INQUIRY FINDS LOCKDOWNS COULD BE AVOIDED – Covid inquiry concludes lockdowns were unnecessary and could have been avoided on review
The Government’s Covid Inquiry reported today, claiming that Lockdowns could have been avoided had the Government acted sooner. For those with anti-lockdown opinions, it was the right conclusion, but for the wrong reasons.
According to the Government’s Covid-Inquiry, Lockdowns could have been “avoided entirely” during the pandemic had ministers reacted more quickly to the emerging threat of the virus. The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has concluded and claimed that the Government could have acted earlier in March 2020 when the number of COVID-19 cases was low.
Baroness Hallett, the inquiry chairman, said that if “stringent restrictions” had been put in place before March 16th 2020, there might have been no need for a lockdown. Measures including contact tracing, self-isolation, face coverings and respiratory hygiene could have stopped the need for a lockdown if introduced earlier, she claimed.
The Inquiry found that a “toxic and chaotic culture” at the centre of government meant the pandemic response was “too little, too late”, meaning lockdown became inevitable. Once that point had been reached, she claimed, up to 23,000 lives could have been saved if the first lockdown had been imposed a week earlier.
Critics have pointed out that in March 2020, no one could have known what was to come later in the year, and they note a profound difference of opinion from both sides of the Atlantic regarding COVID and the country’s Inquiries and their very different conclusions.
Baroness Hallett is a crossbench life peer in the House of Lords and is not affiliated with the Labour Party. A crossbench peer is a non-affiliated member of the House of Lords, typically a former judge or civil servant, who does not belong to any political party and is assumed to be independent.
