A PUBLIC health expert has criticised an NHS Scotland report on the pandemic, describing it as “skewed and partially flawed”, with major omissions and gaps, including no mention at all of the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Professor Andrew Watterson said the report – Lessons Identified from the Initial Health and Social Care Response to Covid-19 In Scotland – covered many key areas, examples of good practice and lessons to be learned. But it had also omitted whole topics central to learning key lessons.
Watterson, from the Public Health and Population Health Research Group, at the University of Stirling, said it was effectively decontextualised “and misses out the key upstream influence on health and social care responses”.
READ MORE: Cosla brands Scottish National Care Service plans open 'attack on localism'
He said: “It’s impossible to identify all the bodies, organisations and people were consulted in the report. Who you speak to and who you don’t will often determine what you learn and what you don’t and so strongly influence the shape of a report.
“It’s not apparent who authored the report or from which part of the Scottish Government it emerged.”
The academic said unusually, there were no reference lists, footnotes or bibliographies, which also meant readers could not check or gain further information from background sources: “There are 15 case studies in an appendix. Their selection looks distinctly odd and quirky with no full explanation given for the choices.
“There seems to be a heavy reliance on Canadian and Australian work along with English and Welsh examples but no reference to activities in other countries with significant pandemic control, clinical PPE, and trace and test track records elsewhere in Europe and Asia.
“The WHO ... is totally ignored in the report even though it produced detailed guidance and case studies on these topics.”
Watterson said there was no discussion of Scottish Government failures to introduce lockdowns in early 2020, which impacted on health and social care responses, or an examination of why it “failed to draw on the best international pandemic research” and adopt the successful control measures used globally.
However, it had identified other failings: “The Scottish Government operation of over-centralised decision-making and delivery models without consulting local public health department springs out as a major failure … Other problems were flagged in the context of modelling deficiencies and internal duplication by the Scottish Government of teams working on the same topic along with brief notes of problems linked to decision-making responsibilities between the Scottish and other UK bodies.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “This report sets out the tremendous work of our health and social care system in meeting the biggest public health crisis in living memory.
“While it provides some valuable insights into the first six months of the pandemic, the report is intended as an illustrative examination of the response and the findings were never meant to be comprehensive or definitive.
“We are committed to a full public inquiry which will examine all aspects of the pandemic and are in contact with the UK Government over how that can be taken forward on a four nations basis.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel