Track and Trace issues
On Tuesday, February 16, my 98-year-old mother was taken to East Surrey Hospital by ambulance. I heard later that she had tested positive for Covid-19. She died later that day.
As primary contacts, my husband and I immediately began self-isolating. We phoned the care companies involved in Mum’s care, the GP, and the community nursing service, to tell them she had tested positive, so they could take precautions.
We both eventually tested positive for Covid-19.
On Saturday, February 27 (11 days after we began self-isolating), Track and Trace called, identifying me as a contact of my mother’s, that I might have Covid-19 and should stay at home. They also wanted to trace her contacts. Despite my assurances that I had already told all her contacts, the caller insisted on the completion of the survey. I was now feeling quite unwell, so she offered to ring back.
Someone phoned again on Monday, March 1. Although I thought it was a waste of time by now, I agreed to answer.
The call was a farce. The caller wanted to know when and where Mum had been in the 48 hours before she died.
Mum had barely been out since the first lockdown. Her contacts were the people who came into her home, primarily NHS and Social care workers, Tony and me.
When I explained this, she was going to ring off. I insisted she took the details of the care companies, but she refused the NHS contacts. The call took under 10 minutes.
Later that day (March 1), I received a standard text response telling me that I should self-isolate until February 26!
The ludicrous delay between Mum’s diagnosis and this Track and Trace call could have seriously increased the spread of Covid-19 had we not known what was needed without their help.
Norfolk and Suffolk county councils have taken over responsibility for Track and Trace from the national service.
The Liberal Democrats believe that West Sussex should be allowed to do this too, and a Lib Dem County Council would press hard for the necessary powers, as we believe that a local service would be much more efficient and effective.
Prior to this item being discussed by the Committee, there was what I can only describe as a diatribe from councillor Donnelly during the course of which he asserted Rookwood had been haemorrhaging money for many, many years and should be sold without further ado.
Apart from a passing reference to an email circulated to councillors on February 10, which of course can’t be disclosed to us mere mortals as it’s been classified confidential, there was nothing to substantiate this outburst from councillor Donnelly.
This is just one more example of councillors intimating via innuendo that Rookwood is a financial liability without producing evidence to support their assertions.
In 2011, councillor Chowen commissioned an independent report on Leisure Futures which noted ‘the council obtains significant financial benefit from its golf course at Rookwood and should retain it and work with the operators to seek reinvestment to enhance viability of the site’.
Clearly HDC has not done this and appears intent on running down the facility to justify its redevelopment.
If as has been suggested by councillor Donnelly and others Rookwood has been in a financial mess for years why on earth did the council renew the lease in 2019?
Rather than continue to cast unsubstantiated aspersions it is time HDC came clean on Rookwood’s finances with some actual figures as the only ones we have seen tell a different story to that conveyed by councillor Donnelly.
Inevitably the item proposed by the member of the public which raised some highly relevant issues was kicked into the long grass and deferred until the next meeting by which time no doubt the cabinet will hope to have their local plan adopted.