Health & Social Care Committee Pandemic response report released

[brad465]

The report in question cites our initial response in the early stages of the pandemic to have been one of the worst public health failures, while giving praise to the vaccine rollout:

Covid: UK's early response worst public health failure ever, MPs say

But the new report by MPs fails to reflect the views of bereaved relatives, campaigners say.

www.bbc.co.uk

The UK's failure to do more to stop Covid spreading early in the pandemic was one of the worst ever public health failures, a report by MPs says.
The government approach - backed by its scientists - was to try to manage the situation and in effect achieve herd immunity by infection, it said.
This led to a delay in introducing the first lockdown, costing lives.
But the report by a cross-party group said there had been successes too - in particular the vaccination programme.
It described the whole approach - from the research and development through to the rollout of the jabs - as "one of the most effective initiatives in UK history".

The findings are detailed in the long-awaited report from the Health and Social Care Committee and the Science and Technology Committee, which contain MPs from all parties.
Across 150 pages, the committees cover a variety of successes and failings over the course of the pandemic, which has claimed more than 150,000 lives to date and is described by the MPs as the "biggest peacetime challenge" for a century.
Tory MPs Jeremy Hunt and Greg Clark, who chair the committees, said the nature of the pandemic meant it was "impossible to get everything right".
"The UK has combined some big achievements with some big mistakes. It is vital to learn from both," they added in a statement to accompany the report.
A government spokesperson said lessons would be learned, which was why there would be a full public inquiry next year.
He added: "We have never shied away from taking quick and decisive action to save lives and protect our NHS, including introducing restrictions and lockdowns.
"Thanks to a collective national effort, we avoided NHS services becoming overwhelmed."
But Labour's shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said the findings were "damning" and showed what "monumental errors" had been made.
The committee did not look at the steps taken individually by Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.

There's plenty of blame aimed at the government, but also the scientists advising them early on.

Personally I think there needs to be another report into this in a year or twos time (in addition to the actual public inquiry), that examines the actual effectiveness of the measures utilised at the time and whether the benefits are worth the costs, as many of the costs still won't be known yet. Then of course there's the simple fact a lot of factors in our response were never ever done before in history.

 

[MikeWM]

Entirely predictable - well, I predicted it, as did many others - that the result of any 'enquiry' would be 'should have locked down quicker', despite much evidence pointing to that utterly unprecedented measure making no difference to the eventual outcome, and making many other things worse.

However, it does pretty much guarantee that every time in the future we get the slightest hint of a pandemic, we'll take similarly disastrous measures 'earlier'.

And hence the new biological security state cements itself in place for the forseeable future. All for our benefit, of course

 

[bramling]

The report in question cites our initial response in the early stages of the pandemic to have been one of the worst public health failures, while giving praise to the vaccine rollout:

Covid: UK's early response worst public health failure ever, MPs say

But the new report by MPs fails to reflect the views of bereaved relatives, campaigners say.

www.bbc.co.uk

There's plenty of blame aimed at the government, but also the scientists advising them early on.

Personally I think there needs to be another report into this in a year or twos time (in addition to the actual public inquiry), that examines the actual effectiveness of the measures utilised at the time and whether the benefits are worth the costs, as many of the costs still won't be known yet. Then of course there's the simple fact a lot of factors in our response were never ever done before in history.

Agree. Many of the costs aren’t even close to being known now. We don’t really know how many people have actually died “of Covid” (as opposed to with it), and meanwhile the predictions of us entering a period of stagflation seem increasingly likely to bear out.

It does seem like the eventual verdict will be that not enough was done to contain things in the January-March period (perhaps with some hindsight it seems incredible to think that there was a serious view that the reason Italy had it bad was because their culture makes copious use of kissing, and thus it would never happen here), then after the initial lockdown things were allowed to drift simply repeating the same measures (both in terms of public health and support measures such as furlough) for far too long, and no doubt that many of the measures weren’t particularly effective but were disproportionately damaging.

I sense 2022 is going to be another rancid year, as we all suffer the fall-out from this.

 

[duncanp]

I think one thing that is overlooked is the evidence that China knew about COVID long before they brought it to the attention of the wider world.

If China had notified the WHO about COVID sooner, the outbreak could have been more contained geographically, and caused less damage.

One can only speculate as to their motives for the delay.

The SARS and MERS outbreaks were less damaging to the world as a whole.

 

[Ianno87]

I would second the view that a useful study would be to try and ascertain which elements of a Lockdown were effective, and which elements were not effective, as they were very "blunt instrument" tools, with many negative consequences.

 

[Eyersey468]

Agree. Many of the costs aren’t even close to being known now. We don’t really know how many people have actually died “of Covid” (as opposed to with it), and meanwhile the predictions of us entering a period of stagflation seem increasingly likely to bear out.

It does seem like the eventual verdict will be that not enough was done to contain things in the January-March period (perhaps with some hindsight it seems incredible to think that there was a serious view that the reason Italy had it bad was because their culture makes copious use of kissing, and thus it would never happen here), then after the initial lockdown things were allowed to drift simply repeating the same measures (both in terms of public health and support measures such as furlough) for far too long, and no doubt that many of the measures weren’t particularly effective but were disproportionately damaging.

I sense 2022 is going to be another rancid year, as we all suffer the fall-out from this.

Agree 100%. I have thought for a long time we are only just starting to see the collateral damage from the last 18 months

 

[yorksrob]

I would second the view that a useful study would be to try and ascertain which elements of a Lockdown were effective, and which elements were not effective, as they were very "blunt instrument" tools, with many negative consequences.

This is a very good point. Ultimately parliamentary commities are thorough in their way, but not really designed to increase the sum of human knowledge or introduce academic evaluation.

The report is a regurgitation of established views, rather than anything particularly insightful.

 

[philosopher]

Agree. Many of the costs aren’t even close to being known now. We don’t really know how many people have actually died “of Covid” (as opposed to with it), and meanwhile the predictions of us entering a period of stagflation seem increasingly likely to bear out.

Some of the impacts I reckon won’t be fully known for a decade or more, the impact of closing schools on individual and overall education levels being one of them.

 

[greyman42]

I think one thing that is overlooked is the evidence that China knew about COVID long before they brought it to the attention of the wider world.

If China had notified the WHO about COVID sooner, the outbreak could have been more contained geographically, and caused less damage.

One can only speculate as to their motives for the delay.

The SARS and MERS outbreaks were less damaging to the world as a whole.

If the virus escaped from a laboratory then the Chinese government were never going to admit that nor notify anyone about it.

 

[brad465]

In the BBC Live feed there's an item from an interview with Dame Deidre Hine, who led the review in to the Swine Flu pandemic in 2009, that I think is very prophetic. She warned back then about the dangers of 'groupthink' and information must be shared with a wider group of scientists to prevent key decisions being unchallenged.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-58880971

A former chief medical officer says she warned of the dangers of "group-think" - a criticism made by MPs in their Covid response report - when she led the review into the swine flu pandemic in 2009.

Dame Deirdre Hine says a specific recommendation of her 2009 report was that in future pandemics information should be shared with a wider group of scientists to avoid group decisions being unchallenged.

She tells BBC Radio 4's World at One programme: "I felt that there was a danger of group think in the [swine flu] pandemic and I explored the idea of releasing Sage papers to a wider group of scientists, so that this group would be able to comment authoritatively on the overall government strategy and give the media greater assurance about the approach being taken."

I think had this recommendation been taken on properly lockdowns would never have happened (although some light restrictions may have still been a thing).

 

[bramling]

Some of the impacts I reckon won’t be fully known for a decade or more, the impact of closing schools on individual and overall education levels being one of them.

100%.

This is where one finds it hard to forgive Boris's incompetence.

 

[duncanp]

In the BBC Live feed there's an item from an interview with Dame Deidre Hine, who led the review in to the Swine Flu pandemic in 2009, that I think is very prophetic. She warned back then about the dangers of 'groupthink' and information must be shared with a wider group of scientists to prevent key decisions being unchallenged.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-58880971

I think had this recommendation been taken on properly lockdowns would never have happened (although some light restrictions may have still been a thing).

What annoys me is the procession of people they have had oo the locktivist media (eg. Sky News and the BBC) commenting on the report along the lines of "...everyone agrees we should have locked down sooner..."

Er, NO that is not the case.

Some of us believe that we should never have locked down at all, save having a few light touch restrictions such as those in Sweden.

The real reason COVID spread so far is that China covered up its' existence until it was no longer possible to hide it, by which time it had been "seeded" in countries all over the world, and it was only a matter of time before the outbreak spread.

 

[Eyersey468]

What annoys me is the procession of people they have had oo the locktivist media (eg. Sky News and the BBC) commenting on the report along the lines of "...everyone agrees we should have locked down sooner..."

Er, NO that is not the case.

Some of us believe that we should never have locked down at all, save having a few light touch restrictions such as those in Sweden.

The real reason COVID spread so far is that China covered up its' existence until it was no longer possible to hide it, by which time it had been "seeded" in countries all over the world, and it was only a matter of time before the outbreak spread.

And me

 

[yorksrob]

Hopefully the public inquiry will bring in some more detailed academic examination of the effects of the lockdown policy.

 

[duncanp]

Hopefully the public inquiry will bring in some more detailed academic examination of the effects of the lockdown policy.

You will need to have someone appropriately qualified, but politically neutral, to head the inquiry, as it is likely to be held, and/or its' conclusions published, in the run up to the next general election.

What also annoyed me today was the way Dominic (Motormouth) C*****gs was being quoted on the media saying that he was right all along. (ie. that we should have locked down sooner).

 

[brad465]

What also annoyed me today was the way Dominic (Motormouth) C*****gs was being quoted on the media saying that he was right all along. (ie. that we should have locked down sooner).

To be fair, given how disliked he now is, him saying that is more likely to convince people otherwise, and certainly not think locking down sooner was possible/right.

 

[Ianno87]

Hopefully the public inquiry will bring in some more detailed academic examination of the effects of the lockdown policy.

I want a good analysis of cost vs benefit for each measure. Some measures will have been justified, some won't have been.

 

[yorksrob]

I want a good analysis of cost vs benefit for each measure. Some measures will have been justified, some won't have been.

Yes, I think that's a fair point. It will be interesting to see how the tier system fares.

 

[HSTEd]

So the lesson they draw is that it is never too early to abandon civil liberties and impose lockdown.

I'm sure this lesson will not come back to haunt us later.

 

[Eyersey468]

I want a good analysis of cost vs benefit for each measure. Some measures will have been justified, some won't have been.

Me too

 

[Cdd89]

The fact that something would have been wise in retrospect, doesn’t mean it would have been the right decision at the time.

This report doesn’t appear to assess whether the gambles were wrong at the time, only whether they were wrong in hindsight. That doesn’t seem like a very useful report to me.

 

[Eyersey468]

The fact that something would have been wise in retrospect, doesn’t mean it would have been the right decision at the time.

This report doesn’t appear to assess whether the gambles were wrong at the time, only whether they were wrong in hindsight. That doesn’t seem like a very useful report to me.

Very true. Anything can be assessed in hindsight.

 

[Mag_seven]

The report says "we should have locked down sooner". This is worrying as it has now given lockdown enthusiasts armoury should the health service show the slightest sign of becoming overwhelmed this winter despite vaccines and the end of furlough. I can see the government coming under pressure to impose more lockdowns "quicker" should that happen "as that is what the report says".

 

[Bantamzen]

I've only briefly skimmed through the sections on the early response and read the conclusions, but thus far this feels a highly unsatisfactory report telling us, well bugger all really. It tells us that the first lockdown was started too late, but doesn't really tell us when it should have started (at the most SAGE seemed to want it 7 days earlier) & why other than "because other countries have", which forms the basis for the "worst response ever" headlines we now see. But reading through what I have so far it all seems like opinion & supposition (probably not a surprise) rather than anything evidence based. And there probably won't be any evidence, how could we possibly demonstrate that locking down a week or so earlier would have had any real difference?

 

[big_rig]

So to get this straight, a report which talks about the dangers of group-think and leaping to conclusions in silos has, in its own silo, leapt to a conclusion that everything would've been much better if we'd done exactly the same thing, but five days sooner?

 

[duncanp]

So to get this straight, a report which talks about the dangers of group-think and leaping to conclusions in silos has, in its own silo, leapt to a conclusion that everything would've been much better if we'd done exactly the same thing, but five days sooner?

What annoys me is the relatives of people who died blaming Boris Johnson and saying things along the lines of "...if Boris Johnson had locked down sooner, my loved one would still be alive today..."

There is no way you can prove such a statement.

I am not saying that the government got everything right, but we need a proper public enquiry, headed by a judge with the appropriate qualifications and experience, to take a detailed but dispassionate look into every aspect of the pandemic.

Personally I am of the opinion that a large number of the deaths could have been prevented if China had not covered up the existence of COVID-19 for several months. The clue is in the name COVID-19, not COVID-20, which suggests that the virus was circulating around the world long before March 2020.

 

[DustyBin]

So to get this straight, a report which talks about the dangers of group-think and leaping to conclusions in silos has, in its own silo, leapt to a conclusion that everything would've been much better if we'd done exactly the same thing, but five days sooner?

You forgot to add “because that’s what other people did”.

I completely agree with the previous posters who’ve expressed concern over the reports facile pro-lockdown conclusion. Unfortunately I think large swathes of the population will buy into this and lockdowns will become part of our way of life. I honestly don’t think the government will let this go; this particular genie isn’t going back in the bottle, and it never was from the moment we demonstrated our willingness to trade freedom for (perceived) safety, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.

 

[Eyersey468]

You forgot to add “because that’s what other people did”.

I completely agree with the previous posters who’ve expressed concern over the reports facile pro-lockdown conclusion. Unfortunately I think large swathes of the population will buy into this and lockdowns will become part of our way of life. I honestly don’t think the government will let this go; this particular genie isn’t going back in the bottle, and it never was from the moment we demonstrated our willingness to trade freedom for (perceived) safety, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.

That has been my concern from the beginning too.

 

[takno]

I haven't read the report, but given the chairmanship of the committee is held by an embittered former health secretary and rival for the conservative leadership, I'm not convinced that this is a body with much to say worth reading.

If we'd reacted sooner it would probably have resulted in the Covid-infected elderly being dumped from hospitals into nursing homes with even less preparation, and more would have died.

 

[Mag_seven]

I wonder how much of the "XXXX" deaths could have been avoided figure is based on already discredited and dodgy modelling?