Senior scientists told the Guardian that the failure to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands during Britain's second wave of Covid infection was more serious than the timing of the initial lockdown. This is despite a damning report from MPs about the handling of the pandemic.
In September 2020, the scientific advisory group for emergencies (Sage), warned ministers that there was a serious epidemic in the country and that they needed to act immediately. They also recommended that a circuit breaker be installed to control the soaring cases.
The advice was ignored and only three weeks later Boris Johnson made the three-tier system public. In November, it was scrapped in favor of a national lockdown.
Many scientists who advised the government stated that failure to stop the second wave of the virus was unacceptable considering how much was known at the time about it and the availability of Covid vaccines.
Ministers were warned by October 2020 that the tier system was insufficient and that the death toll would rise from the second wave. Between Sages demand a September 2020 circuit breaker and March 2021, more that 80,000 people died of Covid. The winter epidemic was largely fueled by the Alpha variant, which was first discovered in Kent.
The first official report of how the pandemic was handled, which was published Tuesday by cross-party MPs on Tuesday, called it one of the most serious public health failures in British History. It concluded that the UK fared significantly worse than other countries due to groupthink among scientists and ministers, as well as a deliberate slow approach to imposing the initial lockdown.
Professor Stephen Reicher, who is a member the subgroup of behavioral science that feeds into Sage said the government would make mistakes in the early stages of the crisis but also criticised ministers' repeated errors. The real problem to me is repeating these same mistakes. We all made mistakes in the beginning but we made them again and again.
He said that there was usually a consensus among scientists about the issue of last autumn and the need to have a circuit breaker. There was no real disagreement between scientists over what the government should do. It was about what scientists suggested and what they did.
Reicher criticized the MPs report that blamed failures at least partially on groupthink. He argued that people were letting the phrase off the hook. Reicher said that the problem was a paternalistic ideology, which views the public as a problem and sees the private sector the best way to manage the test-and trace system. It fails to recognize the importance of public health at the local level. This ideology led to the belief that people would get tired if they were locked down too early. He said that this paternalistic approach to people, in which they are seen as a problem is one of the greatest mistakes of the pandemic.
Professor Peter Openshaw is a member the government's new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory panel (Nervtag). He stated that scientists weren't certain that vaccines would be available by 2020, given the severity of Britains outbreak. Many early discussions were focused on whether or not people would become infected.
Nervtag scientists concluded that Britain should be placed in lockdown despite the uncertainty. Openshaw claimed that he spent weeks wondering about why policymakers hadn't taken the decision. This made me feel very uncomfortable. I thought they must have evidence we don't have that would have led them to not institute lockdown immediately.
Prof Mark Woolhouse, who is a member the subgroup that models Sage, spoke in his personal capacity. He said that a earlier lockdown in 2020 would have saved more lives. However, the number of deaths could have been much lower than was suggested. This should be considered along with the effects of lockdown, including the death from disruptions to health services. He stated that actions taken or not in February and January in the UK, internationally, and particularly by the World Health Organization were likely to have been just as important as those taken in March. He added that he hoped the complete inquiries will examine this period more deeply.
