Piers Morgan just exposed Michael Gove trying to rewrite coronavirus history live on TV

Michael Gove on GMB 9 December
Support us and go ad-free

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove was on Good Morning Britain (GMB) on Wednesday 9 December. During a grilling by Piers Morgan, he made a statement that could come back to haunt him. It was about the Tories’ policy at the start of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic. And Morgan exposed Gove for trying to rewrite his government’s handling of the crisis.

Morgan versus Gove

Morgan claimed that around 16 March, Vallance said on BBC Radio 4 that the government was “following [a policy of] herd immunity”. Gove denied this was the case. He said:

We were not following a policy of herd immunity.

Sadly for Gove, Vallance did say that. On 13 March, he was on the Radio 4 Today programme. Vallance said herd immunity was the government’s aim:

because most people, the vast majority of people, get a mild illness, to build up some degree of herd immunity as well

Sky News

But Vallance also said the same on Sky News, on the same day. The host said:

herd immunity, I know you talked about [it] yesterday when you were appearing with the prime minister, in terms of building up a herd immunity within the UK… what sort of percentage of people need to have contracted the virus?

Vallance said:

Probably about 60% or so. And we think that this virus is likely to be one that comes back year-on-year, becomes like a seasonal virus, and communities will become immune to it, and that’s going to be an important part of controlling this, longer term.

ITV News 

This wasn’t some off-the-cuff comment. Because Vallance also said the same thing on the same day on ITV News. It noted that he:

said the advice the Government is following is not looking to suppress the disease entirely but to help create a “herd immunity in the UK” while protecting the most vulnerable from Covid-19, warning “this is not a short term outbreak, this is going to go on for months.”

Two days later, and as Vox reported, the government was already backtracking on Vallance’s comments. This was after what Vox called an “outpouring of criticism” over the herd immunity approach.  PoliticsHome reported that:

writing in the Sunday Telegraph, the Health Secretary said the Government’s plan was “based on the expertise of world-leading scientists”.

Mr Hancock added: “Herd immunity is not a part of it. That is a scientific concept, not a goal or a strategy. Our goal is to protect life from this virus, our strategy is to protect the most vulnerable and protect the NHS through contain, delay, research and mitigate.”

So, what can we draw from this?

Following the politics

As Morgan said to Gove on GMB on 9 December:

You were following the science, but ignoring the science?

Gove said:

Er, er, I was, er, we were, our policy is informed by the science

Morgan interrupted, and exposed Gove’s attempt to rewrite history:

you said at the time you were following the science. You can’t be informed and following it, and then ignoring it. It’s either one or the other. You’re either following it, or you’re not. I can go back and play 100 clips of ministers saying you were following the science. You said it every single day. Now you’re saying, the chief scientific advisor had no idea what he was talking about, and was talking about a policy that none of you were following.

In short, it’s becoming increasingly likely that the Tories’ initial approach was going to be one of herd immunity. But when they realised the catastrophic political fall-out from the potential deaths this would involve, they backtracked. This meant that by the time the government did act, it was too little, too late. When the public inquiry into the government’s handling of the pandemic comes, there will be serious questions over this early period in March.

Featured image via  ITV – screengrab 

Support us and go ad-free

Get involved

Please support #thecanary5k today.

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
  • Show Comments
    1. I feel conflicted on this. Vallance’s point was that whilst protecting the public herd immunity would, nevertheless, evolve naturally. The government could not have this as a ‘policy’ as it is simply a natural response EVEN in lockdown.

      Sometime prior to this Johnson was espousing that we’d have to “take it on the chin” as he seemed not to take it very seriously. I don’t think that taking part of Vallance’s statement out of context is either helpful nor, in fact, needed to be critical of the government’s response to the pandemic..

      1. Nah. Just because something is a natural phenomenon doesn’t mean it can’t be part of a strategy (policy.)

        Shielding the most vulnerable whilst allowing the disease to spread in the wider, less-at-risk population whilst relying on the devleopment of herd immunitity in said population to lead to (long term) low infection rates and hence largely removing risk to the most vulnerable upon ‘rejoining’ the population is a policy – It is blatantly obvious that this is what the CSA (Vallance) was describing.

    2. Herd immunity probably does happen when around 60% have been infected. It’s thought Manaus’ outbreak petered out for this reason. The question is, at what cost.
      “Such an approach would lead to a catastrophic loss of human lives without necessarily speeding up society’s return to normal, he says. “We have never successfully been able to do it before, and it will lead to unacceptable and unnecessary untold human death and suffering.” – ‘The false promise of herd immunity for COVID-19’ – https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.