ANDY COWPER ANYTHING BUT THE TRUTH
MINISTERS HAVE BEEN GLOATING ABOUT THEIR HANDLING OF
THE COVID PANDEMIC – BUT
THE FACTS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY, WRITES ANDY COWPER
WHO got Covid-19 right? The World Health Organization’s release of estimates for country-bycountry data on excess deaths caused by Covid provoked some gloating by members – and former members – of the government. Former health secretary and Partridge-esque polo-neck-wearer Matt Hancock responded by claiming that “once the measurement issues are stripped away, the UK performance was similar to or better than most comparable countries. In the UK, we measured very carefully and published data as accurately as we could.”
Ahem, Mr Hancock: biostatisticians will probably argue over these WHO estimates for some time, but let’s remember your “100,000 tests for a day” cheating fiasco, which prompted a rebuke from the UK Statistics Authority.
Just as pertinently, Bristol statistician Oliver Johnson points out that this is often used to re-fight the war of the first lockdown when “autumn and winter 2020-21... was the period when more than half of our total pandemic deaths occurred”.
Let them catch Covid-19: liability and responsibility Another significant recent announcement came from DHSC, NHS England, the UK Health Security Agency and the devolved governments’ health agencies, of a major reduction in infection controls measures for those with Covid-19, or close contacts thereof.
Let them catch Covid, basically. This is living with it, incarnate.
HSJ reported that the isolation period for inpatients with Covid-19 can now be reduced from 10 days to seven if their condition improves and they have two negative lateral flow tests – taken on consecutive days from day six onwards. Inpatients considered contacts of people with Covid-19 but who are asymptomatic no longer have to isolate.
Whether or not this increases capacity and capability (and we have very little way of knowing), the implications of this are potentially significant. To actually throw in the towel in this way is a bold move, and one with legal liability consequences.
Lying about the High Court judgement
Among the remarkable trends of our time is the national media’s incuriosity as to whether statements made by the government, MPs and their representatives are in any way true.
I note this in response to the PM’s and Hancock’s blatantly false claims about the High Court ruling in the cases of Gardner & Harris vs. secretary of state and others, regarding legal responsibility for hospital discharges of patients with Covid-19 to care homes in March and April of 2020. To quote the judgement: “It was irrational for the DHSC not to have advised until mid-April 2020 that where an asymptomatic patient (other than one who had tested negative for Covid-19) was admitted to a care home, he or she should, so far as practicable, be kept apart for 14 days.
“The court dismissed the other aspects of the case brought by the claimants, including claims under Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a claim against NHS England (which is legally distinct from the secretary of state).”
The PM and Mr Hancock (at the time in question, still SoS) promptly went out to bat with alternate versions of reality. During PMQs, Mr Johnson told parliament ministers didn’t know Covid “could be transmitted asymptomatically in the way that it was”, adding: “That is something I wish we had known more about at the time.” A spokesman for Mr Hancock said: “This court case comprehensively clears ministers of any wrongdoing and finds Mr Hancock acted reasonably on all counts. The court also found that Public Health England failed to tell ministers what they knew about asymptomatic transmission”.
There is just a slight problem. The judgement itself says that three academic papers published on 8 March 2020 “all pointed to the real possibility of pre-symptomatic transmission of the virus”.
Chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance indeed mentioned this possibility of pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic transmission in an interview on 13 March 2020, saying: “It looks quite likely that there is some degree of asymptomatic transmission. There’s definitely quite a lot of transmission very early on in the disease when there are very mild symptoms.” A number of journalists have since pointed out inconsistencies in the erstwhile health secretary’s defence.
Blame hound
Anonymous sources close to Mr Hancock (ones which probably occupy the same pair of shoes) briefed the Telegraph that former PHE chief executive Duncan Selbie was “ultimately responsible for informing Mr Hancock of the risks”. This is as subtle as a brick.
I noted above that the changes to nationallymandated infection control regulations regarding Covid-19 may have legal consequences. This High Court judgement (although declaratory rather than financial) may well trigger further compensation claims, which could bring Professor Selbie into a witness box to have these allegations put to him under oath.
That could be very interesting indeed. It is also well worth re-reading the transcripts of the Public Accounts Committee’s June 2020 evidence sessions into preparing for the peak of the pandemic.
Andy Cowper is the editor of Health Policy Insight