The haunting image of London's Millennium Bridge standing almost empty during Britain's first lockdown on 23 April 2020 serves as a powerful reminder of the extraordinary measures taken to combat Covid-19. Yet as the official inquiry into the government's pandemic response continues, a vocal right-wing contingent remains determined to rewrite this painful chapter of British history.
The Libertarian Backlash Against Pandemic Science
The current assault on the Covid inquiry chaired by former high court judge Heather Hallett represents the latest manifestation of a long-standing anti-science tradition within certain right-wing circles. This ideological stance has previously targeted life-saving measures ranging from seatbelt legislation and smoking restrictions to climate action and vaccination programmes.
During the pandemic's early days, this mindset proved particularly dangerous. An estimated 23,000 people died because Boris Johnson's government delayed implementing necessary lockdown measures while the Prime Minister went on holiday, rode his motorbike, and entertained friends at Chevening as the NHS braced for being overwhelmed.
Rewriting History: The Lockdown Sceptics' Campaign
Prominent libertarian voices have been particularly vocal in their attempts to discredit the inquiry's findings. Daniel Hannan in the Sunday Telegraph recently described lockdowns as "the most expensive mistake ever made by a British government", while Toby Young in the Spectator proudly identified himself among the first journalists to oppose the policy.
This sceptical chorus found amplification through outlets including the Daily Mail, Telegraph, Sun, Express and Spectator, joined mid-pandemic by GB News. Even Nigel Farage and Richard Tice hastily rebranded their Brexit party as Reform UK to campaign against restrictions, despite public opinion consistently favouring precautionary measures.
The attacks have grown increasingly virulent, with Johnson himself dismissing the inquiry he established as "hopelessly incoherent" in the Daily Mail, while Toby Young's Daily Sceptic publication continues its sustained assault on Hallett's statistical methodology.
Evidence Versus Ideology: The Swedish Comparison
Lockdown sceptics frequently point to Sweden's voluntary approach as proof that compulsory measures were unnecessary. However, this argument collapses under closer examination of comparable nations.
When comparing socially and economically similar Norway and Sweden, the data reveals a stark contrast: Sweden, which refused lockdowns, suffered 2,759 deaths per million compared to Norway's 1,050 deaths per million following lockdown implementation.
The inquiry also highlights Johnson's reportedly flippant attitude toward the crisis, including his alleged "let the bodies pile high" comment regarding care home deaths. With over 45,000 care home residents dying after hospitals discharged untested patients into care facilities, the human cost of this approach became tragically clear.
While serious debate about the enormous financial cost of lockdowns - estimated by the House of Commons library at £310-410 billion - remains necessary, the current attacks often reject scientific consensus entirely. Future inquiry modules will examine the complex trade-offs involving education disruption, loneliness, domestic violence and economic damage, but the fundamental importance of evidence-based health measures cannot be reasonably disputed.
