A former UK civil servant has apologised for a "heartless and thoughtless" comment suggesting that "chickenpox-style parties" could be used to build herd immunity to Covid.
Lord Mark Sedwill, who held the post of Cabinet Secretary - the UK Government's top-ranking civil servant - at the time when the pandemic struck in early 2020 told the UK Covid inquiry that he had not intended to minimise the seriousness of the virus.
The comments were made during a private meeting, but subsequently leaked to media.
Lord Sedwill told the inquiry that he had made the suggestion when it because clear that the spread of the virus was "inevitable" and he was looking at a way of managing it.
He said: “At no point did I believe that coronavirus was only at the same seriousness of chickenpox. I knew it was a much more serious disease.
“What I was trying to examine was: was there a way of managing that [the virus], given its highly differential impact that ensured that it spread through those for whom the disease was likely to be unpleasant rather than dangerous and that we could quarantine and shield those for whom it would be dangerous.”
READ MORE: Care home essential visiting rules 'hidden' from families, inquiry told
He added: “I understand that it must have come across that, someone in my role, was both heartless and thoughtless about this and genuinely I am neither.
"But I do understand that distress that must have caused, and I apologise for that.
The inquiry has heard that the UK Government expected herd immunity to Covid to be achieved by autumn of 2020, and only realised the need for a suppression strategy - to prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed - in March of 2020.
The inquiry was shown minutes from a Cabinet Office meeting dated February 6 2020 which suggested that a worst-case scenario was "very unlikely".
Inquiry chair Lady Hallett questioned why there was not a Cabinet-level focus on the "bad", as opposed to the "reasonable worst case" scenario?
Lord Sedwill agreed that there was "too much focus, including in the briefings to Cabinet, on the reasonable worst case".
He also conceded that by the end of February levels of alarm inside the Government, given official warnings about the imminent crisis, "should have been" higher.
He said: "It's hard looking back to recall quite how extraordinary were the measures we later took.
"They were unconscionable at the time. And, therefore, I think your point about this instinctive human reaction is true.
"I think it was also the case at the end of February the number of cases in the UK was - on the data available - still very small.
"One can understand how non-experts not familiar with exponential movement might have misunderstood the pace at which the disease was moving."
READ MORE: Freeing up hospital beds 'prioritised over care home safety'
He acknowledged that Boris Johnson might have shared that optimism bias.
"He is an optimistic person," he told the hearing.
Lord Sedwill also acknowledged that it was likely he described Mr Johnson's Government as "brutal and useless".
In a diary entry from August 2020, Sir Patrick Vallance wrote that Lord Sedwill had complained "this administration is brutal and useless".
The former Cabinet secretary said he could not remember making those remarks, but added: "I don't doubt Sir Patrick's memory. It must have been a moment of acute frustration with something."
Lord Sedwill also acknowledged that he believed Matt Hancock should have been replaced as health secretary.
In one WhatsApp exchange with the now-Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, Lord Sedwill remarked that removing Mr Hancock from the post would "save lives and protect the NHS".
READ MORE: Covid 'just nature's way of dealing with old people', inquiry told
He told the inquiry this was "gallows humour", adding: "I had raised my concerns with the prime minister. That was not intended for him to remove Mr Hancock but to take a grip on the issue."
Lord Sedwill confirmed that when he quit his role as Cabinet Secretary in June 2020, he made his views on Mr Hancock clear to the then-PM.
In a witness statement to the inquiry, Mr Johnson has stated that he "did not have any concerns regarding the performance of any Cabinet minister including Matt Hancock" and did not recall having received advice from Lord Sedwill that he should be removed.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel