NHS 'Look them in the eyes, and tell them the risk isn't real' coronavirus campaign is seen in Piccadilly Circus. Photo / Getty Images
Lockdowns in Britain could have been “avoided entirely” during the coronavirus pandemic had ministers reacted more quickly to the emerging threat of the virus, the UK Covid-19 Inquiry has concluded.
Baroness Hallett, the inquiry chairman, said that if “stringent restrictions” had been put in place before March 16, 2020, there might have been no need for a lockdown.
Measures including contact tracing, self-isolation, face coverings and respiratory hygiene could have stopped the need for a lockdown if introduced earlier, she suggested.
However, a “toxic and chaotic culture” at the centre of Government meant the pandemic response was “too little, too late”, meaning lockdown became inevitable.
Once that point had been reached, she said, up to 23,000 lives could have been saved if the first lockdown had been imposed a week earlier.
Lady Hallett said: “The inquiry does not advocate for national lockdowns – far from it. Restricting people’s liberty in such a draconian fashion, with all the devastating consequences, should be avoided if at all possible.
“But to avoid them, governments must take timely and decisive action to control a spreading virus. The four governments of the UK did not. Many of the same failings were repeated later in 2020. This was inexcusable. The second wave had been predicted from early in the pandemic.”
She added: “While the lockdowns of 2020 and 2021 undoubtedly saved lives, they also left lasting scars on society, the UK economy, they brought ordinary childhood to a halt, delayed the diagnosis and treatment of non-Covid health conditions, exacerbated societal inequalities and had a severe impact on people’s mental health.”
All these issues would be explored in greater detail in future reports by the inquiry, she said, adding: “Unless the lessons are learned and fundamental change is implemented, the human and financial cost and sacrifice of the Covid-19 pandemic will have been in vain.”
In the second report of her multi-stage inquiry, covering core decision-making in government during the pandemic, Hallett criticised Matt Hancock, the former Health Secretary, and Sir Chris Wormald, the Cabinet Secretary, who at the time was Hancock’s permanent secretary at the Department of Health.
Speculation that Sir Chris could be ousted was growing before Hallett said that his failure to rein in Hancock had led to concerns at the centre of Government about the “effectiveness of [his] leadership”.
There was also criticism of the failure by Boris Johnson’s administration to assess the economic impact of lockdowns, the effect of school closures on children’s education and wellbeing, and the increase in domestic abuse that occurred when women were unable to escape dangerous situations at home.
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) risked “groupthink” because of its narrow membership and failure to represent dissenting opinions, the report added.
Hallett made 19 recommendations in the 1531-page document, including improving the way the impact of emergency responses are assessed, broadening participation in Sage and enabling greater parliamentary scrutiny of the use of emergency powers.
During his evidence to the inquiry, Johnson, who was Prime Minister during the pandemic, said he thought it was “highly unlikely” that imposing restrictions earlier might have avoided lockdowns.
Hallett disagreed. Her report said: “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.
“At the very least, there would have been time to establish what the effect of those restrictions on levels of incidence were and whether there was a sustained reduction in social contact.
“This would have enabled the governments [of the UK nations] to assess whether stringent restrictions short of a lockdown would suffice to prevent health services across the UK being overwhelmed and whether they were therefore a feasible policy option.”
She quoted Mark Woolhouse, a professor of infectious disease epidemiology at the University of Edinburgh, who told the inquiry that “more proportionate and sustainable interventions” such as contact tracing, self-isolation, face coverings and respiratory hygiene, should have been introduced “as early as March 4, 2020”.
He said that, if at least some of the “substantial interventions” brought in during the week of March 16, 2020, had been introduced earlier, the need for a full lockdown could have been avoided, because “if you go early, you don’t have to go so hard”.
The Cabinet Secretary is likely to come under severe pressure as a result of Lady Hallett’s criticism, with some senior Downing Street figures already urging Sir Keir Starmer to sack him.
The report was scathing about Hancock, saying Johnson had been warned of “his tendency to over-promise”, a concern Chris told the inquiry he was aware of.
He told Lady Hallett he thought the concerns were confined to “a very small number of people who were not Mr Hancock’s friends saying this, as opposed to a widespread thing around government”. But the report said: “In fact, the concerns were more widespread and justified.”
The report stated: “As the most senior official within the Department of Health and Social Care, it was Sir Christopher Wormald’s responsibility to rectify the overenthusiastic impression Mr Hancock had given to 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office about the ability of the Department of Health and Social Care to cope with its role in the pandemic response…the inquiry has seen no evidence that Sir Christopher Wormald took such action.
“His failure to do so gave rise to additional concerns at the centre of the UK government about the effectiveness of Sir Christopher Wormald’s leadership at the Department of Health and Social Care.”
The report added: “Mr Hancock’s unjustified assurances to 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office that the Department of Health and Social Care was managing the crisis effectively – and Sir Christopher Wormald’s failure to rectify these assurances – obscured the reality and the need for more action.”
Hallett concluded that by the time a mandatory lockdown was first considered, it was already too late to avoid one.
The report said: “The inquiry recognises that the lockdown decision was as difficult a decision as any UK government or devolved administration has ever had to make. However, the inquiry accepts the consensus of the evidence before it that the mandatory lockdown should have been imposed one week earlier.
“Had a mandatory lockdown been imposed on or immediately after March 16, 2020, modelling has established that the number of deaths in England in the first wave up until July 1, 2020, would have been reduced by 48% – equating to approximately 23,000 fewer deaths.”
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.