The former health secretary sees himself as a victim of a larger misinformation campaign.

Matt Hancock, a figure often vilified in public discourse, has found himself at the centre of a storm following the release of leaked WhatsApp messages. Known for his controversial tenure as health secretary during the pandemic and his personal life, Hancock is perceived by many as a mix of ineptitude and scandal. However, he argues that these messages will ultimately vindicate him amid widespread criticism.

One of the most serious allegations against Hancock has been his handling of hospital discharges during the early stages of the pandemic, particularly concerning the transfer of vulnerable individuals into care homes without adequate Covid testing. Critics have claimed that this policy led to unnecessary deaths among the elderly and at-risk populations.

Reflecting on the past, I recall press conferences where Hancock and officials like Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jenny Harries assured the public that testing would occur in care homes, but only during outbreaks. This approach felt inadequate, and Hancock’s and Boris Johnson’s claims of “throwing a protective arm” around care facilities seemed hollow. This narrative painted Hancock as culpable, but the leaked messages suggest a different story.

According to the revelations from The Daily Telegraph, Hancock was indeed intent on testing individuals being discharged from hospitals into care homes. Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer, recommended that everyone entering care should be tested; however, this was hindered by a lack of testing capacity at the time. The absence of rapid lateral flow tests and limited lab resources posed significant challenges.

From the leaked messages, two important points emerge that could rehabilitate Hancock’s public image. First, he recognized that not every individual could be tested before entering care facilities due to insufficient testing resources. Instead, the strategy shifted to focus on hospital discharges, which was likely a risk management decision. Knowing a patient’s Covid status before discharge would aid in isolating them appropriately in care homes.

Hancock’s alleged “crime” was advising that a press release downplay this prioritisation to avoid confusion. While transparency could have been improved, it appears he was trying to maintain a positive narrative about the government’s response. If pressed by journalists, he might have had to disclose the limitations of the policy, but the underlying intent was to ensure that hospital discharges were tested when possible.

The second point of contention involves Hancock’s commitment to reaching a target of 100,000 Covid tests per day. Critics have suggested this focus detracted from protecting care homes, but in reality, ramping up testing was essential for safeguarding everyone, including NHS staff and patients. Former health minister Lord Bethell supports this viewpoint, stating that Hancock’s efforts were crucial in achieving necessary testing levels.

It seems that the Telegraph’s reporting, particularly through selective quotations, is driven by an agenda that undermines the measures taken during a critical time. While hindsight may render some rules excessive, the context of the pandemic necessitated those actions to avoid catastrophic loss of life.

Accusations suggesting that public health measures were part of a conspiracy for social control are not only misleading but dangerous. The reality is that these measures, including masks and lockdowns, were vital in preventing even greater fatalities and long Covid cases.

The narrative surrounding Hancock suggests that he is merely a scapegoat in a broader effort to discredit governmental actions during the pandemic. This is compounded by attempts from certain media outlets to preemptively label public inquiries as “whitewashes,” particularly regarding the redaction of names of junior civil servants to protect them from conspiracy theorists.

In my view, this type of journalism poses a genuine threat to public health. Instead of fostering informed discussions about accountability and learning from past mistakes, it spreads misinformation and fear, potentially undermining future public health responses.