A public inquiry should be relished, not put off

Ian Bolland explains why there is no time to waste when it comes to a public inquiry into the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A year on from the first lockdown and messages to stay at home, the UK is now embarking on its emergence from a third lockdown, one that the government aims to be “irreversible.”

As more than half of the adult population has received their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, at the time of writing, children are back at school and there is the aim of some form of normality will return by June. 

However, government must not be so naïve as to think this will be the only pandemic that will affect the UK so dreadfully as this one which has cost in excess of 125,000 lives. Any time there has been a call for a public inquiry, those in the corridors have power have said that “now is not the time” while vowing to “learn the lessons.”

If this is truly to be an irreversible path out of lockdown, then now is precisely the time hold an inquiry into the country’s response, particularly in the early phase of the pandemic and its preparedness. 

Its scope could cover the response from government itself, assessing schemes such as the ventilator challenge, PPE supplies, and whether courses of action that saw the health secretary break the law were the right call – and if he should be thanked as he suggested on one breakfast television show. 

Also covered here could be whether life sciences industry and government are working closely enough together when it comes to pandemic preparedness, and if not, what changes need to be made, and whether procurement processes were properly followed in this matter of great urgency. This could also test some of the claims about whether there was enough of a diagnostics industry, including issues surrounding lab capacity for testing.

One would hope the pitch for this part of the enquiry would be laid right now. This isn’t a case of finger pointing in order for someone’s head to roll for the huge loss of life experienced in the UK over the past 12 months; but to ensure that both government and industry are working in harmony for the common good, so that any supply chain issues can be addressed should we end up in a state of emergency again in the near future. The latter would also be generally beneficial for industry and help the sector continue to succeed.  

Alongside this should be the NHS and whether it was prepared for a pandemic – not just in terms of staffing, PPE and capacity, but also in terms of the technology it uses. Increased use of digital technology has been one trend that has been accelerated by COVID-19 as we have seen an increase remote monitoring and care in order to alleviate pressures and allay fears of infection that would come with in-person consultations. This also presents other challenges and issues when it comes to cybersecurity of smart medical devices and systems.

Focussing on these areas in one of the first phases in any enquiry would not just aid preparedness of future health emergencies, but allow life sciences, digital health and the NHS to offer better services. 

This should be something that should be relished rather than shied away from.