Climate change has been identified as the greatest threat, and opportunity, for global public health in the 21st century.  It is therefore incumbent on public health consultants, registrars and practitioners to be aware of the action we need to take to reduce this threat and mitigate the consequences.  

The opportunity: According to The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a warming greater than 1.5°C is “not geophysically unavoidable: whether it will occur depends on future rates of emission reductions.” https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/  

The challenge: About 80% of known fossil fuel reserves would need to stay in the ground to limit the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to 450 parts per million.  This level would in turn give a 50% chance of limiting global warming to a maximum 2°C global average temperature rise.    

The consequences: Poverty and disadvantage are expected to increase as global warming increases; limiting global warming to 1.5°C, compared with 2°C, could “reduce the number of people both exposed to climate-related risks and susceptible to poverty by up to several hundred million by 2050 (medium confidence). https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/  

What help is available?  

1. The sustainable development and climate change resources produced by the Faculty of Public Health Sustainable Development Special Interest Group support specialty registrars and their educational supervisors in meeting Faculty of Public Health learning outcomes and offer information for public health consultants and practitioners.  They are available here  on the FPH website. 

2. The Faculty of Public Health have established a Climate & Health Committee.  This is a really important step, and I would like to thank Sue Atkinson – the chair, and our President Maggie Rae for setting it up.  It illustrates the seriousness with which FPH are now taking this agenda.  The Committee aims and objectives are to: 

  • lead FPH’s sustainability and climate change policies. 
  • embed sustainability and climate change in all FPH policy developments. 
  • increase the Faculty’s profile in sustainability and climate change work. 
  • advise on the Faculty’s ethical investment policy and the transition to carbon neutrality by 2030. 
  • promote best practice in sustainability and climate change work across the Faculty. 

3 I recently attended an on-line meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on the UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development: – a cross-party group of UK parliamentarians who champion the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and monitor their implementation.  The meeting was about their assessment of the UK’s progress on delivering the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their investigation and evaluation of the impact of Covid-19 on the SDGs, and a summary of the steps the UK Government should take to ensure the SDGs are at the heart of efforts to build back better.  The report is available here: – Build Back Better.  This is an important report, particularly as it is likely to inform the Government in the lead up to COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021.  You will see that the recommendations are high level.  The questions for us in Public Health are as follows: 

  • Does the report cover all the key Public Health and Climate Change issues? 
  • Is the level of ambition sufficient to enable the UK to reduce the severity of climate change? 
  • What will the role of Public Health be going forward? 

Please feel free to e mail me with your comments at hzross2@myphone.coop.  They will help us to crystallise our thinking about how we Build Back Better (post Covid) for the Faculty of Public Health.   

Other resources:  

The next meeting of the FPH SD SIG will be held on Thursday 15th October from 2pm to 4pm by Zoom. If you have any items that you would like the SIG Committee to discuss, then please do not hesitate to e mail me. 

Helen Ross  

Faculty of Public Health 

Chair: Sustainable Development Special Interest Group 

 e mail – hzross2@myphone.coop 

Clean Air Day 2020

8 October is Clean Air Day. Due to COVID-19 it looks a little different this year, but the need to keep air pollution high on the public health agenda has never been greater. Evidence is emerging around the links between air pollution and COVID-19 outcomes. And during the lockdown we experienced cleaner air and saw massive shifts to low pollution behaviours. Let’s keep up the momentum as we all have a part to play in keeping our air clean.

Public health professionals can play a particularly important role in providing information and advice to people about how to protect their health from air pollution, and we have basic resources for health professionals available to help you in these conversations. The Clean Air Hub https://www.cleanairhub.org.uk/ also provides straightforward public information on air pollution.

Clean Air Day Live on 8 October at 14:30 will be running a session on ‘How Can the Health Sector Tackle Air Pollution?’ to explore the role of the health sector in both cutting air pollution through its own operations, and the role of health professionals in providing air pollution guidance to patients.

We have an unprecedented opportunity to build back cleaner air as part of our ‘new normal’ as we recover from this COVID-19 crisis, so do join in with Clean Air Day and find out more about the part you can play to help maintain cleaner air and protect people’s health, as the need to do so is greater than ever.

There is a detrimental link between the health outcomes of COVID-19 and air pollution. Emerging evidence suggests that air pollution may play a role in making us more vulnerable to catching COVID-19. It also makes those with health conditions that are caused or worsened by air pollution – such as asthma, heart disease and COPD – more vulnerable to complications, even death, if they contract COVID-19. And high air pollution is causing irreversible damage to some children’s health, reducing their lung function and creating a generation who may be more susceptible to future pandemics.

People have also realised that clean air is possible and want it to stay. During the COVID-19 lockdown, levels of NO2 air pollution dropped by 20-30% across the UK, and by up to half in parts of London, primarily from a reduction in private car use. People noticed and appreciated the cleaner air and safer streets. The vast majority of people (72%) believe that clean air is even more important now because coronavirus can affect people’s lungs, and want government and businesses to tackle air pollution more urgently than before the outbreak of the virus.

And behaviour has shifted offering a profound moment of change. During lockdown millions of people changed their routines in a way that reduced air pollution, by working from home and walking and cycling more, and many are willing to continue to do so: 87% want to keep working from home to some extent, half want to walk more and a third would like to cycle more. It is easier to maintain a habit than foster a new one, so we can build on this unique moment to create lasting positive change.

Clean air was one of the few silver linings of the COVID-19 lockdown suffering. Through our collective behaviours we saw and experienced extraordinary improvements in outdoor air quality. On Clean Air Day – and every day – let’s keep doing these behaviours to keep our air clean. Find out how you can advise your patients and the public to protect their health from air pollution and together let’s make 8 October the cleanest Clean Air Day yet.

Larissa Lockwood
Director of Clean Air
Global Action Plan

Climate and health

We held the inaugural meeting of the new FPH Climate and Health Committee on 10th September 2020. Of course like everything else these days it was held remotely by zoom. Slightly strange doing ‘introductions’ around the ‘screen’ rather than round the room, but we have all now got quite used to this way of working. The President came to welcome all the new members and offer her support, which was great – thank you Maggie.

The Board had agreed this new committee at the February board meeting in the recognition that climate change and health is both the biggest threat but also the biggest opportunity of the century. That was before Covid-19 arrived and sent us all (across the globe) into turmoil and for much of the time into lockdown. I write this as we head into the ‘second wave’ and we may all be in lockdown again by the time this is published, but I will try not to get diverted onto Covid!

Importantly Covid has impacted on public health professionals and hence our decision to delay the first meeting of the Climate and Health Committee (C&HC) until now.

I think it was the right decision. We have learned a lot through Covid impacts. It has demonstrated how rapidly change can happen if it needs to and people see the imperative – that in itself is a useful lesson for the necessary change for a sustainable planet. It has also heightened peoples’ awareness of inequalities and BAME issues, of the importance of nature and the environment and physical activity for peoples’ mental as well as physical health. All good PH issues. We agreed to build in more about the environment and biodiversity into the committee’s Terms of Reference

So the first meeting of C&HC was a lively affair with good discussions and challenge about a number of topics. Of course it is early days and much of the meeting was ground setting – such as briefly outlining what the FPH has already done on climate change (CC) and sustainability. There was a recognition that the FPH needs to be more proactive on CC and sustainable development (SD).

The work of the committee will build on the good work already being undertaken by the SD SIG and by other SIGs, such as transport and food. We will aim to utilise the mass of expertise on CC and SD held by our members by working closely with SIGs and other FPH committees and would welcome any offers of support and help.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were floated as a potential ‘framework’ for a Climate and Health strategy and action plan, and whilst we recognise there is some criticism of some of the SDGs, overall we thought they were worth exploring further. We need to look also at the key roles of the FPH – as an organisation – in standards and training –and as an advocate for the public’s health, and consider what actions the FPH should take and what needs to be prioritised.

One of the big issues for us is knowing what would be most helpful for the FPH to do to support members – both trainees and existing consultants and DPHs – in respect of taking action and moving the climate and health agenda forward. And we are only too aware of how busy most members are dealing with aspects of Covid. So any suggestions gratefully received. I guess if you are busy with Covid etc you may not even have time to read and respond to this blog! But if you are reading this and do have thoughts on what FPH should do on the CC agenda then please email Sue Atkinson as Chair.

An update from the SD SIG on its work on the opportunities in recovery from Covid-19 showed that a statement on this will be coming shortly. Also ‘watch this space’ on Net Zero NHS (greening the NHS) as Nick Watts, the newly appointed NHS Chief Sustainability Officer (and a member of the FPH and the C&HC) updated us on their work. We also received an update on the PHE changes into the NIHP (National Institute of Health Protection) and how these may impact PHE’s work on CC and SD and related topics such as air quality. The FPH will need to keep a close eye on these changes.

As a committee, our first action was to recommend that FPH support an open letter calling on the United Nations Human Rights Council to recognise the universal human right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment. FPH signed the letter, and we would encourage FPH members to support the call.

We still need, on the committee, reps from practitioner and from associate members and from ADPH. So if anyone wants to volunteer or has any suggestions or wants to be involved please get in touch.

So much food for thought and much work still to be done. A huge thank you to the members of the committee for great and helpful discussion. Thank you also to Helen Johnston who is the SpR supporting the C&HC through the FPH project scheme, and we will hope to continue this attachment into the future, and of course, thank you to Julian Ryder, from the FPH who is supporting the C&HC. I look forward to working with you all as we progress this important work for the FPH.

… watch this space.

Sue Atkinson
Chair, FPH Climate and Health Committee

NIHP it in the bud!?

So as I and many others predicted some weeks ago, new cases are rising rapidly in the UK and these cases are predominantly amongst the young and the disadvantaged.

The impact on hospitalisation rates and deaths has so far been modest, which is to be expected because of the epidemiology of the disease in the under 40s, but we only have a small window of opportunity before infection rates start significantly rising in persons at much greater risk of experiencing significant morbidity and mortality.

The ‘rule of six’ is a good start but much more needs to be done if we are to achieve the prime aim of preventing significant further morbidity and mortality in the population and the secondary aim of allowing the economy to function at a reasonable level.

This is obviously not easy but i repeat again that the epidemiology of this disease is very helpful in achieving these aims and we need to follow the epidemiology.

Why is the epidemiology so helpful? Because the most at risk group, say people aged over 60 years who represent over 95% of deaths in the UK are usually retired!

So the policy that needs to be followed is simple to describe

  1. Protect the most at risk, especially the elderly and those with underlying conditions, by positively discriminating in their favour by making the safe choice the easier choice for them.
  2. Encourage other people to work in a Covid secure setting. For many this can mean continuing to work from home. So what needs to change?
  3. Visiting to care homes and hospices should be stopped. It is reckless not to learn the lessons of the first wave. We must minimise the risk of introducing the virus into high risk settings by regularly testing staff, preventing visits and adherence to strict control of infection procedures.
  4. Pubs should be closed at 10 pm. Allowing pubs to stay open for long hours encourages drunkenness and disinhibition and therefore non-adherence to viral control of transmission measures.
  5. Change the regulations so that the elderly and others at high risk can maintain a 2 metre rule. So for example in a restaurant, some tables would be obliged to allow 2 metre distancing whilst others could continue to follow the one metre plus guidance. This is an example of positive discrimination.
  6. A public health messaging campaign to encourage those at high risk not to engage in risky behaviour and to encourage the general public to take particular care when they are meeting persons at high risk.
  7. An effective test and trace system.
    5.1 This requires a significant increase in public health staff and others in the test and trace system – as the number of new cases rise the amount of contact tracing work increases.
    5.2 An increase in testing capacity with prioritisation of the testing to those with classic Covid19 symptoms. The test needs to be accessible and provide fast, reliable results.
    5.3 End the reliance on phone contact by ensuring non-responders are visited.
    5.4 Have a more agile local system, with more control over resources and decision making.
    5.5 Integration of the app into the system.
  8. Maintain messages on the fundamental need for hand washing, social distancing and mask washing to prevent transmission.
  9. As lab capacity increases, a prioritised use of this capacity to detect asymptomatic infectious persons.
  10. An effective quarantine system at ports of entry.

It would have been useful to have introduced measures to try to eliminate the virus a policy which has worked so effectively in countries like New Zealand but that opportunity has probably been lost.

We can expect that improvements in hospital management will mean that the mortality rate in hospital will be lower than in the first wave.

Public health messaging will need to be both sensitive and authoritative. We will be disrupting people’s normal lifestyles in important ways.

Ellis Friedman

Dr Helen Walters, an NIHR Public Health Consultant Advisor, introduces four newly launched public health research teams, contracted under the PHIRST scheme, to enable local authorities to rapidly evaluate interventions aiming to improve health and tackle health inequalities in their areas. 

When I was a Director of Public Health in London I knew that my team were delivering innovative schemes that affected large numbers of people. Our hope was that the schemes would improve health and reduce the health inequalities experienced by some highly deprived populations. But we didn’t really know whether they were achieving this. 

Did the Healthy Schools programme working across more than 1,500 schools in the capital improve the health of thousands of children? Did the Healthy Workplace award scheme improve sick leave levels for London’s employers? Would getting the Healthy Streets approach into the heart of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy make any difference to physical activity levels in the city?  

We were basing these schemes on the little evidence that was available, but we could not find a way to get them evaluated to build that evidence-base any further. Public health practice in local government is mainly distant from academic public health research. Local government does not have a culture of undertaking research. It moves fast, and does not have routes into research funding. Golden opportunities to learn and evaluate were being lost. 

The PHIRST Scheme 

The NIHR’s Public Health Research programme (PHR) is experimenting with a new scheme to try and solve this conundrum – the PHIRST scheme. PHIRST stands for Public Health Intervention Responsive Studies Teams. The idea is that the PHR contracts with four academic teams who are ready and waiting, fully-funded, to evaluate schemes that are happening in local government across the UK. 

The timing could probably not have been worse but somehow, despite pestilence and lockdown, we have managed to appoint four teams, and to match them up with four local authorities that are keen to have their schemes evaluated. Issues include:  

  • free school breakfast clubs in Hammersmith and Fulham 
  • citizen-informed design of employment support in Fife 
  • remote provision of drugs and alcohol services in Leeds 
  • reducing exposure to adverts for foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) on the transport system in Yorkshire 

The PHIRST teams are led by prominent public health researchers: Ashley Adamson (Newcastle University), Susie Sykes (London South Bank University), Rona Campbell (University of Bristol), and Katherine Brown and Wendy Willis (University of Hertfordshire). They will work closely with each local authority to co-create the evaluation with the heavy lifting being undertaken by the PHIRST teams and fully funded by the NIHR, starting in September. 

Timely and accessible research for local authorities  

And in a few months the PHR programme will go out to Directors of Public Health and ask for more schemes to evaluate, so we can keep the PHIRST teams busy. If it works the plan is to make this a rolling programme. 

Local authorities have huge opportunities to influence health and health inequalities but without an evidence-base they cannot maximise these opportunities. The hope is that this scheme will provide timely and easily accessible evaluations for those who are still hard-pushed Directors of Public Health so that, in the future, there will be an evidence-base. 


For more information please email the PHR programme on phr@nihr.ac.uk 

More information on the PHR Programme is also available on the NIHR website

This blog was first published on the NIHR website.

Identifying and responding to populations who are vulnerable to poor sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has given rise to new context-driven vulnerabilities, emerging due to wide-scale changes to the delivery of sexual and reproductive healthcare and broader psychosocial impacts. We outline such vulnerabilities and actions for continuing to monitor and respond to their emergence.

New vulnerabilities emerging from changes to service delivery

Public health messages to reduce non-essential use of NHS services may have impacted SRH, with reports of cessation of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and contraception during early lockdown. Closure of some smaller SRH clinic services may disproportionately impact those who require face-to-face consultation but rely on service proximity. For example, those with physical or learning disabilities, or living in coastal and rural areas and reliant on public transport.

Remote delivery of SRH services has included telephone and digital-based approaches, combined with postal and pharmacy-delivered interventions. Expansion of online STI testing services may improve overall uptake, with public health messaging promoting testing during the pandemic. However, reliance on postal delivery and return may impact testing-to-treatment times, creating new vulnerabilities among those struggling with abstinence during this window. Those without a private postal address may also be deterred from using online services.

Lack of access to devices, telephone credit or the internet may also hinder remote service use. This may particularly affect those living in poverty or destitution; or those without the digital, literacy or English language skills needed to navigate online services. Remote access may also be hampered by privacy concerns, although anecdotal reports suggest that changes to remote early medical abortion provision have improved access. This has even been the case for those with abusive partners.

New vulnerabilities emerging from wider psychosocial impact

Difficulties in accessing SRH provision may interact with the wider psychosocial impacts of COVID-19. Ongoing school closures combined with the closure of walk-in clinics has left school-age adolescents reliant on online services, which may be difficult to access due to privacy issues. It is heartening that 76% of services that responded to the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV’s (BASHH) Clinical Thermometer survey ‘identified young people requiring face to face care as their top priority’ (1). This has been in response to reduced uptake among young people of adolescent age – distinct from those aged 20-24 years, amongst whom no decrease in uptake has been noted.

The risk of sexual exploitation has also increased, especially for adolescents, children, women, disabled people and those who identify as LGBTQ+ (2). Financial destitution may have increased the risk of transactional sex in exchange for food, shelter, drugs etc. Commercial sex workers, for whom sex work may be their only source of income, have been forced to make difficult decisions about continuing to work (3). Anecdotal evidence suggests that they are taking greater risks and are at increased risk of assault (4).

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen an increase in reports of domestic abuse (5), which may be fueled by financial hardship, reduced access to support networks and greater time spent at home (6). Opportunities to identify safeguarding concerns may be limited by the reduction in face-to-face services. Conversely, anecdotal reports suggest antenatal services may more effectively identify domestic abuse, as partners are not permitted to attend due to COVID-19.

Looking ahead

The collective efforts of all SRH stakeholders are vital to identify and respond to emerging new vulnerabilities, particularly as some service changes become the ‘new normal’. Equally, it is important to recognise and campaign to maintain changes in provision which have improved access and uptake. Data capture is vital to support both efforts. As a community we must remain flexible, and learn from each other. Improved telephone safeguarding skills, already implemented by some services, are vital. In addition, new measures to re-open some walk-in services and conversely enhance remote provision for complex cases ordinarily seen in clinics, may be necessary. We must continue to offer delivery choices and to identify and reduce barriers to care. Many who are facing new vulnerabilities are already rightly being recognised by BASHH as having priority for access to face-to-face care (1). It is critical that these new vulnerabilities are accounted for by commissioners and providers as services are restored and transformed.

Written by

Dr Ahimza Thirunavukarasu, [ST4 Public Health Registrar, London & South East Deanery] 

Dr Natalie Edelman, [Senior Research Fellow, School of Health Sciences, University of Brighton] 

Dr Natalie Daley, [ST4 Public Health Registrar, West Midlands Deanery]  

Natalie, Ahimza and Natalie are members of the FPH Sexual and Reproductive Health Special Interest Group.  







Since the outset of the first industrial revolution, the West Midlands has built a track record of “can do” inventiveness and innovation. It’s what powers us to bounce back from adversity. Our region’s people are resilient and accustomed to working in ways we now call “agile”.

There is a determination to rebuild from this pandemic stronger than ever. As a mark of our ambition, the West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, has put forward a £3bn package of urgent investment for the Government’s consideration. It proposes immediate action on everything from active travel to community health and wellbeing via 5G connectivity.

While big investments in active travel infrastructure and fuel poverty retrofit insulation of homes will undoubtedly have public health impacts, we are especially interested in the proposed Radical Health Prevention Fund. Here are plans for a £23 million investment in community-based health promotion and prevention of ill-health and community-based diagnostic centres. The intention behind putting forward these investments is to kick-start an upgrade in prevention work, with a focus on reaching groups in our society most at risk.

For us, recovering from COVID-19 means reconnecting with communities – rethinking how we live and work to protect our environment at the same time as we grow our economy. The potential for improving health and wellbeing and reducing inequalities is invigorating.

As the coronavirus response showed, we are fortunate to have an active, competent public health workforce able to work alongside key workers elsewhere in the system. Working with the NHS, local government, social care, voluntary sector and many more, they can and do target key drivers of health inequality.

The £10 million investment sought to equip public health with cutting edge advances in digital and data driven health will lead to a healthier workforce and more engaged citizens in the West Midlands.

Our recent experience has demonstrated just how much the public needs greater access to diagnostic and treatment services and our public health service needs access to the results faster. In our region there are significant health inequalities and there is a need to provide quicker access to diagnosis and treatment to those with life threatening conditions. This is an essential part of prevention, helping everyone to stay healthy longer and helping people of working age to remain in employment as long as possible. On both counts, the economy benefits, and quality of life is better.

We foresee people getting tests done in their daily commute or during their daily shop, with centres in everyday places like transport hubs and shopping centres. The proposed first location for a new centre combines both – the Grand Central retail complex above our busiest railway station.

The £13 million investment will help embed diagnostic and treatment services throughout the community and redefine care pathways to improve accessibility of screening.

We have come through a COVID-19 wave of infection at great cost – in lives lost, personal trauma and a broken economy. The future is unknowable, but we must be prepared for a second wave of this coronavirus or the next novel, unforeseen threat to the public’s health or the intensifying health risks associated with climate change.

In the past, our discussions around health have too often been limited to hospital patients and new treatments. In future, we want people to think and talk more about wider determinants of health, upstream interventions and preventive approaches as well. Only then will we fully embrace all the pillars of public health: health promotion, health protection and equitable access to healthcare supported by science, data and academic public health.

From now on, national and local agencies need to operate as one, seamless system, with Central Government working in collaboration with Local Government, local NHS organisations and local communities. Surely now, there must be a recognition of how inequality leads to increasingly unfair outcomes within our society – with no greater unfair impact than disproportionate rates of death.

The greater impact of the pandemic to date on those who are socioeconomically deprived or from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups has been stark. Resources must be directed to those communities that most need them. In future, we want to work to protect vulnerable groups by working with them, fully engaging communities in decision making and utilising the skills and expertise they offer.

In recovery from this gravest of threats, we have a second chance to get things right. That means taking this window of opportunity to step our efforts up not down. We must work together to get the funding right, the data sharing right, the contact tracing right and the involvement of local communities right. The West Midlands region will build on its unique heritage and distinctive strengths and seize the opportunity to reset, rebuild and recharge our region so we come back even stronger.


Written by

David Kidney – Chief Executive, UK Public Health Register and Executive Chair of the proposed West Midlands Health Technologies Cluster

Lisa McNally, Director of Public Health, Sandwell

Writing a blog about Coronavirus, I confess to feeling slightly odd that I am not reporting from the frontline of the NHS. As a medically trained Public Health consultant, my name is down on the reserve list to get back in to scrubs if more resources are required. However, I am also incredibly aware that the job I am doing in my shed cum office at the bottom of the garden, is providing Public Health support in a way that I could only hope might be possible when I was an over enthusiastic Public Health registrar. 

I work for a company who are pioneers in providing health and insurance services to millions of people living in emerging markets. People who have previously been excluded from traditional health insurance models and who lack access to decent healthcare. The company has developed simple, affordable mobile delivered health insurance for people in developing countries, where there is often little or no public health system. And the reason that I work in my garden shed for them is because they also provide a mobile Health service (mHealth) – teledoctors and digital public health programmes – to millions of people across the Globe. My role is to design and write tailored and relevant health programmes, and to work with the technical brains of thcompany to get them out to as many people as possible, across as many digital channels as people are able to access.  

As I write, Coronavirus cases are increasing in many of the countries where we work, with particular cause for concern in Bangladesh and Pakistan. From a teledoctor perspective, we have increased capacity and are braced for high demand for these services, not least because people are unable or unwilling to utilise their local clinic for non-coronavirus health issues. In Pakistan, we are partnering directly with the Government to bolster their health service offer. For our health programmes, we are running as fast as we can to get information out on prevention, local guidelines, dealing with symptoms, mental and physical wellbeing, with some myth busting thrown in for good measure. I have to write an easily understandable, actionable message in 160 characters or less to fit the parameters of our SMS allowance (never have words seemed so valuable or so long!). Cultural context must be accounted for and the fact that my English version will be translated by our local teams in to languages such as Bengali, Urdu and Twi, before being sent out to millions of people who do not have an NHS equivalent, and who have limited reliable sources of information beyond this SMS delivered to their mobile phone.  

Coronavirus has also been the catalyst for putting out our health messages to people who do not have insurance in the countries where we work. Through websites, apps, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, these evidence based health messages are translated into visual images that allow people with smartphones the opportunity to gather reliable knowledge as to how we can all effectively fight this pandemic. 

In the UK, I think that we are still wary of digital health. We have heard about virtual doctor surgeries and the concerns that they are not as effective as in person consultations. I think that as we become more comfortable with technology, these concerns will diminish. This global pandemic is in a way aiding this adoption process. In the Countries where this mHealth service is working, we are already filling a gap where the number of doctors per head of population is simply not compatible with offering everyone who needs it an in-person consultation, particularly in the face of a global pandemic. Furthermore, providing accurate, personalised, health information to millions of people through their mobile phones has the potential to revolutionise our approach to ensuring population health. For coronavirus, these messages are designed to encourage people to keep safe and well by following the best guidelines, based on the best evidence that we have.  

If I am called back to the NHS frontline, of course I will go. But whilst I am in my shed, if our work is able to alleviate even a small amount of the stress on overstretched health systems around the world in the coming months, I am very grateful and proud to have had the opportunity to contribute to such an essential endeavour. 

Written by Rebecca Cooper

The recent guidance published by the UK Government on mental health and wellbeing during Covid-19 was a welcome addition to the various guidance and resources provided to support us to manage the pandemic.

There is no public health without public mental health, and communicable disease control is no exception.

Direct impacts of the virus through illness, loss of loved ones, and anxiety around contagion are mixed with the effects of control measures – self-isolation, social distancing, and changes in social and material circumstances can all have a detrimental effect on mental health and wellbeing and also have the potential to widen existing inequalities in mental health.

As public health professionals, our role is to manage the acute response to the virus and mitigate its short-term effects, and also to ensure that wider systems are in place to protect against collateral damage and support the ‘recovery and repair’ phase and beyond. From a public mental health perspective, this means providing advice and guidance on how to maintain wellbeing during the pandemic, ensuring access to further support when required (including maintaining access to services for those currently receiving care), and using the opportunity created by the pandemic to embed resilience and wellbeing at a population level over the longer term.

As well as limiting the harm directly caused by Covid-19, we need to be vigilant for where control measures may exacerbate existing adversity or place people at additional risk. Where someone’s home is not a place of safety, or when they do not have ready access to essentials such as food and medicine, social distancing and self-isolation may place them at greater risk of harm. In addition, now is a good time to consider information about the impact of stress and social isolation on harmful health behaviours (e.g. smoking, alcohol and substance use), mental health and even the immune response.  It may also be appropriate to examine the links between external stressors and the incidence of domestic violence and child abuse.

While much of the current focus is understandably on mitigating the harmful impacts of the virus, a number of unexpected positive impacts have emerged as a result of social distancing measures. Communities have mobilised to support those who are alone and vulnerable. Increases in remote working have led to improved air quality and better work-life balance. Innovative use of technology has widened access to events and the arts. Exercise has been reframed as an opportunity rather than a chore, with people keen to enjoy being outdoors. Sustaining improvements in social capital once the pandemic is over and harnessing these benefits in a way that includes everyone, particularly the most marginalised, is key to promoting cohesion and wellbeing in communities.

Because we are part of the populations we serve, and have the same challenges, worries and limitations this also means being a role model. Looking after our own wellbeing is something we often neglect particularly in times of crisis, but now it is especially important. While much of the world slows down, workload has increased for many working in public health, whether at home or in the office and whilst we may secretly want to be, we are not superheroes. We are parents, carers, spouses, friends. Some of us may be vulnerable or even extremely vulnerable to the effects of Covid-19, or have loved ones that are. And just like anyone else, we can be scared, anxious, exhausted and overwhelmed.

Our own health and wellbeing is vital to being able to give the best service we can, and so taking our own advice becomes as much a matter of good public health practice as one of individual necessity. Those of us with management responsibility also have a duty of care to our teams, and to ensure that we model good practice as well as support them to stay well and healthy at work.

The Public Mental Health SIG is collating information and resources on maintaining and enhancing mental wellbeing and on mental health more generally, in times of Covid-19, which can be found here.

This addresses the wealth of evidence and good practice currently available to support and improve population mental wellbeing, which can be drawn on in relation to both the acute response and the legacy impact of Covid-19.

While the ‘normal’ we go back to may look quite different to the one we left behind, we know what works – the challenge will be in how we apply that knowledge to take care of ourselves and others.

Written by Lina Martino, Chair of FPH’s Public Mental Health SIG

With thanks to Professor Sarah Stewart-Brown (Professor of Public Health, Warwick University) and Dr Vaishnavee Madden (Consultant in Public Health, Ealing Council)

Each day that public health in England fails to adhere to basic public health control methods the cost to the country grows. Public health’s reactions to the epidemic have been hesitant, limited, centralised and unconventional. It is as though the senior staff still think this is an influenza epidemic. Now is the time for an ambitious public health response. The government say they are following scientific advice. Our public health leaders should listen to colleagues in the far east and to Public Health Directors in our own local authorities.

Public health in England is quite capable of seizing the opportunity and rapidly

  • Reorienting its purpose from mitigation to control and elimination
  • Setting up a robust case finding and contact tracing function at local authority level
  • Devolving disease controls to local authorities to allow divergent and locally appropriate responses to future outbreaks
  • Requiring the control of travel where necessary
  • Explaining that control must precede easing of physical distancing measures and this will be achieved quicker in some parts of the country than others
  • Explaining the key role each member of the public has if they become unwell.

According to the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), the GDP in the UK will shrink by 35% in the second Quarter 2 of the fiscal year on account of the COVID-19 lockdown. The cost during the period of ‘full lockdown’ from 23rd March to 7th May will be about £92 billion. This is equivalent to £2 billion a day (1). Is there anyway the public health measures in the UK could have reduced the lockdown period and saved some of this cost? What strategy will minimise costs in the future?

Different countries have used alternative approaches. The successful ones so far have gone for elimination not mitigation. Elimination requires rapid isolation of all known cases and contacts, which in turn requires prompt identification of cases and contacts within hours not days. Successful control means universal physical distancing is not necessary because targeted isolation of cases and contacts is sufficient to curtail the epidemic. This level of control has been achieved in countries using this approach (2–6). How successful has public health in England been in each phase of the epidemic?

The COVID-19 epidemic can be considered to have three phases – (i) the containment phase which seeks to eliminate the virus infection from the population, followed if this fails by (ii) the mitigation phase, which in many countries including the UK has matured into a suppression phase, which seeks to minimise the effects of the epidemic by suppressing transmission, followed when successful by (iii) the control phase which seeks to re-establish containment.

Containment phase
WHO declared the outbreak was a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on 31st January and in the UK the containment phase was abandoned seven weeks later on 23rd March. The first case was identified on 1st January and by 23rd March 5,683 cases had been identified including 335 hospital deaths. Public Health England (PHE) has not published details of what exactly it did during this phase, but one can assume it was case finding, contact tracing and isolation of travellers from infected countries. Apparently, this activity stopped when the containment phase was abandoned. The failure to contain the epidemic at this stage has cost the country a massive sum both in terms of health and socio-economic wellbeing.

Mitigation phase
The lockdown began on 23rd March. It has succeeded in supressing transmission to the extent that the NHS has not been overwhelmed. Five weeks into the mitigation phase while the rate of new deaths is falling there is no control of the epidemic. Control requires an understanding of the state of the epidemic from surveillance, complete case finding and contact tracing. What could have been done to gain control of the epidemic during this phase?

For the first time since the start of the epidemic on 23rd April PHE published a COVID-19 surveillance report describing details of the available surveillance data (7). The report, updated weekly, contains no analysis and minimal commentary. It contains no mention of:

  • An estimate of the number of actual rather than known cases by age and sex
  • The number of contacts traced per case by risk category, average time since case identification, test result and trace failure
  • The specificity and sensitivity of the tests in use
  • An estimate of the number of asymptomatic cases
  • The current reproduction number for each region
  • The number, size and location of outbreaks.

These figures are required to gain an understanding of the epidemic and its control. Some countries provide these estimates on a daily, weekly or fortnightly basis.

Case finding and contact tracing
No system of notification and control

Case finding and contact tracing were abandoned at the start of the mitigation phase for no publicised reason. Perhaps public health wanted to reserve tests for NHS cases. Testing never has been an essential component of case finding in public health and a shortage of tests is not a valid excuse to stop contact tracing. The European Centre for Disease Control (ECDC) has updated guidance on contact tracing with or without testing (8). PHE still has not provided similar information needed to build up the system here:

  • A case definition and recommended follow up actions
  • Contact definitions and recommended follow up action
  • A streamlined notification system including a database system such as the WHO’s Go.data tool to assist staff at local level and staff centrally
  • Instructions for 111 call centres, GPs, hospitals and care homes to use the database.

Too little, too late
On 24th April the Government announced the recommencement of case finding and contact tracing in England. A meagre 18,000 people will be involved initially. Much reliance seems to be placed on a new and untested smart phone application. The number to be recruited seems symptomatic of the inability to appreciate the need to control the epidemic and how to do this expeditiously and at scale.

The number of people required to successfully identify, test and contact trace varies from local authority to local authority (9). The number of staff required will fall as the number of new cases falls, which in China in provinces other than Hubei was 5.5% a day after the peak of cases (5). A recent report taking into account changes in case definition suggests a decay rate of 18% a day (10). In two weeks’ time by 6th May the numbers will be 1.6/1000 population or five times the number proposed by the Government (Table 1). Staff numbers required will be less if the decay rate is nearer 18% so the numbers for the 6th May in Table 1 are conservative. If our lockdown measures are less effective than in China then the staff numbers required will need to be somewhat higher.

Table 1 – Personnel required to test and trace contacts by English region


Not going local
If contact tracing had been built up from the start, it is clear from the regional figures in Table 1 that the East of England, the North West, the South East and the South West with half the number of deaths for their size as compared to the other regions would have been able to handle the number of cases by now. The economies of these regions which represent two thirds of the nation’s population could have been gradually resumed between 22nd April and 28th April.

The remaining high incidence regions should have been able to take control soon after 6th May. There would not have been the need to maintain economic shutdown after that date if the contact tracing system had been built up and working.

The socio-economic cost of the public health strategy so far
The cost of the lockdown from 23rd March to 7th May will be about £92 billion. The lockdown could have been eased 14 days earlier in the low incident regions if they had taken control of the epidemic then. This would have saved £15 billion of the lockdown cost (Table 2). Each day the lockdown continues past 7th May will cost an additional £1.7 billion.

Table 2 – Estimate of cost of delayed control of epidemic in England


Getting back on track – the potential gains
The control phase
Each day the control phase is delayed will cost the country £2 billion. But the control phase can only safely be initiated when the mitigation phase has reduced new cases to a level which can be handled by case finding and contact tracing.

This phase will be difficult and will need to last until herd immunity stops transmission. It requires rapid 100% case finding and contact tracing, an ability to enforce quarantine and travel restrictions and local knowledge and resources to investigate and deal with outbreaks.

Case finding and contact tracing
For case finding and contact tracing to be effective:

  • Every new case must be found and isolated within 24 hours and the source of the infection identified if possible
  • All close contacts need to be identified within two days and isolated for 14 days or until a negative test result
  • Isolation needs to be monitored daily to ensure compliance.

The following points need to be emphasised: –

  • Testing is helpful but not necessary to identify cases, which can be done on a symptoms only basis. The workload will be higher as two thirds of suspected cases will not actually have the virus but manageable (9). Clinical judgement is required as the test is not 100% sensitive with a proportion of false negative results inevitably emerging.
  • Unlike influenza the longer incubation period of Covid-19 allows contact isolation to be the key to successful control. Basically there are three days to find and quarantine the high-risk contacts (11).
  • Contact tracing apps would help but are not essential; the higher the uptake the easier will be the listing of contacts. Again the number of volunteers required to undertake the work is manageable. Table 1 does not assume an app will be available.
  • Management of case identification and tracing contacts can only be done at local authority level as the amount of detail of the local population, geography, community, health staff and laboratory is only available locally.
  • Travel restrictions between regions will be needed if the source of more than a handful of new infections comes from outside the region.

Outbreak investigation and control
Until a vaccine provides herd immunity the control phase will be punctuated by local outbreaks with the potential for one or more very large outbreaks. As already appreciated in New Zealand which has just entered the control phase these outbreaks will need to be anticipated and dealt with expeditiously (12). Local teams will help each other when necessary.

What preparations have been made to set up these control measures?
It appears that the system is trying to keep controls at central and regional levels, presumably because they have no staff of their own at local level (13). It is difficult to see how control is possible unless:

  • local authorities who have the local experts available including directors of public health, health visitors and environmental health officers are given responsibility for case finding, contact tracing, enforcement of quarantine and travel restrictions
  • surveillance is available at regional level.

Lifting the lockdown and cutting costs
Every day control is delayed will cost £2 billion. Control will be achieved in different regions at different times. Lockdown can be lifted as soon as the epidemic is under control in each region. The local economy can then emerge. To wait for the last region to achieve control will frustrate the rest of the country. Decentralised decisions about universal physical distancing measures will reduce costs.

Here is an identifiable public health strategy, other than the one the Government seems to be adopting, which would save a lot of money, allow restrictions to be eased in different parts of the country depending on the state of infections, and allow us to remain generally on top of the pandemic until a vaccine becomes available. Our public health leaders should listen to colleagues in the far east and Lewis, the Dauphin “Strong reasons make strong actions. If you say, ay, the king will not say no.” (Shakespeare; King John, Act III, Scene IV).

Written Dr Cam Bowie, retired director of public health, Somerset and professor of community health, Malawi. cam.bowie1@gmail.com. Axminster, EX13 5BL

1. OBR. Coronavirus reference scenarios [Internet]. Office for Budget Responsibility. [cited 2020 Apr 29]. Available from: https://obr.uk/coronavirus-reference-scenario/

2. Ng Y. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Surveillance and Containment Measures for the First 100 Patients with COVID-19 in Singapore — January 2–February 29, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 7];69. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6911e1.htm

3. Song J-Y, Yun J-G, Noh J-Y, Cheong H-J, Kim W-J. Covid-19 in South Korea — Challenges of Subclinical Manifestations. N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 6;0(0):null.

4. Wang CJ, Ng CY, Brook RH. Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan: Big Data Analytics, New Technology, and Proactive Testing. JAMA. 2020 Apr 14;323(14):1341–2.

5. Leung K, Wu JT, Liu D, Leung GM. First-wave COVID-19 transmissibility and severity in China outside Hubei after control measures, and second-wave scenario planning: a modelling impact assessment. Lancet Lond Engl. 2020 25;395(10233):1382–93.

6. Cowling BJ, Ali ST, Ng TWY, Tsang TK, Li JCM, Fong MW, et al. Impact assessment of non-pharmaceutical interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 and influenza in Hong Kong: an observational study. Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr 17;

7. PHE. Weekly COVID-19 surveillance report published [Internet]. GOV.UK. [cited 2020 Apr 25]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/weekly-covid-19-surveillance-report-published

8. ECDC. Contact tracing: Public health management of persons, including healthcare workers, having had contact with COVID-19 cases in the European Union – second update [Internet]. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 28]. Available from: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19-contact-tracing-public-health-management

9. Bowie C, Hill A. Re: Is it possible to implement the proposals in the Editorial ‘Covid-19: why is the UK government ignoring WHO’s advice? (1)’. 2020 Apr 29 [cited 2020 Apr 29]; Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/368/bmj.m1284/rr-9

10. Tsang TK, Wu P, Lin Y, Lau EHY, Leung GM, Cowling BJ. Effect of changing case definitions for COVID-19 on the epidemic curve and transmission parameters in mainland China: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2020 Apr 21;

11. Baker M, Kvalsvig A, Verrall AJ, Telfar-Barnard L, Wilson N. New Zealand’s elimination strategy for the COVID-19 pandemic and what is required to make it work. N Z Med J. 2020 03;133(1512):10–4.

12. Rapid Audit of Contact Tracing for COVID-19 in New Zealand [Internet]. Ministry of Health NZ. [cited 2020 Apr 30]. Available from: https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/rapid-audit-contact-tracing-covid-19-new-zealand

13. Pollock AM, Roderick P, Cheng KK, Pankhania B. Covid-19: why is the UK government ignoring WHO’s advice? BMJ. 2020 30;368:m1284.