Learning policy lessons from the pandemic: the UK's COVID Inquiry

Martin McKee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad222

2024-02-29

European Journal of Public Health

Abstract:Faced with a novel virus, SARS-CoV-2, whose virulence and transmissibility was unknown, policymakers everywhere had to decide when and how to respond. It is unsurprising that many mistakes were made.

public, environmental & occupational health

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time

Paul Cairney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-020-00150-8

2020-11-01

British Politics

Abstract:In March 2020, COVID-19 prompted policy change in the UK at a speed and scale only seen during wartime. Throughout, UK government ministers emphasised their reliance on science and expertise to make the right choices at the right time, while their critics argued that ministers ignored key evidence and acted too little too late. Lessons from this debate should have a profound effect on future action, but only if based on a systematic analysis of policymaking as the problem emerged in real time. <i>We should not confuse hindsight with foresight</i>. To that end, I combine insights from policy analysis guides, policy theories, and critical policy analysis to frame this debate. The pandemic exposes the need to act despite high ambiguity and uncertainty and low government control, using trial-and-error strategies to adapt to new manifestations of the problem, and producing unequal consequences for social groups. Lessons will only have value if we incorporate these policymaking limitations and unequal socioeconomic effects and ask the right questions when holding the UK government to account.

political science
Lessons Learnt From the COVID-19 Pandemic

Nils Chr. Stenseth,Guha Dharmarajan,Ruiyun Li,Zheng-Li Shi,Ruifu Yang,George F. Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.694705

IF: 5.2

2021-08-02

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, has been characterized by unprecedented rates of spatio-temporal spread. Here, we summarize the main events in the pandemic's timeline and evaluate what has been learnt by the public health community. We also discuss the implications for future public health policy and, specifically, the practice of epidemic control. We critically analyze this ongoing pandemic's timeline and contrast it with the 2002–2003 SARS outbreak. We identify specific areas (e.g., pathogen identification and initial reporting) wherein the international community learnt valuable lessons from the SARS outbreak. However, we also identify the key areas where international public health policy failed leading to the exponential spread of the pandemic. We outline a clear agenda for improved pandemic control in the future.

public, environmental & occupational health
What we did not learn at the covid inquiry in Scotland: a gap analysis

Andrew Watterson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q491

2024-03-05

BMJ

Abstract:Wise highlights important concerns and absurdities about pandemic handling by Scottish ministers.1 Data from the Office for National Statistics, however, show that Scotland had lower covid-19 mortality rates than England. Scotland's more cautious elimination approach was periodically better than England's.2 The inquiry's probing found major shortcomings in the Scottish response, raising questions about trust and transparency, but its examination of the trade-offs between health, social, and economic harms was, in contrast, incomplete.The focus on Scottish ministers' WhatsApp and record keeping failings meant that other important matters related to non-pharmaceutical interventions and planning in Scotland since 2020 were neglected or ignored. There were failures to investigate early covid clusters, problems with case recording and reporting, poor ventilation in schools, care homes and other buildings, unsatisfactory selection of personal protective equipment, skewed vaccination prioritisation for essential and key workers, and deficiencies in risk assessments.3456"Long covid" and "workplaces" were not mentioned in the...

medicine, general & internal
Lifelong education, social inequality and the COVID-19 health pandemic

Richard Waller,Steven Hodge,John Holford,Marcella Milana,Sue Webb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2020.1790267

2020-05-03

International Journal of Lifelong Education

Abstract:What can lifelong education researchers learn from the COVID-19 pandemic? There are, of course, 'quick' lessons: societies, for instance, clearly learn from experience. East Asian societies, and governments, learned from SARS and the devastating effect it had in cities such as Guangzhou, Hong Kong, and Beijing in 2003 (Abraham, 2004). Of course there was the general lesson that a new coronavirus should not be taken lightly: no doubt there was also a lot of deeper and more detailed knowledge developed within institutions – hospitals, emergency services, schools and the like – about how to handle such situations. In this editorial, however, we want to reflect a little more widely on what light the pandemic shines on longstanding problems in lifelong education.
The UK's pandemic preparedness and early response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Jochem Rietveld,Tom Hobson,Lara Mani,Shahar Avin,Lalitha Sundaram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2024.2415499

2024-10-23

Global Public Health

Abstract:This article focuses on the UK's pre-COVID 19 pandemic preparedness and its early response to the COVID-19 pandemic (January '20 – March '20). The aim of this article is to explain the high excess mortality the UK experienced compared to many of its international and European peers in the first wave, which is contrary to the country's high ranking in pre-COVID-19 preparedness rankings. The article assesses the various components of pre-COVID-19 pandemic preparedness such as pandemic strategy, exercises, and stockpiles, and it covers government decision making processes on the early response, including questions around post-travel quarantining, test and trace, and mobility restrictions. The article concludes that there were important deficiencies in the UK's pandemic preparedness and early response in the COVID-19 pandemic. These include the centrality of the 'inevitability of spread'-assumption underpinning the UK's pandemic planning pre-COVID, the insufficient implementation of pandemic exercise recommendations, the lack of early and 'live learning' from other countries' experiences, the lack of adoption of public health advice of the World Health Organisation early on, the late implementation of internal mobility restrictions, the lack of timely consideration of alternative early pandemic response models, and fragilities in the SAGE/governmental interplay.

public, environmental & occupational health
Organisational learning from the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a qualitative interview study

Felicity Southworth,Daljinder Chalmers,Gabriel Reedy,Richard Amlôt,Elena Skryabina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1411346

2024-08-07

Abstract:System learning from major incidents is essential for enhancing preparedness for responding to future adverse events. Sharing learning not only stimulates further improvements, preventing the repetition of mistakes, but may also promote collaboration and the adoption of evidenced-based best practises. As part of a qualitative interview study designed to explore lessons learned, this paper describes the experiences and perspectives of 30 staff from the public health agency responsible for the national COVID-19 response in the United Kingdom. The focus of the interviews was on enabling factors and practises that worked well, as well as those that were more challenging, and which, if addressed, could improve responses to future infectious disease incidents. The interviews elicited valuable insights across various thematic areas that could inform emergency preparedness activities for future infectious disease outbreaks. The outcomes of this study, while integral for the UK agency responsible for public health, extend beyond organisational boundaries and contribute to a broader spectrum of activities aimed at facilitating global learning from the COVID-19 response.
Covid inquiry: communication failures impeded the UK's pandemic response

Greg Fell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1815

2024-08-18

BMJ

Abstract:Recently, the first report of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry was published.1 The Association of Directors of Public Health (ADPH) were core participants in the first module, which focused on pandemic preparedness. We gave evidence on behalf of directors of public health across all the UK's four countries and dependent territories.The report concludes that the UK government and devolved administrations' systems of emergency planning, preparedness, resilience, and response failed because of flawed and overly complex institutions, systems, and structures, and a failure to learn lessons from the past. It also found that there was too little involvement in the planning process of local bodies and officials, including directors of public health (DsPH).As one of those DsPH, I was pleased to see that the inquiry team took heed of our collective evidence.2 The lack of communication between central government and those of us who are on the ground when dealing with local...

medicine, general & internal
Mixed messages, broken trust, avoidable deaths: A critical appraisal of the UK government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Alessandro Siani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ohe-2023-0016

2024-01-01

Open Health

Abstract:Abstract This short commentary draws on academic and grey literature to critically evaluate the UK response to the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting aspects in which the response fell short and their ramifications on public trust and compliance with preventive measures. Such aspects include the initial delay in response to the outbreak, the controversial “herd immunity approach,” the mismanagement of care home patients, the inadequacy of the contact tracing system, the scandals around the procurement of personal protective equipment, and the breach of lockdown/social distancing regulations by government officials. Based on the lessons learned from these shortcomings, this commentary seeks to provide suggestions for effective public governance in the face of future health emergencies.
A Lesson for Sustainable Health Policy from the Past with Implications for the Future

Göran Svensson,Rocio Rodriguez,Carmen Padin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16051778

IF: 3.9

2024-02-22

Sustainability

Abstract:Evidently, there are lessons to be learned on sustainable health policies from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The past is a source of knowledge and experiences for the implementation and application of sustainable health policies in the future. This study has revealed doubts about the use of 7- and 14-days incidences, which have been applied as assessment approaches to the sustainable health policies used to control and monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic across societies. Seven- and fourteen-day incidences have been used to determine measures and counter-measures against SARS-CoV-2 rather than infection rates. The research objective of this study was to assess the predictive abilities of infection rates versus 7- and 14-day incidences on SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and morbidity. The objective was also to assess the structural properties of a set of SARS-CoV-2-related variables. This study addressed the question of whether there is a lesson learned in terms of sustainable health policies on the use of 7- and 14-day incidences versus infection rates to predict SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and morbidity in a given context. We contend that there is at least one lesson to be learned on sustainable health policies from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The infection rate was categorized as the independent manifest variable, as it is the one which is hypothesized to cause an effect on the outcome of the others in society regarding mortality and morbidity. Consequently, hospitalized patients, ICU patients and the deceased were categorized as dependent manifest variables. We tested the research model using Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM) based on the first year of pandemic data before vaccines were used. This study indicates that the infection rates provided an enhanced predictability for SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and morbidity compared to 7- and 14-day incidences. The findings reported based on CB-SEM suggested that this has been a suitable way to assess the direct, indirect and mediating effects between a selection of SARS-CoV-2-related variables. We propose that our assessment approach to SARS-CoV-2 can be used as a complementary tool in decision-making on pandemic countermeasures to assess the health, social and economic costs of mortality and morbidity in a given context. We consider the finding that infection rates, rather than 7- and 14-day incidences, better predict SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and morbidity is a crucial lesson learned on sustainable health policies from the past, to be a crucial lesson for the future.

environmental sciences,environmental studies,green & sustainable science & technology
Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges

Stephen R. Hanney,Sharon E. Straus,Bev J. Holmes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00883-6

2022-09-12

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO's framework for research systems. It has four functions—governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research—and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges.

health policy & services
"Suffer the little children (to go to school)”: how the same evidence base drove diametrically opposite views of what was best to do for children and their health/education in the 2020-2023 COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden and the UK

David Goldsmith

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v11i11.4652

2023-01-01

Medical Research Archives

Abstract:The Covid-19 pandemic (2020-23) was a global outbreak of a novel coronavirus (nCoV), an infectious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS- CoV-2) virus. The pandemic disease is usually described as COVID-19. 1 The first cases of nCoV were first detected in China in December 2019, with the virus spreading rapidly over months to most other countries across the world. This led WHO to declare a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 30 January 2020, and to characterise the outbreak as a pandemic on 11 March 2020. 2 In May 2023, more than three years into the pandemic, the WHO Emergency Committee on COVID-19 recommended to the Director-General that given the disease was by now well- established and ongoing, it no longer fitted the definition of a PHEIC. This did not mean that the pandemic itself was declared over, but the global emergency it had caused was. Debate and speculation about the causation pathway for the entry of this nCoV pathogen into humans in 2019, though intense and contested, are not germane to the present discussion. What is germane is the huge death toll, and, just as important, the long-term impacts on society and health it has left in its wake. For a more detailed review see 3 . As a result of the pandemic infections, and also of the many different mitigation strategies employed to “protect” people from the ravages of infection, there were diverse consequences for all affected populations: from deaths, hospitalisations, chronic illness, the economy, employment, education, services, work habits, transport systems across to acute severe strain imposed on healthcare systems faced simultaneously with “business as usual” healthcare demands (often suppressed with later adverse consequences) and by a poorly understood and barely characterised viral infection ‘tsunami’ requiring both “surge” facilities and advanced ITU capabilities which were often unavailable, or inadequate to the tasks at hand. 4 Various mitigations were put in place in different parts of the world, and these typically involved restrictions (sometimes voluntary, sometimes legally enforced) being placed on freedom of movement, behaviour (mask wearing, hand washing), education, employment, social activities and travel 5-8 . Later, specific pharmaceutical interventions 9 and of course vaccination 10 were brought to bear.
Covid inquiry: What did we learn this week?

Jacqui Wise

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q229

2024-01-26

BMJ

Abstract:Jacqui Wise reports on further evidence from witnesses in Scotland, with experts and the current first minister taking the stand this week

medicine, general & internal
Limitations of COVID-19 testing and case data for evidence-informed health policy and practice

Elizabeth Alvarez,Iwona A. Bielska,Stephanie Hopkins,Ahmed A. Belal,Donna M. Goldstein,Jean Slick,Sureka Pavalagantharajah,Anna Wynfield,Shruthi Dakey,Marie-Carmel Gedeon,Edris Alam,Katrina Bouzanis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-00963-1

2023-01-27

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became a pandemic within a matter of months. Analysing the first year of the pandemic, data and surveillance gaps have subsequently surfaced. Yet, policy decisions and public trust in their country's strategies in combating COVID-19 rely on case numbers, death numbers and other unfamiliar metrics. There are many limitations on COVID-19 case counts internationally, which make cross-country comparisons of raw data and policy responses difficult.

health policy & services
Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: an analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe

Emeline Han,Melisa Mei Jin Tan,Eva Turk,Devi Sridhar,Gabriel M Leung,Kenji Shibuya,Nima Asgari,Juhwan Oh,Alberto L García-Basteiro,Johanna Hanefeld,Alex R Cook,Li Yang Hsu,Yik Ying Teo,David Heymann,Helen Clark,Martin McKee,Helena Legido-Quigley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)32007-9

IF: 202.731

2020-11-01

The Lancet

Abstract:<h2 class="section-title u-h3 u-margin-l-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Summary</h2><p>The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented global crisis. Many countries have implemented restrictions on population movement to slow the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and prevent health systems from becoming overwhelmed; some have instituted full or partial lockdowns. However, lockdowns and other extreme restrictions cannot be sustained for the long term in the hope that there will be an effective vaccine or treatment for COVID-19. Governments worldwide now face the common challenge of easing lockdowns and restrictions while balancing various health, social, and economic concerns. To facilitate cross-country learning, this Health Policy paper uses an adapted framework to examine the approaches taken by nine high-income countries and regions that have started to ease COVID-19 restrictions: five in the Asia Pacific region (ie, Hong Kong [Special Administrative Region], Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea) and four in Europe (ie, Germany, Norway, Spain, and the UK). This comparative analysis presents important lessons to be learnt from the experiences of these countries and regions. Although the future of the virus is unknown at present, countries should continue to share their experiences, shield populations who are at risk, and suppress transmission to save lives.</p>

medicine, general & internal
How Aotearoa New Zealand rapidly revised its Covid-19 response strategy: lessons for the next pandemic plan

Amanda Kvalsvig,Michael G. Baker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2021.1891943

2021-03-09

Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Abstract:Public health lessons from one pandemic become the planning assumptions for the next one. Aotearoa New Zealand's 2017 pandemic plan was derived from past experience of influenza. When Covid-19 emerged as a major global health threat, it took time for the realisation to crystallise that this infection was so different from influenza that it required a completely new pandemic response strategy. In this paper we describe how early evidence about SARS-CoV-2 transmission from China led to the adoption of an elimination strategy in Aotearoa New Zealand, making it the first country to choose elimination as a specific policy response. We discuss how further evidence has shaped the selection and design of Covid-19 pandemic control measures such as border restrictions, case and contact management, hygiene practices and use of face masks, physical distancing, and vaccines. This experience demonstrates the need for a different approach to the design of the next national pandemic plan. We identify key early evidence that will be required to develop a flexible and appropriate public health response to a new pandemic threat. We present a framework for a new pandemic plan that aims to learn from the Covid-19 experience by making as few limiting assumptions as possible.

multidisciplinary sciences
Practicing policy learning during creeping crises: key principles and considerations from the COVID-19 crisis

Bishoy L. Zaki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2023.2237648

2023-07-23

Policy Design and Practice

Abstract:Policy learning plays a critical role in crisis policymaking. Adequate learning can lead to effective crisis responses, while misdirected learning can derail policymaking and lead to policy fiascos, potentially with devastating effects. However, creeping crises such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic pose significant challenges for doing "good" policy learning. Such crises pose persistent threats to societal values or life‐sustaining systems. They evolve across time and space while stirring significant political and societal tensions. Given their inherent features, they are often insufficiently addressed by policymakers. Taking the COVID-19 crisis as an illustrative example, this article aims to draw practitioners' attention to key features of creeping crises and explains how such crises can undermine critical policy learning processes. It then discusses the need for "policy learning governance" as an approach to design, administer and manage crisis policy learning processes that are able to respond to continuous crisis evolutions. In doing so, it helps practitioners engage in adaptive and agile policy learning processes toward more effective learning by introducing four key principles of policy learning governance during creeping crises. Those are: identifying optimum learning modes and types, learning across disciplines, learning across space, and learning across time. Practical tools distilled from emerging research are then introduced to help apply the proposed principles of policy learning governance during future crises.
Revisiting COVID-19 policies: 10 evidence-based recommendations for where to go from here

Daniel T Halperin,Norman Hearst,Stephen Hodgins,Robert C Bailey,Jeffrey D Klausner,Helen Jackson,Richard G Wamai,Joseph A Ladapo,Mead Over,Stefan Baral,Kevin Escandón,Monica Gandhi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12082-z

IF: 4.5

2021-11-13

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Background: Strategies to control coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) have often been based on preliminary and limited data and have tended to be slow to evolve as new evidence emerges. Yet knowledge about COVID-19 has grown exponentially, and the expanding rollout of vaccines presents further opportunity to reassess the response to the pandemic more broadly. Main text: We review the latest evidence concerning 10 key COVID-19 policy and strategic areas, specifically addressing: 1) the expansion of equitable vaccine distribution, 2) the need to ease restrictions as hospitalization and mortality rates eventually fall, 3) the advantages of emphasizing educational and harm reduction approaches over coercive and punitive measures, 4) the need to encourage outdoor activities, 5) the imperative to reopen schools, 6) the far-reaching and long-term economic and psychosocial consequences of sustained lockdowns, 7) the excessive focus on surface disinfection and other ineffective measures, 8) the importance of reassessing testing policies and practices, 9) the need for increasing access to outpatient therapies and prophylactics, and 10) the necessity to better prepare for future pandemics. Conclusions: While remarkably effective vaccines have engendered great hope, some widely held assumptions underlying current policy approaches call for an evidence-based reassessment. COVID-19 will require ongoing mitigation for the foreseeable future as it transforms from a pandemic into an endemic infection, but maintaining a constant state of emergency is not viable. A more realistic public health approach is to adjust current mitigation goals to be more data-driven and to minimize unintended harms associated with unfocused or ineffective control efforts. Based on the latest evidence, we therefore present recommendations for refining 10 key policy areas, and for applying lessons learned from COVID-19 to prevent and prepare for future pandemics.
Responding to COVID-19: an exploration of EU country responses and directions for further research

Batenburg, Ronald,Scotter, Cris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11671-z

2024-10-09

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:During COVID-19, scientists advising policymakers were forced to deal with high uncertainty and risks in an environment of unknowns. Evidence on which policies and measures were effective in responding to the pandemic remains underdeveloped to answer the key question 'what worked and why?'. This study aims to provide a basis for studies to go further to answer this critical question, by starting to look efficacy or how countries ensured that health services remained available and what measures were enacted to protect and treat their populations and workers.

health care sciences & services
'We did everything we could': An account of toxic leadership

Calum Paton

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3264

Abstract:Background: The UK government's reckless and incompetent response to Covid-19 has produced an outcome which is amongst the worst in the world, and arguably the worst in terms of deaths per 100,000 population of major countries (especially when one measures mortality from Covid in terms of cause of death on the death certificate, rather than the UK government's own measure-death of a tested individual within 28 days of testing). This article updates my initial analysis in this journal over a year ago, and traces the negligent and shambolic policy-making, and supine official scientific advice, which has led to such a dismal outcome. Methods: It does so by examining the policies and approach of the UK government from the begining of the pandemic (in UK terms, January 2020) up to June 2021. All relevant declarations, speeches, decisions, public interviews and policies were noted on a daily basis, examined and critically assessed-along with daily data and information over the whole period on Covid's threat to, and spread across, the UK. Conclusions: On three successive occasions, Boris Johnson and his compliant Ministers acted too late and too weakly to prevent avoidable death and illness. At the time of writing the vaccination programme in the UK has been destabilised by the government-yet again-having failed to secure its borders, this time against the Delta variant (Indian mutation) of the virus. Overall, in terms of border control, quarantine, testing, tracing, isolation and timely and enforced lockdown, the government put short-term, superficial considerations above coherent strategy. It dressed up its incompetence as a superficial libertarianism and defence of the economy, but thereby managed to achieve the worst of all worlds in terms of three egregious failures-appalling health outcomes; (ironically) worse economic damage than countries which took draconian action; and (also ironically) continually recurring restrictions as a result of earlier failure to take strong action to suppress Covid and keep it at bay. Public reaction in England (unlike in Scotland and Wales) to the Johnson government's shenanigans has not been commensurate with that government's level of failure, which sadly reflects a debasement of the political culture in England.
From polarity to plurality: Perceptions of COVID‐19 and policy measures in England and Scotland

Jack Rendall,Neil McHugh,Rachel Baker,Helen Mason,Olga Biosca

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.14069

2024-05-13

Health Expectations

Abstract:Aim The aim of this study was to uncover perspectives on the COVID‐19 pandemic and the responses implemented by the UK and Scottish Governments to help control the spread of infection. Such understanding could help to inform future responses to pandemics at individual, community and national levels. Method Q methodology was used to elicit perspectives from people in England and Scotland with different experiences of the pandemic including public health officials, key workers, those on furlough, those who were unvaccinated or vaccinated to different levels, those who were 'shielding' because they were at higher risk and people with different scientific expertise. Participants rank‐ordered phrases about different aspects of COVID‐19 according to their viewpoint. Factor analysis was then conducted in conjunction with interview material from the same respondents. Results A four‐factor solution was statistically supported and was interpretable alongside the qualitative accounts of participants loading on these factors. These four perspectives are titled Dangerous and Unaccountable Leadership, Fear and Anger at Policy and Public responses, Governing Through a Crisis and Injustices Exposed. Conclusion The four perspectives demonstrate plurality and nuance in views on COVID‐19 and the associated policies and restrictions, going beyond a binary narrative that has been apparent in popular and social media. The four perspectives include some areas of common ground, as well as disagreement. We argue that understanding the detail of different perspectives might be used to build cohesion around policy initiatives in future. Patient or Public Contribution The development of the statement set, which is rank‐ordered by participants in a Q study, and factor interpretations were informed by views of the general public. The statement set was initially developed using existing publicly available material based on members of the general public experiencing the pandemic first hand. It was then piloted with members of the public experiencing different challenges as a result of COVID‐19 and the subsequent lockdown and updated based on feedback. Finally, interpretations of the identified factors were presented publicly and edited according to their feedback.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services

Learning policy lessons from the pandemic: the UK's COVID Inquiry

The UK government’s COVID-19 policy: assessing evidence-informed policy analysis in real time

Lessons Learnt From the COVID-19 Pandemic

What we did not learn at the covid inquiry in Scotland: a gap analysis

Lifelong education, social inequality and the COVID-19 health pandemic

The UK's pandemic preparedness and early response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Organisational learning from the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a qualitative interview study

Covid inquiry: communication failures impeded the UK's pandemic response

Mixed messages, broken trust, avoidable deaths: A critical appraisal of the UK government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic

A Lesson for Sustainable Health Policy from the Past with Implications for the Future

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges

"Suffer the little children (to go to school)”: how the same evidence base drove diametrically opposite views of what was best to do for children and their health/education in the 2020-2023 COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden and the UK

Covid inquiry: What did we learn this week?

Limitations of COVID-19 testing and case data for evidence-informed health policy and practice

Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: an analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe

How Aotearoa New Zealand rapidly revised its Covid-19 response strategy: lessons for the next pandemic plan

Practicing policy learning during creeping crises: key principles and considerations from the COVID-19 crisis

Revisiting COVID-19 policies: 10 evidence-based recommendations for where to go from here

Responding to COVID-19: an exploration of EU country responses and directions for further research

'We did everything we could': An account of toxic leadership

From polarity to plurality: Perceptions of COVID‐19 and policy measures in England and Scotland