Covid-19 restrictions and STAC advice (FOI)

Request

With the recent decision on restaurants and other hospitality venues opening up and allowing of mixed family household tables and not the same at private dwellings, I'd like to ask if this was a Government 'only decision' or a 'STAC and Government' decision that was agreed upon together?

Or was STAC not contacted on this decision at all?

Response

The Scientific and Technical Advisory Cell advises Government but does not make decisions.

STAC discussed re-opening hospitality on 8 February. Below are excerpts of the minutes of that meeting, which include discussion relevant to the subject of the FOI request:

“The Cell was shown the indicative package of measures for inclusion in the Stage three reconnection, which proposed the following:

Hospitality with food

It was proposed that hospitality venues could re-open to serve food, but not alcohol, with maximum table sizes of 10 and subject to adherence to two metre distancing requirements. The Interim Director, Public Health Policy, informed the Cell that he had held discussions with colleagues and had been advised that the viability for those settings would be impaired if they were not permitted to sell alcohol. As a consequence, an alternative proposal would be to permit the sale of the same, but to restrict bookings to individual households, mindful that within the context of a single table it would be difficult to enforce two metre distancing.

It was noted that Competent Authority Ministers were due to meet on 10 February, time would then be required to consult with the affected sectors and for any legislative and guidance changes to be prepared. It was suggested that LFDs (Lateral Flow Devices) should be offered – initially gratis – to the relevant sectors, such as hospitality and that the Cell should review the reconnection criteria at its meeting on 22 February. Dependent upon the number of positive cases and the test positivity rate at that time, Ministerial confirmation of the reconnection would be obtained on the same day, two days prior to the reconnection on 24 February. The Interim Director, Public Health Policy, informed the Cell that the Competent Authorities had indicated that they did not wish for the next stage of reconnection to take place before, or during, half term, which was the rationale for selecting 24 February.

The Independent Advisor - Epidemiology and Public Health, indicated that – with the exception of the height of the Summer 2020 – the Island currently faced the lowest risk from COVID-19 than at any time since the start of the pandemic. Concurrently, Islanders were experiencing the greatest cumulative damage to the economy and their wellbeing, including their mental health. As a consequence, it was important that this should be borne in mind when considering reconnection and the speed thereof. The Contact Tracing team together with the planned workforce and cohort screening would enable any clusters to be detected and suppressed as and when they occurred. He was of the view that the hospitality sector should be permitted to re-open as soon as it was ready to do so and that the ‘rule of six’ should be applied, as a maximum table size. He advocated those settings being able to serve alcohol as not doing so could lead to people gathering in private homes, in an unregulated manner, and would significantly reduce the economic benefit of hospitality venues re-opening. He did not understand the rationale for delaying the re-opening until after half term, because teenagers and young people, in particular, were already gathering in indoor venues.

The Managing Director, Jersey General Hospital […] On the basis that an element of household mixing was to be permitted, which might involve the consumption of alcohol, he questioned the rationale for not allowing restaurants and cafés to serve the same.

The Environmental Health Consultant concurred with previously expressed views. He preferred to limit the number of people who could meet, rather than advocate the formation of household bubbles, because these could be challenging. He supported the reopening of hospitality settings, permitting the sale of alcohol, provided that various mitigating factors were introduced, especially in light of those working in that sector often living in shared accommodation. However, he was of the view that the test and trace team would be able to manage any positive cases appropriately.

The Chief Executive Officer, Influence at Work, supported consistent messaging around a maximum of six people being able to meet up, whether in households or in hospitality settings, because this concept was easier to understand and to communicate. He was of the view that by preventing people from purchasing alcohol in hospitality settings, this would be more likely to increase their desire for it and this could be problematic for staff, who would be required to deal with clients demanding to be served alcohol.