The People's Panel - COVID-19: research findings

Research Findings

The discussions regarding COVID-19, ventilation measures and CO₂ monitors were conducted across five panel events (see appendix C for the discussion questions).

Diverse experiences and varied perspectives of the pandemic

The first panel event, in June 2022, began by exploring the panel members’ experiences of the pandemic, asking them how these years had been for them.

This section presents the findings under the following themes:

• Loss
• Polarised views
• Sadness and anger
• Positives

Loss

Panel members shared stories of various losses during the pandemic. This included losing loved ones, experiencing a decline in physical and mental health, a loss of confidence, social connections, and income.

“I have three sons, two lost jobs, one went through all savings and now in debt. I'm working again but I'm in debt. My other son is not in debt but has suffered mentally.”

Particularly, older panel members expressed a deep sense of loss of time, missing out on moments with their families, especially new-born relatives.

“I’m not able to meet my grandchild who was born during the pandemic. I was not able to go and see them or support them during the time of the birth. This was a huge thing for me. I did spend some time earlier in the pandemic wondering if I would ever see them again.”

Relationships were affected and lost due to the pandemic.

“I lost a close family member during this time, and I didn't get to say goodbye to them. The last years on the planet were not worth what they should have been.”

Alongside hobbies, travel, and perceptions of freedom.

[Member of local folk club]: “That wasn’t happening either. Found singing alone to a screen of muted faces horrible and never did it again.”

Polarised views

There was a split in viewpoints among the panel members. There were those who felt that the pandemic was exaggerated, and they considered the protective measures unnecessary. It was felt that governments wanted to instil fear for the purpose of population control.

“How far could they [government] go to get people to follow rules? Mask-wearing rules. How far could they push people, because it was worldwide, somebody is pulling strings.”

Others believed that money was being made through the handling of the pandemic, including by ‘big pharma’^[20].

Other members believed that the protective measures were crucial and were lifted too quickly.

“There is a general consensus that it’s over. It may be over for lots of people, but not everyone. Many are still worried, and this will increase going into winter.”

While acknowledging the necessity of protective measures, the harm associated with some measures was also discussed. For example, the negative impact of social isolation on children, elderly individuals, and care home residents, as well as the challenges in accessing healthcare.

Sadness and anger

Despite the polarised views on protective measures, panel members shared common emotions of overwhelming sadness and extreme anger in response to the effects of the pandemic. These feelings of sadness and anger were rooted in the personal experiences of panel members, and the perceived failures of those in power to adequately address the issues arising from the pandemic.

Some panel members felt frustrated and disappointed with the UK Government’s handling of the pandemic, holding them responsible for the negative impact it had on their lives.

“I think the UK government is an absolute disgrace. I feel very, very angry about how they function, the things they have done over the past few years.”

Panel members also expressed frustration with the National Health Service (NHS). They voiced concerns about the long waiting lists for medical care, the lack of funding for the healthcare system, and the difficulties they faced in accessing the necessary healthcare services.

“When I moved here a while ago, I spoke to a GP about my mood, and I was told the waiting list was 18 months. You need to see someone tomorrow. The NHS is lovely, and the people who work in it are doing their best, but the NHS is lacking in a lot of areas, probably all because of money.”

Positives

Despite the challenges and personal losses experienced during the pandemic, panel members also reported positive experiences.

The opportunity to work from home (for those who were able to) was considered a positive outcome and a “privilege”. Members appreciated the flexibility and convenience it provided, along with the benefits of saving time and money. Working remotely also contributed to a sense of safety and reduced exposure to potential health risks.

“Remote working has made life better for so many disabled people I know.”

Panel members reported increased interactions with neighbours, which helped strengthen community bonds and create a sense of belonging. Spending more quality time with their children and family members was another positive aspect that emerged.

These positive experiences, whether through remote work, strengthened social connections, newfound hobbies, or volunteering, served as sources of resilience, hope, and personal growth during a challenging period. They highlighted the ability of individuals to adapt, find joy in small moments, and discover inner strengths amidst adversity.

Perceptions of safety and risk of COVID-19 transmission

The panel members reflected on factors that made them feel unsafe or at risk of catching COVID-19 under the following themes:

• Feeling unsafe
• Fear of other people
• Feeling safe
• Information and feelings of safety
• Trust in the Scottish Government guidance

Feeling unsafe

The event was held (24 June 2022) just as levels of COVID-19 cases were increasing in Scotland.^[21] As such, many panel members reported feeling unsafe and at risk from hospitalisation, long COVID, and death. The risk was felt more acutely by members with higher risk of complications from COVID-19, including disabled people, people with underlying health conditions and members from ethnic minority backgrounds.

“I feel vulnerable on public transport, a lot of anxiety to travel with new born and vulnerable partner.”

This fear was compounded by two main perceptions: that there is a lack of public understanding on the dangers of COVID-19 and long COVID, and there is complacency towards the health of the vulnerable.

“To me it’s the worry I’m going to stand next to someone who hasn’t taken precautions which will mitigate all the precautions I’ve taken over the last few years, and that makes me much less likely to go out because I don’t want to be around people who will make me sick.”

Members felt most unsafe in poorly ventilated, crowded indoor spaces (see the section on ventilation). The following settings were singled out:

• Public transport - busy, poorly ventilated, lack of mask wearing, unable to physically distance.
• Clinical settings - hospitals, GP and dentist surgeries. Although members said these were the only public places where they feel safe, others pointed out they were still at risk if, for example, the areas were busy. Further, members pointed out that getting to the appointments presented issues if they rely on public transport. Some members said the lack of safety deterred them altogether from attending such places and therefore accessing healthcare.
• Hospitality / entertainment venues - Some noted there was a difference between central belt versus highland/island communities, with the latter being more cautious.

Fear of other people

Members expressed heightened mistrust and fear towards other people particularly when they saw people not wearing face masks or keeping a physical distance. This was perceived to indicate a lack of compassion for others, and those more vulnerable.

“Doesn’t feel like people care about the responsibility for keeping others safe.”

These feelings of judgment and mistrust were perceived to have longer-term damaging consequences:

“It shows a lack of compassion for others, which is a big thing these days, we thought pandemic would bring us together but it hasn’t. There are big divisions in society these days and with covid some people show a real lack of compassion for others and their choices.”

Feeling safe

In contrast, observing people taking precautions helped members to feel safer.

“I feel safer when you can see other people, like the public, are taking precautions and thinking about what they’re doing. That makes me feel safer when say the person looks at me and moves away a bit, whether they want to give me space or what not.”

For those who were at increased risk from COVID-19, they wore face coverings, they tested (using rapid lateral flow tests) before going into company, distanced themselves from other people in public places, limited their contact with others, ventilated spaces (and asked others to do so) and held events outside or online. They told us that they tried to avoid some environments altogether.

“Don’t go to supermarkets, but it’s tiring. Try to avoid them, and other places that are busy. Have not been to many events since the start of the pandemic.”

Members acknowledged that most of these precautions have cost implications and place a burden in different ways on those who feel most unsafe.

“Testing, unaffordable. No access to PCR tests.”

Information and feelings of safety

Although Scottish Government information was sometimes praised, in particular the First Minister’s televised briefings, the end of regular updates made some feel less safe. It was felt there was a gap in clear information sources, leading to a confusing picture and uncertainty about what to do. In particular, members commented that the changes to the testing regime, and how figures are reported, made it harder to understand the current COVID-19 landscape and assess their risk.

“People had to stay home when having symptoms before, but now when that’s gone, it feels less safe. When masking mandate ended, few people continued to wear them.”

Members have used various means to fill the gap in information, including news sources and friends.

“There was an imbalance of information which was very confusing. I had to rely on people to explain things to me so I did not take the wrong information on board.”

However, members were also worried about misinformation, and how it was spreading due to the perceived lack of official information.

“Something else makes me feel unsafe, if I see something on social media or I hear someone coming out with their opinion and presenting it as facts, but I’m not aware of it being science, those opinions make me worry.”

There was acknowledgement that engagement with less credible information sources can stem from an intention to be informed and ‘do the right thing,’ and can sometimes reflect difficulty in understanding technical, nuanced information against a changing landscape.

Trust in the Scottish Government guidance

At the start of the pandemic most members reflected that they had high levels of trust in the Scottish Government guidance. This had changed, for some, over time. A common view amongst the members was that the Scottish Government had good intentions but it was difficult to keep up with guidance that was rapidly changing.

“I thought Scottish Government guidance was measured, and explained properly. I know people struggled with guidance constantly changing, and it was detailed so you had to dig into written versions to check on specific things you were doing. But at same time it was all there. You could go to someone and say ‘I’m confused can you please explain this’.”

It was suggested by some that this was not true of the UK Government.

“Scottish Government was more consistent than UK government. More measured and thought out better, and explained better. Not always getting it right, but they try to explain why they’re asking you to do something. So you’re more likely to follow guidance if you know where it’s coming from.”

Notwithstanding the above, there was a view expressed by some members, that while Scottish Government COVID-19 actions and messaging was “gold-standard” at the start of the pandemic, this had declined. Trust in Scottish Government, particularly for those at higher risk to COVID, had waned. On this shift, some noted that the ‘almost silence [from the Scottish Government and First Minister on COVID-19] is disconcerting’, and for others this signalled a permanent erosion of trust in Scottish Government.

Members’ attitudes and concerns towards COVID-19 and potential protective measures for autumn and winter 2022/23

At the first People's Panel event (June 2022), members shared their experiences of loss and suffering during the COVID-19 pandemic. Event 3, held in September 2022, aimed to explore their current feelings as we approached the autumn and winter months.

The panel members’ responses were covered in the following themes:

• Anxiety and frustration
• Unconcerned members

Anxiety and frustration

Many People’s Panel members were concerned because they did not consider the virus to be under control.

“There is no evidence that it [COVID] is under control at the moment.”

Members felt that other people (e.g. employers, the wider public) did not share their concern, and they perceived that the Scottish Government was not taking any action. They felt that neither the Scottish or UK Government would bring in any protective measures to help them stay safe.

“You would be a fool to believe that everything is hunky dory. But employers are not taking this seriously, retailers not taking it seriously, nothing is being imposed by the Scottish Government. The buck stops with Scottish Government, we must have some protocols in place until COVID is under control.”

As in the previous event in June 2022, we found that concerned members wanted to return to wearing face coverings in public places and accessing free LFTs (Lateral Flow Tests). Further, they also wanted sanitisation in public places (“trolleys in Tesco”) and physical distancing to become the norm, once more.

Members of the Panel who described themselves as immunosuppressed or at high-risk, or had family members who identified as higher risk were taking protective measures, such as staying at home where possible. They felt that they were having to stay at home because others were not taking precautions.

“We are currently locked up. What about the damage to disabled people who are still locked up. If numbers [of COVID infections] could be cut in half it would be easier to manage that risk, you could get out again to do things that keep us sane.”

Members also stressed the importance to them of getting accurate up-to-date information - they saw this as a key protective measure in itself.

They were, however, aware of the difficulty of getting messages across to the general public, a phenomenon that some described as “COVID fatigue”. This manifested as the general public perceiving that COVID-19 was over that, and that messaging about the virus had become a backdrop that people were “not seeing” anymore. For example, not looking at posters or listening to any communications about COVID-19.

“Communication is not working anymore as people [are] numb to it – its background noise.”

Some members thought about how widespread behaviour change could help them.

“If only the reintroduction of masks. If everyone did that except those who are exempt, then it would instantly change the game, it wouldn’t stop every infection but could stop some”

Unconcerned members

There was a minority of members in the panel who expressed being unconcerned about COVID-19. Their opinions stood in stark contrast to those of the panel members who had experienced significant impacts from the virus. It is important to note that the People’s Panel does not aim to bring these opposing viewpoints together for resolution; rather, they are facilitated separately but asked the same questions. We present these opinions here to provide insight into this alternative perspective and foster better understanding.

This small group of People’s Panel members reported that COVID-19 would not have any impact on their lives, both in the present and throughout the upcoming autumn and winter seasons.

“COVID is a non-event.”

When asked about the reasons behind their lack of concern, they expressed a belief that COVID-19 is a relatively harmless illness and that the reported death rates have been exaggerated.

“It has no impact on me. You would need to have a 50% death rate before I started to be terrified. It would have to be a virus so deadly that you wouldn't leave your house.”

These members did not fear COVID-19 and, in most cases, had not taken any protective measures throughout the entire pandemic period.

“I've never worn a mask or been vaccinated.”

It is important to acknowledge that these viewpoints differ significantly from the majority of panel members who have experienced losses and expressed concerns about the virus. By presenting these contrasting perspectives, the intention is to highlight the range of opinions and foster a better understanding of the diverse viewpoints within the People’s Panel.

The significance of ventilation as a protection against respiratory illnesses

Events two and three were specifically designed around a Scottish Government ventilation action plan. In session two the objective was to enhance the members’ understanding and awareness of ventilation and gather the opinions on ventilation as a means to reduce the risk of infections. Prior to session three, the research team sent all the members a copy of the online refreshed guidance for ventilation. The new ventilation guidance for domestic settings is part of the current Ventilation - Coronavirus (COVID-19): staying well and protecting others - gov.scot (www.gov.scot) guidance, hosted on the Scottish Government website.

The panel members’ responses were analysed under the following themes:

• Awareness
• Personal action on ventilation
• Responsibility
• Guidance on ventilation
• Clarity of the guidance
• Impact of the guidance
• The priority of ventilating public spaces

Awareness

Members were highly aware that ventilation can help to reduce the spread of respiratory infections.

For some members, the idea of ventilation started with opening windows, vents and doors to let air through. Others went on to talk about air cleaning technologies including for example, HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filters and CO₂ monitors.

“Instead of just opening windows a CO₂ meter or something similar could be considered.”

However, the amount and type of information that is in the public domain was criticised.

“There needs to be more research about what works and what doesn’t. Find out the costing of ventilation being put in place. More information rather than just opening windows, is there access to research that Scottish Government has done about ventilation outwith its own research. I know risk increases when there’s more people in a room, how does this risk change if you are close to window/far away etc?”

Members mentioned the negative effects of ventilation but this was largely related to opening windows and doors in the winter and being cold.

“Good ventilation should not equate to being cold.”

This was a particular concern for children in schools; some members felt it was better for children (and others) to dress warmly and open windows whereas others disagreed and thought that being cold was more dangerous than respiratory illness (including COVID-19).

“A grandkid in school having all the windows open all day during last winter, and the kids being very cold, which could lead to other issues.”

The cost of fuel was raised as a serious barrier to people opening windows to ventilate their homes, particularly in winter. They pointed out that businesses may also be less inclined to pay for heat that is escaping through the windows and doors.

Personal action on ventilation

Members talked about incidents where they actively opened windows in public places, and times they wanted to, but didn’t feel able.

“I only travel with partner, and if on the bus and windows are closed, we open them. Before the pandemic, I got assaulted because I wanted to open a window!”

Members have avoided shops, sports centres, churches, polling stations, anywhere with children and even avoided having friends and family round to their homes because of a lack of (or perceived lack of) ventilation.

“[I’ve] not had anyone in [my] home for two years”

Others said that they had stopped going on public transport or into public places as they had no way of knowing how well-ventilated they were.

“I don’t use public transport, don’t trust other passengers to keep me safe. I have only been on a bus once since start of pandemic!”

For some, the weather (e.g. wind), noise, traffic pollution, insects and heating costs were a disincentive not to ventilate their home. Many expressed that they would not follow the advice to open windows and doors, even slightly, during the winter months, due to the financial implications through lost heat.

“I would like to have windows open, but don’t want to feel cold. And don’t want to let in midges! Some places that are windy and cold, and with heating costs going up. It needs to be accessible to more people.”

Responsibility

In general, there was a shared belief across the panel that clean air benefits everyone and is of high public value. Therefore, the responsibility must lie with central and local government to produce guidance for ventilating buildings.

Standards of ventilation should be explicit, recorded, enforced and inspected, as for example, food hygiene measures are in hospitality settings.

“I would like to see more robust guidelines on servicing air conditioning units, and more of a drive to actually do it.”

Others had a view that ventilation should be a legal requirement rather than just guidance and the government had a role in appointing a regulator to enforce the regulations. In addition, it was felt that the government has a role in helping building owners, most especially small businesses, by funding the installation of ventilation systems.

Some members did not think there is enough investment in ventilation, given it is a vital need. This viewpoint was underpinned by the belief that the requirement to have clean air is the same as having access to clean water.

“Right to clean water, so why is clean air not a priority also.”

Those who were generally unsupportive of the protective measures put in place during the pandemic, were particularly against ventilation measures, if they were ‘only’ to mitigate against COVID-19.

Guidance on ventilation

Members felt that there was a general lack of awareness among the population regarding the importance of ventilation.

“Messaging has been weak and confused on this.”

In line with the findings on responsibility, panel members suggested that the guidance should be translated into a practical ‘checklist’ format and prominently displayed in every building. Some panel members saw this as a crucial step in returning to a more ‘normal’ way of life, as they still had apprehensions about public gatherings due to inadequate ventilation.

Regarding the guidance itself, they emphasised the need for clear, consistent and concise guidance without being overly simplified, developed in collaboration with the target audiences.

“Not only audience but also location/type of building should be taken into account as not all measures work in all situations.”

Clarity of the guidance

There were mixed views regarding the clarity of the refreshed ventilation guidance, ranging from those who felt it was clear and easy to understand to those who found it difficult and in some cases, impossible, to read and follow. They suggested using less formal language and making the guidance more accessible. For example, simplifying the terminology used, such as using ‘breathing’ instead of ‘respiratory’ and using short, concise, and memorable messages.

The use of visuals, such as pictures, was proposed to accompany the text and help explain concepts like trickle vents or how to allow more fresh air to circulate.

Members, who held specific views about the pandemic and believed that the threat from COVID-19 had been over-exaggerated, objected to the guidance on ventilation in principle, perceiving it as a form of a ‘nanny state’. These members felt that any guidance on ventilation was unnecessary.

Additionally, some members recognised the challenges in wording the guidance appropriately since different people have different needs and perspectives.

“Honestly, I don’t think there is a good way of wording this. The problem is you're trying to say something simple and obvious. People who are worried about COVID will do it anyway. People who aren't will not.”

They also highlighted the difficulty of striking a balance between recommending that people open windows for ventilation and addressing concerns about the potential financial impact of doing so.

Impact of the guidance

There was concern that the guidance might not effectively reach the intended audience, particularly if it remains “buried” on the Scottish Government website. To broaden its reach, suggestions were made to utilise electronic advertisement boards, mainstream media platforms, or even distribute physical leaflets that can be displayed prominently.

“A leaflet to put on my fridge”

Additionally, discussions touched upon the need for a culture change to make ventilation practices more widespread and ingrained. Some panel members argued that ventilation should become second nature to individuals and emphasised that achieving this cultural shift would require a long-term process of education and awareness.

“Actually, we need a culture change to make this happen, it needs to become second nature, that’s a long term thing. Can’t be enforced!”

The priority of ventilating public spaces

It was raised that the emphasis should not solely be on ventilating homes, but rather on prioritising the ventilation of public places. Members described focusing on homes as a “waste of time” and suggested that resources should be allocated to educate the public on how to maintain safety outside their homes. There was a strong sentiment that the Scottish Government should take more robust action in promoting and enforcing ventilation practices in businesses, schools, GP surgeries, public transport (including buses), and other communal areas.

This would then encourage some members to use the service or business as they felt safer.

“If places have signs on ventilation and virus-killing devices, that would make me feel safer, but I would still wear a mask!”

The role of CO₂ monitors in public spaces

At the start of event 5 (27th January 2023) the members were given a 10-minute introduction to CO₂ monitors, including details of a pilot scheme that was running in schools and the proposals for widening the scheme to other publicly accessible places. The use of CO₂ monitors in spaces with public access was discussed in the group sessions.

This section presents the findings under the following themes:

• Lack of trust
• Evidence of effectiveness
• Recognising the value of CO₂ monitors
• Clear and accessible messaging

Lack of trust

There was some scepticism and a lack of trust towards a CO₂ monitor scheme. As such, the scheme would not make these individuals more inclined to visit places that implement them.

“I wouldn’t trust [name of a service provider] to monitor it because they didn’t enforce masks when people were supposed to be wearing them.”

The members who expressed this lack of trust generally demonstrated an overall lack of trust in the government’s handling of COVID-19 measures. This lack of trust appeared to be rooted in observing instances where there was poor compliance with guidance during the pandemic, alongside their personal experiences of extensive suffering from COVID-19, such as, ongoing health impacts, and profound fear of themselves or their families contracting the virus.

"This is about trust. How will I know who’s going to take action about it (if the levels get high)?”

Evidence of effectiveness

Members called for evidence demonstrating that CO₂ monitors can effectively reduce the transmission of COVID-19 and other infections.

“I want evidence that having monitors lowers rates of infection.”

It was suggested that this could be achieved by having monitors placed visibly in public areas, or by connecting the monitors to an app. The app would inform users if a place was participating in the CO₂ monitoring scheme and provide real-time updates on the current levels in nearby locations or places they intended to visit.

Members not only wanted to know the plans for addressing high CO₂ levels but also how the implementation would be monitored, the level of training for those involved, and how they would be held accountable.

“Any interventions introduced by the government should be tied to accountability through measurement. It's up to the experts to decide how. Assuming individuals will adopt the correct behaviours won’t work. Articulating accountability as part of policy and messaging that organisations have the responsibility to add additional steps to monitoring levels (such as training). Clarity on this would be useful.”

It was suggested that ongoing behavioural research should be conducted to gain a comprehensive understanding of the monitors’ impact, both economically and socially.

A small number of members opposed the use of CO₂ monitors, considering the scheme to be an inefficient allocation of public funds. Their reasons for deeming the scheme ‘wasteful’ included the belief that all buildings already have adequate ventilation and that keeping the air clear is simply a matter of common sense.

“It's common sense. If the air is stale, open the windows.”

These members expressed the view that the investment in CO₂ monitors was unnecessary since they believed that proper ventilation practices should be instinctive and straightforward to implement.

Recognising the value of CO₂ monitors

On the other hand, some members were immediately reassured that such a scheme was being introduced. They felt it showed a seriousness towards the threat of COVID-19, flu and other viruses. It was described as an initiative that shows the Scottish Government ‘cares for its people’. It was hoped such a scheme would be made mandatory and implemented in every public place, particularly in public services and public transport.

“I would be happy to go to places knowing there’s extra precaution… It’s about taking care of people.”

Members saw the scheme as an opportunity to bring science into public understanding of where and how people can keep safe from viruses.

“It could put to bed the arguments people have about opening the doors and windows.”

Members expressed their desire for businesses to adopt the scheme, but they also acknowledged that some businesses, especially those in poorly ventilated areas, might legitimately fear losing customers due to the scheme.

For those who were more uncertain, they saw value in the scheme but felt that conditions must be met for them to visit places with CO₂ monitors and feel more at ease in such settings.

“A place might say, ‘look, look, we have a CO₂ monitor, we're safe.’ But that might not be true. But, it also shows that the people running the place had thought about this stuff.”

Clear and accessible messaging

Similar to the discussions on the ventilation guidance, members emphasised the importance of clear and accessible information delivery. They emphasised the need for unambiguous statements that focus on tangible actions.

“For example, the advice could be: open the windows [when the CO₂ levels reach] a certain level.”

One suggestion was to simplify the messages in places with CO₂ monitors by using a ‘traffic light system’. This universally understood code would help the general public understand the information more quickly. Further, it could help to reduce fears.

“If there were signs saying 'clean air here' and indicating the presence of CO₂ monitors and filtration/ventilation systems, I would never enter a place that doesn’t have these signs. If I knew the CO₂ levels, I would be less scared and nervous.”

However, it was raised that CO₂ monitors could potentially contribute to increased anxiety, especially if people find them difficult to understand or interpret. This reinforced the need for clear guidance and communications.

“If people don’t understand them they might make them more anxious.”

Assessing the current state of COVID-19 pandemic

In March 2023, during the final session of the People’s Panel, the aim was to gain insight into the members perspectives on their present situation and their outlook for the future. The panel members’ responses were analysed under the following themes:

• A worse situation
• Feeling judged for taking precautions
• Long-term impact
• COVID-19 is a background issue
• Hope
• An overreaction

A worse situation

Compared to last year, some members felt no sense of improvement; COVID-19 was impacting on everything they think about. This was mainly attributed to concern around the lack of publicly available information (for example, official statistics on cases and hospitalisations), concerns with underreporting, the view that there are more people now with COVID-19 than at the height of the pandemic and feeling unsupported and unsafe in public places.

“Where we are with Covid? Now is the biggest nightmare that we could have imagined.”

Members expressed disappointment, sadness, a loss of hope and anger that there is a lack of recognition amongst the wider public, that for people who are clinically vulnerable or who are supporting family/friends who are vulnerable they cannot just “get back to normal”.

“Everyone has moved on and forgotten about it and there are so many of us who can’t forget about this, so many of us [vulnerable people] have had to go back to work or start going out again.”

Members spoke about a loss of freedom, having their choices taken away, experiencing high stress, feeling “time impoverished”, feeling afraid to return to work and having to make major lifestyle changes.

Feeling judged for taking precautions

When wearing face coverings in public places, members described feeling judged and stigmatised by other people, and that this has worsened over the year. They described receiving upsetting comments and “funny looks” and being questioned about why they are wearing a face mask.

“I’ve noticed a huge increase in odd looks and comments aimed at me because I’m still wearing a mask everywhere. There seems to be a backlash in general now - if you want to protect yourself you are considered as a pariah now. I think people see you as an attention seeker.”

When reflecting on why other people may behave like this, they suggested that there is a sense of apathy amongst some of the public, with people not perceiving or just being unaware of how serious the situation is, and people being confused due to mixed messaging.

“People are going to continue not taking it seriously and I am going to have to be the one that spends money on masks that cost a lot. That is exhausting. I hate the feeling of being singled out but I am a person of colour - I have been bullied all my life. There is minority stress – that it does make your life more difficult and wearing a mask is another type of minority stress.”

There was acknowledgment that the public are “mentally exhausted” and people just want to get on with enjoying their lives again.

“I can’t blame anyone for their behaviour, for going out to party or celebrate or enjoying their lives again, that is just so fundamental for their mental and physical health. But for those that can’t do that, my hope is that people will be educated as to what it still means for the people who have been medically left behind. Medically curtailed.”

Some members wished that the wider public could realise the effect that they have on people who are clinically vulnerable. It was suggested that for the public to understand and continue to adapt to COVID-19, there needs to be education, recognition and support from the government.

Long-term impact

Many members expressed concerns over the longer term impact of COVID-19. They were concerned with potential new variants, the social impact of lockdown and disrupted education, and the negative impact the pandemic has had on medical staff in terms of absences and disrupted clinical services. Members talked about people they know who have become isolated due to long COVID and who are now unable to work and socialise.

“The NHS does not know what’s hit it yet, the long term effects of people who have experienced COVID won’t be showing yet but my god, in 10 years’ time, just wait.”

Members focused particularly on the experiences of younger and older people. Examples provided included concerns over young people missing out on key social, in-person interactions and feelings of loneliness increasing (amongst all groups of people) as there is a level of mistrust in others.

COVID-19 is a background issue

Some members said they had “too many other things to worry about”. This was not said to undermine the impact that COVID-19 has had on people and communities, or to “downplay it” but they thought that other issues such as the cost of living crisis were more central, at the moment, for some people.

For those who shared this view, they spoke about feeling safer having had their vaccination, or less concerned because they perceived the current variant as “mild”. Some believed that COVID-19 was approaching the level of flu and so their perception of the level of threat it posed had reduced. Others were accepting of the situation because as “long as we do keep taking precautions we will be ok”.

One member described trying to find a balance, as while they were concerned about the longer term impact of COVID-19, they acknowledged that they were not sure how much of a risk it actually posed to them. There was a feeling that some members would still act with caution if they tested positive for COVID-19 but they were not actively searching out information.

“I don’t keep an eye on it at all, I hear about it locally and would say that I heard last month there was quite a lot in my area but in my circle only one or two had it, if I get ill I still have testing kits and I still test and would self-isolate if I was positive.”

Hope

There was some hope and optimism expressed by the members in terms of the impact that COVID-19 has had on home and hybrid working. Hybrid working was described as being a helpful “new norm” that has allowed members to spend more time with their family and generate a better work-life balance.

There was also an appreciation for social connections – some members spoke positively about new online communities they had joined or about their revitalised outlook on socialising with other people.

“I never turn down plans to go out with friends now or go into people’s houses. I am definitely of the mindset that I want to get out and enjoy my 20s”.

An ‘overreaction’

For a minority of members, COVID-19 was described as an “overreaction” and a way to spread fear amongst the public.

“Never heard of someone dying of COVID. [There was a ] push to say it was COVID, [that people died of] when it could have been a heart attack. It has just spread fear.”

This group felt that protective measures, such as masks, protective screens, and vaccinations continued to create fear among people.

For these members, the impact of COVID-19 was evident in the fear experienced in society, loss of trust in the government and loss of trust in other members of the public. Personal loss also appeared to refer to loss of time, and loss of a previous way of living.

“I think the biggest loss was wasted years. Nothing was happening. People got quite selfish and nasty about other people, I doubt there has really been a recovery back to how things were. Me-first thinking, which isn’t good.”