by Amy Jones
Thursday, 14
October 2021

The question the Covid report failed to answer

What is most revealing about the new study is what it leaves out
by Amy Jones
Credit: Getty

The media has wasted no time in using the publication of the highly anticipated Covid report as a stick to beat the Government.

The charge made by the report is, unsurprisingly, a familiar one: that we should have locked down sooner. That is in spite of the fact that the scientific advice at the time — early March 2020 — was to not lock down, and that lockdowns had been previously discouraged by the WHO. Nor was there much mention of the health and societal impacts of lockdown, the data for which is slowly beginning to emerge. Just this week, a new Lancet report found soaring levels of depression over the last 18 months, noting:

With school closures and wider social restrictions in place, young people have been unable to come together in physical spaces, affecting their ability to learn and for peer interaction. Furthermore, young people are more likely to become unemployed during and following economic crises than older people
- The Lancet

It continued:

Strategies to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, such as physical distancing and restricted travel, have made it more difficult to acquire medication, attend treatment facilities, and receive in-person care.
- The Lancet

Some will of course argue that an earlier lockdown would have meant a shorter lockdown, thus eliminating many of the mental and physical health problems associated with staying at home for extended periods of time. But it’s worth bearing in mind that Australia — regularly touted as a success story for locking down early and flattening the curve —  has a city like Melbourne, which has spent over 250 days in lockdown.

So it is unclear where this advice leaves us. Covid-19 may have been the only pandemic we locked down for, but it is far from the only pandemic in living memory. Considering that the risk of pandemics is increasing year on year due, in part, to increased urbanisation and habitat loss, should we be expected to lock down for each and every threat? If that is our response, this will have massive implications for our way of life and the freedoms we enjoy.

Another galling feature of the report is the way it glosses over how under-resourced the NHS was at the time. After all, the decision to lock down in March 2020 was to “protect the NHS”, which was already in a vulnerable state. A better question for the report, then, might have been why the NHS was in such bad shape in the first place?

This question was barely answered, let alone addressed. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that one of its writers, Jeremy Hunt, was himself responsible for overseeing a significant fall in the value of the NHS PPE stockpile during his years as Health Secretary. But maybe that just slipped his mind…

Amy Jones is an anonymous doctor working in the NHS, who has a background in Philosophy & Bioethics. You can follow her on Twitter at @skepticalzebra

Join the discussion

  • The point that was made was, the report does not address the main reason stated at the time for lockdowns – to support an NHS incapable of coping. I don’t know why that became a rant about how much people in the NHS are paid. Certainly one thing that is constantly overlooked, in my opinion, is existing staff shortages at the time and significant absences since due to sickness or quarantine. Remember the fact that they could never staff the Nightingale Hospitals? Amy is right. Let’s start asking the right questions, for a change. You may believe there will never be enough money for the NHS or that the people that work there get paid too much or that there are too many inefficiencies. So what questions should be asked? One of mine would be, with all the emergency laws that were instituted, why was there no mechanism to utilise the million people who instantly volunteered to help with the health crisis? Another would be what aspects of health do we consider to be triple locked regardless of cost? Another would be what constitutes a healthy life and how did or didn’t lockdowns contribute to that? And, in the meantime, let’s get rid of all this hindsight, shall we?

  • Agree with the analysis, disagree with half of the the conclusion. Time to stand up and (peacefully) fight, and just live the best life you can.

  • An excellent summary. Meanwhile healthy individuals at vanishingly small risk of serious illness from Covid are forced to surrender their liberty to protect the, among other more deserving cases, many tens of thousands of people who routinely ignore their health and have developed co-morbidities such as type 2 diabetes, cvd, hypertension and metabolic syndrome (an epidemic that has been slowly overwhelming health care for decades now), In return nothing is required from these terminal sickies. Indeed they righteously demand that others must show their papers and carry on wearing a largely useless rag on their face to make them all ‘safe’. Evolution in reverse: underpinned by the’food’ companies which fill rows of supermarket shelves with poisonous products, and the ‘medical’ professionals who readily supply ‘medicines’ to keep the self made sickness ‘victims’ alive, whereas mother nature has sent Covid to finish them off.

  • To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user.

    It's simple, quick and free.

    Sign me up