Thousands of lives could have been saved ‘if coronavirus lockdown was ONE WEEK earlier’

THOUSANDS of lives could have been saved if coronavirus lockdown was enforced just one week earlier, a Government scientific adviser has claimed. 

Sir Ian Boyd, who sits on the SAGE scientific advisory group, said "it would have made quite a big difference" to the death rate if ministers had acted sooner.

⚠️ Read our coronavirus live blog for the latest news & updates

Despite this, the Government has always insisted they have been guided by the scientific advice during the coronavirus outbreak.

It comes as 36,042 people have died from Covid-19 in the UK - the highest death toll in Europe.

Britain was one of the last countries in Europe to put the country into lockdown on March 23 - days or weeks after Germany, Belgium, France, Spain and Italy had done it.

Sir Ian, a professor of biology at the University of St Andrews, told  "Acting very early was really important and I would have loved to have seen us acting a week or two weeks earlier and it would have made quite a big difference to the steepness of the curve of infection and therefore the death rate.

"And I think that's really the number one issue - could we have acted earlier? Were the signs there earlier on?"

iI would have made quite a big difference to the steepness of the curve of infection and therefore the death rate

Sir Ian Boyd

Sir Ian suggested that the Government based its initial assessment on the transmissibility of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (Sars) virus, which is less infectious than this coronavirus.

Sars was a previously unknown disease which killed 774 people in a year across the globe in 2002/03.

He dubbed the UK and other European countries as "a bit slower off the mark" and less prepared than countries that had experienced Sars in the early 2000s.

He revealed that ministers would have received "very blunt and very clear" advice from the government's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance. and chief medical officer, Professor Chris Whitty.

'Slower off the mark'

"One could point the finger at ministers and politicians for not being willing to listen to scientific advice," Sir Ian said.

"You could point the finger at scientists for not actually being explicit enough.

"But at the end of the day all these interact with public opinion as well.

"And I think some politicians would have loved to have reacted earlier but in their political opinion it probably wasn't feasible because people wouldn't have perhaps responded in the way they eventually did."

Sir Ian also slammed ministers for saying they are "led" by the science.

He added: "I think the statement 'we are guided by the science' is slightly misleading.

"I don't think ministers intend it to be misleading. I think they intend it to help to provide trust in what they are saying. And quite rightly so.

"Basically what we in the scientific community do is give the best advice we can based on the evidence that's available to us.

"We then pass it to government ministers and the policy parts of government who can then take that and do with it what they like within the policy context."

I think the statement 'we are guided by the science' is slightly misleading

Sir Ian Boyd

Sir Ian, who was the chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from 2012-19, said SAGE meetings are currently taking place over Zoom.

More than 50 people sit on SAGE - the UK's top advisory team of elite experts who step in to inform British leadership when making decisions.

The names of those in the group were published in early May after officials bowed to mounting pressure to reveal who had been part of regular meetings during the pandemic.

The names on the list included well-known figures who have been involved in the daily press conferences, including chairman Sir Patrick Vallance, Professor Chris Whitty and his deputies Dr Jenny Harries and Professor Jonathan Van Tam.

Sir Ian's claim comes after research this week claimed launching the UK's lockdown a week earlier would have saved tens of thousands of lives.

The study, carried out by Dr John Dagpunar, from the University of Southampton, suggested implementing lockdown on March 16 rather than March 23 could have limited the number of deaths to 11,200.

Dr Dagpunar's study considered the number of people infected with the virus, its rate of reproduction, hospital bed and staff capacity, and the proportion of patients who die, among other factors.

And, using an algorithm based on the timing of the UK's outbreak, Dr Dagpunar found that if lockdown had started a week earlier there could have been a 'very large reduction' in deaths.

Earlier action was needed and would have saved many lives

Dr John Dagpunar

The virus would have infected four per cent less of the population in this scenario (two per cent compared to six per cent), the study said, and the demand for hospital beds would have been lower.

Dr Dagpunar said: "In hindsight [this] clearly illustrates that earlier action was needed and would have saved many lives.

"Literally, each day’s delay in starting suppression (lockdown) can result in thousands of extra deaths.

"The same is true for premature relaxation, acknowledging that the rate of decline is less than the rate of growth, so the effect although severe is not quite as strong.

More on coronavirus

KATE'S GRIEF

Kate Garraway to open up on pain of first Christmas without husband Derek

SYMPTOM CHECK

How to tell if you've got a hangover, Covid, flu or meningitis

BUG BEAR

The 7 winter bugs threatening to ruin Xmas & how to keep your grandparents safe

BUG BEAR

Brits told NOT to go A&E as major hospitals swamped by 'tidal wave' of flu

"These conclusions are the incontrovertible consequence of the exponential growth and decline of a managed epidemic."

Dr Dagpunar's paper was published on the website medRxiv without being peer-reviewed by other scientists.

Around two thirds of people think the Government took too long to put the UK in lockdown, according to polls.

However, other experts say ministers "lost sight" of the evidence and rushed into lockdown, praising Sweden for holding its nerve and not shutting down the economy.