Boris Johnson told scientists he was in favour of a Swedish-style approach to the pandemic, rather than more lockdowns, in Autumn 2020, an Oxford University epidemiologist has told the Covid Inquiry.
As the inquiry prepares to hear from Mr Johnson’s closest advisers this week, evidence from Professor Sunetra Gupta suggests that the former prime minister was persuaded by a Swedish expert that lockdowns could be avoided by implementing less restrictive rules.
Professor Gupta took part in a “round table” with Mr Johnson, Rishi Sunak and several other scientists in September 2020 as the government debated how to tackle Covid. At the time, restrictions had been eased.
Mr Johnson had been keen to seek a range of views during the meeting on Zoom titled: “Should the government intervene now and if so how?” and he asked Professor Gupta and Professor Carl Heneghan, both prominent critics of lockdown, for advice as well as Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist.
Unlike the rest of the world, Sweden took a different approach to the pandemic, only introducing social distancing, limited travel restrictions and bans on mass gatherings.
While Mr Johnson later introduced the tiered system of local restrictions and the country endured two further lockdowns, Professor Gupta said that other than one scientist, Professor John Edmunds, everyone else in the meeting agreed about the benefits of the Swedish approach. Her comments are the first time a scientist in the meeting has publicly spoken about Mr Johnson’s support for the Swedish model.
‘Humanitarian route’
Professor Gupta, a theoretical epidemiologist at Oxford’s Department of Biology, advocated a “focused protection” approach to protect the vulnerable, which she said was “the only humanitarian route out of the crisis” .
In her witness statement, seen by The Telegraph and submitted to the Inquiry, she said that Dame Angela McLean, now the government’s chief scientific adviser, who the Inquiry has heard mocked lockdown critics, was also in favour of a Swedish-style approach.
“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,” her statement says.
“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. Boris Johnson interrogated each of us on our position, but there was no opportunity for a panel discussion.”
Mr Johnson was later reported to have said in September 2020 that he would rather let coronavirus “rip” than introduce a second lockdown because of the economic impact. However, a second lockdown was introduced in November 2020 and a third in January 2021.
The disclosure comes as the inquiry prepares for a crucial week with Lee Cain, the former director of communications at Number 10 and Dominic Cummings, the former chief adviser to the prime minister, set to give evidence.
The Inquiry is expected to ask Mr Johnson’s advisers about the decision-making process inside No 10 throughout the pandemic.
Professor Gupta has not been called to give evidence and the inquiry is yet to publish her witness statement. However she shared it with The Telegraph amid frustration from scientists critical of lockdown that they were not being given a fair hearing.
In her statement, she also reveals how she tried in vain to arrange a meeting with Michael Gove, then the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and also met Theresa May in October 2020 because “she wished to interrogate me on my views regarding the necessity of lockdowns”.
“Michael Gove expressed an interest in speaking with me concerning my views on lockdowns but repeatedly cancelled. I have no idea why the meeting did not materialize.”
Harm done by lockdown
In her statement she urged the Inquiry to scrutinise the harm done by lockdown and said that she and other academics who spoke out against restrictions on civil liberties “became victims of a vicious campaign to silence and impugn us”.
“Focus on the key trade-off,” she told the Inquiry. “Rather than wasting time and energy on understanding why we were not more eager to implement such measures earlier in the epidemic, I believe a more useful line for the Covid Inquiry would be to examine why we did not distinguish between on the one hand the benefits the measures could have brought at an individual level to those at risk of severe disease and on the other the harms they were bound to cause at a population level, especially for the poor and the young”.
She said that her logic of focused protection for the vulnerable rather than lockdowns should have been “obvious to those whose responsibility it was to manage the response to the pandemic”.
“The blind adoption of lockdown and lack of debate as to how to respond to the uncertainties is a tragedy for which the whole of society is now paying a hefty price.”
The inquiry says it is independent and selects witnesses on the relevance of their evidence. It is understood that witness statements are shared with core participants even if not made public.
A spokesman for Mr Johnson declined to comment, but said he would give evidence to the inquiry in due course and that he was fully cooperating.
William Turner is a seasoned U.K. correspondent with a deep understanding of domestic affairs. With a passion for British politics and culture, he provides insightful analysis and comprehensive coverage of events within the United Kingdom.
