The ongoing Covid-19 Inquiry has sparked renewed discussions regarding the effectiveness of lockdown measures. Various analysts are selectively quoting from the extensive 760-page report to align with their existing viewpoints. Nevertheless, the key conclusion from the largest public inquiry in British history is evident – the absence of lockdowns would have resulted in an unacceptable and overwhelming loss of life, with the National Health Service facing dire consequences.
Baroness Heather Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, pointed out that a complete national lockdown might have been avoidable if prompt actions had been taken. The necessity for such drastic measures was primarily due to the government’s delayed response, particularly under the leadership of Boris Johnson, who was criticized for his reluctance to implement preventive measures.
At the onset of the pandemic in 2020, China swiftly imposed strict lockdowns in Wuhan and other cities, affecting millions of people. However, Western leaders initially viewed such measures with skepticism, leading to a missed opportunity to adopt preventive strategies. Lady Hallett referred to February 2020 as a “lost month” when more proactive measures could have been implemented to curb the virus’s spread.
According to the report, the delayed implementation of softer yet effective measures like contact tracing, self-isolation, and mask-wearing contributed to the eventual need for a mandatory lockdown in March 2020. Critics of lockdowns, often the same individuals opposing basic preventive measures, inadvertently contributed to the prolonged lockdown periods.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s public actions, such as shaking hands during a hospital visit in March 2020 despite scientific advice against it, exemplified the government’s initial complacency. The report highlighted that the premature easing of restrictions in July 2020 risked a resurgence of infections and a potential second lockdown.
While the inquiry emphasized that earlier interventions could have potentially averted the need for extensive lockdowns, the rush to reopen post-initial lockdowns increased the likelihood of subsequent restrictions. The broad scope of the public inquiry aims to extract valuable lessons from the pandemic response, ensuring that past mistakes do not hinder future preparedness efforts.
