A leading epidemiologist from Oxford’s Department of Biology has revealed senior medical advisors advocated for the prime minister to adopt a “focused protection” approach during the COVID-19 crisis, advocating for a ‘Swedish-style’ solution.
This approach, Professor Sinetra Gupta claims, would have represented the only humanitarian route out of the crisis. The details were revealed yesterday in a witness statement submitted to the ongoing UK COVID-19 Inquiry.
Ms. Gupta’s decision to reveal her statement to the media and subsequently make it public online (via Collateral Global), has sparked intense discussion over decisions made at the highest level of government during lockdown.
Boris Johnson is undergoing a pivotal week as key figures from his tenure as prime minister are summoned to testify before the official Covid inquiry.
Adviser Supported Swedish Approach
According to Ms. Gupta’s statement, Dame Angela McLean, the government’s chief scientific adviser, also supported a Swedish-style approach.The Swedish strategy, as outlined by Anders Tegnell, the state epidemiologist of Sweden, focuses on protecting vulnerable populations while allowing the rest of society to function with minimal restrictions.
Professor Gupta’s statement stated: “Anders Tegnell gave a general outline of the ‘Swedish’ strategy, which corresponded to the opinions he had already expressed on multiple occasions in the press; Angela McLean expressed the opinion that we should be doing whatever Tegnell was doing.
“As the ‘Swedish’ strategy is effectively synonymous with focused protection of the vulnerable, it could be said that other than John Edmunds, all invitees were broadly in favour of proposals outlined by Tegnell.”
While the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson heard and interrogated these opinions, Ms. Gupta claims “there was no opportunity for a panel discussion.”
Prominent scientists Professor Carl Heneghan and Dr. Tom Jefferson, notable critics of lockdown measures, have raised concerns about the fairness of the official COVID-19 inquiry, citing what they perceive as biased treatment and a lack of interest in examining the consequences of lockdowns.
While Mr. Heneghan, the director of the Centre for Evidence-based Medicine at Oxford, was called to testify before the inquiry, Dr. Jefferson was notably absent.
During Mr. Heneghan’s testimony, he faced a challenging hour of questioning, with the chairman dismissing his opinions as insufficient evidence.
Inquiry Could Have ‘Bias’
In a letter addressed to Lady Hallett on Wednesday, the scientists expressed their concerns, stating, “We are concerned that the differential treatment damages public confidence in the UK’s Covid Inquiry and will bias the inquiry’s findings. We have received countless messages highlighting this issue.”Addressing the Covid Inquiry today, Boris Johnson’s former communications chief, Lee Cain, reiterated his firm support for the lockdown messaging campaign, “Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives,” while acknowledging his disagreement with a committee of behavioural scientists.
The former director of communications at No 10 described the campaign as one of the most potent public health efforts in recent history.
Mr. Cain explained that the campaign’s strategy was informed by focus groups and polling, rather than solely relying on insights from the Independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (Spi-B), which he found to be “slightly questionable.”
He emphasised that behavioural science could be fallible, stating, “behavioural science isn’t always correct.” During the inquiry, Mr. Cain revealed that he had limited interaction with Spi-B, expressing dissatisfaction with the direction of their insights.
When questioned by inquiry counsel Andrew O’Connor, KC, about excluding behavioural scientists from messaging discussions, Mr. Cain clarified that he did not actively cut them out but did not engage in discussions with them as nobody approached him with advice or feedback.
