UK Covid inquiry: government accused of giving ‘very little’ advance thought to lockdown and being too focused on flu – live

0

Government gave ‘very little thought’ in advance to prospect of lockdown being needed in pandemic, says inquiry counsel

After a short break, Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, is continuing his opening statement.

He says “very little thought” was given ahead of Covid as to whether a lockdown might be needed if a pandemic struck the UK, and how it might be implemented.

Extraordinary though it may seem, given that it’s a word that’s forever seared in the nation’s consciousness, there was very little debate pre-pandemic of whether a lockdown might prove to be necessary in the event of a runaway virus, let alone how a lockdown could be avoided.

Very little thought was given to how, if it proved to be necessary, how something as complex, difficult and damaging as a national lockdown could be put in place at all.

Equally, there appears to have been a failure to think through the potentially massive impact on education and on the economy in trying to control a runaway virus in this way.

He again suggests ‘“complacency” was a factor.

Was there an element of complacency based on our recent experiences, including the ranking in the Global Health Security Index? Or our response to swine flu in 2009 and the UK’s undoubted successes in ensuring Sars and Mers did not spread?

Did our experience of the 2009 swine flu lead to concerns about overreacting?

He asks whether an agency should have had full control over emergency planning. He goes on:

Perhaps there should be a central leadership position accountable to parliament, with responsibility for whole system preparedness, resilience and response.

Key events

Government planning for Brexit, and no deal, in 2019, may have weakened pandemic preparedness, inquiry counsel suggests

Keith says the year before the pandemic a huge amount of government planning was taking place relating to Brexit, and the risk of a no-deal Brexit. He goes on:

It is clear that such planning from 2018 onwards crowded out and prevented some, or perhaps a majority, of the improvements that central government itself understood were required to be made to resilience planning and preparedness.

He asks if all that work drained “the resources and the capacity” that should have been devoted to preparing for a pandemic. Or did all that planning mean that the UK was better prepared for a pandemic?

He says this will be a question for Heather Hallett, the inquiry chair, to answer, but he goes on:

We very much fear that it was the former.

He ends his opening statement by saying the inquiry should also consider whether planning for pandemic considered health inequalities, and how some groups would be more vulnerable.

Inquiry will consider whether collapse in power sharing affected pandemic planning in Northern Ireland, Keith says

Keith says, in Northern Ireland, power sharing was suspended between January 2017 and January 2020. Northern Ireland was managed by civil servants, he says.

He says the inquiry will consider “to what extent that lack of ministerial input affected the civil emergency arrangements, and in particular the inability, because of the collapse of the power sharing agreement, to make any significant improvements to this structure during that interregnum”.

Keith is again referring to the emergency planning flowchart cited earlier. (See 11.13am.)

It shows that local resilience forums were often in the lead. But was that the right approach, he asks.

He also points out that there are bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland duplicating what UK bodies are doing.

Government gave ‘very little thought’ in advance to prospect of lockdown being needed in pandemic, says inquiry counsel

After a short break, Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, is continuing his opening statement.

He says “very little thought” was given ahead of Covid as to whether a lockdown might be needed if a pandemic struck the UK, and how it might be implemented.

Extraordinary though it may seem, given that it’s a word that’s forever seared in the nation’s consciousness, there was very little debate pre-pandemic of whether a lockdown might prove to be necessary in the event of a runaway virus, let alone how a lockdown could be avoided.

Very little thought was given to how, if it proved to be necessary, how something as complex, difficult and damaging as a national lockdown could be put in place at all.

Equally, there appears to have been a failure to think through the potentially massive impact on education and on the economy in trying to control a runaway virus in this way.

He again suggests ‘“complacency” was a factor.

Was there an element of complacency based on our recent experiences, including the ranking in the Global Health Security Index? Or our response to swine flu in 2009 and the UK’s undoubted successes in ensuring Sars and Mers did not spread?

Did our experience of the 2009 swine flu lead to concerns about overreacting?

He asks whether an agency should have had full control over emergency planning. He goes on:

Perhaps there should be a central leadership position accountable to parliament, with responsibility for whole system preparedness, resilience and response.

Government pandemic planning put too much focus on threat from flu, inquiry counsel suggests

Keith says the government prepared for a flu pandemic.

But did it prepare for other pandemics, not only for the known, but for the unknown. He goes on:

The evidence will demonstrate that the government thought that the greater risk was an influenza pandemic and therefore devoted more time and resources to that possibility.

In the event, we were hit of course by a coronavirus. That might suggest a lack of flexibility or proper foresight. Or perhaps the policies, plans and structures were so flexible and broad … that this prevented us from focusing enough upon those particular risks which, whilst being perhaps less likely, could cause us more harm?

He says a key question for this stage of the inquiry will be whether enough thought was given to the possibility that an infectious disease might emerge that was not a flu virus.

The inquiry will have to consider whether planning became “self-validating or complacent”, he says.

He says an influenza pandemic might have caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. But, because that was risk, did it mean people did not consider other threats?

And he says the government had antiviral medicines stocked up for a flu pandemic. But did this mean that, while the government was thinking of dealing with the consequences of a pandemic, it was not thinking about how it could avoid a different sort of pandemic in the first place?

To what extent did United Kingdom government and devolved administrations have a strategy for preventing a pandemic from having disastrous effects, as opposed to dealing with the disastrous effects of the pandemic and the reasonable worst case scenario?

He repeats the point about testing not being such a requirement with flu (see 10.48am), implying that the UK should have had more testing capacity for a virus like Covid.

At the Covid inquiry Hugo Keith KC, counsel to the inquiry, is now talking specifically about the government’s preparedness. He says:

It is obvious that the degree to which Covid-19 could be prevented from laying waste to society was a matter within the control of government. And the systems for the EPR [emergency preparedness and response] existed … Systems may not be able to stop a pandemic in its tracks, but they ought to be able to put in place measures of understanding of virus, understanding and forecasting how it might develop, tracking it, limiting transmission and coping with the consequences of large-scale transmission.

Keith then shows a diagram showing how the system was supposed to work. This is from the Times’ Tom Whipple.

It’s all v complex. Luckily Mr Keith, the KC for the inquiry, has provided visual aids to help us understand UK gov bureaucracy. pic.twitter.com/ZnMH2FYbl0

— Tom Whipple (@whippletom) June 13, 2023

Keith is now talking about the impact of lockdown.

Almost every area of public life across all four nations, including education, work, travel, the majority of public services and family life, were adversely affected.

The hospitality, retail, travel and tourism, arts and culture, and the sport and leisure sectors effectively ceased. Even places of worship closed.

For very many, what they had to deal with when far beyond the curtailment of their normal lives and involve bereavement, serious illness, deprivation, mental illness, exposure to violence at home, terrible financial loss, loneliness, and many other forms of suffering.

Keith says the UK had not prepared for a non-flu pandemic.

That was relevant to testing capacity, he says. With flu, testing is less necessary, he suggests, because with flu you are more likely to show symptoms.

You know you have a bug, you go home possibly to bed and you try not to pass it on and tests aren’t needed.

UK ‘might not have been very well prepared at all’ for Covid pandemic in advance, inquiry’s counsel says

Keith is now setting out a chronology of events at the outbreak of the pandemic.

He says that this module will focus on preparedness. And he goes on:

Even at this stage, before hearing the evidence, it is apparent that we might not have been very well prepared at all.

UK ‘might not have been well prepared at all’ for pandemic, says Covid inquiry – video

Covid inquiry to focus on issues that have caused ‘greatest public concern’ in UK, its counsel, Hugo Keith KC, says

Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry, is now making his opening statement.

He says we may never know where the Sars-CoV-2 virus, that led to the pandemic, originated. And we may never know who the first person was to be affected.

No inquiry could look into all aspects of the pandemic, he says.

But this inquiry will focus on those areas of the pandemic that caused “the greatest public concern” in the UK, and where there is a need to make urgent reccommentations.

Heather Hallett, the inquiry chair, asks attendants to tell people who left the room because they were going to find the video too upsetting that they can now return.

She says the film was distressing for everyone, but would have been particularly distressing for relatives.

The video ends with a woman saying that, in order to move on, relatives have to know lessons will be learned from the inquiry.

A woman says it “really hurts” not being able to give someone a proper funeral, and make their “final journey lovely”. She is almost in tears.

Another woman says she still suffers from anxiety, and still wears her mask wherever she goes.

And another woman says, in Caribbean culture, hundreds of people attend a funeral. In her case, only 20 people were allowed. And the body was sealed in a bag. The family were not even allowed to break the lock on it.

A woman from Northern Ireland says in Northern Ireland wakes are important part of the grieving process. She says she cannot go to the cemetery now, because it reminds her of the workers in white suits and masks at the funeral, telling them their time was up. Her mother did not get a celebration of her life, she says. She says she feels that she failed her as a result.

A man recalls calling 999 when he was really ill. He woke up again in hospital. When he did wake up, he learned his wife had died. They had been married for 48 years.

A woman recalls her father’s funeral. There were just 15 people there. She did not hug anyone, from when she learned her father was dying until after the funeral. It was a very lonely time. Grief was compounded by loneliness, she says.

A woman recalls taking her mother to hospital. They “waited and waited and waited”. Then a doctor called, who just announced that her mother had passed away. She was expecting to go and see her again, but she was told she had died.

The video features multiple clips from participants. The woman who was featured earlier, talking about her father and sisted dying within five days of each other, is talking about the moment her sister died.

A woman, Jane, recalls her father being taken to hospital. She accompanied him, and urged her dad “to be the strongest you’ve every been”.

Another woman recalls being so ill she was “spitting blood”. She went to hospital, and was taken to ICU where she was intubated. She woke up six weeks later. On three occasions she was so unwell they stopped treatment. But slowly and steadily she recovered.

The video is being shown now. It features interviews with members of the public recalling their experience of the pandemic. One woman recalls, at the start of the pandemic, discussing with her boss how they would know people who would die as the pandemic developed. But she never realised it would be “my dad and my sister five days apart”, she says, holding back tears.

Stay connected with us on social media platform for instant update click here to join our  Twitter, & Facebook

We are now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@TechiUpdate) and stay updated with the latest Technology headlines.

For all the latest Covid-19 News Click Here 

Read original article here

Denial of responsibility! Rapidtelecast.com is an automatic aggregator around the global media. All the content are available free on Internet. We have just arranged it in one platform for educational purpose only. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials on our website, please contact us by email – [email protected]. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.
Leave a comment