london
—
The UK’s head of coronavirus disease surveillance said the country had done “too little, too late” in its initial response to the coronavirus pandemic, resulting in thousands more deaths, as the latest findings were released.
“The initial response to the pandemic was characterized by a lack of information and a lack of urgency,” the report said, adding that “despite clear signs that the virus was spreading globally, all four countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) failed to take sufficiently timely and effective action.”
He added that if the UK government had introduced restrictions earlier, when the number of coronavirus cases was low, the mandatory lockdown could have been shorter or avoided altogether.
Rather, “this lack of urgency and the significant increase in the number of cases made a forced lockdown inevitable.”
“They had no choice at that point, but what they had no choice over was their own acts and omissions,” said Baroness Heather Hallett, chair of the inquiry.
Meanwhile, at least 23,000 people would have survived if the lockdown, which began on March 23, 2020, had been introduced just a week earlier, the report said.
Mr Hallett said: “The evidence suggests that deaths would have fallen by 48% in England alone in the first wave up to 1 July 2020.”
Thursday’s report was the second of 10 areas of inquiry for the inquiry and focused on how political leaders and senior officials made decisions during the pandemic. It examined the core institutions of government, the role of scientific advice, and the relationship between Westminster and the developed world as the crisis unfolded.
Hallett, who called February 2020 a “lost month,” said: “There was clearly a growing crisis and leadership from the top was needed. The four governments knew that in a reasonable worst-case scenario, up to 80% of the population would be infected and there would be a very significant loss of life.”
Meanwhile, rule-breaking politicians and their advisers undermined public trust in government decisions, making them more likely to ignore restrictions, the report said, blaming poor planning and decision-making in all four UK countries.
The report said strained relations and low trust between former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were making coordination difficult.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s response during the crisis was criticized by many for not taking the pandemic seriously enough. The so-called “Partygate” scandal contributed to Mr Johnson’s resignation as prime minister in July 2022 after he was found guilty of breaking coronavirus rules by attending a gathering to celebrate his birthday.
“There was a toxic and chaotic culture at the heart of the British government…this kind of culture is detrimental to good decision-making,” Hallett said.
“While it is vindicating to see Boris Johnson squarely condemned for his disastrous mishandling of the pandemic, it is shocking to think about the lives that might have been saved under a different Prime Minister,” Justice for Covid-19 Survivors, which called for an independent inquiry, said in a statement on Thursday.
“It is human to make mistakes, and we cannot afford not to listen to the insights of frontline workers, vulnerable people, empowered leaders and scientific experts.”
The report said ministers had not adequately explained the impact of school closures, children were not given sufficient priority, and overall the lockdown had caused lasting social damage and increased existing inequalities.
He praised ministers for managing the exit from lockdown in early 2021 in a way that ensured a successful vaccine rollout and protected vulnerable groups.
Thursday’s report follows the study’s first report, published in July 2024, which provided a scathing assessment of the country’s pandemic preparedness.
The report concluded that the UK entered the pandemic with “fatal strategic flaws” embedded in its emergency planning system and that, despite international warnings, the government’s preparedness had focused almost entirely on influenza rather than respiratory viruses like COVID-19.
This narrow scenario planning means that critical protections such as robust personal protective equipment stockpiles, effective monitoring, and diverse expert opinion are all inadequate once the pandemic begins, the report said.
Ten recommendations were announced, including statutory bodies for emergency preparedness, regular national pandemic training, simplified crisis structures, and significantly improved data systems.
