- Whitty admits initial closure delay
- Discusses disagreement with Vallance
- Emphasizes balance in decisions
Professor Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer of England, stated to the Covid inquiry that the initial closure implemented in March 2020 was “slightly too late.
However, he stated that at the time, the government had “no viable options.”
He stated that due to public health concerns, including loneliness, depression, and the potential for destitution to worsen, it was critical to exercise caution.
This meant that both proceeding too early and proceeding too late posed a risk.
Further, Sir Chris acknowledged that he would have executed certain actions differently in early March, when the coronavirus was just beginning to propagate.
These comprised:
Preventing mass gatherings, including football games, earlier
Implementing quarantine measures for Chinese travellers earlier than actually occurred
Sir Patrick Vallance, the former principal scientific adviser, stated on Monday that he and Sir Chris did not always agree.
Both individuals have acknowledged that discussion was beneficial; Sir Chris, who was in charge of public health, emphasised the importance of considering the indirect costs associated with imposing restrictions on the populace.
Sir Chris stated that the distinctions between them were “extremely minor.”
“Greatest effects”
He further stated, “In retrospect, I believe we arrived a little too late with the initial wave.”
“I was probably leaning more towards the proposition, ‘Let’s consider the drawbacks before we act,’ and I also ensured that ministers were aware of both sides of the argument before offering my advice.”
“Take a step towards financial freedom – claim your free Webull shares now!”
Sir Chris stated that areas of deprivation, those in difficulty, those living alone, and so forth, would be the primary targets of such measures.
Thus, I was acutely cognizant of the fact that we were essentially attempting to strike a balance between two distinct issues: the risk of proceeding prematurely, which would result in all the associated damages with a negligible effect on the epidemic, and the risk of proceeding too late, which would entail the entire catastrophe of the pandemic evading capture.
And he stated, “Even during the height of the pandemic, more people perished from causes other than Covid than from Covid itself.”
Each of these fatalities is lamentable from both perspectives.
Sir Chris further justified his decision to withhold a government-wide alert in mid-January 2020, disregarding the warnings of his deputy, Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, which anticipated an imminent pandemic.
Sir Jonathan stated in portions of his witness statement read to the inquiry that on January 16, 2020, he became “seriously concerned” about Covid.
According to the former deputy chief medical officer, human-to-human transmission was evident, and “I believed this to be a major pandemic.”
Sir Chris testified before the inquiry that Sir Jonathan’s actions were driven by instinct, which would have provided an extremely limited foundation for making significant decisions.
Sir Chris told the inquiry that effectively communicating the following message to the entire government: “I have no data on this, and I’m a bit concerned, but my gut feeling is that this is going bad” does not garner much support.
Diverse designs
In addition, Sir Chris stated that the government’s assertions that it was “following the science” had become a “millstone around our necks.”
He stated that he never instructed ministers on matters such as closure schedules. Conversely, his and others’ responsibility was to counsel ministers on the repercussions of adopting or abstaining from particular courses of action.
It was appropriate, in his opinion, that democratically-elected politicians made those decisions, given that there were “no good options” and ministers had to balance numerous factors.
Additionally, Sir Chris was queried regarding whether Boris Johnson encountered challenges in formulating unambiguous and consistent stances.
Sir Chris responded, “I believe that Mr. Johnson’s approach to decision-making was distinctive.”
He has a very distinctive aesthetic, but I believe that many others also have quite unique aesthetics.
The individual asserted that the prime minister at the time was predominantly attentive in small gatherings and arrived at his positions through casual dialogues, citing discussions he had with Mr. Johnson prior to television press conferences as illustrations.
Sir Chris stated that it enabled him to evaluate ideas in private, which he likely appreciated and believed aided in the decision-making process.
Mass assemblies
When queried about the initial occurrences of Covid-19 in Wuhan in January 2020, he stated that the United Kingdom “insufficiently considered” the potential implementation of compulsory quarantine for all Chinese arrivals.
He hypothesised that border closures and flight disruptions might have been politically excessive.
However, it might have been prudent to inform arrivals, including those without symptoms, that they would be required to remain isolated at home for a duration of 10 to 14 days.
As things stood, the United Kingdom did not implement quarantine for Wuhan-bound travellers until February 25, 2020.
Other nations implemented measures considerably earlier.
Sir Chris stated that this measure would not have significantly altered the situation at the time.
Based on genetic testing, it was determined that the predominant source of Covid-19 infections was British travellers returning from mid-February half-term vacations in mainland Europe, rather than Chinese travellers.
He added, however, that stricter quarantine protocols ought to be considered by the authorities in the event of a future outbreak.
Concerning the prohibition of mass gatherings, Sir Chris explained that there was “no good evidence” that doing so in February and early March 2020 would significantly impede the virus’s spread.
He stated that individuals would simply flood taverns if attendance at football games were prohibited.
However, he stated that he would have done things differently in retrospect due to the message of normalcy it conveyed to the public.
