The recent Covid-19 Inquiry has sparked a renewed discussion regarding the effectiveness of lockdown measures. Amidst the release of its extensive 760-page report, various commentators have selectively quoted to align with their existing viewpoints. Nonetheless, the overarching conclusion of this significant public inquiry in the UK is unequivocal – the absence of lockdowns would have led to an incomprehensible and unacceptable loss of life, with the National Health Service facing overwhelming challenges.
Baroness Heather Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, emphasized that while full national lockdowns became unavoidable, there was a possibility of them being averted. The necessity of these stringent measures was primarily due to the governmental inaction during the pandemic, particularly under the leadership of Boris Johnson, known for his libertarian stance.
In the initial stages of the pandemic, China swiftly imposed a lockdown in Wuhan and other cities, encompassing a population of 57 million individuals. At that time, Western leaders, including those in the UK, viewed such drastic actions with disdain, believing that the concept of lockdowns was incompatible with the values of freedom.
This initial reluctance to adopt preventive measures resulted in what Lady Hallett referred to as a “lost month” in February 2020. She highlighted the government’s delayed implementation of softer, sustainable measures like contact tracing, self-isolation, and the use of face coverings, which could have curbed the virus spread.
Lady Hallett suggested that had stricter but non-mandatory restrictions been enforced earlier when the Covid-19 cases were fewer, the subsequent mandatory lockdown might have been shorter or potentially avoided. Critics of lockdowns, often opposing basic preventive measures like mask-wearing and social distancing, inadvertently contributed to the necessity of lockdowns.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for instance, publicly admitted to shaking hands with coronavirus patients even after scientific advisers had cautioned against such actions. The inquiry revealed that the premature easing of restrictions in July 2020 heightened the risk of infections surging, potentially leading to a second lockdown.
The inquiry report emphasized the need for a more cautious approach by the UK government to prevent the rapid escalation of infections. It underscored that the rush to reopen post the initial lockdown increased the likelihood of a subsequent lockdown becoming inevitable.
The comprehensive scope of this public inquiry, the broadest in British history, aims to extract valuable lessons from the pandemic response. It is imperative to ensure that the mistakes and contradictions that made lockdowns unavoidable are acknowledged to facilitate informed decision-making in the future.