Boris Johnson Denies ‘Let it Rip’ Strategy In Clashes With Covid Inquiry Counsel

In a heated moment at Thursday’s Covid-19 Inquiry hearing, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson vehemently refuted claims that he had a laissez-faire attitude towards the pandemic, particularly the notion of “letting it rip”.

Johnson’s testimony, marked by visible irritation and table-thumping, came in response to probing questions from Hugo Keith KC, the inquiry’s lead counsel.

The former Prime Minister insisted that such a stance was never his, despite diary entries from Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s former chief scientific adviser, suggesting otherwise. These entries depicted Johnson as being fixated on certain demographics, like the elderly, “accepting their fate” for the sake of the economy amidst the pandemic lockdown pressure.

Pushing Johnson on the point, Keith paused questioning to read aloud the source material. Vallance detailed in his diary how Johnson’s thoughts evolved during the pandemic’s latter half of 2020.

In a striking entry from August, Vallance noted Johnson’s apparent fixation with the idea of “older people accepting their fate and letting the young get on with life and the economy”. This was further echoed in an October entry, where Vallance described the then Prime Minister as being “obsessed with average age of death being 82” and jokes of “get covid live longer.”

The counsel also read a diary entry from May 2021, recording that current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, then Johnson’s Chancellor, advocated for a relaxed approach, suggesting to “let it rip a bit” considering the incentives already in place.

Johnson said: “It does not do justice to what we did, our thoughts, our feelings, my thoughts, my feelings, to say that we were remotely reconciled to fatalities across the country.” He emphasised his commitment to saving lives at all costs, regardless of age, countering Keith’s insinuation that he held a cavalier attitude towards elder mortality.

Asserting his role as a representative of the lay public in meetings dominated by health officials and scientists, Johnson continued: “I had to challenge the consensus in the meeting.”

He urged the inquiry to focus on his actions and public statements rather than on “people’s jottings from meetings” or unverified diary entries.