Pandemic decisions were driven by No10 spin doctors, not ‘the science’

Texts between Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock reveal that PM’S press advisers opposed lifting of coronavirus restrictions

BORIS JOHNSON considered lifting lockdown restrictions early but decided against it after being told that such a move would not be popular with the general public.

The former prime minister and his Government regularly insisted that they were being “led by the science”, but messages between him and others have revealed that this was not entirely true.

Public opinion also played a part in determining policy and strategy as the country faced the pandemic. At the heart of decision making, it appears, were two former journalists – neither with any known scientific background – who were tasked with briefing journalists and advising the prime minister on media strategy.

It was their advice that persuaded Mr Johnson to row back on his plan to ease of some lockdown rules early.

Lee Cain, Downing Street’s director of communications, once worked for the Daily Mirror, which had provided him with a chicken outfit to wear when he taunted David Cameron in the run-up to the 2010 general election. James Slack, a former political editor at the Daily Mail, was Mr Johnson’s official spokesman and is now deputy editor of The Sun.

In June 2020, they told Mr Johnson that he would be “too far ahead of public opinion” if he ended lockdown sooner than he had envisaged.

On May 10, 2020, Mr Johnson outlined a roadmap containing tentative steps that would enable him to completely unlock Britain on an eventual “Freedom Day”.

On the afternoon of Saturday, June 6, Mr Johnson messaged Matt Hancock, his health secretary, to say he was thinking about bringing forward the end of the lockdown.

Freedom Day had been pencilled in for July 4, when virtually all restrictions would end. Non-essential retail premises were due to open sooner, on June 15.

But Mr Johnson wanted to do more. Seemingly, he wanted to remove more restrictions on June 15. He wanted “some more for families” and to open up “a bit of outdoor hospitality”.

But his press advisers – “Slackie” and “Lee”, as Mr Johnson called them – were apparently strongly opposed to it because they feared a public backlash. In the event, outdoor hospitality did not reopen in England for a further three weeks. Not until July 4 could two households in England meet, for the first time since the pandemic, provided social distancing measures remained in place.

On the day Mr Johnson exchanged messages with Mr Hancock, 129 deaths from Covid were recorded in England, along with 723 new cases – the lowest figure since the peak of the first wave. Mr Hancock persuaded his boss to stick with the original plan and keep non-essential retail outlets closed. Schools, too, remained on the backburner and, on the whole, did not reopen until September.

Boris Johnson

How are we doing ?

How are the numbers ? Seem very hard to squeeze Am thinking hard about the 15 June. At the moment we could do non-essential retail Some more for families A bit of outdoor hospitality And announce that we can’t do all primary schools by July

But Slackie and Lee still think the whole package will be too far ahead of public opinion

[06/06/2020, 14:18:08]

Matt Hancock

Deaths yday (Friday) only 204. New cases 1505. So same story: coming down but slowly. R very close to one – hence the slow decline.

So I think Slackie and Lee have a point.

I am very worried about a free-for-all around non essential retail. The rules BEIS [Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy] put in place were far too slack. But I accept we have to let them start to come back.

I think it’s too soon for outdoor hospitality – and they’re not expecting it until next month. There aren’t even guidelines in place, or the legal change.

Everyone’s accepted there won’t be more on schools until Sept.

Then we could do a bit more for families eg on camping & zoos.

But all in all, with R just below 1, if we go ahead with non essential retail on 15 June, then we are sailing very close to the wind.

My view is the public are right and we need to hold our nerve.

[06/06/2020, 15:45:00]

Matt Hancock

If R goes above 1 – and that’s what may happen if we go ahead on 15 June – then we are in all kinds of trouble [06/06/2020, 16:10:07]

Boris Johnson

Are you saying delay retail beyond 15 ? I think that would be a bit of a blow for us all [06/06/2020, 17:03:44]

Matt Hancock

I agree. I think we are locked in and should just do retail, as carefully as we can [06/06/2020, 17:45:33]

A press conference on Oct 31 to announce the Nov 5 lockdown, was shown graphs that speculated 4,000 people a day could die if not action were taken, so almost everyone agreed that action was needed. Businesses were told to close, the vulnerable asked to shield and families were separated. Unknown to the public, the very next day Mr Johnson questioned the data that was used to justify the decision.

In a Whatsapp conversation with Prof Sir Chris Whitty, England’s chief

medical officer; Sir Patrick Vallance, the chief scientific adviser; Dominic Cummings, the prime minister’s then chief adviser; and Mr Hancock, Mr Johnson described the data used as “very wrong”. He also wrote that two scientists – Dr Raghib Ali and Dr Carl Heneghan – had privately warned the modelling used by the Government was “already very wrong”.

The “nowcast” death data – the term used to describe estimating the number of deaths that occurred on each day by using the number of deaths so far reported – suggested the modelling for 4,000 possible deaths per day was out of date, as it was drawn up three weeks previously.

Mr Johnson appeared to conclude that this information backed the case for formally establishing a so-called “red team” that would enable two groups to argue opposite positions and thus avoid “group think”. As they discussed an increase in deaths in England, the Prime Minister warned “the attack is going to be we blinked too soon”.

Boris Johnson

I am on a call with Raghib and Carl Heneghan, who have been reflecting on yesterday. Heneghan refers us to the following nowcast of death data which demonstrates that the death modelling you have been shown is already very wrong:

He has given it to the Telegraph for tomorrow already. I am trying to get to the bottom of the extent to which it affects capacity modelling. If this illustrates anything, it is that red teams can work but need to be formally established. But do you want the disruption of us continuing the red team tomorrow?

I will keep working. [01/11/2020, 16:48:30]

Boris Johnson

The great Steve baker [MP] believes that the numbers of deaths have been exaggerated. It might be worth seeing what Heneghan is saying to telegraph. [01/11/2020, 16:50:25]

Boris Johnson

Anyone have today’s numbers ? [01/11/2020, 16:52:18]

Simon Case

23245 cases (UK); 162 deaths (UK) 20602 cases (Eng); 132 deaths (Eng) [01/11/2020, 16:54:12]

Boris Johnson

Old Number: Is that lower than last Sunday ? [01/11/2020, 17:02:28]

Simon Case

Higher than last Sunday, just: 19790 cases (UK); 151 deaths (UK) 16487 cases (Eng); 137 deaths https://digital.bmogam.com/(eng) [01/11/2020, 17:08:16]

Boris Johnson

Yup. [01/11/2020, 17:10:06]

Boris Johnson

But England cases a bit lower. The attack is going to be that we blinked too soon [01/11/2020, 17:25:01]

To understand how the second lockdown was justified at the end of 2020, it is worth turning the clock back three weeks to a conversation between the health secretary and Baroness Harding, the head of Test and Trace. On Oct 10, 2020, Mr Hancock and Lady Harding discussed how local lockdown measures in Liverpool – which they had previously discussed on Whatsapp – could be used as a “benchmark” nationally.

After quickly discussing issues surrounding the recording of test results, the health secretary suggested the need for a “do nothing death toll” prediction, which Lady Harding agreed to provide.

It appears that this formed the basis of the 4,000 deaths per day projected three weeks later – raising questions about whether Mr Hancock was hoping to push the country into a second lockdown.

Matt Hancock

I’m much more worried about stopping avoidable deaths [10/10/2020, 21:28:10]

Dido Harding

Agreed. My team are all trying hard to keep making the public health case. [10/10/2020, 21:29:05]

Matt Hancock

The key thing we need – and can now get quite reliably I’m sure – is a “do nothing” death toll

[10/10/2020, 21:30:05]

Dido Harding

Will ask Clare and team to pull together asap tomorrow

[10/10/2020, 21:31:06] June 2020 was not the only time that public opinion was used to formulate policy, or at least to inform it, rather than purely relying on scientific evidence.

On April 23, 2020, when the UK was in the midst of its first full lockdown, the health secretary wanted to hold a briefing on polling using research that had been provided by Isaac Levido, the Tory Party’s polling guru and 2019 election mastermind. It was a plan that was approved by Dominic Cummings, Mr Johnson’s chief adviser at the time.

Matt Hancock

We should do a Cabinet briefing on the polling – so they know that >50% of the public want the same or stronger lockdown – including >50% of Tories

[23/04/2020, 11:34:18] Dominic Cummings

Agreed – lets get Isaac to do it next thurs [23/04/2020, 23:41:15]

Dominic Cummings

He’ll do it

[23/04/2020, 23:51:49]

Then in January 2021 – at a time when the vaccine was being rolled out – Mr Hancock again turned to polling to reinforce the need for the latest lockdown in a conversation with Michael Gove, a Cabinet minister who had been a member of the so-called “quad” of ministers directly advising Mr Johnson on Covid.

Matt Hancock

80% of the public support the lockdown – there is no public clamour to start lifting measures

[27/01/2021, 12:49:47]

Matt Hancock

For next time anyone says the public are straining against lockdown. They aren’t. They want us to keep people safe [27/01/2021, 12:49:47] Michael Gove

Yup [27/01/2021, 12:58:59]