History will praise us, says Whitty as scientists urge national action
STRONG public health interventions will be judged well by history, the Chief Medical Officer has suggested, as battles continue over national and local lockdowns.
Prof Chris Whitty said successive governments had taken action to protect the public, even if it seemed “controversial” at the time – citing examples such as the introduction of seat belts and laws to stop small children being sent up chimneys.
His message came as a number of scientists from the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies ( Sage) urged ministers to go further, with calls for national action.
Prof Whitty – who on Monday said the tier three lockdowns are not in themselves sufficient to stem the rising number of infections – last night made a lengthy case for public health interventions. He insisted that a “substantial majority” of the public backs firm measures, including lockdowns, to respond to threats to public health.
Amid fierce clashes between politicians and scientists over how best to control the second wave of coronavirus, Prof Whitty has said most people want strong action.
His comments – as the Prime Minister remained at loggerheads with Manchester leaders over the threat of lockdown – repeatedly returned to the fact that public health interventions that were once seen as radical were later seen as the right thing to do.
During the public lecture, Prof Whitty said that even those who were sceptical about state interventions were likely to be “comfortable” if measures were aimed at protecting the elderly.
Governments could act too slowly, he suggested, noting that it took 100 years of campaigning before young children were banned from being sent up chimneys. Prof Whitty said it was “controversial” in Parliament when it was first proposed that the state should prevent children under the age of 10 being sent up chimneys to help clean them, despite the fact the practice had left many dead,” said the Chief Medical Officer, citing a long list of other examples of state interventions.
“The unalienable rights of a British man or woman to drive without a seat belt” was cited as another battle, when it was introduced for front seats in 1983. And while the slaughter of cows to protect against BSE was “highly controversial” at the time, there was a “strong expectation… that the state would act to maintain the safety of food,” he said.
In the university lecture, delivered online at Gresham College, Prof Whitty said: “Consistently, populations around the world, going back right into history, but up to the current time where we’re going through the most major pandemic for many decades… have consistently wanted, indeed demanded, that their state acts to help protect them from the pandemic.
“If you think about support for this in the UK now; the lockdown measures that happened in the UK earlier this year, which were some of the most significant curbs to freedoms the state has actually introduced for many decades, were supported overwhelmingly in all the polling that was conducted.”
“Over 90 per cent support for these really quite strong measures by the state. And indeed in late 2020 – quite a lot later – the public still remain by a substantial majority in favour of ongoing measures – all ages, all social groups and all political persuasions. This is across the board.”
It came as fellow members of Sage made public calls for national action.
On Monday Sage minutes revealed that they had called for a “circuit breaker” lockdown three weeks ago.
Speaking in favour of national restrictions, Dr Jeremy Farrar, Wellcome Trust director, told the BBC: “What we don’t want now is a fragmentation or confusion – one area or region or city pitched against another. I think that would be very, very damaging to public health and the country’s ability to respond.”