It has been another busy and often enlightening week at the UK Covid inquiry. Here are some of the things we learned – or in some cases relearned.
Herd immunity was not government policy
This has been said before but it was significant to hear Chris Whitty, England’s chief medical officer, set out how a nuanced epidemiological concept used primarily for modelling became so widely misunderstood – including by ministers – that it was widely mistaken for a policy goal.
Whitty said he urged people in government to stop publicly discussing a subject that they “half understood” at best, and explained how herd immunity as misunderstood by some – letting a virus run unchecked through a population – would have caused “an extraordinarily high loss of life”.
Whitty is by nature a measured and cautious man but he was scathing about the so-called Great Barrington declaration, which called for such a tactic, calling the scientists behind it “just wrong”.
Scientists were on frontline of abuse
Many people will remember the deeply unsettling footage of Whitty being verbally abused on the street in early 2021. In his written statement to the inquiry, Whitty said he ended up having close police protection for nine months.
Jonathan Van-Tam, Whitty’s deputy during Covid, told the inquiry that he and his family were advised at one point to move out of their home because someone had threatened to cut their throats.
It might be nice to think that matters have since got better. But depressingly, on the same day Van-Tam gave evidence, a national newspaper column blamed lockdown on “a group of spectrummy males … who would struggle to pick out their own child in a school photograph”.
Rishi Sunak could face a tricky appearance
The prime minister is scheduled to give evidence in the next few weeks, and the more the inquiry hears about his role, arguably the murkier his prospects seem.
In previous weeks, Sunak, who was chancellor during Covid, has been portrayed by some as overly gung-ho on seeking to lift restrictions, even nicknamed “Dr Death” by one government scientist. An extract this week from the diary of Sir Patrick Vallance, the former chief scientific adviser to the government, had Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s former aide, summarising Sunak’s view as “just let people die and that’s OK”.
All this is not necessarily a huge drawback given the anti-lockdown sentiment in parts of the Conservative party. What could prove trickier is any signs he has tried to gloss over his record in the pandemic – as hinted at during Vallance’s evidence this week.
The inquiry was told that Sunak’s yet to be seen written evidence to the inquiry said he had no recollection of being warned by scientists against his “eat out to help out” hospitality scheme. Vallance, in his polite way, said this seemed very unlikely. Watch this space.
Boris Johnson is not especially good at science
Asked about explaining scientific concepts to the then PM, Vallance noted that Johnson last studied science at the age of 15 and “would be the first to admit it wasn’t his forte”.
Extracts from Vallance’s diary made this point eloquently and repeatedly: one entry said the prime minister was “bamboozled” by modelling, and another said he would fail to understand ideas that had been put to him six hours earlier.
In fairness to Johnson, Vallance also recalled being part of a group call with scientific advisers from various countries when one said their leader could not understand exponential curves, “and the entire phone call burst into laughter because it was true in every country”.
Van-Tam still loves a metaphor
For those who missed the former deputy chief medical officer’s resonant turn of phrase at Covid press conferences – “Don’t tear the pants out of it” remains his most remembered one – there were some reminders this week, particularly about his fondness for parallels connected to football.
One likened a forum specialising in reports about new infectious diseases to a football transfers website – “excitable in January”. He also explained the differences between him and Whitty thus: “I’m the one who chases the ball, and Chris is the one who looks at the ball and makes a more qualified decision about whether it is worth chasing.”
