'Circuit-break' would have been 'proportionate' and prevented need for longer lockdown, Sage member says

Prof Hayward does not think the Tier 3 restrictions will result in the R rate being pushed below one
Imogen Braddick13 October 2020

A "circuit-break" lockdown would have been a "proportionate" way of getting a grip on the coronavirus outbreak, a Sage member has said.

Documents released on Monday showed ministers opted against Sage’s advice of introducing a short lockdown to reduce the number of coronavirus infections.

Minutes released by the Sage group on Monday show Boris Johnson was urged to shut pubs, bars, restaurants, gyms, hair salons and move university teaching online last month.

Andrew Hayward, professor of infectious disease epidemiology at University College London and a member of Sage, said the brief national lockdown would have helped the UK avoid "intensive and long-term lockdowns later".

He said the Government needed to take "decisive action" several weeks ago and the large increase in cases is "not really surprising".

"What we’ve done through the pandemic is we’ve invested huge amounts of money in being able to track where the virus is and where it is increasing so we have much better information to pick up early warnings of increases in cases," ge told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

"That should allow us to act early in a decisive way to prevent having to act in a more damaging way later.

"And that was really one of the intentions of the recommendations for a ‘circuit break’, that this could be a controlled, manageable, proportionate system that would save the need for much more intensive and long-term lockdowns later."

Coronavirus: Pubs and Restaurants 10pm Curfew

1/29

Prof Hayward he did not think the restrictions included in Tier 3 would result in the R rate being pushed below one.

"I think it is very disappointing that we had clear advice – we needed to take decisive action several weeks ago," he said.

"And really since that time, all we’ve done is send students back, introduced the rule of six, advised people to work from home if possible but not really promoted that in any real way and closed the pubs an hour early.

"So it’s not really surprising that we’re continuing to see large increases in cases and that those increases are being seen around the country.”

Jenrick: coronavirus restrictions may 'need to go even further'

He added: "I think it is clear that even at the ‘very high’ levels of restrictions – so-called – that they will not be sufficient to reduce R below one."

Labour shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said he was "alarmed" that the Government had appeared to have rejected scientific advice in opting against Sage’s recommendation of a "circuit break" lockdown.

"I’m alarmed that these recommendations to Government appear to have been rejected," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

“Ministers, the Prime Minister often come on the television and radio programmes to say they are always following the science… to justify the decisions they have made.

“They seem to have rejected this scientific advice.”

London's empty network continues during Coronavirus

1/24

Asked if Labour would have supported a short national lockdown, Mr Ashworth said: "I think if I was the Secretary of State then we would always follow the scientific advice.

"What we need to understand from ministers and I will press (Health Secretary) Matt Hancock in the House of Commons later as to why the scientific advice was rejected – we need to understand the minister’s explanation."

Experts had warned the Prime Minister that single interventions were “unlikely” to stem surging Covid-19 cases, according to the minutes published by Sage.

Downing Street accepted just one of the proposals - to U-turn on the Prime Minister’s back-to-office push and advise Brits to work from home where they could.

Sage scientist Professor Calum Semple says new restrictions have come too late

Asked why the Prime Minister said a national lockdown is not being considered "right now", the Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick told the Today programme: "The Prime Minister was very clear – we do not want to have a blanket national lockdown.

"We don’t rule anything out, that would be wrong. We have to keep all the measures under review.

"But you can see there are such wide variations in the number of cases, from as low as 20 or 30 (per 100,000 people) in parts of the West Country, up to approaching 1,000 cases per 100,000 in some of our great cities like Nottingham.

"So, if we can take a proportionate but localised approach, then we should be able to bear down on the virus in the places where it is most concentrated."

He stressed: "We are not penalising any one part of the country – what we are trying to do is take a proportionate approach which doesn’t put in place measures in another where they are clearly not needed today."

Mr Jenrick insisted the Government "certainly can" say it is still being led by the science despite ignoring the majority of the recommendations made by Sage last month.