Health

Lockdown could have been avoided – key findings from Covid inquiry

A highly anticipated report has been released, examining the government’s response to the Covid pandemic, assessing its effectiveness and areas for improvement.

A long-awaited independent review of the government's handling of the Covid pandemic has been released, providing an assessment of the country's response to the crisis.

Woman walking down street past Covid sign

According to Baroness Hallett, the chair of the inquiry and a former judge, the UK's approach to the pandemic was characterized by delays and inadequate action, which she described as "too little, too late".

The report examines the effectiveness of lockdowns, the impact of rule-breaking by government officials on public trust, and the overall response to the pandemic, including the timing and reasoning behind key decisions.

Key findings from the report include several critical assessments of the government's handling of the pandemic.

The report suggests that earlier implementation of measures such as social distancing and household isolation could have potentially avoided the need for a lockdown, had they been introduced prior to mid-March 2020.

However, by the time the government took action, the situation had already reached a point where a lockdown was unavoidable, according to the report.

The inquiry found that by late January 2020, it should have been clear that the virus posed a significant and immediate threat, and that February 2020 was a critical month that was largely wasted due to a lack of urgency from the government, which was deemed "inexcusable".

The government introduced voluntary measures on March 16, 2020, followed by a full stay-at-home lockdown a week later, on March 23, 2020.

Modeling suggests that imposing a lockdown a week earlier, on March 16, could have resulted in 23,000 fewer deaths in England during the first wave of the pandemic, representing a 48% reduction in mortality.

However, the report does not suggest that an earlier lockdown would have significantly reduced the overall death toll from the pandemic, which stood at 227,000 in the UK by the time it was declared over in 2023.

The report notes that it is difficult to determine the potential impact of an earlier lockdown on the overall death toll, as this would have depended on various factors that could have influenced the course of the pandemic.

The inquiry describes the culture within the UK government during the pandemic as "toxic and chaotic", which had a negative impact on the quality of advice and decision-making.

The report criticizes the behavior of several senior leaders and advisers, including Dominic Cummings, who is described as having had a "destabilizing influence" on the government's response to the pandemic.

According to the report, Cummings' actions contributed significantly to a culture of fear, mistrust, and suspicion within 10 Downing Street, which undermined the government's ability to respond effectively to the crisis.

The then-Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, is also criticized for his overly optimistic approach to the pandemic and his indecisiveness on key lockdown decisions.

Former chief adviser to former prime minister Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings arriving to give a statement to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry in 2023 — Dominic Cummings was Johnson's chief adviser until he resigned in November 2020

The report states that Johnson should have recognized the urgency of the situation sooner and provided stronger leadership to drive the government's response.

Instead, Johnson's optimism led him to underestimate the severity of the pandemic, which hindered the government's ability to respond effectively, according to the report.

The report also criticizes the then-Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, for lacking candor about the UK's ability to cope with the virus.

While the lockdowns of 2020 and 2021 likely saved lives, they also had significant and lasting social and economic impacts, including delays in diagnosing and treating other health issues and exacerbating existing inequalities.

The report finds that the needs of children were not adequately prioritized, with ministers failing to fully consider the consequences of school closures.

Although children were not at high risk of direct harm from Covid, the report states that they suffered significantly from school closures and the requirement to stay at home.

The inquiry found that none of the UK's four nations were adequately prepared to provide education to most children at home, which added to the challenges posed by the pandemic.

The report concludes that rule-breaking by politicians and their advisers undermined public trust in the government's decision-making and increased the risk that people would not adhere to the measures in place.

Former prime minister Boris Johnson leaves Dorland House in London after giving evidence for module 8 (children and young people) in the UK Covid-19 Inquiry — Johnson has been criticised in the inquiry's report

Examples of such rule-breaking include Dominic Cummings' trip to Durham and Barnard Castle, as well as visits to second homes by other senior officials during lockdown.

The report notes that by the time details of parties and social events in Downing Street emerged in November 2021, there was a significant public outcry.

Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak subsequently received fixed penalty notices for their actions, which further eroded public trust in the government.

The inquiry criticizes the planning and decision-making processes in all four nations, which were hindered by a lack of trust between Boris Johnson and the first ministers of the devolved administrations.

The report finds that at the start of 2020, the devolved administrations were overly reliant on the UK government to lead the response to the pandemic, which lacked a sense of urgency.

The four nations later adopted different strategies for exiting the first national lockdown, with Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland taking a more cautious approach, although this was undermined by the lack of travel restrictions from England.

The report notes that the Scottish government was the only administration to learn from the first lockdown and introduce targeted, local measures in Autumn 2020, which helped avoid the need for a nationwide lockdown.

In contrast, decision-making in Northern Ireland was described as "chaotic", while the Welsh government's approach resulted in the highest age-standardized mortality rate among the four nations between August and December 2020.

The report provides a list of recommendations for improving the government's response to future pandemics.

Although the government is not required to adopt these recommendations, it must respond to them, which could inform future policy decisions.

The inquiry had previously reported on the UK's preparedness for the pandemic, concluding that the country's flawed plans failed to protect its citizens.

Up Next

UK did ‘too little, too late’, leading to thousands more Covid deaths – inquiry

Don't Miss

The private notes and secret documents that tell the inside story of the UK’s Covid response

Click to comment

Health

Study Explores if Brain Stimulation Can Reduce Selfish Behavior

Researchers have found a way to temporarily and marginally decrease self-centered behavior in individuals by activating two specific regions of the brain.

Researchers have made a groundbreaking discovery, finding that temporary reductions in selfish behavior can be achieved by stimulating specific areas of the brain.

The image shows a brain scan seen from the dront of the head. The lobes of the brain are artifically coloured in bright red and you can see the pink outline of a person's skull around the brain.

A recent study conducted at the University of Zurich involved 44 participants who were tasked with dividing a sum of money between themselves and an anonymous partner, allowing scientists to observe their decision-making processes.

The experiment utilized electrical current to stimulate the frontal and parietal regions of the brain, located at the front and rear of the skull, respectively. When these areas were stimulated simultaneously, participants exhibited a greater willingness to share their funds.

According to Prof Christian Ruff, a lead author of the study, the observed effects were consistent, albeit modest in scale.

Statistical analysis revealed a notable increase in participants' willingness to allocate funds to others, indicating a shift in their behavior.

The findings not only provide insight into the neural mechanisms underlying fundamental human behavior but may also have implications for the treatment of certain brain disorders characterized by impaired social behavior.

Prof Ruff noted that some individuals struggle with profound social difficulties due to an inability to consider others' perspectives, leading to consistently selfish behavior, and suggested that this discovery could potentially be used to address such issues.

However, the effects of the brain stimulation were found to be short-lived, suggesting that repeated application may be necessary to achieve lasting changes.

Prof Ruff likened the potential effects of repeated stimulation to the benefits of regular exercise, stating that consistent application over a prolonged period could lead to significant changes in behavior, much like the physical adaptations that occur with regular gym attendance.

This latest discovery builds upon a previous study in which researchers monitored brain activity while participants engaged in a similar money-sharing game, providing a foundation for the current findings.

A participant receiving non-invasive brain stimulation during an experiment in a laboratory setting. The volunteer sits in the foreground with another person, whose hands can be seen, holding a scanning device over the person's head. A scan of their brain is visible on a screen behind.

The earlier study identified two brain regions that appeared to be synchronized, with neural activity occurring at the same frequency, when participants made more generous decisions.

These brain areas are known to play a crucial role in decision-making and empathy, enabling individuals to distinguish between their own feelings and those of others.

When participants made selfless decisions, the regions responsible for empathy and decision-making were found to be communicating with each other.

The researchers sought to investigate whether electrical stimulation could be used to influence this communication and promote more selfless decision-making.

One participant who underwent the brain stimulation test described the experience as a gentle, soothing sensation, comparable to a warm shower or light rain on the scalp.

The participant reported making decisions while receiving the stimulation without feeling any external influence on their choices.

The discovery of a consistent neural pattern associated with selfless decision-making across multiple individuals suggests that altruism may be an innate, evolutionarily conserved trait that enables humans to care for one another.

Prof Ruff emphasized the clinical significance of this finding, highlighting the potential to modify and influence this neural mechanism.

Dr Jie Hu, a co-author of the study, noted that the research provides evidence of a causal relationship between brain activity and decision-making, demonstrating that targeted stimulation can alter an individual's sharing behavior.

By manipulating communication within a specific brain network using non-invasive stimulation, the researchers observed a shift in participants' decisions, influencing the balance between self-interest and altruism.

Addressing concerns about the potential implications of this research, Prof Ruff assured that the experiment was conducted with strict adherence to medical regulations and ethical guidelines, ensuring the well-being and informed consent of all participants.

The neuroscientist drew a distinction between the controlled, medically regulated nature of the experiment and the often-subliminal influences of social media and advertising, which can affect behavior without explicit consent.

Prof Ruff suggested that, in contrast to the experiment, the impacts of social media and advertising on brain function and behavior are often unforeseen and uncontrolled, highlighting the importance of careful consideration and regulation in such contexts.

Health

NHS Workers to Receive 3.3% Pay Increase

Labor unions have expressed displeasure, yet the government maintains that its actions showcase a dedication to its workforce.

The government has confirmed that NHS staff in England will receive a 3.3% pay increase in the upcoming financial year.

Nurses on a ward, checking patient notes

This pay award applies to approximately 1.4 million health workers, including nurses, midwives, physiotherapists, and porters, but excludes doctors, dentists, and senior management.

Although the Department of Health and Social Care initially proposed a lower figure, it has accepted the recommendation of the independent pay review body to demonstrate its commitment to NHS staff, resulting in a higher pay rise than initially suggested.

However, several health unions have expressed disappointment with the announced pay award.

Prof Nicola Ranger, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), noted that the 3.3% increase falls short of the current consumer price index (CPI) inflation rate of 3.4%, which measures the rise in prices over the past year.

Prof Ranger stated, "A pay award that is lower than the current inflation rate is unacceptable, and unless inflation decreases, the government will be imposing a real pay cut on NHS workers."

She criticized the government's approach, saying, "This strategy of making last-minute decisions is not an appropriate way to treat individuals who are essential to a system in crisis."

Prof Ranger indicated that she would wait to see the pay awards for the rest of the public sector and doctors before deciding on a course of action.

The RCN had previously reacted strongly to the 5.4% pay increase received by resident doctors last year, compared to the 3.6% increase received by nurses, which they described as "grotesque".

Prof Ranger emphasized, "Nursing staff will not accept being treated with disrespect, as has happened in the past when they were given lower pay awards than other groups."

Helga Pile, head of health at Unison, the largest health union, commented, "NHS staff who are already under financial pressure will be outraged by another pay award that fails to keep up with inflation."

"Once again, they are expected to deliver more while their pay effectively decreases, as it falls behind the rising cost of living," she added.

In response, the government argued that the pay award is actually above the forecasted inflation rate for the coming year, which is around 2%.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care stated, "This government greatly values the outstanding work of NHS staff and is committed to supporting them."

The pay increase is expected to be implemented by the start of April.

However, the government did not provide a timeline for the announcement on doctors' pay, as the pay review body responsible for making recommendations on their pay has yet to submit its report to ministers.

The government is currently engaged in negotiations with the British Medical Association regarding the pay of resident doctors, previously known as junior doctors.

Members of the BMA recently voted in favor of strike action, granting them a six-month mandate for walkouts, and there have been 14 strikes so far in the ongoing dispute.

Health

NHS Waiting List Hits Three-Year Low

In England, the backlog has fallen below 7.3 million for the first time since 2023, yet worries persist regarding prolonged waiting times in accident and emergency departments.

England's hospital waiting list has reached its lowest point in almost three years, marking a significant milestone in the country's healthcare system.

A group of surgeons operating on a patient in theatre

As of December 2025, the number of patients awaiting treatment, including knee and hip operations, stood at 7.29 million, the lowest figure recorded since February 2023.

However, the latest monthly update from NHS England reveals that long wait times persist in Accident and Emergency departments, with a record number of patients experiencing 12-hour trolley waits.

In January 2026, over 71,500 patients spent more than 12 hours waiting for a hospital bed after being assessed by A&E staff, the highest number tracked since 2010.

This translates to nearly one in five patients admitted after visiting A&E waiting for an extended period.

According to Health Secretary Wes Streeting, while progress has been made, significant challenges still need to be addressed.

Streeting acknowledged that "there is much more to do" and emphasized the need to accelerate progress, but expressed optimism that the NHS is on the path to recovery.

Dr. Vicky Price, representing the Society for Acute Medicine, noted that hospitals are operating beyond safe capacity in terms of emergency care.

Dr. Price highlighted the vulnerability of patients who require admission, often elderly and frail individuals with complex needs, who are at greater risk of harm when care is delivered in corridors and hospitals exceed safe limits.

Duncan Burton, Chief Nursing Officer for England, commended the progress made in reducing wait times, achieved despite the challenges posed by strikes by resident doctors.

Burton attributed this progress to the hard work and dedication of NHS staff, describing it as a "triumph".

Although the waiting list decreased, performance against the 18-week target slightly declined, with 61.5% of patients waiting less than 18 weeks, compared to 61.8% in November, and still short of the 92% target set to be met by 2029.

Rory Deighton of the NHS Confederation, which represents hospitals, welcomed the progress but cautioned that it obscures significant regional variations.

A recent BBC report revealed that nearly a quarter of hospital trusts experienced worsening wait times over the past year.

Deighton emphasized that the NHS is composed of numerous separate organizations, each with unique financial and operational challenges, making it more difficult to address care backlogs in some areas.

According to Deighton, this means that tackling care backlogs will be more challenging in certain parts of the country due to these distinct regional challenges.