public health
Eat Out to Help The Virus: How Rishi Sunak Avoided the Science on Covid
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
“At all steps in this [pandemic] we have taken the advice of our scientific advisers”, Rishi Sunak told the House of Commons back in April 2021.
We now know this wasn’t true. According to testimony this week from the Government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, and the current Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, we now know that far from "following the science" the Prime Minister actively avoided it.
According to both men, Sunak failed to seek any scientific advice before launching his controversial ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme in the summer of 2020.
“There was no consultation”, Whitty told the Inquiry.
“Neither Patrick nor I can recall it and I think we would have done”.
Sunak’s scheme, which sought to encourage millions of people to visit restaurants in the middle of a global pandemic at a time when there was no working vaccines, was linked to a subsequent spike in infections.
That this would be the case was obvious. Encouraging people into close physical contact during the outbreak of a deadly virus was obviously never going to end well.
As Vallance himself told the Inquiry, "It's very difficult to see how it wouldn't have [increased] transmission and that would've been the advice that was given had we been asked".
Yet the scientists were not asked, for the simple reason that the then Chancellor appeared not to want the answer he would have been given.
Indeed, avoiding such advice appeared to be a priority for Sunak. According to Vallance, the former Chancellor told one meeting during the pandemic that his real priority was “handling the scientists, not handling the virus”.
In other words he was more concerned with managing those trying to tell him the truth about the virus than managing the virus itself. This was, in the view of Johnson’s former adviser Dominic Cummings, because “Rishi thinks just let people die and that's okay.”
While this may be an exaggeration of Sunak’s motivations at the time, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this was essentially the position the Government took in the early months of the crisis.
All the Bad News Jeremy Hunt Buried in His Autumn Statement
Details buried in the Chancellor’s statement show we are heading for years more of tax rises, low growth and public sector cuts thanks to his Government, reports Adam Bienkov
Adam Bienkov
Abandoned Standards
Like Sunak, Johnson also reportedly expressed his desire for the virus to be allowed to “let rip” through the population.
In records unearthed by the Inquiry, officials recall that Johnson believed that the country was being “pathetic” about Covid and should just have “a cold shower” and get over it. In one exchange he is recorded as sympathising with the idea that the virus was simply “nature’s way of dealing with old people”.
Yet while there are few people who will still be surprised by Johnson’s comments, the revelations about his successor are in some ways more troubling.
When Sunak belatedly called for Johnson’s resignation last year he claimed to be doing so because “the public rightly expect government to be conducted properly, competently and seriously”, adding that “I believe these standards are worth fighting for”.
Unfortunately everything we have seen since suggests that far from wanting to “fight” for these standards, as he suggested, Sunak was actually as content for them to be disregarded as his predecessor.
This can be seen not just in his behaviour during the pandemic, but also in his behaviour since. His decision to hire Suella Braverman just days after she was sacked for breaking the ministerial code, was an early and crucial sign that his commitment to “professionalism, integrity and accountability” was not what it first appeared.
His subsequent appointment of David Cameron, whose ties to China and previous business interests are already been covered up by Sunak’s Government is further proof of quite how unattached to proper standards the Prime Minister really is.
BREAKING
David Cameron’s Appointment is the Final Nail in the Coffin of Sunak’s Political Integrity
Sunak’s appointment of the disgraced former Prime Minister gives the lie to his claims to be restoring accountability to Government, writes Adam Bienkov
Adam Bienkov
Yet it is his behaviour during Covid which should trouble us the most.
Throughout the pandemic Sunak and Johnson insisted they were “following the science” on Covid.
As Vallance pointed out this week, this claim was not only untrue but also potentially harmful.
At the start of the pandemic scientists were unsure about exactly how virulent the virus would prove to be. As such there was no single “science” which the Government could follow. What there was instead was a growing body of evidence and some reasonable scientific inferences that could be drawn from that evidence.
The job of the Government’s scientific advisers was not to tell ministers what “the science” was to be followed, but to simply inform them what the evidence was and then allow them to make their own political decisions based on that evidence.
As Vallance said this week, what Johnson’s Government did instead was to “hide” behind the scientists and use them as justifications for doing what they wanted to do anyway.
The problem was that this was not always possible, as Sunak inadvertently revealed with his frustration at being unable to “handle the scientists”.
This was particularly exposed by the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.
It was obviously the case that encouraging people into hospitality settings during a pandemic was going to be in conflict with any scientific advice the Government might have sought at the time.
One way to deal with this might have been for Sunak to say that while the scheme risked increasing infections, it was still justified for economic reasons. Yet instead of being honest about that, Sunak and Johnson simply refused to seek any advice and pretended that there were no risks involved at all.
Thanks to the Inquiry we now know that the Government's mantra that it was "following the science" was not only untrue, but harmful.
Far from following the science on Covid, the Prime Minister and his predecessor actively avoided it.
The Government’s Reforms to Work Capability Benefits Assessment Could Worsen the Mental Health Crisis for Already Vulnerable People
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
“It feels like part of Conservative Party ideology to continue marginalising the most vulnerable members of society, like us people with disabilities,” Julie told Byline Times.
The 48-year-old has had M.E. since she was a teenager. She is among the 1.2 million people claiming disability benefits exempting her from employment, and one of the many concerned about the Government's proposed short-term changes to the Work Capability Assessments – the test used to determine to what extent a claimant is “fit for work”.
Earlier this year, the Department for Work and Pensions announced its plans to eventually eradicate the WCA. However, since 2019, the Government has reported a dramatic increase in people classified through this assessment as being in a 'limited capability for work and work-related activity group' (LCWRA). The individuals in this group are not required to work or prepare for employment.
This year, the DWP launched a consultation on interim changes to existing WCA criteria, ultimately reducing the number of people judged to belong to the LCWRA group. These proposed changes affect four WCA activity groups, going so far as to potentially remove the 'substantial risk' group, which protects the most vulnerable people.
Amid a collapsing NHS and the cost of living crisis, these changes to disability assessments could push more people into mental health crises. The consequences will be fewer people with access to the LCWRA group, leading to a benefit loss of £390.06 a month for some, and the possibility of sanctions and work mandates imposed on those who may previously have been deemed too unwell to work.
Dr Jay Watts, a consultant clinical psychiatrist from London, believes the impacts could be severe. She told Byline Times: “These proposed changes are symptomatic of the continued systematic violation of disabled folk. They are ruthless and will cause a tsunami of mental health issues as people would be pressured into work-preparation activities for which they are unsuited and/or unready. This would increase the likelihood of not only being sanctioned but exert a huge psychological toll.”
‘No Patient Should Ever Be Treated Like this Ever Again’
As the new Mental Health Act is quietly dropped, David Hencke reports on how the crisis in mental health services across the country is failing the most vulnerable people in society
David Hencke
Dr Watts is particularly concerned with the possible erasure of the “substantial risk” category, which previously protected her clients at risk of suicide or severe mental health deterioration. She worries the removal of this lifeline could push people into a relapse.
A study published in the British Medical Journal has previously linked the WCA process to increases in suicides, self-reported mental health problems and increased uptake of antidepressants.
Louise Rubin, head of policy and campaigns at disability equality charity Scope, also raised concerns. She said: "The Work Capability Assessment is already degrading, stressful and adversarial and has a terrible impact on people's mental health. Threatening disabled people with more sanctions will not lead to more disabled people getting into and staying in work.”
Amy, 25, who was assigned to the LCWRA group after a mental health crisis, said the WCA was a traumatic experience. She worries this will be made worse by the Government’s plans.
“I felt this constant need to prove I was ill enough – I had to recount some of my darkest moments, such as my suicide attempt, in-depth," she told Byline Times. “I worry the stress of proving yourself will get worse and more terrifying.”
Julie similarly recounted: “I fear people are going to be pushed into desperation and poverty if they are no longer able to access the benefits they need. The process is already highly stressful – people with disabilities who previously did not have a mental illness may develop a mental illness.”
The Link Between Austerity and Mental Health Issues
In his conference speech this year, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, referencing the increased benefits claims, asked: “Are people three times sicker today than they were a decade ago? No, of course not… it is not fair on taxpayers who have to pick up the bill."
Yet, this is at odds with sources showing that the UK faces increasingly ill health and health inequalities.
Research by the Office for National Statistics published in April confirmed that sickness absences from work had reached levels last seen in 2004. The Institute for Fiscal Studies also reported that the working-age population’s health has been slowly decreasing, with a rise in all major health conditions.
Sunak claims a primary goal of these changes is to encourage people to re-enter work, framing it as a “tragedy” for those out of long-term employment. However, Dr Watts is unconvinced that this is an adequate approach and believes it instead denies the reality that work is not an option for some. She worries this will escalate the shame and stigma surrounding benefit claiming.
The DWP’s proposed WCA reforms also fail to address the rise in long-term unemployment, assuming that economic inactivity from rising sickness rates can be partly blamed on an erroneous assessment system.
So, what are the causes?
The continued individualisation of ill health fails to recognise the broader societal causes of the mental and physical health epidemic – most obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic, which has seen an estimated 1.5 million people suffering from Long COVID symptoms severe enough to inhibit everyday activities.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
The pandemic saw an escalation in mental health issues, as reported by 2022 Government findings and charities such as Mind UK. The NHS is also facing an escalating crisis under the Conservative Government. The well-reported spiralling staffing crisis and progressively unmanageable waiting times for elective care are predicted to reach eight million by the summer of 2024, which means people are waiting longer for care, which could prevent serious health issues.
In August, the British Medical Society urgently reported the need for mental health funding from the Government to prevent further damage.
Dr Watts is clear: “If Sunak has any interest in reducing the rates of disability benefits, then wider issues leading to poor health outcomes must be addressed. The stress of society is making us ill or iller, and until people are given adequate infrastructure such as decent housing, healthcare and financial stability, the crisis will worsen.”
For Julie, the situation is desperate: “The demonisation of disabled people continues, and we are failing to be heard and seen. If the Government wants to reduce the number of people out of work, fund the NHS, give us better housing, mental health support and listen to us rather than take away our benefits. If not, more people will die.”
A DWP spokesperson told Byline Times that the proposed reforms "are about helping people to improve their lives – ensuring they are not unnecessarily excluded from support or encouragement to access the health, wellbeing and financial benefits that work provides".
“We know one in five of those in the LCWRA group want to work with the right support – and the safety of vulnerable customers who may need additional health and wellbeing support remains a top priority," they added. "We will continue to have appropriate safeguards in place to protect them.”
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4