Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor
While we await the inevitable public inquiry into the UK’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic with great interest, it is only fair to note that the situation is without precedent. But, that is the reason previously meticulous disaster planning exists, and notably, until recently the UK had been a previous global leader in pandemic preparation.
As politicians aim to get their ducks in a row with regards to what they knew and when; how they acted and on what basis – whether science, politics or even ethics; it is fair to ask whether some – not least our sesquipedalian prime minister - will have a degree of discombobulating anatidaephobia. Perhaps the ducks truly are looking on with interest
The commendable degree of openness, with daily press conferences highlighting mortality rates, test and trace data and PPE issues means there may be little factual to come from the inquiry that is not already known. Instead, responsibility for one of the highest death rates in Europe, one of the worst health and social care worker mortality rates in the world and a truly bizarre test and trace legacy will need to be apportioned.
But the reason this is so crucial and urgent is not accountability. A much better future performance by the nation is necessary, and demanded, by the people of the UK. Brexit, the potential break-up of the UK, international relations and politics are clearly where the government wishes to focus its current bandwidth. However, preventing catastrophic national failure in a second COVID-19 wave either before, or accompanied by usual NHS winter pressures and the accumulated issues from missed healthcare interventions, is an absolute national priority. Without an open and transparent, but also urgent, process to learn the lessons of the last few months’ collective experience, how can our citizens be confident of better performance?
Jason Beer QC has suggested the function of a public inquiry is to address three questions: 1) What happened; 2) Why did it happen and who is to blame; 3) What can be done to prevent it happening again. (Public Inquiries. Jason Beer (Ed) OUP 2011)
The more laboured inquisitional nature of some public enquiries, such as Levison, is unsuitable given the urgency and imminent peril to the nation. Answering the third question is crucial.
As a paediatrician and ethicist, I argue that this issue cannot be ducked. There is a moral imperative to complete a rapid, transparent, inquiry into the UK’s performance in the COVID-19 pandemic to date, including that of the devolved administrations. The apportioning of blame cannot be the primary aim, nor can avoidance of responsibility or accountability – rather the objective must be to urgently improve national performance in the management of a resurgent pandemic with likely extreme health and social care consequences.
Joe Brierley COVID Enquiry: Ducking, Ducks and Pandemic Anatidaephobia
Dear Editor
While we await the inevitable public inquiry into the UK’s management of the COVID-19 pandemic with great interest, it is only fair to note that the situation is without precedent. But, that is the reason previously meticulous disaster planning exists, and notably, until recently the UK had been a previous global leader in pandemic preparation.
As politicians aim to get their ducks in a row with regards to what they knew and when; how they acted and on what basis – whether science, politics or even ethics; it is fair to ask whether some – not least our sesquipedalian prime minister - will have a degree of discombobulating anatidaephobia. Perhaps the ducks truly are looking on with interest
The commendable degree of openness, with daily press conferences highlighting mortality rates, test and trace data and PPE issues means there may be little factual to come from the inquiry that is not already known. Instead, responsibility for one of the highest death rates in Europe, one of the worst health and social care worker mortality rates in the world and a truly bizarre test and trace legacy will need to be apportioned.
But the reason this is so crucial and urgent is not accountability. A much better future performance by the nation is necessary, and demanded, by the people of the UK. Brexit, the potential break-up of the UK, international relations and politics are clearly where the government wishes to focus its current bandwidth. However, preventing catastrophic national failure in a second COVID-19 wave either before, or accompanied by usual NHS winter pressures and the accumulated issues from missed healthcare interventions, is an absolute national priority. Without an open and transparent, but also urgent, process to learn the lessons of the last few months’ collective experience, how can our citizens be confident of better performance?
Jason Beer QC has suggested the function of a public inquiry is to address three questions: 1) What happened; 2) Why did it happen and who is to blame; 3) What can be done to prevent it happening again. (Public Inquiries. Jason Beer (Ed) OUP 2011)
The more laboured inquisitional nature of some public enquiries, such as Levison, is unsuitable given the urgency and imminent peril to the nation. Answering the third question is crucial.
As a paediatrician and ethicist, I argue that this issue cannot be ducked. There is a moral imperative to complete a rapid, transparent, inquiry into the UK’s performance in the COVID-19 pandemic to date, including that of the devolved administrations. The apportioning of blame cannot be the primary aim, nor can avoidance of responsibility or accountability – rather the objective must be to urgently improve national performance in the management of a resurgent pandemic with likely extreme health and social care consequences.
Competing interests: No competing interests