Why weren't hospital patients tested before being discharged into care homes?
"We could only do that once we had the testing capacity" says Matt Hancock.
Really? 25,000 were discharged before testing. Probably required fewer than 1,000 tests a day. Govt couldn't manage that?
Did Matt Hancock tell the PM all patients discharged were indeed being tested?
"I committed to getting the policy in place, but it took time to build the system".
That sounds like a "yes", but "not immediately".
Sounds very much like Matt Hancock did indeed make the promise, but in his view it was a target, rather than an immediate pledge.
"My recollection of events is that I committed to delivering that testing when we could do it."
Remember Matt Hancock set a target in April to get to 100k tests. The idea that this was about testing capacity when it required less than 1% of that target to test hospital discharges is highly questionable.
AND as @PippaCrerar just asked, if the testing wasn't there, why were they rushing people out of hospital into care homes in the first place? Which they absolutely were - here is just some of the evidence:
We battled and battled and battled to get this data last summer which finally revealed hospital discharge numbers at the outset of the pandemic. There were around 1,000 a day on average. They honestly couldn't all be tested? If so, capacity was pitiful.
There were 532,229 tests carried out in the UK by 20th April (the first date for which we have cumulative data). Are we to believe that there wasn't the capacity to test the 25,000 hospital patients discharged into care? Why weren't they prioritised?
Was there really no ability to test all hospital patients discharged into care homes? It would have required less than 5% of the testing capacity to do so. My analysis, based on the facts before us 👇
Key question from @munirawilson on discharging patients into care homes without testing.
“If true, this is one of the biggest scandals and tragedies of the pandemic... will he apologise to the families of those who died?”
Matt Hancock says the government followed the “clinical advice”.
The advice as early as January 2020 was that Covid-19 could be spread by asymptomatic patients. Routine testing was surely the only safe way to return patients to care homes. It didn’t happen until April 15th.
Asked whether he categorically promised in March that patients discharged into care home would be tested, Matt Hancock says “so many of the allegations yesterday were unsubstantiated.”
🚨 Dominic Cummings says the Health Secretary promised in March that people would be tested before being discharged into care homes. It didn’t happen.
“The protective shield was complete nonsense. Quite apart from putting a shield around them we sent people back to care homes”.
This is absolutely vital in writing the history books of this pandemic. As we demonstrated time and time again, it was patients discharged from hospital who often spread the virus through the care sector.
Care homes repeatedly told us that they did not recognise claims that a “protective ring” was put around them. Dominic Cummings has just proven - if you take his evidence at face value - that it categorically was not. The significance of that statement is huge.
Dominic Cummings begins by slamming the government's approach to Covid-19.
It "fell disastrously short", he says.
"When the public needed us most, the government failed."
He says "how sorry I am for the mistakes I made".
"In no way shape or form did the government act like Covid-19 was the most important thing in January [2020]. It didn't act like it was the most important thing in February, never mind January."
"The government was not acting like it was on a war footing in any way, shape or form. Lots of key people were skiing in the middle of February."
The government is expected to continue consulting on the exact scope of a ban, including how to protect religious freedoms, which has always been a key sticking point. The legislative route is also TBC.
There are also considerations about how to protect certain professionals eg teachers from prosecution. But I understand the government is keen to move quickly on all this, introducing a ban within the next year.
The Conservatives’ strong performance in England arguably has consequences for Scotland too. With the SNP expected to regain power as voting begins here, it entrenches the sense that the two nations are moving in v different directions. That can only fuel demand for independence.
Let’s see how the Scottish Conservatives do of course. But an emboldened Boris Johnson, with England in his palm, may be even more likely to resist demands for Scottish independence. Sets the UK up for one heck of a constitutional showdown in the months/years ahead.
Note, for example, that if this had been inflated in almost any town in Scotland, I suspect it would have developed a puncture fairly quickly. The real Boris Johnson didn’t show his face here at all during the campaign. The political culture of the two nations is diverging.
Starmer asks again, "Either the taxpayer paid the initial invoice, or it was the party, or it was a donor, or it was the PM... who paid the initial invoice?"
PM replies, "I've given him the answer... I have covered the cost."