Skip to main content

Edge's News: COVID response one of UK’s worst ever ‘public health failures...Independent inquiry

The coronavirus continues to take its toll on Britain, with 8,154,310 confirmed cases and 137,735 deaths, according to the World Health Organisation's latest estimates.


UK government ministers and their scientific advisers made "serious errors" at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, which "cost thousands of lives", a new parliamentary report has revealed.


The "lessons learned to date" report was prepared by parliament's Science and Technology Committee as well as the Health and Social Care Committee, who argued that the delay to impose a first lockdown last spring was "one of the most important public health failures the United Kingdom has ever experienced".


The document asserted that the government's plan to fight the coronavirus pandemic was based too much on influenza and so-called "groupthink" among public health officials, which meant that early opportunities to delay the spread of COVID were missed.


Lawmakers claimed that if introduced, earlier measures on social distancing and locking down "would have bought much-needed time" for coronavirus vaccine research as well as the development of COVID treatments and a proper test and trace system, meaning that thousands of deaths "could have been avoided" during the pandemic, the report claimed.


The "slow, uncertain, and often chaotic performance of the test, trace, and isolate system severely hampered the UK's response to the pandemic", the MPs claimed.


According to their report, the government adhered to a "policy approach of fatalism about the prospects for COVID in the community", with scientific advisers and ministers seeking to "only moderate the speed of infection" through the population – rather than trying seeking to stop the spread of the disease.


The MPs insisted that London's policy of "seeking to manage, but not suppress" the infection "amounted in practice to accepting that herd immunity by infection was the inevitable outcome".


"The policy was pursued until 23 March [2020] because of the official scientific advice the government received, not in spite of it", the report pointed out, insisting that the government's "initial unwillingness to consider seriously and act on the approach being taken in Taiwan, Singapore, or Korea was a serious error".


Additionally, the study asserted that discharging people from hospitals into care homes "led to many thousands of deaths", and that there were "serious deficiencies" in communication between central and local governments.


At the same time, the lawmakers praised the government's attitude towards vaccination, arguing in the report that ministers were "correct to identify that a vaccine would be the long-term route out of the pandemic".


The MPs also applauded the National Health Service (NHS)'s ability to respond to the challeges posed by COVID and the rapid deployment of NHS Nightingale temporary hospitals.


Shadow Health Secretary Jonathan Ashworth described the document as "a damning report by a cross-party group of MPs into the monumental errors made by ministers in responding to the pandemic".


The report comes a few months after Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced a number of new "freedoms" to lift the last (Stage Four) of the pandemic restrictions and "reopen our society", stressing the effectiveness of the country's COVID-19 vaccination programme and the harms of the lockdown.


As of 19 July, all restrictions on numbers at indoor and outdoor gatherings were lifted, and all businesses, including nightclubs were allowed to reopen. Crucially for the hospitality industry, the one-metre social distancing rule and requirements for table service only at pubs and cafes were scrapped, as were the restrictions on singing in groups.


The report comes ahead of an independent public inquiry into the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic, which Johnson has said will begin next year.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The FCT Minister–Soldier Standoff: A Test of Civil Authority and the Rule of Law

On November 11, 2025, Nigerians watched in disbelief as a video surfaced showing a tense confrontation between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and a group of armed soldiers who blocked his convoy from accessing a disputed piece of land in Gaduwa, Abuja. The incident, brief but dramatic, was more than a moment of political theatre. It struck at the heart of a much bigger issue — the place of the military in a democracy, and the sanctity of civilian authority under the Nigerian Constitution. The Legal Position: Who Was Right? The Minister’s Authority Under Section 302 of the 1999 Constitution and the FCT Act , the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory exercises the executive powers of the President within Abuja. That means the Minister is not just a political appointee — he represents federal executive authority . His duties include overseeing land allocation, urban planning, and the enforcement of development control through the Federal Capital T...

Nigeria: On the Right of Self-Defence and Protection of National Sovereignty

The Federal Republic of Nigeria reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the maintenance of international peace and security, the respect for the sovereignty and political independence of all States, and the peaceful settlement of disputes. Nigeria is a sovereign and independent nation. Our Constitution vests sovereignty in the people of Nigeria and mandates the Government to protect the territorial integrity and independence of our country. This sovereignty—recognised under international law and reaffirmed by our membership in the United Nations, the African Union, and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)—is inviolable. The Government of Nigeria has observed with grave concern recent statements and actions that amount to a threat of aggression and possible violation of our territorial integrity. We remind all States that any such threat or use of force contravenes Article 2(4) of the Ch...

Kebbi’s 3 a.m. Withdrawal Shows Why President Tinubu’s Security Reforms Can’t Wait

When Governor Nasir Idris of Kebbi State revealed that security personnel deployed to vulnerable communities were withdrawn at 3:00 a.m.—just 45 minutes before an attack—Nigerians reacted with shock, anger, and a single question that refuses to disappear: Who gave the withdrawal order? It is a fair question. It is also one that may take time, investigation, and institutional honesty to answer. But the Kebbi incident exposes a deeper truth about security management in Nigeria: our command structure is too fragmented for a country battling multi-layered threats. And this, more than anything, validates President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s push for a centralised, technology-driven, and accountable security coordination model. Nigeria’s security agencies—military, police, DSS, civil defence, intelligence units—operate in parallel lanes with overlapping mandates. State governors, despite bearing the title “Chief Security Officer,” have no legal authority over federal forces. This incoheren...