Mirror Health Editor Martin Bagot says lockdown critics are exactly the people who made full lockdowns both necessary and unavoidable during the Covid-19 pandemic
The Covid-19 Inquiry has reignited the fierce debate on the rights and wrongs of lockdowns.
Many commentators are now choosing to cherry pick quotes from its huge 760 page report to suit their pre-existing opinions, however the verdict of the biggest public inquiry in British history is clear – there would have been loss of life “on a scale that was unconscionable and unacceptable” if they had not been imposed. The NHS would have been truly overwhelmed.
However chair Baroness Heather Hallett was also clear that there is a possibility that full national lockdowns could have been avoided. They only became necessary and unavoidable because of inaction by our pandemic government, led by libertarian-in-chief Boris Johnson.
READ MORE: Covid Inquiry concludes Boris Johnson’s late lockdowns killed thousandsREAD MORE: Four things UK could’ve done differently after Covid delays cost 23,000 Brit lives
Shortly after the start of the pandemic in 2020, China implemented a lockdown from January 23 in the pandemic epicentre Wuhan and 15 other cities covering 57 million people. Back then, our leaders looked at the draconian actions of the Chinese Community Party with disdain, considering lockdown something that the freedom-loving West would never countenance
This arrogance led to a refusal to implement other measures which could have prevented lockdown from becoming necessary in Britain. Lady Hallett described February 2020 as a “lost month”.
Lady Hallett said that ministers were too slow to impose softer, “proportionate and sustainable” measures that would have limited the spread of the virus, such as contact tracing, self-isolation, face coverings and respiratory hygiene.
She wrote: “Had stringent restrictions short of a mandatory lockdown been introduced earlier than March 16 2020 – when the number of Covid-19 cases was lower – the mandatory lockdown might have been shorter or, conceivably, avoided entirely.”
Lockdown critics are generally the same people who railed against measures like mask wearing and social distancing, often refusing to comply. These are the very things which could have prevented lockdown.
Unfortunately we had one such person sitting in Downing Street running the country.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson openly stated he was still shaking hands with people – including patients in a hospital – at a press conference on 3 March 2020.
This statement was made on the same day that the government’s scientific advisers on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) had urged the government to issue a public message against handshaking to help prevent the spread of the virus. By this point in the pandemic it was obvious to most that shaking hands was not a good idea.
Johnson told reporters: “I was at a hospital the other night where I think there were actually a few coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody, you will be pleased to know, and I continue to shake hands”.
Those same people who railed against the imposition of anything that inconvenienced them, were also demanding an early end to the first national lockdown. This, the inquiry has confirmed, was another mistake.
The Covid Inquiry report states: “The easing of the majority of restrictions in England took place on 4 July 2020, despite Mr Johnson being informed by scientific advisers that this was an inherently high-risk approach as it would create an environment where infections could grow more quickly and overwhelm the ability of test and trace systems to control further outbreaks.
“A more cautious approach should have been taken by the UK government. Mr Johnson acknowledged that a second lockdown would be a disaster, but the approach to releasing restrictions increased the risk of this being necessary.”
It is true that lockdowns may not have been needed, but only if other restrictions had been brought in sooner. Once the first Covid lockdown was implemented, the rush to reopen meant another lockdown became inevitable.
The terms of reference for this public inquiry make it the broadest in British history. We must ensure the hypocrisy of those siren voices who made lockdowns unavoidable does not prevent the right lessons being learned.
