Covid Inquiry

We do need to get passed the beliefs that politicians or the public, know all the answers and are more expert than the experts, be they legal or scientific.
I so so agree with this. The experts had ALL the right information, no one else did. Any government would be out of their depth trying to fathom it, and as for the public thinking they knew it all - that is crazy. Arrogance and incompetence need to give way to expertise and knowledge at such an important time.

Absolutely agree DAR.

I would like to point out to Luckygirl that this is just the start of the enquiry and at the start they need to find out exactly what didi happen because if you do not know exactly what happened than you cannot make recommendations how to do it differently next time.

Instead of this public flogging - which is too late - I would like to see in-depth studies going on in private in labs, in statistical analysis, in political systems in the event of emergencies and how decision-making processes might be streamlined.

It is easy after the event, to say back biting among ministers and civil servants, shambolic management processes is in the past, concentrate on the future, but if people, like those at No 10 can get away with the kind of behaviour we are seeing revealed in the enquiry so far, without revelation or sanction, what incentive is there to change it in the future? We owe it to those who died and their families, to make sure that in any future emergencies, even when things go wrong, everything will be being dealt with efficiency, and self-control because those involved know they will be accountable for their actions and behaviour afterwards.

There needs to be some positive information, backed up by academic studies that will show us where things went wrong and what we might do best in the future.

We know the government was floundering around - and that their leader was not up to the task - we need to put that behind us and have some concrete decisions about how a pandemic might be better handled.

These studies are already taking place - were taking place during the event, but they can only be evaluated fully if we first have a clear idea what was happening at the seat of government.

We also need to know that the enquiries recommendations, however unpalatable will be put into action.

We have had these types of enquiry so often in the past with the recommendations trumpetted in the media and politicians saying all the right things about implementation, but then nothing happens, the grass grows round the report until it cannot be seen for weeds and everything goes on as it always has - until the next catastrophe and the next enquiry.

Thank you Marydoll.

Excellent post, DaisyAnne.

Grany I don’t see a Republic in the Uk anytime soon. So am thinking there needs to be a system of checks and balances to ensure a better form of parliamentary democracy and fewer runaway horses. The prime minister needs to act through parliament and not above it as a starting point.

Luckygirl, I think your post shows a general misunderstanding of an 'Enqiry'. Most legal processes can become "tedious" to those not taking part and, I would guess, to those who are.

Isn't the whole point that the "tedious"wasnt ever taken care of under this government. This matters in everything a goverment needs to do, but this one has always put politicians ahead of the day to day, good at their job, especially the unseen, long and monotonous ones done by experts and Civil Servants.

They were "tired of experts" and slashed the civil service. The message seems to be that politicians can do just what the "experts" can do but without the years learning the job.

... I would like to see in-depth studies going on in private in labs, in statistical analysis, in political systems in the event of emergencies and how decision-making processes might be streamlined

This describes the sort of conclusions that such an enquiry might reach but, like this government you seem to be saying that you know all there is to know and can reach a conclusion without any sort of process.

I agree where you say: There needs to be some positive information, backed up by academic studies that will show us where things went wrong and what we might do best in the future.

The enquiry is simply the first step along that route to show us where "things went wrong" and where and what we need to do differently in the future. We do need to get passed the beliefs that politicians or the public, know all the answers and are more expert than the experts, be they legal or scientific.

ronib

Even if, when, an adequate person becomes prime minister, I think the Uk doesn’t have enough checks and balances to contain maverick pms such as BJ and Liz Truss. Why is this? There seems to be a huge concentration of power in the hands of one person??

The checks and balances comes from a head of state but as Charles can not intervene can only do as the PM asks, as a result the PM as you say is given too much power. There is another way an elected Head of State a president Republic is campaigning to abolish the monarchy

Luckygirl3

Thank you baggs for the link.

I hear what he is saying, although I think that his comment "The whole inquiry seems to be working on the premise that we should have locked down harder, sooner and longer – and that, if we had, Sars-CoV-2 would have melted away like snow" a loose exaggeration.

However I understand his frustration. I have been watching the enquiry on and off and it seems so very woolly with a desperate desire to give every niche group a voice, and to examine in tedious detail everything that went on in cabinet and how the decisions were made. I am less interested in that - we all know mistakes were made - we all know that some of these were made long before covid when emergency planning was too low on the agenda. I am interested in examining what worked and how we can use that knowledge to good effect in a future pandemic. Clearly some of those lessons are covid-specific, but there must be general rules, both scientific, economic and political/procedural that could be useful in future planning.

Instead of this public flogging - which is too late - I would like to see in-depth studies going on in private in labs, in statistical analysis, in political systems in the event of emergencies and how decision-making processes might be streamlined.

There needs to be some positive information, backed up by academic studies that will show us where things went wrong and what we might do best in the future.

We know the government was floundering around - and that their leader was not up to the task - we need to put that behind us and have some concrete decisions about how a pandemic might be better handled.

I agree, Luckygirl

They did behave abominably and Johnson was just not up to the job and also contemptuous of the public.

However, hindsight is a wonderful thing and we need to learn from it.

How hard should they have locked down? DD has friends who have relatives in Wuhan and the people there were terrified by what they had to endure at the beginning of the pandemic, before the world knew what was about to hit them

Happygirl79

Helen Macnamara gave evidence clearly and with an insight to what was happening in and outside Downing Street but she kept quiet about until now. She is as guilty as the rest of that unsavoury bunch in government. None of them are fit to lick the boots of any man in the street.

So what do you think Helen MacNamara should have done?

Children were disproportionally affected by pandemic policies. Barrister Jenifer Twite giving evidence on behalf of Save the Children said questions about how lockdown policies affected children and young people weren’t even asked. She said children were at the back of the queue when government made its biggest decisions about lockdown and re-opening the economy. Pubs, restaurants and sports clubs were able to open before schools, nurseries and other places for children’s activities.

Without this inquiry, we may all say we ‘know’ this but it wouldn’t be formally recorded to ensure in the event of another pandemic/catastrophe, history isn’t repeated

maddyone

Excellent post Luckygirl.
In my opinion the inquiry is a complete waste of money that could be put to better use. Such as some of the possibilities Luckygirl mentions.
It’s just a rehash of what we already know.

I don't think the government is obliged to acknowledge any recommendations resulting from the Inquiry, which - considering the cost both direct and indirect (already over £100million) could mean an expensive and somewhat pointless exercise because, as you say, it's simply rehashing what we already know - or suspect.

I'd assumed the whole point of it was to 'learn lessons' and be more prepared for any future outbreaks or other public health crises. The effect on the healthcare agencies and systems won't be looked at until late next year. Since that's the 'area' that caused such huge problems, and one in which most of us have a stake, that, to me, will be the more important focus.

Pivoting around the foul language used in the messages exchanges and in conversations, shocking though it is, is hardly the point. I don't know, but I suspect such language is common currency among ministers and SPADS, etc, though Cummings certainly appears to have gone overboard with it. The misogyny is somewhat worrying, but again, not really a new thing either.

I fully endorse Luckygirl3's observation...

There needs to be some positive information, backed up by academic studies that will show us where things went wrong and what we might do best in the future.

... and this...

I would like to see in-depth studies going on in private in labs, in statistical analysis, in political systems in the event of emergencies and how decision-making processes might be streamlined.

THAT would make the Inquiry a worthwhile project.

Thanks for your excellent post Luckygirl3. Pity you're not part of the Inquiry 'team'...

Even if, when, an adequate person becomes prime minister, I think the Uk doesn’t have enough checks and balances to contain maverick pms such as BJ and Liz Truss. Why is this? There seems to be a huge concentration of power in the hands of one person??

I share the concerns about what the covid e inquiry may be missing.
It’s worthwhile though as a forensic examination confirming what many of us feared. That our PM just wasn’t up to the task. That the country was in the hands of a group of white, over privileged men who had been privately educated, continued that with their own children and had private health care. Education and Health their choice but it left them with no idea about the lives of those less privileged
Marcus Rashford’s campaign for free school meals dismissed. No one in the cabinet had any experience of free school meals and all that goes with that

PPE designed for men, being largely needed by female care workers and nurses

It’s easy to dismiss the inquiry as telling us nothing we didn’t already know. I hope some voters are having their eyes opened

Indeed!

Luckygirl3

Thank you baggs for the link.

I hear what he is saying, although I think that his comment "The whole inquiry seems to be working on the premise that we should have locked down harder, sooner and longer – and that, if we had, Sars-CoV-2 would have melted away like snow" a loose exaggeration.

However I understand his frustration. I have been watching the enquiry on and off and it seems so very woolly with a desperate desire to give every niche group a voice, and to examine in tedious detail everything that went on in cabinet and how the decisions were made. I am less interested in that - we all know mistakes were made - we all know that some of these were made long before covid when emergency planning was too low on the agenda. I am interested in examining what worked and how we can use that knowledge to good effect in a future pandemic. Clearly some of those lessons are covid-specific, but there must be general rules, both scientific, economic and political/procedural that could be useful in future planning.

Instead of this public flogging - which is too late - I would like to see in-depth studies going on in private in labs, in statistical analysis, in political systems in the event of emergencies and how decision-making processes might be streamlined.

There needs to be some positive information, backed up by academic studies that will show us where things went wrong and what we might do best in the future.

We know the government was floundering around - and that their leader was not up to the task - we need to put that behind us and have some concrete decisions about how a pandemic might be better handled.

I think we need to figure out how to prevent someone totally inadequate for the job becoming prime minister. Especially given that we then ended up with Liz Truss!

Helen MacNamara paid her fine. Being implicated in the Downing Street culture does not imo diminish the power of her evidence
The way female members of staff were sidelined and dismissed is shocking. The way Cummings wrote about HMac on WhatsApp disgusting

decision making process could be more streamlined
Patrick Grant ( and business associates) offered their services to make PPE. He had the whole plan worked out.
He and the other businesses would cut out the pieces and distribute them round the country for amateur seamstresses to make up.
He had to speak and meet with 4 different departments.
The final answer was, no, it can’t be done because as it’s a government contract every sewer would have to have a health and safety check 😡
He told them they had lost their minds.
He had this idea after witnessing the hospital where his father died had no PPE.😡😡

Helen Macnamara gave evidence clearly and with an insight to what was happening in and outside Downing Street but she kept quiet about until now. She is as guilty as the rest of that unsavoury bunch in government. None of them are fit to lick the boots of any man in the street.

Excellent post Luckygirl.
In my opinion the inquiry is a complete waste of money that could be put to better use. Such as some of the possibilities Luckygirl mentions.
It’s just a rehash of what we already know.

Thank you baggs for the link.

I hear what he is saying, although I think that his comment "The whole inquiry seems to be working on the premise that we should have locked down harder, sooner and longer – and that, if we had, Sars-CoV-2 would have melted away like snow" a loose exaggeration.

However I understand his frustration. I have been watching the enquiry on and off and it seems so very woolly with a desperate desire to give every niche group a voice, and to examine in tedious detail everything that went on in cabinet and how the decisions were made. I am less interested in that - we all know mistakes were made - we all know that some of these were made long before covid when emergency planning was too low on the agenda. I am interested in examining what worked and how we can use that knowledge to good effect in a future pandemic. Clearly some of those lessons are covid-specific, but there must be general rules, both scientific, economic and political/procedural that could be useful in future planning.

Instead of this public flogging - which is too late - I would like to see in-depth studies going on in private in labs, in statistical analysis, in political systems in the event of emergencies and how decision-making processes might be streamlined.

There needs to be some positive information, backed up by academic studies that will show us where things went wrong and what we might do best in the future.

We know the government was floundering around - and that their leader was not up to the task - we need to put that behind us and have some concrete decisions about how a pandemic might be better handled.

The Covid Inquiry is expressly not to find guilt or innocence but it's possible, I suppose, that there could be a criminal investigation after the Inquiry.

She was just relaxing after a hard day's work.

I don’t see that anybody should get immunity regarding what they said. It’s understandable that some mistakes would be made in the circumstances at the time, but the circumstances don’t excuse unprofessional behaviour.

Hancock who wanted to play God over life and death was the one who claimed to have thrown a protective ring around care homes. If he is seeking immunity I wonder if he will get it?

I agree Baggs it's an excellent article and is the point I was trying to make. A covid enquiry that worries about whether Cummings treated people badly is such a waste of an opportunity.