Former cabinet minister Lord Gove has strongly questioned the Covid Inquiry's incendiary conclusion that 23,000 people died unnecessarily because the first lockdown was imposed one week too late.
Controversial Findings Face Scrutiny
The £200 million inquiry, chaired by Baroness Hallett, made headlines worldwide with its assertion that the devastating death toll during the pandemic's first wave could have been halved if ministers had acted more swiftly. Her report suggested that 23,000 lives could have been saved with earlier intervention.
However, Lord Gove branded this conclusion a 'leap' that went beyond reasonable assessment. 'I think it's one thing to say it would have been more prudent to have locked down a week earlier - but it's quite another to make the leap to claim that 23,000 lives would have been saved as a result,' the former minister stated during an appearance on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Scientific Doubts Emerge
The inquiry's dramatic figure originated from modelling by Professor Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London, who later faced significant criticism during the pandemic. Professor Ferguson's 2021 modelling suggested the first wave death toll could have been reduced from 48,600 to 25,600 with earlier action.
Yet his methodology faced heavy criticism for failing to account for measures already being implemented to limit the virus's spread. Professor Ferguson also resigned as a government scientific adviser after breaching his own social distancing rules to meet his married lover.
Oxford University Professor Carl Henegan added further scepticism about the 23,000 figure during the same Today programme discussion. 'It's just not clear to say, if we had locked down week earlier, 23,000 lives might have been saved, based on modelling,' he stated.
Professor Henegan emphasised that this was a 'judge-led inquiry rather than an epidemiological sort of investigation,' noting the absence of proper assessment of peer-reviewed literature despite the inquiry's substantial £200 million budget.
Political Implications and Broader Context
The controversial figure carries significant political weight, with suggestions it could damage former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's prospects of returning to frontline politics. Professor Henegan acknowledged these 'political implications' while maintaining the figure's unreliability.
Lord Gove, who previously apologised for mistakes made during his time in office throughout the crisis, argued against placing sole responsibility on Mr Johnson. He stated that a 'singular focus' on the former prime minister's role 'distorts the complexity of decision-making' during the unprecedented emergency.
The former minister also questioned Lady Hallett's broader conclusion that lockdowns could have been avoided entirely if the government hadn't done 'too little, too late.' Lord Gove countered that 'some sort of restriction on social mixing, on social liberty, was always going to be required to suppress the spread of the virus.'
Despite these criticisms, the inquiry report did praise the Johnson administration for 'leading the world in developing a vaccine' to end the crisis. Lord Gove echoed this sentiment, acknowledging that 'without his drive, we would not have had the vaccine. Its rollout was responsible for ensuring we were the first country to put jabs in arms.'
The 760-page second report also highlighted the profound impact on children, finding that childhood was 'brought to a halt' by draconian lockdown measures despite most young people being immune to the virus's deadliest effects.
