On 31^st January the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that the Government would be u-turning on their policy of requiring all patient-facing health and care staff to be fully vaccinated against covid by April this year. The change will be subject to a one-week long online-only consultation that started this last Wednesday. They claim that the decision reflects the fact that they no longer consider it “proportionate” to make the jabs compulsory, because of the reduced severity of the dominant omicron variant and the booster programme having improved protection in the broader population.

Naturally, we have a few questions. Firstly, why is the consultation so short? We have consistently argued that while very short consultations were appropriate for coronavirus related decisions in the early phases of the pandemic when things moved very quickly and there was a need for immediate responsiveness, they have become increasingly less so in the latter phases where the situation is vastly more stable.

Particularly in situations like this where there is no particular impetus to move quickly decision-making should be done properly, and with an appropriate level of public involvement. Making a declaration of intent such as this, and then conducting an incredibly short consultation (in an online-only format no less), even if it isn’t actively unlawful, could easily make it look like a pre-determined decision with a tick-box consultation.

It’s not the only decision where similar criticisms might be raised. On Wednesday this week, the embattled Prime Minister announced that all remaining covid restrictions, including the requirement for those with positive tests to self-isolate are likely to end on 24^th February, over a month earlier that this had been previously expected to be considered.

This came as a surprise to the Government’s scientific advisers, according to Robert Peston, who are not aware of any advice been given that this is safe or advisable. It has been suggested that rather than being led by any scientific advice or similar considerations the decision might be less about allowing us to safely emerge from the pandemic and “live with coronavirus” and more about improving Boris Johnson’s standing with his truculent back benchers.

Criticism has been particularly strong from those in vulnerable groups who are concerned that they are being placed at risk by a casual approach to winding down restrictions, and not being listened to by the Government. Unlike the decision on vaccines for healthcare workers there doesn’t seem to be any apparent intention to consult on the relaxation of remaining restrictions, and this combined with the fact that there seems to be limited scientific advice on the topic is likely only to exacerbate claims of politics being prioritized over public health.

But is it a topic that should have been consulted upon? Over the course of the pandemic, the UK Government has seemed rather reluctant to consult on major strategic decisions such as this, preferring instead to claim that they are being “led by the science”. That claim is rather more difficult to make here, given the apparent absence of scientific advice, and it may well have been politically expedient to go to the public to get views.

From the equalities perspective, it would be very interesting to see what risk assessment has been done. Declaring an end to the pandemic when there are still over 60,000 new cases a day and a high chance of new variants is not something that should be done lightly, or on a political whim. These issues are always balancing acts- attempting to weigh different competing needs, and consultation and engagement is a useful method of providing evidence to inform decisions on how this balance should fall. With that not having happened here, we’re concerned the Government will struggle to demonstrate to a suspicious public that this decision has been made properly, informed by relevant information and not just to attempt to save the career of a senior politician.

In both these cases the public may not necessarily be with the Government and it will be interesting to see how the Government respond to any backlash, and indeed responses to the consultation on health and care workers. We’ll hope to see them attempt to address concerns properly on both issues, to reassure the country that the right decision is being made, at the right time.