Agenda and minutes
PDF 220 KBVenue: Remote, public webcast link: https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/councillors-and-committees/webcasts
Contact: Amelia Christopher Email: amelia.christopher@surreycc.gov.uk
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Cllr Stuart Selleck and Dr Pramit Patel.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 25 SEPTEMBER 2020
To agree the minutes of the previous meeting. Minutes: The minutes were agreed as a true record of the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter
(i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or (ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting
NOTES:
· Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest · As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) · Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial. Minutes: There were none.
|
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
a Members' Questions
The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (16 November 2020).
b Public Questions
The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (13 November 2020).
c Petitions
The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting. No petitions have been received. Additional documents: Minutes: a MEMBERS' QUESTIONS [Item 4a]
None received.
b PUBLIC QUESTIONS [Item 4b]
Six questions were received from members of the public. The responses can be found attached to these minutes as Annex A. Supplementary questions were asked from five members of the public and the verbal responses can be found below. 1. Supplementary question asked by Teresa Wood: See Annex B – for written supplementary question. Response: The Director of Public Health (SCC) noted that the original answer highlighted the Public Health England (PHE) independent rapid evaluation of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test; which detailed the high specificity but did not detail the sensitivity. She explained that both the specificity and sensitivity of tests depended on various factors including their administration. That currently, government policy and guidance was to use those tests which were used by acute trust staff twice weekly. She added that there was a pilot in Liverpool and in Stoke-on-Trent to test asymptomatic members of the population, such testing had not yet occurred in the South England but that was an area to be looked at imminently. It was agreed that a written answer would be provided to the questioner, to explain the matter in more detail (Annex B).
3. Supplementary question asked by Stuart Robertson: See Annex B – for written supplementary question. Response: The Director of Public Health (SCC) referred to in initial response in which the second paragraph outlined the evidence that showed a 95% specificity and sensitivity for PCR testing. There was a small chance of a false positive, however for the vast majority of those getting a positive test and self-isolating, it was in order to protect the rest of the population and to prevent further spread. It was agreed that a written answer would be provided to the questioner, to explain the matter in more detail (Annex B).
4. Supplementary question asked by Thomas Walker:
See Annex B – for written supplementary question. Response:
It was agreed that a written answer would be provided to the questioner, to explain the matter in more detail (Annex B).
5. Supplementary question asked by Philip Walker: The written response to the original question seemed to imply that it was very likely that on leaving national lockdown and re-entering the tiered system, Tier 1 was likely either to be strengthened or Tier 2 would be the presumed baseline. What would the hypothetical data have to look like locally for a tier of restrictions not to apply. What was the ceiling for that first baseline of restrictions being applied in the first place in terms of hospitalisations or cases per 100,000 population? Response: The Chief Executive (SCC) noted that at present there was no understanding or information on any of the thresholds or data points that the government would use to make the determination of tier allocations or revisions to the tier levels.
6. Supplementary question asked by Duncan White:
See Annex B – for written supplementary question. Response: The Area Director East Surrey ... view the full minutes text for item 2220. |
|
|
COVID-19 SURVEILLANCE UPDATE
Daily surveillance of COVID-19 data and intelligence is key to identifying increasing rates of COVID-19 in the community and taking prompt action as per Surrey’s Escalation Framework (ie deployment of mobile testing units, internal/external communications). A COVID-19 Intelligence Report for Surrey, summarising data that is in the public domain, is now being published every Monday and Thursday. In addition, 7-day cases and rates infographics is now being published daily. A process to support enhanced Local Contact Tracing data requirements is being established. Minutes: Witnesses:
Dr Rachel Gill - Public Health Consultant (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Public Health Consultant (SCC) introduced the COVID-19 Daily Data Dashboard, the bar chart showed the daily number of COVID-19 cases. Reporting delays meant that data could be incomplete for the most recent days, therefore the data shown was the last seven days of complete data for the week ending on 15 November 2020; in which there were 1,936 new cases in Surrey- there was a decrease of cases in Mole Valley and Guildford. 2. Based on the number of cases, the rate for that seven-day period in Surrey was 161.8 per 100,000 population compared to 184 in South East England and 266.5 in England. 3. She explained that the COVID-19 Intelligence Summary was published publicly on the Surrey County Council website bi-weekly every Monday and Thursday. The data was shared with a wide range of partners and it included data on the number of cases, the rate and R number nationally, county-wide, within Surrey’s eleven boroughs and districts, regional information and hospital activity, as well as further links to publicly available data sources with postcode level data. 4. The Public Health Consultant (SCC) highlighted that Surrey ranked 98 out of all councils in England with a rate of 145.5 per 100,000 population in the seven days ending 16 November 2020 - with a range of 106.9 in Waverley to 220.3 in Runnymede per 100,000 population. The top ten ranking councils’ rates in England ranged from approximately 459 to 675. 5. She noted the age-specific case rate heatmap for Surrey which showed that the 16-29 age range had the highest rates with cases spreading across the age groups and that mirrored the national pattern. 6. She summarised the situational report for Surrey map which highlighted the number of cases in the last fourteen days by districts and boroughs ending 16 November 2020, with a range from 254 in Mole Valley to 445 in Spelthorne. 7. Noted the change in the geographical allocation of cases due to PHE’s updated method in relation to the location of people who tested positive or negative for COVID-19. Previously the address was taken from an individuals’ NHS Summary Care Record created from GP medical records as opposed to the new location which prioritised the address given at the point of testing. The change meant the better geographical distribution of cases for example in the case of university students. 8. She added that the change of location was applied retrospectively back to 1 September 2020 and as a result Surrey saw a 4% reduction of cumulative case numbers, with a 9% decrease in cumulative cases in Elmbridge and an 8% decrease in Waverley. 9. Regarding the number of positive cases against the number of tests carried out, the Public Health Consultant (SCC) explained that the positivity rate was analysed daily and was the number of people who tested positive out of the number of people who were tested. |
|
|
COVID-19 LOCAL OUTBREAK CONTROL PLAN UPDATE
The report details progress on Surrey’s Local Outbreak Control (LOC) Plan which was published on 30 June 2020, including key outcomes and milestones to date, challenges and next steps going forward.
Additional documents: Minutes: Witnesses:
Ruth Hutchinson - Director of Public Health (SCC) Dr Rachel Gill - Public Health Consultant (SCC) Borough Councillor Maureen Attewell - Deputy Leader and
Portfolio Holder for Community Wellbeing and
Housing, Spelthorne Borough Council Avril Mayhew - Area Director East Surrey - Adult Social Care (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
Local Contact Tracing Partnerships
1. The Director of Public Health (SCC) explained that since 28 May 2020 anyone in England who received a positive Covid-19 test was automatically placed into the national contact tracing system and they and their contacts would be asked to self-isolate. 2. She discussed that in order to be effective the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) recommended that 80% of positive cases must be reached by the contact tracers, that was not the case nationally, although Surrey’s contact completion rate was around 80%. 3. She noted that as a result of the low completion rate, some areas such as Blackburn with Darwen set up local tracing partnerships and there was an expectation for all areas to establish one to supplement national contact tracing. As a result, a local contact tracing partnership was to be established in Surrey to contact the remaining 20% of contacts not contacted after the locally agreed timescale of twenty-four hours. 4. She highlighted that the programme would be launched first for those boroughs and districts in Surrey that bordered London or had higher rates first, phase one was to go live on 26 November 2020 with the whole of Surrey to follow in phase two. 5. She clarified that the Surrey Local Contract Tracing service would be delivered by Surrey County Council’s Customer Services team and Community Helpline staff. Staff would receive training and the Public Health team (SCC) would provide support due to the complexity of cases. 6. She explained that it would be a phone-based service in which a text or phone call from GOV.UK Notify would alert individuals who had received a positive test to expect a call from a local geographical number or voicemail message if unavailable. When contact was made there would be a set questionnaire to establish that individual’s contacts and it was estimated to take one hour to complete. 7. The Director of Public Health (SCC) noted that upon advice from established local contact tracing partnerships, welfare support and advice on financial assistance would be offered and that there was a potential to run the programme through door-knocking in the future. 8. She emphasised that residents must continue to engage with the national contact tracing service and soft communications would be launched on local contact tracing via a press release, information on the programme including the phone number and FAQs would be on Surrey County Council’s website. 9. The Director of Public Health (SCC) concluded that there were Data Sharing ... view the full minutes text for item 2420. |
|
|
LOCAL OUTBREAK CONTROL COMMUNICATIONS PLAN UPDATE
A communications and engagement strategy has been developed to support the Local Outbreak Control Plan from the 1 July 2020. The primary objective of the NHS Test and Trace Communications Plan for Surrey is to communicate Test and Trace advice and guidance to maximise awareness and compliance and so help contain and reduce the spread of COVID-19. The Communications Plan has evolved as more has been learnt about our public health response to the virus and this report provides the latest update on communications activity.
Minutes: Witnesses:
Abi Pope - Senior Communications Manager, COVID-19 Communications Lead (SCC)
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The COVID-19 Communications Lead (SCC) noted that during the new period of national restrictions since 5 November 2020, the Communications team had developed a number of new campaigns to help support Surrey residents. 2. She highlighted the first campaign of Surrey tailored ‘National Restrictions’ communications asking people to stay at home reaffirming PHE preventative and testing messaging. The assets were tailored to Surrey’s districts and boroughs, the targeted adverts were displayed in busy train stations in digital screen format, as well as via social media with over 1 million impressions on Facebook and Instagram. 3. She outlined another campaign ‘2021 is in our hands’ which was on behaviour change in response to weekly behavioural insight reports from Cabinet Office colleagues noting that people were fatigued and were missing out on key milestones in life. A series of GIFs were created to motivate people to keep going and view 2021 positively; covering festivals, sporting events, Diwali, and a future one for Christmas. The campaign reached 842,000 users on Facebook and Twitter, with a good engagement rate of 2.3%. 4. She noted another campaign which was a series of simple infographics informing residents which services were open or closed; as well as the ‘be ready and think ahead’ assets which were about supporting communities to be self-sufficient. 5. She explained that the Nextdoor social networking app was becoming a very successful channel with high community engagement. Over 154,000 of Surrey’s residents were on it and many expressions of thanks had been received.
Dr Charlotte Canniff and Karen Brimacombe left the meeting at 3pm
6. She highlighted the success of the daily data dashboards launched during the latest period of national restrictions. Data was presented in a bitesize and accessible way in which a bar chart showed the daily Covid-19 cases in Surrey and districts and boroughs over the last 7 days and month, as well as the rates, compared to the South East and England with trend arrows the change. 7. She added that the daily data dashboards were distributed widely through the Multi-Agency Information Group (MIG), and the first dashboard had received positive feedback, it was an accessible way to explain the infection rates in schools, the engagement rate was over 20% on Facebook. Posts on Nextdoor were successful with nearly 66,000 impressions on Wednesday and it was encouraging to see residents responding to other residents’ queries. 8. She summarised further activity such as the Director of Public Health’s (SCC) weekly slot on BBC Surrey, the joint Mole Valley Incident Management Team (IMT) - numbers were falling in Mole Valley so work needed to be done to understand the reasons - the weekly Top Lines Brief to Members was reinstated providing information to be shared with residents. That since the last Board there had been discussions on the lessons learnt in Elmbridge, and Surrey Together which was a hard copy magazine was to ... view the full minutes text for item 2520. |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Surrey Local Outbreak Engagement Board will take place on 18 February 2021. Minutes: It was agreed that the next meeting of the Surrey Local Outbreak Engagement Board would take place on 18 February 2021.
|