A circuit breaker lockdown weeks ago would “definitely have saved thousands of lives” and inflicted substantially less damage on the economy, a government scientific adviser has claimed.
Professor Andrew Hayward, a member of the government’s Scientific Advisory Body for Emergencies (Sage), said the threat of Covid-19 had been “repeatedly underestimated” and waiting to see if less intense measures would work was a “dangerous” strategy.
The dramatic U-turn left Mr Johnson facing questions as to why he rejected advice from Sage on 21 September to impose a time-limited lockdown to prevent what the body described as “catastrophic consequences” in terms of deaths directly related to Covid.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the UCL epidemiologist Mr Hayward said: “Well, we can’t turn back the clock, but I think if we had chosen a two-week circuit break at that time we would definitely have saved thousands of lives and we would clearly have inflicted substantially less damage on our economy than the proposed four-week lockdown will do.”
“I think countries like ours that have failed to control Covid have seen the highest death rates and greatest impact on the economy and I think we’ve repeatedly underestimated Covid and done too little, too late really to control the virus and save both lives and livelihoods.”
Asked on how certain he could be regarding deaths, the professor replied:“I think with a high degree of certainty really. We know that this sort of measure whereby we shut down multiple areas of transmission at the same time is the single most effective way of stopping the virus from spreading and we know very clearly, the earlier you do that the more lives you will save.
“The actions we take now affect really the deaths we see in three weeks or a months time and beyond so early action is essential. Waiting to see if less intense measures are going to work is really quite a dangerous way of doing things.”
On the closure of schools during the lockdown – something demanded by education unions – professor Hayward said it was clear there was “substantial transmission” within secondary schools, but said children infected are “very unlikely” to have severe consequences.
He added: “But I think one of the consequences of not closing secondary schools would be we may need to be in lockdown for longer than we might otherwise have to be. So it’s really a trade-off between education and other parts of the economy and to a certain extent the number of deaths we’re prepared to see.”
