Thread by @danielgoyal

Prof Dame Harries testimony was the most illuminating of the week so far

Bear in mind, Johnson only needed a handful of scientists to agree with his callous “take it on the chin” response

The Inquiry seems to ask whether Harries was one of them

1/n

Harries is the head of the new UKHSA - the body now in place to lead on the next pandemic.

The Inquiry is right to make this point. This will be the person in charge next time there is a pandemic and their beliefs and approach will affect us all

Inquiry brings in a Telegraph interview Harries gave saying that the likelihood of mandatory restrictions is a lot less and diminishing. She advocates for individual responsibility. This may well mean more “taking it on the chin” for the next pandemic

KC: Was it your role to defend govt policy?

She doesn’t really answer the question.

KC: Do you have to tow the govt line?

Harries doesn’t really answer again.

It’s a good line of questions by the Inquiry…‘were you a nodding dog’

KC: did you hold back information from the public?

Again, not really an answer. Harries doesn’t want to frighten the public. But doctors have a duty of candour.

Harries email reacting to Rory Stewart’s wonderful take on the pandemic early on, saying she spoke out about it and wanted to say it was “dangerous” opinions by Rory.

In that email, she clearly states her position to avoid acting “too early”

KC catches her out in that there was no scientific consensus in SAGE to suggest acting “too early” has any negative impact on compliance.

KC: why are you not sorry about giving this wrong messaging/opinion

She still is not sorry. No contrition. She was always right.

Reactions to Italy. By the 10th of March, Italy was like a war zone and should have sponsored action. Harries said on the 10th of March Italy has “rubbish” command and control centres and preparedness. “It doesn’t apply to the U.K. system”

KC: were you guilty of overconfidence?

Again, no real contrition.

KC: Concern was raised about PPE supplies

Harries said at the time that there is no problem with PPE, we have plenty. She was very wrong.

The evidence is overwhelming that Harries was glib, overconfident, and even when she knows that PPE was in crisis she tries to reassure people that there were stockpiles of PPE.

“You knew by then there was not enough PPE, so why give this reassurance in a press conference”

KC: didn’t you say in interview you communicate with openness and integrity?

She remains obstinate that she has never done anything wrong.

KC: Why are we reducing testing when all advice was to test, test, test?

Harries defends the position to cease testing early in the pandemic.

Her statement has been misinterpreted…she was of course not wrong

The right answer was “we’ve run out of testing so we will prioritise them”

Instead Harries argues to the public in press conference that there is little point now in testing in the community because we are in a delay mode. “It is not an appropriate intervention” now.

Queue T&T!

More evidence presented that Harries was pushing for delay to action at the start of March 2020. This undoubtedly made Harries one of Johnson’s favourite Scientists.

“Are we considering the negative impacts of moving too early”

Now the Care Home issue. Be clear here, the controversy of Care Homes was initially on discharging care home residents without testing them to stop ASYMPTOMATIC patients slipping through. Here Harries is advising for Covid Positive patients being discharged to Care Homes…

…this is truly extraordinary. My interpretation of her email was that we will eventually get to a point where you will have to discharge Covid positive patients back to care homes, so we may as well start in the “initial phase”, although patients and families won’t like it.

Knowing what we know now about Covid, the highest risk patients should have remained in hospital until they were through the Covid illness. But my word, this is truly reckless advice. But again, music to Johnson’s ears.

KC: if this was the guidance then surely the Care Homes should have solid infection control policies and resources.

He then goes on to show the guidelines were very weak.

She wasn’t responsible though, merely advising someone who was. That’s ok then!?!?!

Harries then says the Care Home staff were bringing in most of the Covid. Utterly ridiculous. The KC makes the point that Covid patients from hospitals likely infected care home staff and started the outbreaks.

The KC has judged Harries to a T. Is it fair to say you never believed face coverings were effective? Even when the evidence came that they were?

Harries says no.

KC then shows evidence of Harries saying they are “ineffective” later in the pandemic, despite the evidence

Harries keeps trying to draw in Van Tam.

It is actually quite painful to watch. The chopping and changing of logic to retrofit a poor decision, overconfidence and what seems like appeasing Johnson’s view.

A real shame…scientists should be able to reflect and improve.

KC brings it back round to Harries position in UKHSA. It is a very valid point. Harries remains in charge of the next pandemic and showed terrible judgement and no signs of contrition or signs of having changed her demonstrably erroneous positions.

Judge asks what lessons learned? All of them are external to Harries. No reflection on her own performance or errors. Judge seems visibly disappointed. Terrifying that such a professional remains in charge of one of the most important arms of govt.

There are many weaknesses that remain in the U.K. in regards to the next pandemic. It is perhaps not a good idea to promote one of our greatest weaknesses to one of the most powerful positions to manage the next pandemic. “Rewarding failure”…the govt’s new motto.