Criticise the government’s response to covid-19, but do so responsibly  | thearticle

The declaration of a pandemic by the WHO has heightened the debate in Britain about the Government’s response to coronovirus. The stakes are now as high as they could be, and some critics

are resorting to harsh, even extreme language. It is legitimate to ask tough questions and demand that ministers provide more information about the scientific basis for their decisions. But

the public is not well-served by scaremongering. We may safely disregard Rory Stewart, who has denounced the Government’s “half-hearted” response as “a serious mistake” and called for the

London Tube to be closed down, schools to be closed and public gatherings banned. Stewart lacks any medical expertise and his interventions seem designed to draw attention to his campaign to

be Mayor of London. If Stewart really believed his own warnings, why has he continued his peculiar practice of sleeping on people’s sofas, which he calls “Come Kip With Me”? How is it

compatible with social distancing to “spend 14 hours” with total strangers, including (as he apparently wishes to do) sex workers? How, indeed, has he managed to sleep at “something like 50

different homes in London” in just 27 days? Stewart would do better to set an example by abandoning his nocturnal activities and following his own advice. More serious is the criticism

emanating from _The Lancet_, one of the world’s leading medical journals — or, rather, from its chief editor, Richard Horton. “The UK Government— Matt Hancock and Boris Johnson — claim they

are following the science,” Dr Horton says. “But that is not true. The evidence is clear. We need urgent implementation of social distancing and closure policies.” Up to here, Dr Horton’s

criticism is not excessive, though he does not justify his claim that the Government is not following scientific advice. However, he then goes on: “The Government is playing roulette with

the public. This is a major error.” Such language, coming from a man who might be presumed to have inside knowledge of medical discussions about Covid-19, is highly irresponsible. It feeds

into conspiracy theories that are already going into overdrive on social media. For a senior figure in the medical establishment to suggest that ministers don’t care about saving lives is so

over the top that it arouses suspicion about his possible motives. So who is Richard Horton? His career at _The Lancet _has been, to say the least, controversial for more than two decades.

In 1998 Horton published a paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield and 12 co-authors, suggesting that vaccines such as the MMR could cause autism. This was the most notorious publication in the

200-year history of _The Lancet. _Its impact led to a catastrophic fall in the number of vaccinations across the Western world, major outbreaks of preventable disease and a long-term loss of

confidence in medical science. Yet not until 2010 did Horton agree to retract the Wakefield paper, under pressure from the GMC. Even so, he has refused to express regret for his conduct,

despite the fact that Wakefield was struck off and barred from practising in the UK.  Such an error of judgment would normally cost an editor his job, but Dr Horton has survived several

other highly questionable episodes. In 2006 he accused President Bush and Tony Blair of “lies” and “killing children” in Iraq, before publishing a paper that claimed a very high death toll

of Iraqis: 655,000. This figure has not stood the test of time. Further doubts about Dr Horton’s political neutrality were raised when in 2014 he ran an “Open Letter for the people of Gaza”,

denouncing Israel in the most extreme terms. After visiting an Israeli hospital, Dr Horton did express regret, but the damage was done. A senior physician, Professor Sir Mark Pepys,

attacked Dr Horton’s “long-standing and wholly inappropriate use of _The Lancet _as a vehicle for his own extreme political views.” In reply, Dr Horton wrote: “How can you separate politics

and health?” This is the man, then, who now accuses Boris Johnson and Matt Hancock of “playing roulette with the public”. (One assumes that Dr Horton meant to say “Russian roulette”, as

ordinary roulette is not normally fatal.) While it would be wrong to rely solely on the argument _ad hominem_, it is clear that the chief editor of _The Lancet _has his own agenda.  It is

too soon to say whether the Government has got the balance right between allowing life to continue in as normal a way as possible and taking emergency measures. In these circumstances,

ministers deserve the benefit of the doubt, as long as they are able to back up their decisions with evidence based on epidemiology and other science. This means allowing journalists to

scrutinise ministers and Government advisers on a daily basis. Openness is the best defence against both irresponsible criticism and conspiracy theories. In wartime, governments have in the

past arranged daily televised briefings for the press. It would be a good idea to do the same for Covid-19.