Allegation emerges that PM’s special adviser Dominic Cummings was callous about Coronavirus deaths

Dominic Cummings and Boris Johnson
Support us and go ad-free

On 22 March, a Sunday Times article suggested that prime minister Boris Johnson’s special adviser Dominic Cummings was callous about the possibility that many elderly people would die from the coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak. These deaths could have been a consequence of the ‘herd immunity’ approach he and others have promoted.

On 15 March, The Canary reported that Cummings was central to how the UK’s coronavirus strategy had been agreed. Now, further details of that role have emerged.

Let the elderly die?

A report in the Sunday Times referred to a meeting that reportedly took place on 12 March between members of SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies). This was allegedly to discuss research carried out by Imperial College London and other institutions.

Those present at the meeting were allegedly told that if the government continued with its ‘herd immunity’ course, they might expect a much higher death rate:

Unmitigated, the death number was 510,000… Mitigated we were told it was going to be 250,000. Once you see a figure of take no further action and a quarter of a million people die, the question you ask is, ‘What action?’

And at a meeting in early February it’s claimed Cummings said it was all about:

herd immunity, protect[ing] the economy and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

But Cummings wasn’t the only person allegedly promoting this controversial strategy

Cummings chaired a meeting on the virus with representatives of big tech companies. Also present at the meeting were the government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance (who backed the herd immunity strategy) and NHS chief executive, Simon Stevens.

Others played a role

The Sunday Times also reported how:

David Halpern of the Whitehall “nudge unit” put the phrase in the public domain. Two days later, Vallance repeated the idea on Radio 4.

A “minister” allegedly told Buzzfeed News that Cummings and Vallance:

were “close allies” and claimed the government had “bet” the future of the UK on advice from a very small group of scientists that for a long time differed from the wider international consensus, and other members of SAGE.

Behavioural scientists put their case too

The Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) Covid-19 team includes Dr Halpern, who argued the case for herd immunity in a BBC interview:

But as The Canary also reported, 600 behavioural science experts signed an open letter questioning:

behavioural science evidence that may have been used to justify this decision— though a lack of transparency from the government has made it hard to discern what the official policy is.

Reactions to Sunday Times article

Labour MP David Lammy called this information “sickening” if it is true:

Journalist Peter Jukes also spoke out:


However, 10 Downing Street denies there was ever a policy to allow elderly people to die from coronavirus. According to the Guardian, a spokesperson said that the Sunday Times‘ accusation was:

a highly defamatory fabrication which was not put to No 10 by the Sunday Times before publication. The article also includes a series of apparent quotes from meetings which are invented.

It should also be noted that the Sunday Times article seems to portray Johnson as the ‘hero’ in this crisis.

Needless to say, if the accusations against those who promoted the ‘herd immunity’ approach are correct, then repercussions must surely follow.

Featured image via BBC Newsnight-Youtube / The Telegraph-Youtube

Support us and go ad-free

We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support

The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.

The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.

So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.

Support us