The Covid-19 Inquiry has sparked a renewed discussion on the effectiveness of lockdown measures. Amidst the release of its extensive 760-page report, various commentators are selectively quoting to align with their existing viewpoints. However, the overarching conclusion of the largest public inquiry in British history is unequivocal – without lockdowns, there would have been a devastating loss of life deemed unacceptable and unconscionable, with the NHS facing severe strain.
Baroness Heather Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, emphasized the potential avoidance of full national lockdowns if prompt actions had been taken. The necessity of these stringent measures was attributed to the government’s delayed response, particularly under the leadership of Boris Johnson, known for his libertarian stance.
In the early stages of the pandemic in 2020, China swiftly imposed a lockdown in Wuhan and other cities, covering a population of 57 million. Initially, Western leaders disregarded such drastic actions, believing them incompatible with the values of freedom. This dismissive attitude resulted in a missed opportunity to implement preventive measures, as described by Lady Hallett as a “lost month” in February 2020.
Lady Hallett criticized the government’s delayed implementation of milder yet effective measures like contact tracing, self-isolation, and mask-wearing, which could have curbed the virus spread. She highlighted that earlier enforcement of less severe restrictions could have potentially shortened or averted the need for a mandatory lockdown.
Critics of lockdowns, often opposing mask mandates and social distancing, inadvertently contributed to the necessity of stringent measures. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s public display of shaking hands in March 2020, despite scientific advice against it, symbolized the government’s lax approach to preventive actions.
The inquiry report highlighted the premature easing of restrictions in July 2020, disregarding the increased infection risk and strain on testing and tracing capabilities. This imprudent approach heightened the likelihood of a subsequent lockdown, demonstrating a failure to adopt a cautious strategy.
The inquiry emphasized that timely implementation of alternative restrictions could have obviated the need for extensive lockdowns. However, once the initial lockdown was enforced, rushed reopening strategies paved the way for inevitable subsequent lockdowns.
With the broadest scope in British history, the inquiry’s mandate is to extract valuable lessons from past mistakes. It is crucial to learn from the failures that led to unavoidable lockdowns and ensure that corrective measures are implemented to prevent similar crises in the future.