Thread by @danielgoyal

So, Hancock's first appearance at the Covid Inquiry did not disappoint.

I will share the critical moments below.

But first, it is clear that his entire justification for the admitted calamitous response rests on one point, and it is a fabricated argument...
🧵

Now, I am not suggesting Hancock intentionally fabricated this argument. Indeed I think he genuinely believes his post-hoc justification for why he failed in his post. Indeed, I am sure it helps shield him from the gravity of his failures. It is simply that it is not true.

Hancock's central point made throughout (to the irritation of the KC) was that there was a critical "Doctrinal flaw". That is, he says, the assumption made in all pandemic preparedness that once community transmission was reached then you could not "stop" the pandemic.

He uses this as a means of explanation for failing to act early and decisively (which he and the Inquiry rightly identify as one of the most critical failures of the UK pandemic response).

But he is confusing the endpoint of eradication with the endpoint of maximal suppression.

Many nations adopted a maximal suppression approach. Indeed most countries that had the resources to (and some that didn't) tried to drive the rate of transmission down as much as possible at the very start of the pandemic. Indeed, this is BASIC public health outbreak strategy.

When there is an outbreak there are three basic tenets of a response:
1. Find the sick (tests, symptom profiles, tracing)
2. Treat the sick
3. Stop others from getting sick (isolation, PPE, etc...)

This approach (maximal suppression) was entirely open and on the table when Covid first hit the UK in Feb 2020. Indeed, it was the WHO guidelines and it was the approach of most countries that had already seen Covid.

It was the norm to suppress aggressively at the start

Hancock's entire contention, and one that the other politicians have eluded to already (perhaps aided by some scientists trying to obfuscate their initial incorrect views), was that to maximally suppress the virus was some grand idea that had never been considered before 2020.

He draws this (what I am sure is a comforting conclusion for him) from the acceptance that once a flu pandemic starts spreading through the community it cannot be stopped.

Sadly, the Covid Inquiry did not (as yet) challenge him on this...stopped is not the same as suppressed.

He does though concede that maximal suppression until vaccines and treatments were available was the correct play. A play which most countries attempted to do. Initially, the UK did not!

The importance of this cannot be understated. It was the failure to act normally and instead to act exceptionally that led to massive loss of life, disability, and eventually to much stricter and LONGER lockdowns, greater economic impacts, social impacts, prolonged NHS waits, etc

Hancock goes on to suggest we should have locked down earlier and harder. He misses the point. Had we continued with normal public health practices then the viral spread would have been much more limited and we may have avoided lockdowns (although with very poor NHS capacity..

that seems v. unlikely) but certainly, we would have only needed short, sharp and probably localised lockdowns of perhaps a couple of weeks

Instead, the decision not to follow standard public health outbreak protocols (or WHO guidelines or other nations) led to brutal lockdowns

It is his entire argument throughout. I suspect this will form the basis of much of the govt defence too. It simply doesn't stack up. It was the UK (and US and Brazil) who broke away from normal practice and their people suffered. We need to know why!

Highlights to follow...