Was the Johnson government ill-prepared for the Covid pandemic due to its distraction with Brexit? Was the virus potentially caused by a lab leak? Did lockdowns actually do more harm than good? Are face masks just a conspiracy? The Covid pandemic has become a battleground for cultural conflicts in the 2020s, despite seeming irrational when written down. However, we somehow understand the underlying fault lines and their connections at a gut level.
The public inquiry into the government’s handling of Covid, which commenced in a neutral-looking building near Paddington, London, emphasized one inconvenient yet undeniable fact. Governance is not about simplistic arguments in black and white. The discourse may overshadow reality, but it cannot make it disappear. Bad decisions still have fatal consequences, and good ones still require thorough preparation.
This phase of the Covid inquiry focuses on resilience and preparedness, tracing back to 2018 when Public Health England identified a strategy gap in relation to infectious diseases. It goes further back to 2016, when Exercise Alice simulated the consequences if Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers) were to become a pandemic. The absence of an effective strategy was initially identified in 2002. The language used during this period, such as “new, continuous cough,” “asymptomatic transmission,” and “replication rate,” evokes the eerie and surreal atmosphere of March 2020, when every aspect of normal life became laden with foreboding.
Back then, we scrutinized different countries, searching for insights on how to respond and gauge the severity of the disease. However, it appears that, particularly at the government level, we were not looking at the right countries, and we did not start looking soon enough. Prof David Heymann highlighted the lower mortality rates in certain Asian countries like Japan, Korea, and Singapore compared to Europe. These countries had learned from previous outbreaks, including Sars in 2003 and Mers in 2015. They had better hospital surge capacity, superior contact tracing capabilities, and implemented “precision lockdowns” based on sound epidemiology.
During the inquiry, Kate Blackwell KC drew attention to a tabletop exercise in 2016 that recommended studying South Korea’s post-Mers policies for potential lessons. Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether this briefing paper was ever prepared or read. Our contact tracing performance worsened during the pandemic, as it transitioned from a local level, where trust was high, to a centralized approach.
Perhaps the most striking evidence, from a political perspective, emerged from Prof Sir Michael Marmot’s testimony. He addressed the state of healthcare prior to the pandemic, emphasizing the impact of limited hospital capacity and staff shortages. The differences in health outcomes are primarily rooted in population health rather than healthcare itself. The UK, unlike most other countries, experienced a dramatic slowdown in health improvements starting in 2010. Health inequalities also widened, with life expectancy declining in the most disadvantaged population decile across all regions except London.
Understanding Covid and its aftermath, including the significant number of people absent from the workforce, necessitates an honest examination of the societal impact of austerity. Even without the Conservatives’ budget constraints on the NHS and the insufficient ICU capacity compared to other countries, the undeniable truth remains that austerity measures were callous and resulted in illness and death.
However, the purpose of the Covid inquiry is not solely to galvanize compassion and competence in politics, but to address a critical concern: ensuring preparedness for future pandemics. As Professor David Alexander emphasized, the crucial question is whether the British government, within the limits of its competency, adequately protects the public. The inquiry’s meticulous process, expected to span several years, aims to avoid solely attributing blame to a single administration or prime minister. It is not meant to validate or condemn lockdowns or lament the impact of Brexit overshadowing other issues. Its purpose is to confront the one factor we often avoid contemplating: the next pandemic.
Zoe Williams is a Guardian columnist. On Wednesday 5 July, she will host a livestreamed discussion with leading thinkers on ideas for creating fairer economies. Book tickets here.
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.
