The second round of public hearings examining the UK's handling of the COVID pandemic - Penny Mordaunt says her WhatsApp messages went missing

Health & Diet Health & Diet: In The News
, , , , ,
78

This in ‘The Knowledge’via the Telegraph.
Lockdown: a wrecking ball that never needed to swing

The Covid Inquiry is more interested in finding swear words in people’s WhatsApp messages than uncovering the truth about lockdowns, says Fraser Nelson in The Daily Telegraph. “But it’s starting to creep out anyway.” The written evidence submitted by Dominic Cummings, for example, revealed that the UK scientists advising the Sage committee were, at first, “unanimously against” lockdowns. Even doomsters like Prof Neil Ferguson fretted that they could be “worse than the disease”. But with Britain and Sweden the only major holdouts against Wuhan-style shutdowns, and “disaster-graphs” circulating online, public pressure mounted. Ferguson dutifully published his “doom models”, and Britain’s scientists “fell in behind”.

It was a different story in Sweden, where former state epidemiologist Johan Giesecke was “reading Ferguson’s models in disbelief”. He recalled Ferguson saying 200 million might die from bird flu, when just 455 did. Modellers had been “calamitously wrong” before. “Should society really be closed now on their say so?” Giesecke and his protégé Anders Tegnell pulled Ferguson’s models apart, finding “flaw after flaw”, and successfully argued to keep the country open. Yet no one was pulling apart the models in Britain. One internal report showed that 600,000 hospital beds would be needed; the actual number peaked at 34,000. The PM was told 90,000 ventilators were required; demand for them peaked at 3,700. And the wasted money is nothing compared to the millions of children needlessly denied education, and the economic and mental health impact of lockdowns. What we now know is that the virus was already in reverse before lockdown started, due to people behaving sensibly of their own accord. It was a “social and economic wrecking ball that never needed to swing

2 Likes
79

This is a highly optimistic, after the event, looking back and forgetting key issues view of the pandemic. It assumes that hospitals would not be overrun. It assumes that all people would safe-distance, wear masks and behave responsibly. It makes many false assumptions and ignores many risks. But lots of people seem to think in the way Johnson thought for weeks - the economic impact of a lockdown would be worse than no lockdown and a bunch of old people & already sick people dying.

2 Likes
80

There’s a long way to go with the evidence yet (35 days between 3 October and 14 December) so, IMO, that statement by Nelson is somewhat presumptuous. Lockdowns will, no doubt, feature prominently when those responsible for activating them, i.e. BJ and his cabinet, are interviewed in later sessions.

1 Like
81

The UK Covid-19 Inquiry is hearing from more witnesses in London

  • Giving evidence this morning are Clare Lombardelli, a former adviser to the Treasury, and Stuart Glassborow, a former civil servant in the PM’s team
  • This afternoon it’s Ben Warner, a former Downing Street adviser

Boris Johnson joked about Treasury being the ‘pro death squad’ (1) during pandemic, Covid inquiry told

At the Covid inquiry Stuart Glassborow, deputy principal private secretary to Boris Johnson during coronavirus, has been giving evidence.

Dermot Keating, counsel for the inquiry, was asking the questions, and he has just asked Glassborow about an entry in Sir Patrick Vallance’s diary in which Vallance, the chief scientific adviser at the time, records Boris Johnson as referring to the Treasury as the “pro death squad”. Johnson reportedly used the phrase in January 2021, when he wanted the Treasury to back him in arguing for an early lifting of lockdown measures.

Johnson was referring to the Treasury being in favour of prioritising the economy in internal debates on lockdown policy.

Glassborow told the inquiry he did not recall that phrase being used.

(1) Thankfully, we can rely on BJ for the diplomatic turn of phrase in a delicate situation … :roll_eyes:

Government decided to launch ‘eat out to help out’ without scientific advice on potential Covid impact

During his evidence his morning Stuart Glassborow, deputy principal private secretary to Boris Johnson during coronavirus, admitted that the government decided to go ahead with the “eat out to help out” subsidy scheme for restaurants in the summer of 2020 without getting scientific advice on the impact it might have on Covid transmission.

Glassborow told the inquiry that during July 2020, before the scheme was launched, he and others in No 10 “did become aware that there hadn’t been direct CMO [chief medical officer], CSA [chief scientific adviser], Sage [scientific advisory group for emergencies] analysis on this policy”.

One in the eye for Sunak … :062:

82

This is a good summing up of how awful Johnson was during the pandemic but more importantly how pathetic cabinet was.

A key paragraph:
“We’ve heard nothing of the cabinet as a collective decision-making body and a restraint on a dangerously dysfunctional prime minister. That’s because it wasn’t. Number 10’s disdain for the cabinet was expressed by Mr Cummings with characteristically pathological profanity when he scorned ministers as “morons”, and [other more vulgar phrases] in WhatsApp messages. Powerful as he was for a period, Mr Cummings was an unelected adviser. The cabinet were elected ministers of the crown. Yet the “morons” even humiliated themselves by obeying orders to defend his “eye-test” excursion to Barnard Castle. Were they spineless, clueless or simply useless? Whichever, they failed to perform their constitutional function.”
It seems the doubts voiced about the effectiveness of Johnson and his ministers at the time were well founded. It also seems, in hindsight, surprising that so little criticism of government was actually made during the pandemic by the media or the opposition.

1 Like
83

IMO, introducing that comprehensively personal “theme” would detract from the topic and open up this thread to hijackers with axes to grind (usually including Brexit).

A better approach would be to create a new thread, as I did, some time ago, here:

You could the add to the thread as revelations about the “derelict”, both within the inquiry and without, become available.

84

Fair point but splitting hairs a bit. Would it not be fair to observe the shortcomings and failings of the government of the time? After all, examining how government acted and coped with the pandemic is the purpose of the public hearing. However, I’m happy to work out an edit that removes my personal views.

85

The COVID inquiry will be extensive and protracted. Revelations will be ongoing. The inquiry’s findings and conclusions will not be for at least a year (maybe two or more):

How does the inquiry work?

The inquiry is split into different parts.

Work in four areas has already begun:

  • resilience and preparedness
  • core UK decision-making and political governance
  • the impact of Covid on healthcare systems
  • vaccines, therapeutics and antiviral treatment

Future strands will consider:

  • the care sector
  • government procurement and PPE
  • test-and-trace
  • the government’s businesses and financial responses
  • health inequalities
  • education, children and young people
  • other public services

There is no specific timescale for how long the inquiry will last.

If this thread extends into the generalities concerning BJ’s Tory government (and especially Brexit) over the period 24 July 2019 to 6 September 2022 then I will lose interest in this thread because, as I said, anything other that the business of the inquiry, the evidence and comments pertaining thereto should be covered elsewhere - new extended threads covering topics suggested by a post’s contents can be created from individual posts and a cross-reference automatically generated.

In my experience, it doesn’t take much for a thread to be side-tracked and then hijacked especially where emotive topics are concerned.

So, play it how you see it … :slightly_smiling_face:

86

Ben Warner, the data specialist who worked in No 10 alongside Dominic Cummings during Covid, is giving evidence to the inquiry this afternoon. As Peter Walker reports, he was asked about a line he wrote in his notebook after a meeting during the early days of the Covid crisis where he said the NHS was “f----d in any scenario”.

image

This is the explanation for this note that Warner gave in his witness statement to the inquiry.

image

Ben Warner also told the inquiry this afternoon that he was concerned about the lack of scientific knowledge in the civil service. He said: “Throughout the pandemic I thought that there was a lack of scientific capability within the different teams and groups that I was working with.” He stressed that he was not talking about government scientists

(1) Ben Warner gained his Master’s Degree in Physics at Oxford University (2005-2009) and a PhD from University College London (2009-2014) with a thesis on single molecule spintronics that was awarded the Marshall Stoneham prize. He was a post-doctoral research fellow in quantum physics at the Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London. Warner left to join Faculty (previously ASI Data Science), a company founded by his brother Marc Warner in 2014, where he is now Commercial Principal.

Ben Warner is patently well-qualified … but not necessarily in the right subject … :wink:

The Covid inquiry has also been shown private messages exchanged between Ben Warner, the data scientist and No 10 aide, and Lee Cain, the PM’s communications direcotr, in September and October 2020. They were both frustrated by the government’s failure to take action in response to the rising number of cases. At this point scientists were calling for another lockdown.

“We are so f----d,” Cain wrote on 12 October. And on 30 October, the day before Boris Johnson announced a second lockdown (having resisted one for weeks), Warner said:

I feel like we have accidentally invented a time machine.

That was a reference to March 2020, when Johnson was also criticised for introducing lockdown late.

87

The inquiry has started and giving evidence first is Simon Ridley…

The former head of the Cabinet Office Covid-19 taskforce has said the government “did not know with any great certainty” how many people would need to “shield” during the pandemic.

Simon Ridley told the Covid inquiry it would be in the “low millions”, but there was a “constant debate” about whether shielding support should have been offered solely to those who were clinically extremely vulnerable, or those who were also socially vulnerable or generally needed support. (1)

The Covid inquiry’s lead counsel Hugo Keith KC has shown evidence that a number of officials raised concerns about asymptomatic patients spreading the disease into care homes. A series of emails shown to the Covid inquiry laid bare the chaos around the government’s drive to discharge NHS patients into care homes, many of whom had asymptomatic cases of Covid.

Hugo Keith KC asked if the issue “rumbled on” as to how concerning an issue it was and what was the extent of it. Giving evidence, Simon Ridley, the former head of the Cabinet Office’s Covid-19 taskforce, said “yes”. “We were concerned that there were problems in the care sector that needed to be addressed extremely quickly,” said Mr Ridley. (2)

The pandemic taskforce was “blindsided” by Rishi Sunak’s Eat Out to Help Out scheme, the Covid-19 inquiry heard today. Simon Ridley, the former head of the Covid-19 taskforce, said the policy was “was decided by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor”. (3)

(1) Headless chickens … :roll_eyes:

(2) No mention of Hancock, who made the final decision to send patients and their carers to their doom.

(3) Sunak’s contribution to the death toll.

88

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67301894

Former cabinet secretary and head of the civil service Mark Sedwill is giving evidence at the UK Covid inquiry

  • Sedwill tells the inquiry he was concerned cabinet was not as “fully participative” in decision-making as it should have been - which he raised with Boris Johnson
  • He says the “candour” of cabinet discussions was also “constrained” by Johnson setting out firm views at the beginning of meetings
  • Sedwill quit in June 2020 after reports of a rift with Johnson’s team; he later criticised “damaging” anonymous attacks on officials
89

The running of the civil service is nowt’ to shout about. Perhaps Sedwill just wasn’t up to the job…

90

There’s been a lot of Q&A today - in summary:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67301894

  • Mark Sedwill has apologised for suggesting that chickenpox-style parties could be held for Covid early in the pandemic
  • He told the inquiry he made the suggestion when it was “inevitable” the virus would spread and he was looking at a way of managing it
  • Sedwill said he knew Covid was a more serious disease than chickenpox, and admitted his comment could have seemed “heartless”
  • Sedwill said he reminded Boris Johnson that cabinet needed to be involved in Covid decision-making, as he was concerned they were not “fully participative”
  • He also said the “candour” of cabinet discussions was also “constrained” by Johnson setting out firm views at the beginning of meetings
  • Sedwill also said there was concern for Johnson’s “stamina” during his recovery from Covid - he had been admitted to intensive care due to being so ill
91

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67363417

  • The former chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council Martin Hewitt is giving evidence to the UK’s Covid inquiry
  • He was chair of the group, which plays an important role in coordinating policing across the UK, for the whole of the pandemic
  • After him, former Home Secretary Priti Patel will give evidence to the inquiry later this morning
  • As home secretary, she was responsible for areas such as policing, but also domestic abuse policy during lockdown

IIRC, the police were caught between a rock and a hard place - they could only do what the law permitted or the government granted … :thinking:

IIRC, Priti Patel was yet another of those incompetent, self-serving Tory “ministers” responsible for the government’s shamblolic response to the COVID pandemic … :angry:

92

In his witness statement, Hewitt describes the pandemic as an “unprecedented situation” that needed an “unprecedented response”.

He says the kind of measures being taken in other countries in 2020 - where the virus had spread ahead of the UK - were unlike anything that had happened “since the second world war”.

“We were going to be in positions where we were going to be imposing on people’s liberty and movement and their lives in a way that was totally out of our experience at that point in time,” he said.

Other points raised:

Enforcing rules on children playing outside ‘challenging’ for police - Hewitt
>
He said officers did their best but there wasn’t enough clarity on how the rules worked, which he said put officers “on the ground in an invidious position” when it came to enforcing rules.

Inquiry lawyer Andrew O’Connor KC is asking Hewitt about the policing of protests and large gatherings.

In his witness statement, Hewitt writes that protest activity during the pandemic was originally not identified as a reasonable excuse to be outside, but that this later changed to allow protesting under certain regulations.

Former Brexit minister Lord Frost said the rules on outside gatherings were practically “unenforceable” and were being ignored “in all kinds of contexts”.

People travelled hundreds of miles to beauty spots during pandemic - Hewitt

The way rules were applied differently across various parts of the UK put extra pressure on the police, says Hewitt.

‘Confusion’ around Covid rules affected compliance, police boss says

Asked about the “confusion” between regulations and guidance, Hewitt says it “definitely” impacted people’s compliance with the laws. People “genuinely couldn’t understand” where they fitted into the rules, he says.

Home Office should have consulted police more - Hewitt
>
He accepted that the situation was moving rapidly but told the inquiry that the police should have been consulted over any new restrictions for the public.

Bring on Priti Patel … :wink:

93

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67363417

Former Home Secretary Priti Patel has just been sworn in and will be the next witness giving evidence to the inquiry.

Inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith KC asks Patel whether the Home Office was involved in the drafting of Covid regulations. She says that was “solely” the Department for Health and Social Care throughout the pandemic.

Patel says she was shown evidence that shutting borders would have ‘minimal’ impact on transmission but, anyway, UK didn’t have the ability to stop Covid at the border . She said there was “no technical capability” - such as screening - and also agreed it was “fair” to say there were no developed plans in place about what to do at the border in a pandemic.

Priti Patel is being asked about how the government dealt with the “hidden harms” caused by Covid - for example, how victims of domestic and child abuse were considered when deciding to introduce lockdown. According to Patel’s statement, there was no pre-existing plan within the Home Office to protect vulnerable people during lockdown - because there was not much thinking about lockdowns before Covid. Patel says that work took place within the department and with police, adding: “We were agile - we were able to work at pace and start working across the sector with partners as soon as we were effectively locking down.”

In March 2022 the Home Office launched a plan to tackle domestic abuse," the inquiry lawyer Hugo Keith now says. He says that at the time, it was clear that, despite all the work that had been done, lockdown and the Covid restrictions meant that online child abuse had increased and more people were using helplines. He asks Patel to assess the work that she and the Home Office did to address this “scourge of criminality”. Patel says “the steps we took, I would absolutely stand by” and they were the “right steps to deploy throughout the pandemic”.

Hugo Keith KC is now pressing Patel on this line, asking why, throughout the course of the pandemic, the system was not changed to allow more time for consultation on changes drafted at night and the police told in the morning. Drafting and delivery of Covid regulations sits with the Department of Health, says Patel, and the Home Office is there to "explain what would and wouldn’t work, and there was a lot that didn’t work".

Patel says she absolutely had discussions with the PM at the time around enforcements and fines. She insisted she would not have attempted to direct the way police handled cases and said she was focused on ensuring the law was upheld in the right way. Asked if she thought a flat fine of £10,000 from 15 August, was proportionate, Patel says “it was very high”. Pressed again if it was proportionate, Patel says: “The answer is no.”

The inquiry continues along the lines of protests, and how regulations were enforced. The lawyer highlights in particular the vigil in March 2021 for Sarah Everard who was murdered by a police officer. Six people were accused of breaking lockdown rules at the vigil, though their prosecution was dropped months later. The lawyer asks whether the protest rules were “unenforceable” - yes, Patel replies.

This all sounds a bit self-righteous from Patel with the suggestion that, even if she’d wanted to, she could not influence the making of regulations. That seems somewhat odd since the Home Office is one of the most senior and influential ministers in the UK Government, and the holder of a Great Office of State.

The Great Offices of State are senior offices in the UK government. They are the prime minister, chancellor of the Exchequer, foreign secretary and home secretary or, alternatively, three of those offices excluding the prime minister. The DHSC is not included.

94

All highly disingenuous. First, any sort of preparedness should have considered how as an island nation the UK could protect itself. Second, there were weeks, even months, to put such steps in place. Even if it meant limiting international flights to a small number of airports. This was one of the biggest failures along with test & trace. To shrug it off with “didn’t have a plan” shows the poor quality of Johnson’s government.

3 Likes
95

Well I don’t know much about stopping a pandemic, but obviously the airports would have been the first thing to close, or at least reduced so they could have been monitored much easier.
The speed at which the virus travelled, it would have had to have been air travel, or deliberate.

1 Like
96

The sad thing is there were early opportunities to set a plan in motion but the blinkered Tory fools in the Cabinet believed that “it can’t happen here”, despite overwhelming evidence from other countries, scientists and even movies, particularly Contagion and, to a lesser extent, Outbreak.

Since the inquiry has another month of evidence collection I’ve linked to a new thread if anyone wants to take this discussion on preparedness further using evidence that the inquiry has to hear, e.g. from BJ and Sunak.

1 Like
97

My son an airline steward of 24 yrs told me their flights outward bound were all stopped yet for weeks and weeks aircraft was coming inward to the UK from all over the world. How can this be right ?

2 Likes