Covid Inquiry Under Fire for Presumed Conclusions
The official inquiry into Britain's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic has been accused of reaching its conclusions before properly examining the evidence. Critics argue the investigation presupposed that non-pharmaceutical interventions – including masks, social distancing, and lockdowns – were effective without seriously questioning this assumption.
The inquiry's primary focus became determining why the government did not implement these measures earlier, rather than examining whether they worked at all. This bias was apparent even before hearings began in summer 2023, when witnesses were required to take lateral flow tests despite widespread acceptance that Covid had become an endemic disease we must live with.
Questioning the Lockdown Consensus
In what has become a familiar pattern, Lady Hallett's team declared the government had done 'too little too late' according to interim findings. The inquiry maintained Britain was too slow to enforce social distancing in February 2020, too quick to lift restrictions that summer, and too slow to reimpose them later.
The fundamental question of whether lockdowns caused more harm than good was never seriously considered by the official investigation. The notion that Britain lacked pandemic preparedness has become received wisdom, despite the existence of a carefully developed plan created in calmer times.
This original strategy provided for gradual virus spread to prevent overwhelming spikes and allow hospitals to continue functioning. However, the plan was abandoned following modelling from Imperial College London authored by Professor Neil Ferguson – who later breached his own lockdown rules to meet a lover, suggesting he might not have been as concerned as his modelling indicated.
The Swedish Alternative and Lasting Consequences
While Britain abandoned its original pandemic plan, Sweden implemented a version of it almost unchanged. The Scandinavian nation avoided harsh lockdowns, instead banning large meetings, urging the elderly to stay home, and asking others to use common sense.
When examining excess mortality rates – the clearest comparable measure between countries – Sweden consistently performed well. Multiple studies show Sweden's excess mortality rate across 2020 and 2021 was lower than the European average, with one ranking placing it as the lowest of all.
Despite this evidence, then-Health Secretary Matt Hancock referred to the 'f***ing Sweden argument' in leaked WhatsApp messages, asking officials for bullet points explaining 'why Sweden is wrong' rather than considering whether their approach might have been right.
The economic and social costs of lockdown continue to impact Britain. The policy introduced millions to living on benefits, saw sickness claims rocket, and established remote work patterns that have resulted in 7% lower productivity among government employees. The direct cost of the inquiry itself – £200 million – symbolizes what critics call the erosion of fiscal responsibility that began with lockdown decisions.
Closed schools, reduced human contact, and increased screen time have created lasting mental health challenges, particularly among young people. As one of the few columnists who opposed lockdown from the start, Lord Hannan notes how many have since backdated their views, denying they ever supported the measures that made the country 'poorer, more pinched and more authoritarian.'
