Government failed to act and impose ‘circuit break’ to prevent need for longer lockdown

Support us and go ad-free

A member of the expert panel of scientists advising ministers through the coronavirus pandemic said a “circuit break” lockdown would have prevented the need for “intensive and long-term” restrictions later.

At its 21 September meeting, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) suggested immediately introducing a national lockdown lasting between two and three weeks to halt the rapid spread of the virus – dubbed a “circuit break” lockdown.

But the prime minister appeared to reject the idea when he laid out a tiered system of restrictions on Monday, placing only Liverpool City Region into the harshest measures of Tier 3, which includes the widespread closure of the hospitality sector and banning social interactions between households.

Andrew Hayward, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at University College London and a member of Sage, said he did not think the restrictions included in Tier 3 would result in the R rate being pushed below one, meaning the virus was likely to still spread at pace.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Hayward said that the failure to “take decisive action several weeks ago” meant it was “not really surprising that we’re continuing to see large increases in cases”.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

He added: “I think it is clear even at the so-called ‘very high’ levels of restrictions that they will not be sufficient to reduce R below one.”

Hayward, who did not attend the September 21 meeting, argued that a “circuit break” style lockdown would have been a “proportionate” way of getting a grip on the virus while avoiding “intensive and long-term lockdowns later”.

He told Today: “What we’ve done through the pandemic is we’ve invested huge amounts of money in being able to track where the virus is and where it is increasing so we have much better information to pick up early warnings of increases in cases.

“That should allow us to act early in a decisive way to prevent having to act in a more damaging way later.

“And that was really one of the intentions of the recommendations for a ‘circuit break’, that this could be a controlled, manageable, proportionate system that would save the need for much more intensive and long-term lockdowns later.”

In a sign Tory thinking on a national lockdown could be changing, Bernard Jenkin, chair of the Liaison Committee, which scrutinises the prime minister, told Times Radio he thought it was better to go for a “short, sharp, shock” lockdown in order to reach “manageable levels before Christmas”.

Labour shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth, meanwhile, said he would have been inclined to have “followed the science” if he was in power.

He also said ministers should have closed more pubs and bars than they did on Monday in a bid to stem transmission.

“If we need to impose further restrictions to get on top of this virus, then I’m afraid we have to do that,” he told Today.

“It is why I support the decision that was taken yesterday to close pubs and bars in Merseyside.

“I think actually the Government should have gone further yesterday because we’ve got to reduce social mixing given where we are with the prevalence of the virus in parts of the country.”

Asked what he would have liked to have seen from ministers, Ashworth replied that he “would have looked at closing pubs and bars in other parts of the country” as well as devolving Test and Trace entirely to local authorities.

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us