was found wanting.

On 23 March, as the Tories were belatedly announcing a lockdown, Patricia McKeown from UNISON was pressing the Department of Health to “pay special attention to Care Homes and to social care in the community, particularly in light of the experience in Italy”.

The union stressed the urgency of testing, tracking and isolation as well as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for all residential care and social care workers. Despite these immediate warnings, on 8 April McKeown was forced to restate concerns:

“The homes have the potential to become petri dishes for the virus unless immediate testing, isolation and tracking commences. We must protect our vulnerable older population and we must protect the workers who have the least PPE and some of the most direct exposure. We need reassurance as to how the risk of transmission within homes is being reduced in order to protect both residents and the workforce.”

While the Thursday night applause for frontline workers became an uplifting ritual for communities, workers themselves continued to report serious safety concerns. On 16 April, McKeown was forced to reiterate:

“All our politicians and those who run the health service have offered warm words of support and praise for our health and social care workers every Thursday night for the last several weeks, but they need much more than that. They need to know that they and the people they care for will be protected and that everything will be done to halt the spread of Covid-19. We are demanding answers and action now.”

One month into the pandemic and PPE for frontline health care staff caring for our most vulnerable had still not been secured. Resident relocation to infection free accommodation had not been arranged. Facilities were short of trained staff. Comprehensive contact tracing and testing of suspected cases in staff and residents was not in place. Frontline staff in Care Homes who happened to contract Covid-19 or required isolation only received Statutory Sick Pay until they were fit to return to work. For some, that amounted to an 80% wage cut for contracting a virus they were exposed to in the course of their service. For sick staff whose partners were also care home workers, and thus required joint isolation, this was a double financial burden. To this day, these workers have not been compensated for this unjust penalty – despite all of the Thursday night claps.

On 23 June, Amnesty International, Committee on the Administration and UNISON called for a public inquiry into care home deaths. This followed the unprecedented resignation of all nine board members of the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) over claims that they were not consulted on key decision made by the Department of Health – as far back as 26 March - concerning care home inspections and senior staff redeployment during the pandemic. The resignations followed the release of statistics revealing that people who live in care homes accounted for more than half (51.4%) of the 802 Covid-19 linked deaths in the north. This is a higher proportion than deaths in any other part of the UK.

Only a post-Covid-19 recovery plan rectifying the structural neglect and devaluing of essential workers will begin to reverse these disastrous policies.

Workers and their unions had raised these concerns right at the start of the pandemic - and did so again and again while they continued to put their own safety at risk providing care to our loved ones. Only a post-Covid-19 recovery plan rectifying the structural neglect and devaluing of essential workers will begin to reverse these disastrous policies. Politicians who went out every Thursday night to applaud our heath workers, yet do not push for such a recovery plan, will be guilty of gross opportunism, cynicism and irresponsibility.

Relaxation is Rollback

On 29 April, Minister Swann announced that social distancing could be in place for “months or even years” and was cautious about “send[ing] out the wrong signals, and give the impression restrictions will be eased soon.” However, within the short space of two months we witnessed hundreds queueing for the opening of Ikea, #BlackLivesMatter protests and counter protests at Belfast City Hall, funerals for a senior republican with thousands in attendance, sectarian protests and intimidation at a public park in north Belfast, communal searches for the 14-year old missing schoolboy Noah Donohoe involving hundreds of residents – which, regardless of the motivations and intent behind the gatherings - all evidently breached social distancing guidelines to varying degrees.

As opposed to a cautious approach where large gatherings are facilitated and managed where needed, ‘relaxation’ measures announced to date have served to create ambiguity where there should be clarity. Within the same month period, we have progressed from allowing meetings of up to 6 people outdoors (18 May), increased to 10 (11 June) and broadened to include social “bubbles” (13 June) from separate houses. We have also seen the decreasing of 2 metres social distancing to 1 metre (25 June) with absolutely no change in objective circumstances.

The notion that our political leaders are “following the science” is deflection; a not so subtle attempt to evade basic accountability for what are clearly political decisions. Scientific advice is, by its nature, varied and contradictory depending on the question you are posing. Are we asking for scientific advice on how to move out of lockdown, ensuring the prevention of any more unnecessary deaths? Or are we asking for scientific advice on how to restart the economy as quickly as possible while minimising infection? These are two different questions requiring different policy responses and go to the heart of what we value and who we cherish.

The accelerated easing of restrictions, before we have even had time to adapt to existing guidance, is motivated by the desire to mitigate harm while we hasten the restoration of pre-pandemic norms. That the reduction of social distancing was implemented following a proposal by Economy Minister Diane Dodds, who established an Economic Advisory Group to develop recommendations, should tell us whose voices and interests are determining the pace of change. The Advisory Group of private sector chief executives and business experts alone - trade unions, social enterprises, health professionals and leaders in the green economy have all been excluded. Dr. Scally has warned that taking an accelerated approach to removing restrictions in advance of eliminating the virus is “a recipe for playing an ongoing and exhausting game of cat and mouse with this deadly foe. The consequence could be continued, and possibly massive disruption.”

An upcoming test of the extent to which the ‘relaxation’ morphs into a ‘rollback’ will be if the Executive in general, and the Communities Minister in particular, reverses the progressive public health policy initiatives introduced by Minister Hargey during lockdown: for example suspending degrading benefit assessments and sanctions, eradicating street homelessness, providing state support to asylum seekers considered by the UK Home Office as having No Recourse to Public Funds. Any regression on these protections, without immediate alternative protections, will indicate the Executive’s joint intention to ‘rollback’ to the pre-pandemic status quo.

What next?

The last few months have taught us that the momentum for change starts with us. We cannot wait on leadership from those in power, or orbit around their processes trying to make our voices heard. We need to insist on a ‘public health first’ principle: the easing of restrictions, the opening of business and public facilities, educational provision and - most importantly in terms of eliminating the virus – cross-border strategic cooperation must be guided by a concern for public health, not constitutional allegiance or economic self-interest. Globally, new cases of Covid-19 continue to rise daily. A uniform approach across the island is required to prevent the virus being reintroduced through travel. Cooperation is essential to effectively contain infections through testing, tracing, isolating and providing support.

We must stop seeking permission to act in true solidarity with our neighbours.

While these policy requirements may be beyond our own power, we must work with whatever power we have in our families, communities and workplaces to promote ‘public health first’. Where we can act unilaterally, we need to do it. Where we can work with others, we need to do it. But we must stop seeking permission to act in true solidarity with our neighbours. This will require all of us to fundamentally change the way in which we live: how we work, how we build, how we fight and how we care.

Radical change is possible; when the will is there, we can change laws, policies and state budgets in the public interest overnight - literally. Facing adversity but united and strengthened by a common purpose, our communities adapt and instinctively protect the vulnerable. We have also received a lesson in how change happens: the state will only respond with the speed and scale required if we take the initiative and assert what power we have – especially the power of non-cooperation. We cannot afford to squander this unprecedented opportunity for change by thinking that a return to pre-Covid society is inevitable; it is not even possible. Big change is coming, and if we are even to have a chance of charting its course, we must take the initiative today.