To ask His Majesty’s Government what initial assessment they have made of the number of deaths in the United Kingdom from coronavirus compared to other countries, and of whether the policy of lockdowns in 2020 was effective.
My Lords, estimates of excess mortality from the Office for National Statistics show that, between January 2020 and July 2022, the UK’s cumulative overall mortality rate was 3.1% higher than expected. Using this measure of excess mortality, the UK was ranked 15th highest out of 29 European nations examined by the ONS. Research funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research estimates that national lockdowns saved more than 470,000 lives in the UK in the first few months of the pandemic.
I welcome the noble Baroness to her position. She may not remember, but I did ask the same question of the last Government. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, is not answering the question, because he has an encyclopaedic personal knowledge of this—and I would like to welcome him to his position as well. I will pick up the noble Baroness on what she has just said, because it appears that the Swedish model had a lower death rate than the UK model. We know the impact on the economy, on mental health and particularly on children’s education that the lockdowns had, and the important thing, as the noble Baroness will know, is to not make the same mistakes again. So could she please examine this more carefully and come forward with an initial assessment on whether lockdowns, on a cost-benefit analysis, were worth having?
I thank the noble Lord for his kind welcome and I hear his disappointment that it is not my noble friend Lord Vallance—who will be extremely flattered—answering. On the matter of lockdowns, I start by paying tribute to the British public; it was they who rallied to ensure that lockdowns could save lives. Before Oral Questions, I met with the Chief Medical Officer to discuss the very point that the noble Lord has raised. I say to the House that, when looking at other countries, it is very important to consider the complexity of comparison; it is just not possible to draw direct comparisons. But what I can say is that we are of course waiting for the Covid inquiry, which will shine a light on a number of the matters that the noble Lord has raised.
My Lords, on a previous occasion when the noble Lord asked the same Question and cited the Swedish mortality rates, I cited a study carried out in Scandinavia comparing the Swedish model with Scandinavian countries that implemented lockdowns. It clearly showed that the death rates were lower in those Scandinavian countries that implemented lockdowns. To satisfy the noble Lord today, I asked ChatGPT to compile all the evidence. It said:
“In summary, while lockdowns during COVID-19 were effective in reducing death rates from the virus itself, they also had complex and varied impacts on overall public health. The net effect on mortality rates includes both the direct benefits of reduced transmission and the indirect consequences of restricted mobility and access to healthcare”.
Will the Minister agree that there is now some evidence that lockdowns were effective in reducing mortality?
I thank the noble Lord for his informed observations. It is true to say that every Government were making decisions based on balance and that, with that, as the noble Lord said, not locking down would have meant that more lives would have been lost. It is important to put on record that the clear majority of professional opinion in this country was that lockdowns absolutely had their place. Even though there was a balance in terms of difficulties with mental health, access to services and the impact on the economy, in Opposition we supported the then Government, as we would in any national emergency.
I too welcome the noble Baroness to her role. On a less complex point, lockdown is a very expensive policy and should be used in very limited circumstances. So does the Minister agree in particular that damaging lockdowns in schools—this is about the education of our children—always need to be avoided if at all possible?
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind welcome. Of course, this was a decision taken by the last Government, supported by the Official Opposition. I would say that these kinds of factors were complex rather than “less complex”. Nobody wants to have to lock down a country, but there are rare occasions when we have to consider that. Of course, circumstances changed under lockdown: the fantastic work of the vaccination programme and the vaccine allowed us to unlock. So it is always a moving feast—but I take note of the noble Baroness’s point about the impact on young people.
My Lords, the last Government decided to stop various methods for testing Covid-19 last year, other than for those in hospital. Other countries, including the USA, still collect data and the World Health Organization publishes it. So could I ask the Minister to help with public health screening and planning? Will the Government potentially look at this kind of testing being done again and the results published?
I will look into the noble Lord’s point and come back to him in greater detail. But, fortunately, we can observe at least that Covid-19 is now a relatively mild disease for the vast majority of people. That allows us to put in place a more targeted programme aimed at those who are at higher risk of developing serious Covid-19. It is important that we take technical and expert advice about where we put our efforts.
My Lords, following on from the last question, will the Government ensure that the large number of long Covid sufferers do not become victims of the Government’s drive to get the unemployed back to work when what they need primarily is the right medical care and, if necessary, financial support while they get well again? The clue is in the name of the condition; this could be a long process for many, as the Minister will appreciate.
I certainly do appreciate the point made by the noble Lord and certainly, as of April this year, there were some 90 adult post-Covid services introduced across England, along with an additional 10 for children and young people in the manner of hubs. I hope that will be a great support. Long Covid remains something of a new challenge, but these services are offering integrated assessment, medical treatment, rehabilitation and direct access to diagnostics and I can assure the noble Lord that we will not take our eye off the ball.
My Lords, a report by the Institution of Health Equity earlier this year stated that, between 2011 and 2019, over 1 million people died prematurely from a combination of Covid, austerity and poverty, which is a shameful record for the last Government. Can the Minister assure the House that this Government will not neglect the poor and will protect and enhance the real value of wages and benefits?
I can certainly assure my noble friend that we will be working across government to join up our approach because, as I have mentioned in a previous question, the complexity of all this is not to be ignored. Indeed, it is the case that people’s incomes, where they live, the lives that they are managing and how their health is—whether they are, for example, obese or smokers—all impact on health and affect excess deaths. It is our duty to find ways of reducing avoidable deaths and we will do so.