Boris Johnson’s bid to avoid Covid isolation wasn’t just hypocritical – it was dangerous

Another day, another U-turn. But the impact of the latest controversy could be far worse for the prime minister, writes Sean O’Grady

Boris Johnson is currently in self-isolation at Chequers (PA)

The first reaction to the “ping” is the one that counts. When Boris Johnson was pinged by NHS Test and Trace, his first instinct was to try to ignore the pesky interruption. His second instinct was to minimise the inconvenience to himself (and to chancellor Rishi Sunak, in a similar position) by enrolling in a special “pilot scheme” whereby he could skip the self-isolation that everyone else has to endure, pending a full PCR test, and carry on as normal with daily lateral flow tests. This is not an option open to the public. Indeed, the NHS instructions insist that a negative result on a lateral flow test is not a “green light” to go out and about. To do that you still need to have taken a (much more reliable) PCR test.

In case of doubt or obfuscation, the No 10 spokesperson stated unequivocally on Sunday morning: “The prime minister and chancellor have been contacted by NHS Test and Trace as contacts of someone who has tested positive for Covid. They will be participating in the daily contact-testing pilot to allow them to continue to work from Downing Street.”

Except, of course, that Downing Street now states that the PM was notified while he was at the country retreat in Chequers. No doubt a definitive timeline will clear up any confusion. It is needed. After all, when the prime minster got Covid last year there were some doubts about how rapidly he ceased his usual duties in order to sequester himself in the Downing Street flat. Jon Ashworth, Labour’s shadow health secretary, is asking questions about what the “pilot scheme” actually is, who is involved in it, which public health authorities are involved, and what the point of the study might be. Again, answers are awaited.

The political point is that it obviously adds to the narrative that there is one rule for them and another for the rest of us. It has enabled Labour to sharpen its attack on government hypocrisy, which was given such a huge boost by the behaviour of Dominic Cummings and Matt Hancock.

It also adds to the suspicion that the government is being run for the benefit of the “chumocracy”, and that crucial decisions are being made via a sort of medieval court of advisers and hangers-on who surround the prime minister, who are subject to his whims and indulgences as he plays them off against one another. Frequent U-turns and mixed messages add to the air of amateurism.

Never before, then, has Boris Johnson needed the public support of chief medical officer Chris Whitty and chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance as much as he does now. It is a critical juncture. In a tweet the other day, Whitty suggested that restrictions, if not another lockdown, would need to be re-imposed in five weeks if things went wrong. This is perfectly possible, despite both Whitty and Vallance backing the government publicly thus far. In terms of public health, the case makes itself, as the NHS comes under pressure and the prevalence of long-term Covid-derived illness grows: lower death rates are not the only measure of the success, or danger, of a policy.

If the advice of Whitty and Vallance is indeed to tighten restrictions as winter approaches, then Johnson will have no choice but to accept it. If either chose to speak out or resign, it would severely weaken the government’s authority – and for good reason, because the wave of illness would by then be affecting so many families and businesses. Even when Johnson was ready to surrender, he still couldn’t get it quite right. The pandemic isn’t over, and neither are the government’s problems.