Hugh Pym
Health editor

Image source, PA Media

Further to our earlier post about Dominic Cummings, the report says there was caution about lockdown in the first wave amongst experts on the SAGE committee.

It notes that a policy of trying to contain the virus had failed by 12 March 2020 but that scientific experts did not advise a change because they were unaware of how widely the virus was spreading.

But the report adds that Professor Chris Whitty "did not wish the UK to be the first country to abandon containment" and felt it was best to wait until the World Health Organization had accepted there was a pandemic. This, the report says, "was the wrong approach, given the extent of the spread of the virus within the UK".

Image source, Reuters

As we've been reporting, among the individuals singled out for criticism by the inquiry is Dominic Cummings - a special adviser to Boris Johnson during the Covid pandemic.

He has just shared a statement accusing the inquiry report of a mix of "coverups and rewriting history".

In a social media post which reaches just shy of 2,000 words, Cummings says:

• He was offered the chance to respond to the inquiry's findings before the report was released, but declined, declaring it "insider corruption"
• The inquiry "has enabled a vast rewriting of history" by failing to represent the fact that scientists and experts "were completely wrong" on "most of the big questions" at the start of 2020.
• He suggests experts "advised us to do almost nothing" and "advised against any serious restrictions" as the country would reach "natural herd immunity" by September
• The inquiry failed to get statements from "crucial people"

• It also "suppressed" his efforts to "change the physical layout of government so it could deal with a crisis"
• Lessons won't be learned because of a system "devoted to anti-learning and covering up for official failure"
• "If the inquiry says I got anything right, bear in mind it’s probably got this wrong too"

Leila Nathoo
Political correspondent at the inquiry

The report revisits high-profile instances where people involved in devising Covid rules were alleged to have broken them themselves.

It says events - such as Dominic Cummings’s trip to Durham and Barnard Castle in March 2020 - not only “undermined public confidence in decision-making”, but also increased the risk of people deciding not to follow the rules.

It reflects that when reports of parties in Downing Street began emerging in November 2021, there was a "public outcry" and that polling from the time showed that almost half of those asked said they were unlikely to stick to Christmas restrictions because of what was going on in Number 10.

Baroness Hallett’s report says the incidents caused “huge distress” to the public - especially to bereaved people who had complied with regulations and guidance to massive personal and financial costs.

Leila Nathoo
Political correspondent at the inquiry

The report describes a "toxic and chaotic" culture at the heart of the government during its response to the pandemic, which it says affected the quality of advice and decision-making.

While it says poor behaviour was displayed by a number of senior leaders and advisers, Boris Johnson’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, is described as having been a "destabilising influence", whose actions contributed “significantly to a culture of fear, mutual suspicion and distrust that poisoned the atmosphere in 10 Downing Street”.

Baroness Hallett’s report says that at the beginning of 2020 Johnson was too optimistic that the virus would amount to nothing and that his attention was on other government priorities.

It describes then-health Secretary Matt Hancock's repeated assurances to the Cabinet that the UK was well-prepared to respond - but says over time he developed a reputation in Downing Street for "overpromising and underdelivering".

The Eat Out to Help Out scheme, suggested by then-chancellor Rishi Sunak and agreed by Johnson to support hospitality venues in August 2020, was "devised in the absence of any scientific advice" and "undermined public health messaging", it says.

In Autumn 2020, all four nations' governments paid "insufficient attention" to the prospect of a second wave, it adds, saying that Johnson’s indecision over introducing tougher restrictions enabled the virus to continue spreading at pace - ultimately resulting in another lockdown.

We've also heard from Brenda Doherty from the Bereaved Families for Justice group - she says her mother was the first woman in Northern Ireland to die of Covid in March 2020.

"Had a lockdown been a week earlier, people like my mammy would have been saved," she says with emotion in her voice.

She says the inquiry's report has "hit the nail on the head" and made strong recommendations. The next step is to ensure they are implemented, and that there is "no excuse" for further failures in a future pandemic, she says.

"If they're not, I want to know why, as do the families within our group that we represent," she adds.

Deborah Doyle, from the Bereaved Families for Justice group, goes on to say that to make mistakes is human, but to refuse to listen to front-line workers, vulnerable people and scientific experts is "unforgivable".

"The same arrogance that led those at the heart of government to hold parties while many of us died and grieved alone shaped the government’s approach to the pandemic, and led to loss of life at an unprecedented, avoidable scale," she says.

We need to reflect on how we were left so vulnerable, she says.

"We can't just hope that we have better leaders in the future - the government must implement the safeguards recommended by the inquiry immediately.

"Otherwise, we are no safer now than we were during the darkest days in living history."

We're now hearing from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, who campaigned for the inquiry to begin five years ago.

They say it is "devastating to think of the lives that could have been saved" under different leadership.

"We now know that many of our family members would still be alive today if it weren’t for the leadership of Boris Johnson and his colleagues," says campaigner Deborah Doyle.

"Throughout the pandemic, Boris Johnson put his political reputation ahead of public safety. He pandered to his critics when the UK needed decisive action," the group says.

Hallett says the UK became the first country to start a vaccination programme in December 2020, calling it a "remarkable achievement".

But it would take time for it to be effective, she says, while a new variant of Covid was spreading.

A failure to take "swift and decisive action, yet again" led to another lockdown and closure of schools in January 2021, Hallett says.

Image source, Covid Inquiry

Evidence suggests a short lockdown in September 2020 could have reduced the length and severity of the second lockdown in England on 5 November, Hallett says.

"It might conceivably have been avoided altogether", she adds.

Similarly in Wales, there was a "lack of timely planning" in relation to the circuit-breaker lockdown, she adds.

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, decision-making was "chaotic" and affected by "political machinations".

By contrast, cases in Scotland in autumn 2020 did not peak to the same level as the rest of the UK. Stringent, locally-targeted measures meant case numbers grew more gradually, Hallett says.

Nonetheless, in late 2020, all four nations were hit by a wave of cases.

Hallett says it is "remarkable" that all four of the UK's governments failed to plan for the possibility of a mandatory lockdown.

Plans for imposing restrictions, and ultimately lifting them, should have been readied from the outset.

UK governments "did not scrutinise sufficiently seriously" the impact of the lockdowns on the vulnerable and disadvantaged, or the impact of school closures on children's education and their physical and mental health, she says.

Many of the same failings were repeated again later in 2020, Hallett says, adding that the UK should have been well-equipped to respond given a second wave of infections was widely predicted.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent at the inquiry

A UK-wide lockdown was introduced on 23 March 2020. It came 10 days after the government’s scientific advisory group Sage had realised the virus was spreading much more quickly than they thought.

That conclusion led the government to advise the public to take voluntary steps - such as social distancing and isolating if they had symptoms - on 16 March.

The report cites modelling which says if a lockdown had been introduced then it would have reduced the death toll in the first wave – up to the start of July – by 23,000 in England.

That equates to nearly half the deaths seen in that initial period.

But the report does not suggest the overall death toll for the pandemic – 227,000 in the UK by the time it was declared over in 2023 – would have been reduced.

That is very difficult to tell, as it depends on a variety of other factors that could have reduced or increased the number of deaths as the pandemic progressed.

Hallett continues to describe how, by mid-March 2020, the UK's governments had received "clear and compelling" advice that exponential growth in the virus's transition would lead to a loss of life "on a scale that was unconscionable and unacceptable".

She says no government could ignore this advice or tolerate the loss of life expected.

As a result, the mandatory lockdown was implemented "in the genuine and reasonable belief it was required".

"They had no choice by then," Hallett says. "But it was through their own acts and omissions that they had no choice."

The inquiry chair goes on to suggest that had lockdown been implemented a week earlier, the number of deaths in the first wave - up until 1 July 2020 - would have been reduced by 48%.

"That is approximately 23,000 fewer deaths," she says.

Hallett says a failure to take action meant a national lockdown became more likely.

She says governments needed to take "timely and decisive action" to avoid lockdowns.

"The four governments of the UK did not," she says.

If the restrictions announced on 16 March 2020 been introduced earlier, she says, when the number of cases were lower, the mandatory lockdown "might have been shorter"

"It might not have been necessary at all," she says.

Jim Reed
Health reporter at the inquiry

We're hearing from Baroness Hallett's statement about how the UK's four governments responded when signs of Covid first emerged in China.

Her report heavily criticises a "lack of urgency" at this time, saying that governments in all four UK nations "did not take the pandemic seriously enough until it was too late”.

By the end of January 2020, it should have been clear that the virus posed a "serious and immediate threat" and "urgent planning" should have started, it says. Instead, February 2020 is described as a “lost month” with life continuing almost as normal across the country.

Boris Johnson "should have appreciated sooner" that this was a crisis that needed "prime ministerial leadership to inject urgency into the response", the report says.

Part of the problem was that UK surveillance systems did not spot early enough that the virus was spreading, something it says was compounded by "misleading assurances" coming from the Department of Health that the country was well prepared for this kind of emergency.

Hallett says that there were warning signs to go into lockdown earlier, pointing towards the number of severe cases of respiratory illness in China.

“The tempo of the response should have been increased,” she says. Instead, “February 2020 was a lost month".

All four governments made a “serious failure” and underestimated the scale of the threat and urgency it demanded, she says, adding that the crisis required leadership from the very top.

The governments knew that the reasonable worst-case scenario would lead to up to 80% of the population being infected and “a very significant loss of life".

At the same time, she says it became clear that the test and trace system was “inadequate” for a pandemic due to “flawed pandemic planning".

Hallett says politicians' decisions need to be understood in context. They had to make them in conditions of "extreme pressure", initially "without access to data".

But she nonetheless summarises her findings by saying the response was "too little, too late".

All four governments "failed to appreciate" the scale of the threat, or the urgency of response required, she says.

They relied in part on "misleading assurances" that the UK was properly prepared for a pandemic.

Image source, UK Covid-19 Inquiry

Baroness Hallett has just published her video statement on today's second Covid inquiry report.

She begins by describing how she's been able to compare and contrast the different "unenviable" choices made by the UK's four governments in responding to the same emergency.

Most importantly, she says, the report considers if the number of deaths and social impact of the coronavirus pandemic could have been reduced.

Hallett says that lockdowns "undoubtedly saved lives", but also had devastating consequences for the UK economy and people's mental health, while bringing "ordinary childhood to a halt".

A reminder, you can watch live at the top of the page.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent at the inquiry

This is perhaps the most eye-catching and tantalising part of the report.

Baroness Hallett says if the government had introduced voluntary measures earlier, a mandatory lockdown could have been avoided.

From 16 March 2020, the public was advised to socially distance and to self-isolate if they had symptoms - with their household members also quarantining.

But by this time it was too late, the report says. The virus was spreading quickly and the NHS was getting closer to being overwhelmed.

If these and other measures short of a "stay-at-home" lockdown had been introduced earlier, then the subsequent lockdown may have been shortened - or conceivably might not have been necessary at all, the report says.

If nothing else, it adds, the measures would have given the government and its advisers time to assess how effective such measures would have been.

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent at the inquiry

As we've just reported in our last post, today's report says lockdown could have been avoided. Here are some of the other findings:

• Government scientists underestimated how quickly the virus was spreading in the early days
• Rule-breaking by politicians and their advisers undermined public confidence in decision-making and significantly increased the risk of people not sticking to the measures being put in place
• The report also criticises all four nations for their planning and decision-making, which it says was hampered by the lack of trust between Boris Johnson and first ministers
• Children were not prioritised enough, with ministers failing to consider properly the consequences of school closures
• In general, lockdown left lasting scars on society, and worsened existing inequalities
• Meanwhile, ministers were praised for the rollout of the vaccination programme and how they exited the lockdown of early 2021, allowing time for vulnerable groups to get the jab

Nick Triggle
Health correspondent at the inquiry

Lockdown could have been avoided if steps such as social distancing and isolating those with symptoms - and their households - had been introduced earlier, the second report from the Covid inquiry says.

But the report, which focuses on government decision-making, says by the time ministers took action it was already too late and a lockdown was "inevitable".

Voluntary measures were brought in on 16 March 2020, followed by a stay-at home order seven days later.

An immediate lockdown on 16 March would have meant 23,000 fewer deaths in the first wave in England alone, modelling suggests.

Chair Baroness Hallett says while the government was presented with "unenviable" choices under extreme pressure, the response could be summarised as "too little, too late".