Lockdown: The Inside Story

The Reckoning: Inside the UK's Covid Inquiry

Personal memorandums and classified papers provide a look at the United Kingdom's response to the most consequential occurrence in its modern history. As a novel virus gripped the nation, officials instructed millions to remain in their homes, while the government spent vast sums of money to support the nation's economy, a challenge unparalleled since the Second World War. The official Covid-19 Inquiry, a reckoning for the decisions made in the eye of the storm, is scheduled to release its second comprehensive report. This installment will dissect the colossal political choices of the time, from the imposition of lockdowns and the shuttering of commercial enterprises and educational institutions to the introduction of previously unimaginable social restrictions.

A Trove of Unfiltered Documents

At the outset of this module in 2023, the inquiry’s lead lawyer framed its purpose with a stark question: had the government effectively served its citizens, or had it let them down? The subsequent release of over 7,000 documents, consisting of WhatsApp conversations, electronic mail, private journals, and restricted files, has offered a raw, unfiltered glimpse into the heart of government. From this trove of information, several of the most pressing communications and hastily written notes from 2020 illuminate the process behind making critical judgements, charting a course through uncharted and perilous waters.

The Gathering Storm: Early Warnings Go Unheeded

On the second day of January 2020, a cryptic update surfaced on a service known as ProMed, a vital tool for health workers tracking emerging diseases. The post mentioned that the World Health Organization was communicating with officials in Beijing following an outbreak of an unidentified viral pneumonia. It detailed that twenty-seven individuals, a majority of whom were vendors working at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, were receiving treatment in a medical facility. The following day, Jonathan Van Tam, who held the position of deputy chief medical officer for England, forwarded this alert to Peter Horby, a professor based at Oxford University. Horby chaired Nervtag, the advisory group responsible for providing guidance to the government on emerging viral dangers, placing the information directly into the hands of key scientific advisers.

A Dawning Reality in Wuhan

By the month's conclusion, it was evident that health officials in China were confronting a significant crisis. The UK's deputy ambassador in Beijing, Christina Scott, transmitted a dispatch to London with the classification DIPTEL BEJING (Sensitive), drawing a chilling parallel to the 2003 SARS outbreak. The message described Hubei province was under a lockdown and transport limitations across multiple cities. Scott noted a lingering suspicion of the government's reaction, a hangover from the SARS cover-up, but also conveyed a belief that Chinese authorities would do everything possible to contain the situation, while acknowledging the substantial challenge they faced. This early intelligence painted a picture of a crisis escalating at a frightening pace.

The Pathogen Reaches British Shores  

The pathogen soon began its silent march across the globe, seeding itself in Thailand, South Korea, Iran, and then exploding in northern Italy. Despite the growing international alarm, a sense of normalcy persisted in the UK for a crucial period. On the afternoon of March 7th, a Saturday, Boris Johnson, who was leading the country, exchanged messages on the WhatsApp platform with Matt Hancock, his minister for health, prior to a rugby match between England and Wales at Twickenham. A few days after this, the major horse racing event at Cheltenham proceeded as planned, and supporters of Atletico Madrid were permitted to travel by air into Liverpool from Spain for a Champions League football game, decisions that would later come under intense scrutiny.

A Strategy Overwhelmed by Speed

The administration's strategy, which had the backing of its scientific consultants, was a textbook approach: initially contain nascent outbreaks through the isolation of people who had the pathogen and then tracing their contacts. The subsequent "delay phase" was intended to manage community transmission with policies like advising symptomatic individuals to self-isolate at home. The primary objective was managing the infection rate to "flatten the curve," ensuring hospitals would not be overwhelmed by a sudden surge in patients. But the pathogen was spreading with far greater speed than anticipated, and it was rapidly becoming apparent to numerous scientists that the existing plan was inadequate and that much more decisive measures would be required.

Panic in the Halls of Power

A stark realisation of the impending disaster is captured in a note written by hand from March 13th, a Friday. During a pivotal assembly of scientific consultants in Whitehall, two high-ranking officials from Number 10 were present. One of the officials wrote "WE ARE NOT READY" in his notebook using block capitals. In a moment of raw despair, the second official reached over, struck through the phrase, and substituted it with a powerful expletive. This single, visceral exchange encapsulates the dawning horror within the government's inner circle as the scale of the threat became terrifyingly clear. The carefully laid plans were crumbling in the face of an unprecedented viral enemy.

Cummings and the 'Plan B' Whiteboards

That weekend marked a frantic turning point. During that weekend, Dominic Cummings, chief adviser to the prime minister, was involved in a continuous round of discussions with the prime minister and a small group of chosen personnel as they developed a different approach. Low-quality smartphone photos reveal whiteboards inside Number 10 covered in hand-sketched graphs and hastily written bullet points outlining the grim projections. A particular chart indicated that, should the virus be allowed to spread unchecked without any limitations, it would cause over 100,000 fatalities, with people dying "in [hospital] corridors" during the impending wave, a scenario that forced a radical rethink of the government's entire approach.

The Unspoken Shift to Drastic Measures

 Sunday, March 15, Cummings messaged Johnson on WhatsApp, signalling a definitive shift in strategy. He confirmed that Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, was in agreement with a new approach that would be internally known, but never referred to publicly, as "Plan B". The core of this new plan was to escalate measures as needed and implement whatever actions were necessary to prevent the NHS from collapsing. The immediate objective was to buy precious time, allowing for an increase in healthcare capacity to cope with the anticipated onslaught of seriously ill patients. This marked the moment the government pivoted from containment to damage control.

The Inevitable Path to Lockdown

Throughout the subsequent week, Covid regulations all over the UK became more stringent. Initially, authorities advised people, though it was not a legal mandate, to cease all non-essential social interaction and to avoid the workplace if they could. Following this, officials closed schools. Then, in a move that brought the country to a standstill, officials shut down pubs, restaurants, fitness centers, and movie theaters. Yet, even these significant measures were not enough to quell the rising tide of concern. The sense that the government was still behind the curve persisted among experts and officials alike, amplifying the pressure for a more definitive intervention.

London's Mayor Urges Drastic Action

On March 22nd, a Sunday, with the capital becoming a clear hotspot for the virus, the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, sent a personal letter to Boris Johnson. He argued that the current measures were insufficient to halt the virus's spread in a densely populated city. Testifying later at the inquiry, Khan stated that the exclusion of city leaders from early emergency meetings meant ministers missed vital knowledge, particularly regarding the virus's potential impact on poorer and minority ethnic communities. His urgent plea from within the capital underscored the growing consensus that only the most stringent restrictions could now make a difference and prevent further loss of life.

The Nation Is Given a Directive to Remain Indoors

The culmination of this week of escalating crisis came on the evening of Monday 23 March. Boris Johnson delivered a televised speech that an audience of 27 million viewed. He instructed the population with a stark and unambiguous command: they were required to stay inside their homes. With that announcement, the country's first nationwide lockdown began, a previously unthinkable restriction on daily life. The inquiry will now have the task of determining whether making that decision at an earlier point could have prevented deaths and ultimately shortened the total duration people were confined indoors.

The Economic Counter-Offensive

While some hospitals did experience severe strain, as intensive care facilities extended into hallways and ancillary rooms, at no time did the NHS need to refuse emergency cases. The lockdown successfully drove down Covid infections, hospital admissions, and fatalities. However, the economic and social costs were substantial: schooling was interrupted, feelings of isolation and psychological health issues escalated, and employment and commerce were negatively affected. Recognising the severe economic fallout, on May 22, Johnson gave a handwritten directive to his staff requesting a strategy he called "operation BOUNCEBACK". This signalled the beginning of a precarious balancing act between public health and economic recovery.

The 'Eat Out to Help Out' Gamble

As summer arrived, officials began to ease certain limitations. Soon, gatherings of six individuals were allowed in outdoor settings and schools initiated a gradual reopening. In a bid to stimulate the hard-hit hospitality sector, Rishi Sunak, who was the chancellor, launched the Eat Out to Help Out initiative during the month of August. The program, offering a 50% discount on meals and beverages, was immensely popular and saw over 160 million meals subsidised. However, it drew sharp criticism from scientific advisers, who were not consulted. Professor John Edmunds, a SAGE member, later described it as a "spectacularly stupid idea," with studies suggesting it contributed to a rise in infections.

Tensions Between Health and the Economy

The debate surrounding the 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme highlighted the intense and persistent tension between suppressing Covid and shoring up the economy. This conflict dominated government decision-making throughout the autumn of 2020. In a WhatsApp message with typos, Matt Hancock alerted Simon Case, who at the time was the top official based in Downing Street, that the program was creating difficulties in what were known as "intervention areas"—the local administrative regions with the most significant infection rates. During his testimony before the inquiry, Sunak minimized any connection between his program and the virus's transmission, stating that another wave of infections also occurred in all other nations in Europe.

Scientists Advocate for a "Circuit Breaker"

As autumn approached, a large number of scientists who advised the government grew increasingly concerned. They pushed for a brief "circuit breaker" lockdown in an attempt to lower infection numbers before the winter. The documents sometimes show the country’s leader leaning towards stricter measures, while at other times he seems resolved to prevent another stringent national shutdown no matter what. This perceived indecisiveness created significant frustration and confusion at the heart of government, undermining a clear and consistent public health message when it was needed most.

The "Broken Trolley" of Decision-Making

In their private WhatsApp messages, Johnson's most trusted aides voiced their frustration with his process for making decisions. They used an emoji depicting a broken shopping cart as he seemed to veer between different policy stances. On October 14, Simon Case, who had become the new cabinet secretary, wrote to Dominic Cummings and Lee Cain, the head of communications at Number 10. He stated that the administration lacked the necessary credibility to enforce new measures just days after deciding against them, lamenting that they appeared to be a dreadful, tragic joke and that he could not handle the situation.

Johnson's Defence of His Leadership

During his appearance before the inquiry, Case later mentioned that he felt remorse for voicing frustrations he felt at the time about Boris Johnson, a person he said he hardly knew then. In his own evidence, Johnson stood by his leadership methods. He explained that his opinions shifted along with the available scientific data, and that he frequently took certain stances because he wished to listen to opposing viewpoints. He maintained that this was a necessary part of a robust decision-making process during a period of unprecedented uncertainty, rather than a sign of indecisiveness or chaotic leadership.

A Second Lockdown Becomes Unavoidable

As the evenings grew longer, it became apparent that the current limitations in England—which included a 10 p.m. curfew and the multi-level system of localized controls—would not be adequate to contain the virus. By the close of October, the prime minister's exasperation was palpable in a lengthy note he wrote after a Covid briefing paper labeled “OFFICIAL/SENSITIVE”. Using compact handwriting, Johnson composed twenty-two specific points across two A4 sheets of the paper. He gave his approval to enhance some local rules but complained about the "terrible cost" and questioned, "for HOW LONG?".

England Enters Its Second National Lockdown

Despite the prime minister's reluctance, the data was undeniable. A week later, on November 5, 2020, England began its second nationwide lockdown. This one continued for four weeks, though the majority of schools stayed open. By this time, the UK's four constituent countries were making many choices separately. Versions of a circuit breaker shutdown were implemented by both Wales and Northern Ireland, whereas in Scotland, officials imposed more severe regulations in the nation's central belt, reflecting the devolved nature of public health policy.

Christmas Plans Derailed by a New Variant

The objective was still to permit gatherings of families and friends for Christmas. However, by the middle of December, a contagious new variant of the virus was circulating, particularly in the south-eastern region of England. As a result, millions of people residing in the area were informed with little warning that their Christmas mixing plans were canceled. This abrupt change, though driven by scientific necessity, caused widespread anger and disappointment, further eroding public trust in the government's handling of the crisis.

The Final Lockdown and the Dawn of Vaccination

The new year brought little relief. In January 2021, when the winter wave peaked and the national health service faced unprecedented strain, a third, and final, comprehensive national lockdown was enacted throughout the UK. This lockdown would be the longest, stretching for months. However, a crucial new weapon had entered the fight. The NHS commenced the distribution of the initial Covid vaccines in huge quantities. This marked the beginning of a conclusion to the lockdown cycles, offering a tangible route out of the public health crisis and a new sense of hope after a brutal and exhausting year.

The Long-Awaited Reckoning for Bereaved Families

Five years after that eventful 12 months, the inquiry's conclusions are eagerly anticipated, especially for the 235,000 families that experienced the loss of loved ones during the health crisis. The communications and papers detailed here are merely a small selection; the forthcoming report will be approximately 800 pages long. Organizations that represent many thousands of grieving families are demanding that individuals who worked in government during that period be made answerable for any failures related to the pandemic. They insist that these individuals must be held responsible for what they describe as thousands of avoidable deaths.

Learning Lessons for the Future

The inquiry's final report will probe several of the most critical questions in greater depth: when the lockdowns were implemented, the effect of the limitations on vulnerable members of society, and the public's trust in the regulations amid allegations of parties at Downing Street and different supposed rule violations. While accountability for past mistakes is crucial, their primary desire is for the nation to learn from any errors. Their deepest hope is that the suffering endured will lead to a more robust and effective response, ensuring the country is more effectively prepared for the moment the next unidentified pathogen reaches the country's borders.