Thread by @cv_cev

💙💜💗Yesterday was a BIG day for CVF at the UK Covid Inquiry.

After a year of work, @lara_wong’s full written statement (much longer than her oral evidence) is now public.

You can also watch her full oral evidence on YouTube.

Highlights below.

⚠️LONG thread warning 🧵

1/

What is Clinically Vulnerable?
No exception for shielded Clinically Vulnerable children when schools returned.

Full (~1 hour) YouTube evidence here:
youtube.com/watch?v=B_Bjbh…

Written evidence here:
covid19.public-inquiry.uk/documents/inq0…

Please help to BOOST this thread to your followers!

2/

Clinically Vulerable households were pressured by teachers and headteachers, who were following poor government guidance, to return to unsafe schools without appropriate safty measures in place.

Families faced:
Fines
Prosecutions
Inappropriate referals to Children's Services.
3/

CVF members were very concerned about the risks to their children.

4/

Clinically Vulnerable children were NOT in schools prior to September 2020. Schools guidance in May 2020 recognised risks to Clinically Vulnerable children and families.

August 2020 there was a "guillotine" when ALL children were required to return.

Usual rules applied.

5/

In August 2020, "Eat Out to Help Out" had been driving up infection rates just before schools opened.

Schools were not doing anything to manage airborne risks, so our families felt particularly exposed.

No risk assessment or equality impact assessment considered their needs.
6/

Our concerns, which were really obvious to them as they had already been identified, were unaddressed.

People had no options. They had to choose between different risks:

A risk to life
A legal risk due to non-attendance

7/

There was no remote learning provided in September 2020, and shielded children were no longer shielded and *all* children were told that they *must* be in school.

8/

Children who were Clinically Vulnerable or in Clinically Vulnerable households were DENIED remote learning that was offered to children who were Covid positive.

9/

Families were threatened with fines and prosections, and advised to withdraw their child from the school roll if they represented a long-term absence.

10/

Parents who were threatened with fines and prosecutions were in really precarious circumstances.

People in certain jobs cannot continue if they are prosecuted.

11/

Testimony of a CEV child who was forced out of school.

12/

Responding to the idea of "Elective Home Education", CVF members were frequently unwilling home schoolers.

13/

The biggest reason for removing children was in 2021-2022 was health concerns relating to Covid, but our families many have also fallen under other categories.

14/

Flexibility could mean a number of different things:

Remote learning
Hybrid learning - outdoor / low risk and online

KEY EVIDENCE:

A severely immunosuppressed (CEV) family were threatened with fines and prosecution. They had legal support and representation from @legalmarkmc and Helen Mowatt.

Hampshire issued new guidance the next day.

16/

@legalmarkmc Hampshire ammended their guidance:

If a consultant level letter states that attendance at school of a child would endanger a life then the absence should be authorised.

Remote learning offered.
Any children removed from roll contacted.
Penalty notices withdrawn.

17/

@legalmarkmc This guidance was not widely disseminated. We were told that headteachers were advised not tell parents.

CVF tried to share this knowledge, and all Clinically Vulnerable people were potentially able to benefit.

Unfortunately, it didn't extend beyond Hampshire.

18/

@legalmarkmc This guidance was a departure from Department of Education guidance.

19/

@legalmarkmc Do you agree that until the vaccination programme was sufficiently advanced that there would have been quite a large number of families in which it could be said that there was a risk to the life of a family member from contracting Covid?

<Which CP asked this question?>
20/

@legalmarkmc A question from the DfE?

Do you accept that given the importance of children being in school that it was appropriate for the DfE to ensure that children who the CMO felt were not at materially increased risk from Covid were required to attend school?

21/

@legalmarkmc As @lara_wong recognised the need for evidence, she conducted a survey to gather data in line with standard DfE levels set for absences - which highlighted the serious impacts on CVF's families.

22/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong Persistent and severe absences were concerningly high. Indeed, they appeared to be the highest group.

23/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong The need for safer schools.

There was no real options for these families.

Children were not taught.

24/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong Wearing a mask has been quite politicised. Any other protective gear like wearing shin pads or goggles in science is not politicised. But if children choose to wear a mask it is seen as a safeguarding concern sometimes, which is a real worry for us.

25/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong Some children felt at risk from others.

Children attending school in high-risk environments had legitimate concerns due to unaddressed risks. Children were facing and managing much higher risks than other children.

Nobody was supporting them.

26/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong Children in Clinically Vulnerable families knew through testing that they were positive, and the real risks that they might kill their loved one.... and in some cases they did - and they knew it.

27/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong New challenges for young carers.

28/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong There was a huge burden carried by children who were facing risks and challenges that were not recognised.

School guidance was actively against them. They had to be in school and headteachers should "reassure" them.

29/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong High-risk families had to balance risks in terms of attending healthcare.

30/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong Safety should be seen as a basic right.

We need to include Clinical Vulnerability in the Equality Act.

Disability is about impairments, and not the risk people face from pathogens.

31/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong The need for safe choices to enable:

Schools to safeguard children.
Safe peer interactions.
Hybrid and remote learning.

Remote school is better than nothing!

32/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong Children in critical exam years were unable to get the grades they need, or in some cases any grades at all.

33/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong Children in critical exam years were unable to get the grades they need, or in some cases any grades at all.

33/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong Lana's story:

Lana, a bright child, was refused online learning. She taught herself her GCSEs and achieved a grade 7 in her English (an "A").

She missed a pass in her Maths GCSE by 1 or 2 marks.

34/

@legalmarkmc @lara_wong The "National Tutoring Programme" did not support our children.

She wanted to go into Science as a career, her future has been harmed. She should not have been put in that position. It was completely avoidable!

There were children who were unable to take exams at all.

34/

ADDING BECAUSE SOME CAN’T SEE IT

Persistent and severe absences were concerningly high. Indeed, they appeared to be the highest group.

23/

If you can, pls support us here:
👉 clinicallyvulnerable.org/donate

While you are here, please also sign and share our petition for #KeepCovidBoosters.

All assistance is very much appreciated!
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/7331…

CV children (u12) cannot even buy private doses in the UK.