It is commonly recognised that during the Covid-19(CV) crisis the institutional media, independent experts, economists and other commentators have an important role to play. They must ask good questions. They should behave responsibly, be careful with their influence, and ensure all outputs on CV are designed with a best efforts intention to defeat the virus. As Nicola Sturgeon has said, this situation is unprecedented, and ministers and their advisers are doing their best to make the right decisions, without hard knowledge, and mistakes have been and will be made, in good faith. While so often people declare that their intention is to support and not to find blame in the UK Government (UKGOV) or their advisers, and by extension the NHS, they so often follow that declaration with words and behaviour that do precisely the opposite.
SOOTHSAYERS FORESAW THE CRISIS AND THE OUTPUT WAS NO MORE THAN TWEETS
Two articles in the Sunday Times and the Observer on 19 April purported to be investigative reports into the early response of UKGOV to CV in January and February headlined “Revealed 38 Days when Britain sleepwalked into disaster” (Sunday Times -“ST Report”) and “Britain and Covid-19 What went Wrong”(Observer -“OB Report”). They deserve a few observations.
Both reports refer to a public enquiry to be held in the future as to the UK’s level of preparedness. Many scientists, the OB Report says, believe the time for an enquiry is not now. So perhaps the purpose of these inquisitive reports is to lay the ground for such an Enquiry, to get a narrative running with a head of steam and establish groundwork to ensure deep suspicion among the public that UKGOV, and the medical and other experts, “fiddled while Rome burned”. The reporters suggest that they have the evidence to reach damning conclusions now, but their reports show that they do not.
It is astonishing how many scientists, high up in the academic and medical world, have come out, it seems, to declare how in January and early February they saw all the coming problems, the seriousness of the coming pandemic, and the actions they knew should be taken but were not. It is interesting that none of them seem to have any responsibility for decision making. How quiet they were at the time. The OB Report mentions two such scientists who saw it all coming and whose response in each case was to send a tweet. Is some positioning being done? Is there a competitive tension between scientists? It is heard often during this crisis how the scientific community, academics and medics, talk to each other regularly. It is odd that so many clever people kept their insight so close to their chests. Yet it is they, the reports suggest, who provide much of the evidence of a lack of care by UKGOV and its advisers.
THE UK WAS SO UNPREPARED THAT THE NHS WOULD BE OVERWHELMED BY A PANDEMIC!
These reports and others refer to the fact that UKGOV had awareness from a 2016 exercise coded Cygnus that the NHS would be unable to cope with a pandemic. There had been recommendations for action which apparently were not taken up, at least not in full. Both reports emphasise the UK’s unreadiness. Yet as previously noted in Sherbhert (see https://sherbhert.com/coronavirus-and-other-c-words/ ), Jeremy Hunt, and indeed wider opinion, recorded early that the UK’s level of preparedness was such that in a pandemic the UK was one of the best places to be. While it may be the case that expenditure to anticipate a pandemic was not made, it is not clear that the level of UK preparedness was any worse than any other major developed country, the UK having for example an earmarked stock of PPE for a pandemic, albeit with hindsight some suggest it was not enough. Even if the UK can be accused of being unprepared, it is notable that as of 19 April when the ST and OB Reports were published and as of today, 28 April, the NHS was and is far from overwhelmed, and has considerable spare capacity: so, whether by luck, judgement, or a bit of both, the accusation of unpreparedness with appalling consequences has not played out to date.
It is fair to question some decisions but not fair to suggest recklessness or disregard for the interests of UK citizens, which is the tone of the ST and OB Reports. There may indeed have been mistakes, or misjudgements, and maybe advice to UKGOV at times should have been different. But justification that a cavalier attitude prevailed is hard to see. There is much confusion around the idea of “herd immunity”. However, one consistent point stands out from these and other reports, well observed in a quotation in the OB Report from Dr. Josie Golding, the epidemics lead for the Wellcome Trust, who said that most modelling assumed that the mystery virus to cause the next pandemic would be flu-like in behaviour, “But have we been thinking about diseases other than influenza that might have become pandemics? I don’t think we have. There has been a sad gap in our thinking.” Is it that assumption – the flu-like behaviour of the virus – that perhaps may have coloured some advice and so fed through to decision-making? Nobody knows: and whenever considering behaviour, and decisions around CV, even if “ guided by the science”, it is important to remember the novelty of CV, of the challenges it throws up, and of the innovative responses it may require – which may vary from region to region, ethnic group by ethnic group, as well as age, gender and country by country. There are even now so many unknowns.
ACCUSATIONS, ANONYMOUS INFORMERS AND CHARACTER ASSASINATION
The accusative and judgmental nature of the ST Report makes it outstanding in its irresponsibility and lack of professionalism. The driving sub-text is revealed by a paragraph “The Prime Minister had been sunning himself with his girlfriend in the millionaires’ Caribbean resort of Mustique …when China first alerted the WHO on December 31…” (pneumonia in Wuhan etc). As if the two were linked. He is accused of “skipping” five Cobra meetings: “skipping “being a word reserved for truant players, implying his presence was required. The ST Report is peppered with sneer and insult of Boris Johnson’s carelessness towards the CV issue until March, a very personal attack. This narrative was then picked up by other journalists – Andrew Marr on 19 April interrogated Michael Gove as to what Boris Johnson was doing failing to chair Cobra meetings. The ever polite Michael Gove was clearly boiling: he explained that Cobra meetings are often chaired by the relevant Minister for the prime subject of the meeting, not the PM; pointing out the selective and misleading representation of the facts and the “grotesque” suggestions of the PM’s lack of involvement by the ST Report. Andrew Marr quickly sought to change the subject, clearly regretting embarking on questions based on poor journalism, and retreated in a hurry. The next day The Guardian spun the story and Huw Edwards of the BBC headlined it, though the news that followed made no substance of it. The bandwagon of innuendo and sneer had been built, and others asked questions. It even ran into the following week’s edition of the Sunday Times.
It appears that a number of journalists are keen to find UKGOV, and their scientists (which of course includes NHS medics), slipping up and “guilty” of not caring – take the narrative about PPE and the daily attacks on the supply chain run by the NHS, supposedly putting their staff at risk. Ignoring those issues however, the most disappointing and shocking aspect of the ST Report is that it relies on and “quotes” people who are unnamed. It refers to statements and information from “a senior adviser to Downing Street”; to plural scientists, academics, doctors, public officials, emergency planners, politicians who “told us that”; – who are these people? The most damning indictments perhaps come from “an adviser”; and “the source said…” and “the source alleges…” and “a senior politician told this newspaper…”, “Dominic Cummings is said to have…” and a “senior department health adviser…”. Countless references to sources who cannot be challenged.
The ST Report seeks to assassinate the character of the Prime Minister and makes the accusation that” Failings may have cost thousands of lives” when the causation link is not proven, and it is unknown indeed whether less people would have died had earlier different decisions been made. To be able to accuse people of being responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in a major newspaper, perhaps the reporters should at least be required to identify sources of information so that it can be challenged. Instead the informants remain anonymous. Indeed, some of these informants, such as a senior adviser, are presumably breaking obligations, legal or moral, of confidentiality, a value seemingly rated so low these days. It is also shocking that so many people it seems, in influential positions, are so ready to damn the behaviour of others, and yet are so weak and timid that they will not stand behind their condemnations.
AND ALL BASED ON A WRONG PREMISE
A poorly evidenced and selective narrative infected the media for days. There may or may not have been wrong decisions made or delayed. Outcomes will prompt hindsight wisdom. The ST Report and the OB Report have as their premise that lack of preparation meant that the NHS was wrongfooted and unable to properly deal with the pandemic, with appalling consequences and preventable deaths.
It appears that a peak may have been reached in the UK. There are thousands of spare beds, ICUs, and ventilators. There has been innovation, and the NHS found available extra facilities, and UKGOV with them built the Nightingale hospitals. Far from overwhelmed, the NHS CEOs are satisfied they are coping well so far, but with a distance to travel. The overall outcome is not perfect but is hardly the total failure that some journalists seem to crave, as that is the narrative, they wish to impose on UKGOV. To have a mission to undermine the Government seeking to defeat CV, with political and personal motivation, is truly shocking and is not what the UK needs right now.
