The Wry Observer’s Covid-19 update (221)

My despair over the progress of the Hallett Inquiry deepens. To start with on the website it announces itself as the Covid-19 Inquiry. Which it isn’t. It’s an Inquiry into the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic of which the clinical syndrome of Covid-19 is but a small though significant part.

So far evidence has been taken from a number of people, listed below.

Jimmy Whitworth                    Epidemiologist

Charlotte Hammer                 Epidemiologist

David Heymann                       Epidemiologist

Bruce Mann                            Civil servant

David Alexander                      Risk and disaster reduction

Michael Marmot                     Epidemiologist

Clare Bambra                          Public health

Katharine Hammond              Civil servant

David Cameron                       Politician (Prime Minister)

Chris Wormold                        Civil servant

Clara Swinson                          Public health

Oliver Letwin                           Politician

George Osborne                      Politician

Sally Davies                             Past Chief Medical Officer

Mark Walport                         Past Chief Scientific Adviser (ex rheumatologist)

Roger Hargreaves                   Civil servant

Oliver Dowden                        Politician

Jeremy Hunt                            Politician

Chris Whitty                            CMO

Patrick Vallance                      Past CSO

Jim McMenamin                     Public health

Emma Reid                              Civil servant

Rosemary Gallagher               Civil servant (nurse)

Jenny Harries                          Past deputy CMO

Matt Hancock                         Politician

Duncan Selbie                         Public health

Gillian Russell                          Civil servant

Caroline Lamb                         Civil servant

Jeanne Freeman                     Civil servant

Some have expertise in infectious diseases and public health, many do not (politicians and civil servants, although some of the latter may I suppose have had medical or nursing training) and only one of whom, in my opinion, could possibly have any experience of managing patients with immune-mediated diseases. While I am sure that some are very good at planning for disasters they are irrelevant to the key concept of Covid-19 – which is that, for some people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and get very sick, it is because they have developed a hyperimmune state. And if that is the key concept, what the hell are all these people doing here? Why plan for a disaster if, for the vast majority of the population, it isn’t going to be a disaster? It is clear from Matt Hancock’s evidence that he in particular has failed to understand this, by suggesting that stricter lockdowns (anyway impossible) might have reduced deaths and that there was over-concentration of dealing with the deaths. What about looking at why people died and then stopping them from dying? We now know that countries without lockdowns (Sweden) have lower excess mortality than countries that did lock down, so the idea that a more ruthless lockdown would have prevented deaths is an oxymoron. There is this philosophical block in thinking that refuses to acknowledge that you do not need restrictive measures for a widespread organism that doesn’t kill people, so you do not need to discuss planning, disaster management, public health matters, vaccination, anything.

OK. What about my one expert who might have had something useful to contribute? Sir Mark Walport, once a rheumatologist whom I know well.

I began to watch his evidence but as this would have taken up two hours of my time I read his witness statement instead. It is worth reading as it discusses many of the issues of risk reduction and mitigation (see https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/21183841/INQ000147707-1.pdf).  However it is heavily focussed on just those two parts, and the place of government and civil service in designing them, with a single line comment that the response has been discussed elsewhere (I am not clear where, or what is contained in “response” – perhaps this is in written evidence I have not seen). He was involved with risk assessments for Ebola and Zika, and in particular I noted the conclusion that the risk of the latter in the UK was zero because the only vector of transmission is a mosquito that isn’t present. I also noted his equivocation on the value of masks and his comment that “Although there were very many researchers and other expert advisers attending and contributing to SAGE, there were very many who were not. Amongst these were many who had deep expertise and very strong opinions as to what should be done and many who had little expertise but nevertheless had equally strong opinions.” But he offered no elaboration on what was done, or should or should not have been done with these non-contributors to SAGE. A pity. I would like to know, as someone who places themselves in the first category, why SAGE and government chose to ignore us.  But I was also hoping that Walport, an experienced ex-rheumatologist, would offer something about the clinical aspects of SARS-CoV-2 and Covid-19. He did not. Also a pity.

• Hallett Inquiry