Rather than continuing the charade of the Covid Inquiry, should not Government now publish how it would deal with a pandemic today to instil confidence that we are well prepared? Surely relevant institutions such as the NHS have adopted all important lessons and made changes accordingly.
It is perhaps important to recognise that national lockdown to combat disease, probably never a good idea in modern society, will not even be a viable choice in the foreseeable future as there will be no money available in a world where Government just spends like there is no tomorrow. Sherbhert commentary on Covid lessons, for example over dependence, changing the NHS and safeguarding the vulnerable, is rehearsed fully in earlier articles such as those cross-referenced below.
COVID INQUIRY IS DISCREDITED
Baroness Hallett has issued her second report, being on the subject of governance during Covid. There are 10 modules and so 10 reports will be due, still 8 more to go, and we are now nearly 4 years on from the Covid pandemic. Estimated cost £200million and what is being learnt? The declared objective of this Inquiry is to learn lessons not judge who killed who. Also, it is bizarre that this Inquiry has rather assumed lockdowns were a necessary evil, rather than examine whether they should have been used at all.
Baroness Hallett however is long on judgements. She summarises her opinion of Government performance as “too little, too late”, a hanging offence. She castigates chaotic Downing Street, but we knew already it was chaos, perhaps, our words not hers, not least because nobody, especially experts, had any knowledge of what to do in response to Covid. This Inquiry perhaps is at best institutional catharsiswhere all interest groups affected by Covid, from ethnic minorities to individuals who are bereaved, can blame somebody for their misfortune. Maybe they should start with the Chinese Communist Party, reckless as to spreading the disease globally: but that won’t do, the Inquiry needs somebody closer.
As Prime Minister, of course Boris Johnson must take responsibility for Government decisions, especially big calls like those that had to be made in Covid rapidly and with poor information especially in the early days. Is it reasonable to conclude from this Report that its writers may have had a preconceived view that the Government should have saved lots of lives, and that Boris Johnson was responsible for so many deaths? During Covid, the advice being given by SAGE and scientists of various persuasions varied enormously: and Ministers had to absorb advice on a range of topics, from numbers of possible deaths to economic consequences to social impact of behavioural decisions. And the advice was highly imperfect. Throughout, the clarion media call was a focus on death – in fact by and large mainly people over 80 died, largely who were vulnerable and perhaps had little time to live anyway. Many others who suffered were vulnerable due to their own life choices, such as the most obese and diabetics.
It became apparent that epidemiologists’ forecasting through their models was largely guesswork in effect. Forecasts ranging from say 100,000 to 500,000 deaths were fairly useless. Yet Baroness Hallett bases her conclusion, that some 23,000 lives may have been saved if the first lockdown had happened a week earlier, on modelling with hindsight – the same guesswork. It may help people to be able to say that Boris Johnson killed their relative, as encouraged by this report, but such encouragement is not the remit.What is clear is that those responsible, that is experts in their fields, not Ministers, for preparing this country for a pandemic got it wrong. Ministers could be forgiven at the start of Covid for thinking we were well prepared as those who knew about such things considered the UK, after the USA, to be the best prepared in the world. Is it possible that a number of important witnesses, experts, and advisers, are being let off the hook by laying all blame at the door of 10 Downing Street? Anyway, one thing is obvious, SAGE was unfit for purpose and needs to be rethought, and surely members of SAGE should be bound not to air contrary personal views, as they did in the pandemic. Some collective responsibility is required.
Having watched the inquisitorial barristers during this trial in respect of this module, it is hard to respect any conclusions drawn. See the Covid Inquiry Circus.
DO WE NOT YET KNOW THE LESSONS?
Surely there now exists a quite different response plan for the next pandemic. And surely too any such plan takes account of lessons from Covid. It seems for example that this country now makes its own protective clothing (PPE), whereas in Covid it depended on China almost totally. Perhaps now there are adequate stockpiles? Also, one can only imagine that, if another epidemic hits, there are now good arrangements to isolate the vulnerable elderly in care homes and if not, who is asleep at which wheel? The big alternative to lockdown was to let herd immunity get established but protect the vulnerable. Have hospitals been restructured so that pandemic cases can be isolated, allowing the rest of treatments to go on? Countries like South Korea managed Covid well with sophisticated track and trace systems, learnt from earlier epidemics, whereas the UK version had to be cobbled together, refusing to copy others, and, for a lot of money, did not deliver well. Surely Government have now mastered that one? Or have they? It is unknown. The country was short of intensive care machinery: has that been cured?
Surely, nearly 4 years on after Covid, the NHS and other health care institutions, and Government departments, have a list of lessons learnt and what to do differently which they have implemented or are in the course of so doing? If the new plan were to be published, maybe the rest of this Inquiry could be at least hurried on and curtailed, as one must hope that the experts, such as epidemiologists, now understand their limitations, and that pandemics are not to be used to glorify their reputations.
Last, any plan must surely exclude national lockdowns, given the damage that is self-evident, whether economic or in behaviour or mental weakness, especially for the young. Most obviously, furlough plans, paying people to stay at home, and saving all businesses, have proved to be an economic disaster. The national debt is so large that, in any new pandemic, borrowing meaningful sums to fund lockdowns will be impossible. If another Covid pandemic arose, lockdown would be totally unaffordable if the country is to have a future afterwards and so alternatives are necessary. Protecting the vulnerable as best one can must be relevant.
Perhaps most important is that we need to come to terms with death, as not an event to avoid by turning the world upside down. Had the very elderly who were most at risk been asked whether they would take their chances without lockdown if that would save the future of the young of this country, a good guess is they would have said yes. After all in wartime the young have always sacrificed themselves to save the weaker.
The Covid Inquiry can go on for 2 years finding more fault, but what is the point? Instead of waiting for a load of overpaid lawyers to tell the nation how to fight a pandemic, having learnt the lessons, cannot our experts in the relevant fields already do that, and so let’s move forward and get it right next time.We can exult in hating Boris Johnson for getting some things wrong, but it’s ludicrous to blame him and other individuals for particular deaths. Mistakes were made but as Chris Witty made clear there were often choices of options, and they were all very bad and sometimes they were very, very bad.
See also: – The Covid Inquiry Circus – Professionalism and the Covid Inquisition – Fast Tracking Pandemic Lessons – Looking Forward with Lessons from 2020 – Could any Government Have Done the Right Thing
Leave a Reply