Row still rages over ‘panicked’ response to coronavirus crisis two years after outbreak – What We Know!


Coronavirus: ‘Fallacious time to elevate restrictions’ says Greenhalgh

Wednesday will mark two years for the reason that first UK lockdown was imposed, an unprecedented transfer that turned society on its head. Supporters say it was essential to fight a virus which, fashions claimed, threatened to kill lots of of hundreds within the UK alone. However Professor Mark Woolhouse, who sits on the SpiM modelling group that offered pandemic recommendation to the Authorities, mentioned “dangerous” restrictions have been imposed with out proof that such measures would work.

Even when it grew to become clear a few of the restrictions weren’t wanted, the UK continued to impose them at “nice value to lives, livelihoods and society”, he mentioned.

Prof Woolhouse, an infectious ­illness knowledgeable based mostly at Edinburgh College, mentioned the long-lasting lockdowns in response to the pandemic weren’t solely “flawed” and “extremely damaging” but in addition “morally mistaken”. He mentioned: “A lot of the scene about our response to the pandemic was set from February 2020. The core of this was round lockdown. Now we have by no means had a correct debate about that response.

“It was an thought concocted by China and the World Well being Organisation meant to eradicate the virus, which it didn’t do.

“We latched on to the thought of lockdown, making up our technique as we went alongside. Having began on that street we adopted it as a public well being instrument however lockdown was not one thing we’d deliberate to do. It was untried and never thought out.

“We have to assume by way of our choices forward of time and reply appropriately subsequent time.”

Prof Woolhouse, creator of a brand new ebook on the Covid response – The Yr The World Went Mad: A Scientific Memoir – mentioned Britain initially under-reacted to the specter of Covid however then over-reacted with continued powerful measures.

Wednesday marks two years for the reason that first lockdown (Picture: Getty)

He mentioned: “If lockdown was meant to save lots of lives it didn’t do a ok job of it and we should always have carried out way more to guard these at biggest threat.

“Lockdowns have been a worldwide public well being failure on a mass scale. We did critical hurt to our kids and younger adults who have been robbed of their training, jobs and regular existence, in addition to struggling injury to their future prospects, whereas they have been left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt.

“All this to guard the NHS from a virus that could be a far, far larger risk to the aged, frail and infirm than to the younger and wholesome.

“We have been mesmerised by the once-in-a-century scale of the ­emergency and succeeded solely in making a disaster even worse.

“Briefly, we panicked. This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public well being method and it bought the alternative.”


Frail and aged extra vulnerable to antagonistic Covid reactions (Picture: Getty)

In the meantime, medical consultants final week warned the pandemic was not over but, after world case numbers rose following a month of decline.

World Well being Organisation official Margaret Harris instructed a convention in Geneva on Friday that it was “removed from over”, including: “We’re undoubtedly in the course of the pandemic.”

The UN company backed the usage of lockdowns in October 2020, saying: “We perceive that typically such measures – though not sustainable – are wanted to swiftly suppress the virus and keep away from well being programs being overwhelmed.”

Others identified that within the absence of vaccines, lockdowns have been one of many few out there choices.

Writing within the BMJ in June 2020, Edward Melnick, assistant professor at Yale College of Medication, mentioned: “Within the absence of a protected and efficient vaccine, therapy or prophylaxis, non-pharmaceutical interventions are the one choices out there to sluggish the virus’s unfold.”

A examine final month urged that lockdowns had solely curbed Covid dying by 0.2 p.c.


Lockdowns solely curbed the unfold of Covid by 0.2 p.c (Picture: Getty)

However Seth Flaxman, who had authored a 2020 examine suggesting lockdowns had saved as much as three million lives throughout Europe, mentioned this current examine was “virtually definitely essentially flawed”.

He mentioned: “Smoking causes most cancers, the Earth is spherical and ordering folks to remain at dwelling decreases illness transmission.

“A examine purporting to show the alternative is nearly sure to be ­essentially flawed.”

The Royal Society of Medication’s president final week mentioned UK decision-makers “should not threat turning into complacent” over Covid. Roger Kirby mentioned: “We’re not out of the pandemic and should not threat turning into complacent.

“It’s important that leaders in drugs, science and analysis proceed to have a robust voice in UK decision-making so we’re in the very best place to take care of future threats.”

The anniversary comes as a brand new examine as we speak concludes that two years on there’s nonetheless no correct ­definition of a “Covid dying”.

It means that many deaths attributed to the virus may have been from different causes.

Consultants at Oxford College’s Centre of Proof-Based mostly Medication launched the analysis, which discovered a lot of those that reportedly died of Covid had doubtlessly deadly underlying well being situations.

Centre director Professor Carl Heneghan mentioned: “There’s a disparity even on the Authorities’s personal web sites concerning the numbers of deaths that may be assigned to Covid.

“We have to perceive the causes of deaths as a matter of urgency, as figures will have an effect on coverage each time winter comes round.”

Dr Tom Jefferson, co-author of the examine, added: “Correct knowledge is required to evaluate the evolution of the virus, evaluate circumstances between areas and international locations, and evaluate Covid to different threats.”