What point was Hancock actually trying to make at the Covid-19 inquiry, when he talks about ‘doctrinal failures’ with an emphasis on cleaning up after a pandemic instead of preventing it from happening? Is he saying that Britain should have locked down even harder and faster? So why didn’t he just say so? Why wasn’t he challenged on what he was really trying to say? More importantly, why wasn’t he challenged about leaked messages suggesting he favoured “scaring the pants off everyone”? Well it didn’t scare the pants off me.
For me, Hancock’s evidence was just too hand-wringing; too vague; and too short on specifics. It just didn’t get to the point. Who cares about his personal feelings? We want facts. And it all went unchallenged. It was all too ‘polite’ for my liking. Too cosy.
My worry is that is that the key questions regarding the justification for repeated lockdowns; mask-wearing; and standing in line outside supermarkets will not even be addressed at this public inquiry. Instead, it will assume that every one of these measures was necessary because that was the policy which the government had decided to follow. Even though the government was being led by the nose and was frightened of being seen as out of step with other jurisdictions, even with Nicola Sturgeon. And there was no opposition. Any alternative view was quickly shut down. We also know that the inquiry won’t even have the most crucial evidence to determine how these decisions were made.
Yes-Boris Johnson has surrendered his WhatsApp messages to the inquiry. But these only go back to April 2021. What is the point of that? Instead, we had the excuse that his earlier phone had been compromised. But those earlier messages must still exist somewhere in the ether? And what’s all this about the government bringing legal proceedings against its own inquiry to stop information going into the public domain? We want to know what messages were exchanged between ministers and top civil servants at the beginning, in March 2020, when government policy suddenly changed from herd immunity to lockdown. If it was all just to “scare the pants off us”, we need to know.
The real message I take from Partygate was that those at the top of government who were attending those lockdown parties knew that they weren’t putting their health at risk. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing it. So why the pretence? Why impose restrictions on everyone else?
Yes-we all know someone who has died of covid. Just as we all know people who have died of heart attacks. Of cancer. Of suicide. But I’m sure that no account will be taken of that at the public inquiry. Nor of young people who studied for years for examinations which they were never allowed to sit. A teacher-assessment is never a substitute for a robust external examination. It’s too subjective. And will anyone challenge the nonsense of closing down someone’s livelihood whilst at the same time printing money out of a bankrupt economy to pay them to stay at home? And then there’s the fraud. The cronyism. If we can’t afford to pay nurses, how could we have afforded to pay for that? And why did covid quickly become the excuse for any poor customer service? “It’s covid innit.”
Perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe later in the inquiry we will get some serious questioning of the knee-jerk policies which caused so much damage to so many people as they swung backwards and forwards? Maybe. But I’m not going to put money on it.
BRUCE AND HOLLY 