Sir Chris Whitty's Evidence To The Covid Inquiry.

[Bert45]

SCW said that they were trying to balance the risks. If they went into lockdown too early, they would get "all the damages from this" with "fairly minimal impact on the epidemic." With hindsight, he said, we went into the first lockdown "a bit too late." Can anyone explain how going into lockdown too early would have had minimal impact on the epidemic? Surely the earlier the better? The only problem I can see is that, if we'd only had a couple of hundred deaths and only a few thousand people catching covid but recovering, people would have said that there had been nothing to worry about, and the lockdown had not been necessary. Also I'd like SCW to define "a bit too late".

[Old_Geezer]

As I understand it, he is suggesting that the public would get fatigued by a long period of lockdown abuse and would soon rebel, so he had advised starting the lockdown abuse later. He is now trying to support his view that lockdown abuse was a good thing and that he was wrong to have suggested delaying it.

 

In reality, of course, this blinkered view he now supports hit the economy badly and took basic western valued beliefs in individual freedoms and binned them. Not to mention other medical conditions being pushed aside in pursuit of his goal. Areas of the globe where they didn't follow his draconian strategy fared better overall.

[andy-hughes]

I fail to understand the objectives, and indeed the point of wasting obscene amounts of money to state the obvious - We didn't know what were doing, how could we? We made some mistakes, but we'll know a lot more next time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Lessons will be learned.

There you go, call it five grand, mates' rates.

[Ellipsis]

> Surely the earlier the better?

> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-67451423 @ 13:35

And in a moment of candour, Whitty noted what he said was his “biggest error”.

He said in the days before lockdown that “there is a risk that if we go too early people will understandably get fatigued and it will be difficult to sustain this over time”.

That view shaped some thinking and caution in government at the time. Whitty told the inquiry his explanation had not been good and it was a mistake.

[Bert45]

Dear OG: What do you mean by "lockdown abuse"? My question is without any "side" to it. The hit to the economy was one of the things I think he meant by "all the damages from this". We were told during the later stages of the pandemic that we should not compare our figures (deaths, illnesses, etc) with those of other countries, as no two countries would have the same conditions -- population density, transport, infrastructure, healthcare system, population movement, population age distribution, etc. However, I think that some countries "near enough" to our own could be found, and our figures could be compared, and some conclusions could be drawn. There are many laws passed that bin individual freedoms -- motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, etc. -- for the greater good.

[THECORBYLOON]

ANDY, "We made some mistakes, but we'll know a lot more next time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Lessons will be learned."

 

Can you summarize, what those mistakes were, why they were made, who made them and what all needs to be done to prevent them from happening again?

 

There could also be prosecutions once the inquiry and report(s) have been concluded so it was never going to a minor task.

[tomus42]

//I fail to understand the objectives, and indeed the point of wasting obscene amounts of money to state the obvious - We didn't know what were doing, how could we?//

The idea is to learn from what worked and what didn't so that we do know what we are doing when it inevitably happens again.

Lesson 1. Don't have a useless PM in charge that's so indecisive and bumbling he's known as 'the trolley' amongst his colleagues.

[Bert45]

Ellipsis: I'm tempted to make yours the "Best Answer". I had missed SCW's later comment that what he had said about "lockdown fatigue" and "difficult to maintain" had been a mistake and his biggest error. I suppose only SCW can answer my question "How could going into lockdown too early have had minimal impact on the epidemic?" Also, if we had gone into lockdown earlier, and the impact on the epidemic had been greater, as I would have expected, rather than minimal, we might have needed a shorter period of lockdown, so "lockdown fatigue" would have been less of a problem.

[Old_Geezer]

Lockdown of the citizens is abuse of the citizens. It needs no explanations. We ain't Chinese, we ought not be subject to CCP type controls.

[New Judge]

Can anyone explain how going into lockdown too early would have had minimal impact on the epidemic?

A possible explanation is that it is by no means certain that lockdowns (of the type seen here) have much of an effect on the ultimate spread of an airborne respiratory virus. If that's true then going into lockdown at any time is likely to have a minimal impact on an epidemic.

There are many laws passed that bin individual freedoms -- motorcycle helmets, seatbelts, etc. -- for the greater good.

Are you making a serious comparison between the requirement to wear a crash helmet or a seatbelt with the requirements to have a “reasonable excuse” before leaving home, or to have restrictions on who you can invite into your home or how many people you can associate with outside? And comparing the same to the compulsory closure of large parts of the economy?

There could also be prosecutions once the inquiry and report(s) have been concluded

For what, Corby? For making a wrong decision? The stated aim of the enquiry is to “seek to establish facts, find fault, and learn lessons.”

The idea is to learn from what worked and what didn't so that we do know what we are doing when it inevitably happens again.

Well that’s unlikely to result from this enquiry. Apart from the fact that much of it so far has been centred on settling political scores, it is not due to finish taking evidence until 2026 and doubtless it will not report until long after that. By then most people will have forgotten what Covid was, the key players will have long since sailed off into the sunset to spend more time with their money and it’s not al all inconceivable that another pandemic will have hit the streets in the meantime.

If you’re looking to compare countries, the Swedish and Australian inquiries have already published their final reports, while the Dutch equivalent is expected to report later this year.

[Deskdiary]

"...it is not due to finish taking evidence until 2026..."

Christ on a bike - that's absurd.

How on earth is it possible for it to take longer than the pandemic it is investigating?

[naomi24]

Complete waste of time, money and effort.

[Peter Pedant]

If that's true then going into lockdown at any time is likely to have a minimal impact on an epidemic.

yes people are and were saying that - they did try the experiment ( lockdown that is!) twice

and why is whitty so slimy? he is still employed ( the others are ex - )

and who asked if the lawyers can eke it out to 2026? of ourse they can at £1000 a day ! be serious

[Ellipsis]

A day? An hour, more like ...

[andy-hughes]

Corby - // 

ANDY, "We made some mistakes, but we'll know a lot more next time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Lessons will be learned."

 

Can you summarize, what those mistakes were, why they were made, who made them and what all needs to be done to prevent them from happening again?

 

There could also be prosecutions once the inquiry and report(s) have been concluded so it was never going to a minor task. //

I have no acccess to the information to make any relavent comments, so I can't answer your question.

The simple fact is, this was an unprecidented situation with no recourse to past experience, of course mistakes were going to be made.

But spending millions to point fingers when in reality, no recourse is going to be forthcoming, no punishments will be meted out, and no real meaningful reason for this lawyerly cash cow justifies the time, effort, and especially money, being spent on it.