One of the most significant errors made at the beginning of the pandemic was the decision to release individuals from hospitals into care homes without testing them for coronavirus. This resulted in the transmission of Covid to vulnerable residents, ultimately leading to a high number of deaths. Recently, the High Court declared this policy illegal and directly responsible for the fatalities in these homes. Consequently, the ruling carries significant political and legal implications.
During Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, Boris Johnson expressed remorse for the consequences of this decision, while acknowledging the challenging circumstances and the limited knowledge about the virus’s behavior at that time. He emphasized that the asymptomatic transmission of the virus was not yet understood. Likewise, a spokesperson for former health secretary Matt Hancock admitted that Public Health England had not adequately informed ministers about the potential for asymptomatic transmission. Hancock regretted not being aware of this information earlier.
In its defense, the Government stated that there was insufficient testing capacity available at that time. Additionally, the prolonged isolation endured by elderly residents was seen as inhumane, considering the circumstances of the pandemic. However, had the virus been kept out of care homes initially, such measures would not have been necessary.
The court acknowledged that hindsight cannot be the basis for judgment. The critical question was whether the decisions made by the Government at that time fell within a reasonable range of choices, given the available knowledge and circumstances.
Above all, one thing was clear back then: the elderly were the most vulnerable group, and had they been better protected, the nationwide lockdown to “save the NHS” might have been avoided. The High Court acknowledged that scientific proof of asymptomatic transmission did not exist in March 2020, but it was widely recognized by experts that such transmission was possible. It is insufficient for ministers to claim ignorance now.
Ministers had an obligation to consider not only the likelihood of non-symptomatic transmission but also the severe consequences if it were occurring. They cannot hide behind officials at this point. It is difficult to dispute the claim that they failed to prioritize the protection of care home residents by prioritizing the objective of freeing up hospital beds.
Reference
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
One of the most significant errors made at the beginning of the pandemic was the decision to release individuals from hospitals into care homes without testing them for coronavirus. This resulted in the transmission of Covid to vulnerable residents, ultimately leading to a high number of deaths. Recently, the High Court declared this policy illegal and directly responsible for the fatalities in these homes. Consequently, the ruling carries significant political and legal implications.
During Prime Minister’s Questions yesterday, Boris Johnson expressed remorse for the consequences of this decision, while acknowledging the challenging circumstances and the limited knowledge about the virus’s behavior at that time. He emphasized that the asymptomatic transmission of the virus was not yet understood. Likewise, a spokesperson for former health secretary Matt Hancock admitted that Public Health England had not adequately informed ministers about the potential for asymptomatic transmission. Hancock regretted not being aware of this information earlier.
In its defense, the Government stated that there was insufficient testing capacity available at that time. Additionally, the prolonged isolation endured by elderly residents was seen as inhumane, considering the circumstances of the pandemic. However, had the virus been kept out of care homes initially, such measures would not have been necessary.
The court acknowledged that hindsight cannot be the basis for judgment. The critical question was whether the decisions made by the Government at that time fell within a reasonable range of choices, given the available knowledge and circumstances.
Above all, one thing was clear back then: the elderly were the most vulnerable group, and had they been better protected, the nationwide lockdown to “save the NHS” might have been avoided. The High Court acknowledged that scientific proof of asymptomatic transmission did not exist in March 2020, but it was widely recognized by experts that such transmission was possible. It is insufficient for ministers to claim ignorance now.
Ministers had an obligation to consider not only the likelihood of non-symptomatic transmission but also the severe consequences if it were occurring. They cannot hide behind officials at this point. It is difficult to dispute the claim that they failed to prioritize the protection of care home residents by prioritizing the objective of freeing up hospital beds.