Source · Select Committees · Science and Technology Committee (Commons)
Recommendation 147
147
Written evidence suggested that the inconsistency in Government messaging after the first wave of the...
Conclusion
Written evidence suggested that the inconsistency in Government messaging after the first wave of the pandemic was also damaging to public trust in official information.233 Analysis submitted by Leeds Beckett University showed that most members of the public did not trust information from the UK Government and that they were much more likely to trust information shared by the World Health Organisation.234 The perception that key Government figures, including the former assistant to the Prime Minister, had breached lockdown rules may have further undermined public trust during spring 2020. In oral 226 GOV.UK, ‘Prime Minister’s Statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 10 May 2020’, accessed 17 September 2021 227 GOV.UK, ‘Prime Minister’s Statement on coronavirus (COVID-19): 10 May 2020’, accessed 17 September 2021 228 Gov.scot, ‘Coronavirus update: First Minister’s speech: 10 May 2020’, accessed 17 September 2021 229 Association of Anaesthetists (CLL0014) 230 Oral evidence taken before the Health and Social Care Committee on 21 July 2020, HC (2019–2021) 36, Q584 231 GOV.UK, ‘Prime Minister announces new local COVID Alert Levels: 12 October 2020’, accessed 17 September 2021 232 University College London (CLL0023) 233 For example, see: Nuffield Trust (CLL0087) 234 Leeds Beckett University (CLL0003) 56 Coronavirus: lessons learned to date evidence, Dominic Cummings acknowledged that his widely reported trip to Durham was “a complete disaster” and admitted that it “undermined public confidence in the whole thing”.235
Government Response
A response document is linked to this report, dated 16 June 2022. Response attribution to this conclusion has not been verified. Read the response document ↗