Five years ago this week, Scotland woke up to the reality of Covid-19. The pandemic arrived late here, and the initial response was marked by an unsettling calm. Perhaps the gravity of what was coming hadn’t quite sunk in.
On March 10, 2020, then Health Secretary Jeane Freeman addressed the Scottish Parliament, stating that the country was still in the “containment phase” with “no community transmission.” Business continued as usual, with MSPs debating the Scottish Biometrics Commissioner Bill as if nothing unusual was happening.
That illusion didn’t last long. Two days later, Freeman was back in Parliament, facing mounting concerns. MSPs raised alarm bells—Monica Lennon questioned why a major football match was proceeding, and Willie Coffey asked about untested travelers arriving from virus-stricken areas. The response? The government was “following scientific advice.”
The Warnings Were There
By then, harrowing images from China and Italy had already dominated global news. Workers in hazmat suits sprayed empty streets, while in Italy, patients gasped for air in overcrowded hospitals, with exhausted doctors breaking down in tears. Meanwhile, in Scotland, 67,000 rugby fans packed into Murrayfield Stadium for Scotland vs. France.
Scotland’s then-Chief Medical Officer, Catherine Calderwood, reassured everyone: “Health Protection Scotland has looked at all the available evidence and concluded that there is no scientific reason for canceling Scotland’s Six Nations fixture.”
The disconnect was unsettling. That same week, I attended a poetry reading in a Royal Mile pub. French fans flooded the city, shaking hands, singing, celebrating. It felt off, yet the official message was clear: carry on as normal. I left early, uneasy.
Was Science Really Followed?
Years later, key decisions from that period remain under scrutiny. Calderwood never testified at the UK Covid Inquiry, citing an unspecified illness. However, damning evidence about her role emerged through expert testimony.
Professor Mark Woolhouse, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Edinburgh, had been raising the alarm long before lockdown. As early as January 2020, he analyzed reports from Wuhan and repeatedly emailed Calderwood, stressing the urgent need for action. He was ignored.
It wasn’t until February 28 that he finally secured a meeting with her—after a colleague intervened. His recommendation was clear: social distancing should start “within days.” Instead, just days later, Calderwood gave the green light for tens of thousands to gather at a rugby stadium.
This raises serious doubts about the government’s claim of “following scientific advice.” Woolhouse’s emails and meetings painted a different picture. He later testified: “I was not convinced by any of the responses I received. The threat was extremely serious and urgent, but I sensed little recognition of that.”
The Lockdown Debate
Woolhouse also expressed frustration over the lack of planning before the first lockdown on March 23. While he believed restrictions were necessary, he was shocked that no formal analysis had been done on the potential harms of such a drastic measure. His team repeatedly advised mass testing to avoid blanket lockdowns but was told this was “unrealistic.”
Scientific advice, it seems, was often shaped by consensus and compromise. The judge overseeing the inquiry noted that “groupthink” played a role in decision-making. If true, this suggests public health decisions weren’t always rooted in pure science but rather in political and bureaucratic inertia.
Who Is Held Accountable?
Despite her central role in these decisions, Calderwood remains shielded from scrutiny. She continues to hold a senior position within the NHS, her resignation over breaking Covid rules seemingly a mere inconvenience rather than a career-ending scandal.
In contrast, the bereaved families who lost loved ones due to delayed decisions and policy failures are still waiting for real accountability. While investigations continue, the question remains: will anyone truly answer for the missteps that defined Scotland’s Covid response?
