We’ve been working for several months to win disclosure of these secret pandemic reports, and certain themes repeat themselves. Firstly, the participants in the exercises successfully identified many of the key challenges in a pandemic response.
For example, Exercise Pica looked specifically at primary care and GP services during an Influenza Pandemic about a year before COVID-19 happened, and it recommended remote consultations – this pandemic strategy features prominently in newspapers today, three years after that report was published.
However, the reports state lessons without providing detail, and the general impression is that they’re papering over cracks in our pandemic preparedness. For most of the reports, lessons are rarely associated with objectives which are specific, achievable and time-limited.
For instance, the Ebola Report says, “A review of capacity and capability of the surge centres is required, especially around the management of paediatrics” – however, there is no indication of how children’s services failed during the Ebola Exercise, or what will be done to address that failure.
It’s possible that PHE was simply following the lead of a Government which was committed to a 10-year programme of ideological reductions in public expenditure and transfer of social and health care provision to private providers – What was the point in publishing specific proposals if the Government lacked commitment to their implementation?
Interesting that perhaps the most important document here, Exercise Alice, is the only one which is not “searchable”.
The 2016 Operation Cygnus Pandemic Preparedness Review was based on a scenario assuming an influenza pandemic. Is not influenza not a virus and spread airborne ?
Thanks K. Yes you’re right. It’s hoped that a bad influenza pandemic might be easier/quicker to develop a vaccine against than other viruses, and more treatable with antivirals. Some people thought that a Coronavirus was less likely to spread asymptomatically than Influenza… COVID-19 has shown we need to expand our thinking.
In his testimony to the Parliamentary Committee former Health Secretary Matt Hancock did not acknowledge Exercise Alice at all. Neither did the previous Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, who was in office when Exercise Alice took place in 2016. In relation to the initial response to COVID, Hancock said:
“The preparation and the plans that were in place were for a flu pandemic”. So, there had been a planning exercise (Alice) in 2016 but the recommendations from that report were ignored in terms of pandemic planning prior to the onset of COVID19.
Hancock went on to claim that COVID 19 was “a completely novel virus”, different to previous coronaviruses, mainly because it had the characteristic of asymptomatic transmission. The obvious implication being made by Hancock was that while flu virus planning helped in some respects, nothing could have helped plan for COVID19 (such as learning from the South Korean response based on their experience of SARS/MERS or the recommendations from Exercise Alice) because of the issue of asymptomatic transmission.
However, in Hancock’s later testimony he said that in its response to COVID19 the UK government did not accept the probability of asymptomatic transmission until early April 2020. Therefore, until early April the UK government was not responding to COVID19 as if asymptomatic transmission was present. This suggests that had Exercise Alice not been ignored, during the initial stages of the pandemic (February to April) the UK would have been benefitting from the preparations that Exercise Alice had recommended should be put in place and from the procedures that would have been enacted in response to a typical SARS/MERS pandemic. The probability is that rolling out these procedures would have saved many lives regardless of whether or not asymptomatic transmission was present in COVID19.
Exercise Norther Light seems to be a dead link.
Thanks for doing this!
Thanks for your kind words. The link works for me – can you try again?