IN the report of Module 1 of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, Baroness Hallett says that the public health, NHS and social care sectors’ capacity to respond to the pandemic was constrained by funding, and negatively impacted by severe staff shortages and an infrastructure “not fit for purpose”.
The report warns that not investing in systems of protection will impact on the UK’s preparedness and resilience in a future pandemic
Responding to the report, TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “This is a moment of truth and reflection for the country. Baroness Hallett’s report confirms that austerity left the UK underprepared for the pandemic. Faced with the biggest crisis since the Second World Wa,r our defences were down as a result of severe spending cuts.
“We owe it to those who lost their lives – and to those workers who put their lives at risk – to make sure this never happens again. Strong public services – and a properly supported workforce – are vital for the nation’s health. As Baroness Hallett rightly points out the cost of investing in ‘systems for our protection’ is ‘vastly outweighed’ by the cost of not doing so.”
Commenting on the report’s finding that inequality put certain communities at disproportionate risk during the pandemic, Nowak added: “This report lays bare how inequality fuelled the spread of Covid-19. Low-income, disabled and BME people were far more likely to be infected and die from the virus. As Baroness Hallett warns inequality is a huge risk to the whole of the UK.”
On the impact of austerity, Baroness Hallett writes on page 2 of her report: ‘Public services, particularly health and social care, were running close to, if not beyond, capacity in normal times. […] in the area of preparedness and resilience, money spent on systems for our protection is vital and will be vastly outweighed by the cost of not doing so.’
On page 122 of the report she notes: ‘The Inquiry also heard that there were severe staff shortages and that a significant amount of the hospital infrastructure was not fit for purpose. England’s social care sector faced similar issues. This combination of factors had a directly negative impact on infection control measures and on the ability of the NHS and the care sector to ‘surge up’ during a pandemic.’
On page 123, the Baroness writes: “Issues of funding are political decisions that properly fall to elected politicians. However, it remains the case that the surge capacity of the four nations’ public health and healthcare systems to respond to the pandemic was constrained by their funding.”
On the impact of inequality Baroness Hallett notes on page 70: “Resilience depends on having a resilient population. The existence and persistence of vulnerability in the population is a long-term risk to the UK.’ ‘[…] as the UK entered the Covid-19 pandemic, there were “substantial systematic health inequalities by socio-economic status, ethnicity, area-level deprivation, region, social excluded minority groups and inclusion health groups.”
On page 71, Baroness Hallett points out: “Covid-19 was not an ‘equality opportunity virus. It resulted in a higher a likelihood of sickness and death for people who are most vulnerable in society. It was the views of Professors Bambra and Marmot that: “In short, the UK entered the pandemic with its public services depleted, health improvement stalled, health inequalities increased and health among the poorest people in a state of decline.
* The TUC report, Austerity and the pandemic: how cuts damaged four vital pillars of pandemic resilience is available here.
* The UK Covid-19 Inquiry’s Module 1 report in full,’In Brief’, or as an animated summary, is available here.
* Source: Trades Union Congress