Last week saw the first report from the Covid-19 Inquiry from Baroness Heather Hallett, an unequivocal take-down of the UK’s inadequate and failed response to Covid-19. Despite a flu pandemic topping the National Risk Register we had, in brief summary, prepared for the ‘wrong kind of pandemic’.
Days later, a failure at cybersecurity company, Crowdstrike, resulted in widespread chaos. On the long list of 89 risks on the Government’s National Risk Register, not one details how a basic update of some antivirus software could cause global chaos. It was, perhaps, the ‘wrong kind’ of cyber-attack.
Preparing for crisis
As the Covid Inquiry report makes clear, we cannot prepare for every possible scenario, but we can dig stronger foundations so that, regardless of the crisis, we have the ‘whole society’ infrastructure to respond. And it is particularly important to root this thinking in the places we live, where our days start and end; where we all need to feel secure and safe.
A key recommendation of this Inquiry report is the creation an independent body which, among other things, will ‘consult with the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector and local public health experts on how best to protect vulnerable people in the event of a whole-system civil emergency.’
‘Pandemics feed off inequality’
It’s abundantly clear that existing government-published information was ‘too vague to be useful’ – but merely ‘consulting’ is not the answer to building preparedness in our institutions or through our communities. As Sir Patrick Vallance, who was chief scientific adviser during the Covid-19 pandemic and is now Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, said: “There is a terrible, terrible truth … which is that all pandemics feed off inequality and drive inequality”. Until the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector is seen as critical infrastructure for first response to crises, this statement will remain true.
The Covid-19 pandemic increased the likelihood of sickness and death most acutely for people who were already vulnerable in society. That’s not only age and clinical vulnerabilities, but many others too, among them socio-economic status, ethnicity, and socially excluded minority groups to name a few. Yet last weeks’ Inquiry report doesn’t mention ONS data, which reported in May 2020 that black men and women were four times more likely to die from Covid-19 than white males and females.
Five ideas for a ‘whole society response’
If the new independent body is to create a ‘whole society response’, or specifically focus its efforts on people at risk or who have particular characteristics or vulnerabilities, then some core principles need to be woven into its design:
- The voices and experiences of the most vulnerable people must be represented in its structures, governance and programme of activities. For the very simple and straightforward reason that this will make its work more effective.
- Community-led responses must be better recognised and respected. The role of people, neighbours and mutual aid groups is vastly under-recognised in the Covid-19 report. There is one, sole ‘volunteer’ reference in its 240 pages, and zero references to ‘mutual aid’ groups, despite an estimated 3m people joining them to support vulnerable people in their local communities during the pandemic. If we are genuinely concerned that crises prey on and exacerbate inequalities, we must recognise that vulnerable people and communities need to trust who is trying to work alongside them, and that these people must be known to each other. Where there are stronger social connections across people in a place, their success in navigating a crisis will be greater. The global evidence is pretty unequivocal on this point.
- Have a clear, effective data and digital strategy, supported with investment. The Government has invested heavily in digital infrastructure at various times, with varying degrees of success. The UK Government, in 2020, created the NHS Responders App (building on the exceptional work of GoodSam) – and all the instincts about its potential to enable the swift deployment of skills, resources and capacity where they are needed were right. Yet underpinning the execution is a belief that the purpose is to connect citizens to government, not citizens to what they need, and these are not always the same thing. Too often, people (usually in the VCSE sector) tut at the mention of technology to support voluntary action – but there is a large, unrealised potential of local, social, mobile platforms to organise effectively in a crisis. The fragility of mobile networks in any crisis, and the ongoing issue of many people still not being online, are cited as valid reasons for pushing modernity to one side. Neither stands up to scrutiny. Any new, independent body must be committed to using data and digital technologies to support our people in times of crisis.
- Businesses are central to building preparedness across society yet remarkably absent from the Inquiry’s first report. Perhaps they will find a place in the upcoming focus on procurement. But whether riding roughshod over public procurement rules during the pandemic is seen as ‘that which is necessary is legal’, or as an opportunity to line pockets, obscures a more central, societal point: it is vital to mobilise larger businesses in the private sector to meet critical needs in the population at a time of crisis. This means preparing to repurpose manufacturing, distribution infrastructure and so on as and where it is most urgently needed. In 2020, it was reported that businesses had contributed an estimated £165m by signing up to the Covid-19 Business Pledge. This largely philanthropic response was significant in terms of its impact. But there is also a strong case that businesses should better-understand the need to build national preparedness, recognising their social and environmental impact on the world. This shifts support for crisis response from a mindset of philanthropy, to one of business continuity.
- People are civic infrastructure too and the skilled individuals in our neighbourhoods, primed to organise in the event of a crisis, should not be taken for granted. A society capable of withstanding crisis requires local, active citizens and community leaders to lead through complex, changing circumstances. We might seriously consider the infrastructure needed to provide training and support for ‘ordinary people’ to provide surge community capacity during a crisis. We must also appreciate that resilience and preparedness are built over years, not always forged in the white heat of a disaster. And it starts with education. Whether it is rethinking the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme, the National Citizen Service or reimagining the Citizenship curriculum – perhaps it is all three and more – building opportunities for young people to actively engage in developing preparedness skills in their communities has as many ‘peace-time’ as ‘wartime’ benefits.
These ideas could support the creation of a robust and effective ‘whole society’, government-led response to future crises. Past and recent history shows us how impactfully and imaginatively UK communities and businesses can rally in time of hardship, from ‘the wartime spirit’ to the proliferation of mutual aid groups through Covid-19. But until we better invest in preparedness that reaches our most vulnerable people, they will continue to feel the impact of those shocks the hardest.
The Young Foundation is researching the impact and efficacy of community-led responses to disasters. We are interested in hearing from community representatives, innovators and entrepreneurs who have met population needs in times of crisis. Please contact communications@youngfoundation.org
COVID-19 Inequality Local government & public services Systems change Posted on: 25 July 2024 Authors: Helen Goulden OBE,