Re Boris Johnson’s testimony at the Covid inquiry (Covid inquiry: Johnson surprised ‘eat out to help out’ not cleared by scientists, 7 December), subsidising meals out in 2020 was an irresponsible policy decision. Johnson, Rishi Sunak and Matt Hancock used £850m of public money to increase the British public’s risk of exposure to Covid-19. They ignored the public health consequences of the “eat out to help out” policy to regain popular consensus – a modern version of the Roman emperors’ bread and circuses.
After months of the pandemic, the notion that the risk of exposure to Covid-19 increases if you spend a long time in crowded premises should have been clear to everyone. Failing to anticipate the consequences of the “eat out” policy is inexcusable gross negligence.
How risky was the policy for public health? At Kingston University, we were the first to answer this. We collected the average time that customers spend in retail premises based on new data publicly available since 2020 from Google Maps. We found that dining out carried the highest absolute risk of exposure – 50 times higher than refuelling a car at a petrol station, and 20 times higher than grocery shopping. Our study enabled everyone to understand the potential risk of going out and to make responsible choices of daily activities.
We made our data public by personally funding open access to the published paper. The Italian government showed interest in our research, and we presented the results to the director of national prevention. Despite popular and economic pressures, the Italian government never lifted the restrictions on dining out.
Prof Giampiero Favato
Director, Institute for Leadership and Management in Health, Kingston University London
• Boris Johnson claims that he “vastly underestimated the risks” and “failed to understand the seriousness of the pandemic in January and February 2020” (Report, 6 December). That’s very odd, because the rest of us had a pretty good idea of what was going on. On 29 February 2020, I flew out of Tenerife airport just two hours before it was locked down. Hotels there rapidly followed, leaving many tourists stranded. Given that the Spanish authorities did think that something serious was happening, I expected that on arrival at Gatwick I would be met by public health officials, who would be giving me a temperature check at least. I also remember worrying that I might not be allowed to go home immediately. But no, not a white coat or clipboard in sight at Gatwick.
We all left the airport and scattered across the country, thereby giving the virus a few more weeks to circulate, until the UK finally locked down on 23 March. While other governments were moving fast and taking precautionary measures, ours did nothing for several weeks. How many deaths and long Covid cases could have been avoided if Johnson and his government had actually performed one of the primary functions of any government – protecting its citizens?
Monica Collingham
Worthing, West Sussex
• Boris Johnson might have “twigged” the seriousness of Covid had he bothered to attend the Cobra meetings in early 2020 (Report, 6 December) Missing those meetings was a gross dereliction of duty.
Tony Jackson
Applecross, Scottish Highlands
• The first letter above was amended on 12 December 2023. An earlier version had said “subsiding” where “subsidising” was meant.
