Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson testified on the second day of the official inquiry into the pandemic response, acknowledging there is no clear evidence that the government planned to push people to eat out after the 2020 lockdown. He noted that the approach coincided with a rise in Covid-19 cases, but he did not describe the plan as a gamble and questioned whether it significantly raised the virus’s reproduction rate. He stated that the country had made a substantial effort to bring the R value below one, enabling the hospitality sector to reopen, including hotels and other services, even as concerns persisted about the outbreak during that period.
The summer 2020 policy, known locally as Eat Out to Help Out, offered discounts to diners to stimulate economic activity in bars and restaurants. It aimed to support businesses under stress while the public health system was navigating the crisis. Johnson asserted that the policy made sense at the time because restaurants had customers and faced pressure, though the long-term impact on virus transmission remains a matter of debate.
The inquiry, chaired by former judge Heather Hallett, is examining the decisions made by the Conservative government from January 2020 through February 2022 to address the crisis and lift the last set of restrictions. Johnson began giving evidence yesterday and expressed sorrow for the pain and loss experienced by those who suffered from Covid-19, noting the heavy toll of the pandemic on families and communities.
Johnson stepped down as prime minister in 2022 after political tensions at 10 Downing Street during the pandemic era. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is scheduled to appear at the inquiry to discuss measures taken while he led the economy during the pandemic, addressing questions about how economic policy intersected with health decisions during that period. The testimony forms part of a broader effort to understand the effectiveness and consequences of the government’s strategy to manage the health crisis and its economic impact.