One of the reasons I wanted to come in

and talk to you was because I want to

just talk freely.

How does that all feel for you

personally? That thought that one week

earlier we could have saved 21,000

lives.

There were some mistakes that we made in

terms of the measures.

Yeah.

How they were brought in. Well, now you

see Stephen, you're getting into gotcha

questions.

No, I genuinely

just all total rubber. I'm not I've not

even asked the question yet. There needs

to be boundaries. You have to get

No, no. Those rules

Yeah.

were not in place. Can I ask the

question?

You can ask a question.

I'm going to ask a question.

This bit is really hard for me.

People say you you were a contradiction.

Yeah.

What's your response to that?

Could you do me a quick favor? If you're

listening to this, please hit the follow

or subscribe button. It helps more than

you know. And we invite subscribers in

every month to watch the show in person.

When I started the D CEO, I wanted to

create a platform where we get to see

behind the scenes, where we get the

truth, where we get the context. That is

at least my attempt. The rest of it is

up to the viewer to decide what they

make of the conversation and what they

take from the conversation. And the same

applies to this episode. So without

further ado, I'm Steven Bartlett and

this is the D of CEO. I hope nobody's

listening, but if you are, then please

keep this to yourself.

[Music]

Matt, I was really really keen to have

you come and join me in my in my kitchen

here in in London to talk in a long form

way about a ton of different things that

are front of mind for you that have gone

on over the last couple of years. I

think you know usually and you've

listened to this podcast before so you

know I typically start about with

childhood and all those things which I

will get on to but the question that was

really front of mind for me and I think

will be for a lot of people is

why did you want to have this

conversation here? Hm. Well, I love your

podcast.

One of the reasons I love it is cuz I

think what you managed to do is you

managed to get people to be really um

really honest about themselves. Right.

One of the things I admire about the

podcast is that um it's important that

we have a space where people can talk

about where things go well and where

people have failed and what they've

learned from that. and you're so um sort

of brutally honest with yourself about

it and you really put that on the line

and that in turn gets it out of other

people

and you know I've been through this um

extraordinary experience of being the

health secretary in the pandemic.

There's a lot of you know things that

I've learned through that and learned

about myself. Um and I I want to be able

to articulate how I saw it if you like.

I just think that you're it's just one

of the most self-aware podcasts that

I've I' I've listened to and I now I'm

completely hooked.

Oh, so let's start then. I was brought

up in a happy, loving, complicated

modern family.

Yeah.

Explain.

And why why complicated?

Well, complicated because my parents

separated when I was two and I

effectively grew up with four parents.

So the both of them happily remarried

before I can really remember. So it was

complicated in the way that lots of

modern families are complicated and I

have I have a half brother. I have step

brothers and sisters but it was also it

was also very it was very loving and

every you know I got that that love and

support from from four parents rather

than the normal two.

What were you like in school?

Well, one of the biggest things that

happened to me was that I I after

primary school, primary school is in

this lovely um very rural cheshure uh

primary school, a very very uh

straightforward, small uh warm. And then

at the age of 10, they put me in for the

or I was asked if I wanted to put go in

for the exam for the local independent

school a year early. This was the

probably one of the biggest things that

happened in my childhood because you

know I went and did the exam and I got

through and I went to school. So I went

to secondary school a year early.

Suddenly I went from being finding it

all pretty straightforward to really

having to struggle to keep up, really

having to work hard and both socially

and academically suddenly I was in this,

you know, I was in with a group of big

group of people who were all a year

ahead of me. And combine that with my

sort of my mother's work work ethic.

You know, she started her own business

and worked incredibly hard

and um you know that had a it had a it

had a big impact on me.

In what way?

Specifically on the social side. You

said you were socially struggling to

keep up. Were you bullied?

Um

a bit. I wouldn't say that was the ma

that was the main thing but I was but

yeah people it was tough. People were

tough on me. Um, and um, and I'm also

quite sort of, you know, self-confident

and exuberant and that sometimes has

robbed people up the wrong way,

especially when you're the little guy at

school. So, I think, you know, that so

that I'm I'm sure that part of the sort

of the drive that I have comes from the

fact that I found myself age 10 suddenly

in a very, you know, a tough

environment. And you you ultimately must

have done pretty well in that secondary

school where you were trying to fit in

because you went to Oxford which is just

Yeah. So I went to Oxford a year early

you know so I was

you went to got into secondary school

year early.

Exactly.

And you studied politics, philosophy and

e economics, right? Which is

a lot of a lot of people that go on to

become politicians study study that

course. That seems to be almost like a

bit of a right of passage to

politics in a way because you've got you

know people like is it Ed Milliban,

David Cameron, Jeremy Hunt that have all

studied that.

The list goes on. Michael Ed,

right?

Um,

Ed.

Yeah. So, one of the things that as

being a bit of a a like a I guess

there's two questions here. The first is

why did you choose politics?

I I thought it would just I thought it

was the most interesting thing to do. I

actually got into it through the

economics. So, I did I I studied

economics A level cuz I was really

interested in business.

Right. And what what happened was this

that um when I was a teenager in the

early '9s,

my mom's business nearly went bust and

we had a moment when we had this uh our

major client themselves was struggling

in the recession in the early '90s and

couldn't pay their bills. So, it was a

classic late payment cash crunch for a

small business. We knew that if we

didn't get this check

by the end of the week, then the company

was was going under. Eventually on the

Wednesday or the Thursday, the check

arrived and the business was saved and

it went on to to prosper. But that made

me ask this question, you know, how come

a perfectly good business employing a

load of people who are working

incredibly hard, how can that go bust or

be at risk of going bust for something

completely outside of their control? And

the sort of sense of injustice in that

made me then ask how does the economy

work? And that's what led me to to take

an interest in economics which I had a

real affinity with. I loved it as an A

levels subject and that so that's what

led me to to um to PPE at

at that age say like 18 1920. Yeah.

Were you were you aspiring to become a

politician?

No I was inspir aspiring to become an

entrepreneur.

So I actually I almost did economics and

management at Oxford and then somebody

told me it was easier to get into PPE

than economics and management. So and

that sounded close enough to what I

wanted to do.

So that's why I ended up doing it. Is

there not because because when I because

people have said to me, you know, I've

had business success and all these

things. I've built a platform. People

say have suggested, "Oh, maybe you

should go into politics, Steve." And the

thing that scares the life out of me is

it's like a lose-lose game. People are

going to [ __ ] hate you regardless of

what you do. So I I I sometimes wonder

like who are these people that like

want to be politicians?

So Well, thanks. Um the um but it's

true, right? And my my experience as

health secretary is is you get you know

some people uh are some people love you

and some people hate you, right? I was I

was on the tube and I never know what

that what what how it's going to be when

they come up and see me. So I was on the

tube last night um and some enormous guy

in a heavy metal t-shirt, long hair

comes up to me and I'm like how's this

going to go?

And he said I just want to say thanks. I

got my vaccines because of you and I'll

never forget it. I was like, "Oh, well,

that won't that could have got worse."

And and so and so you you know and and

obviously not every interaction is um is

as cheerful to put it diplomatically.

And so in a way, you know, that is part

of it. You know that if you're going to

make a big decision that affects lots of

people's lives, some people are going to

like it and some people aren't. Um that

isn't what got me into politics. What

got me into politics was the observation

that that's where the big decisions are

made. And quite rightly in a democracy,

you know, the big calls in economics to

stop other people going through the same

experience that I did as an early

teenager with my parents' business where

it almost went bust for something

completely outside their control. And

that and that and that's what drove me.

And the combination of the interest and

you know because it's very interesting

politics

and the mission uh got me there. Um so

one of the things that has also always

leveled at the like political system in

our country is that and you kind of see

this from you know you studied politics

philosophy and economics at Oxford is

that a lot of the people that do go on

to make those big decisions as you've

described.

Yeah.

They come from like privilege.

Right.

Right. And even you know you you know

your parents went through a tough time

but living in Cheshire is

I'd rather live there than Moside.

Right.

It's it's a it's a privileged place to

to grow up and to live and going into an

independent school. you went to Kings

King School Chester King School in

Chester as well, which is a privileged

place to come from. So, one of the

things that I've always contended with

and is, you know, and honestly, one of

the things that actually quite quite

honestly put me off ever going into

politics was this prospect that it's

kind of this elitist club where they all

come from Oxford and and then the

problem you have with that, if that is

true, right, is

that the decisions then that are made

for all of us are made from people that

have walked different set of foot

pathways, right?

Okay. So, I think there's a few bits.

Let's park the Oxford point because

actually if we get if Oxford and

Cambridge and the other top universities

get it right

then actually they are great um

meritocratic levelers because the thing

that Oxford really did for me not only

taught me how to read and write but it

also it took a provincial boy from

Cheshure

and put him into exactly the group that

you describe. Right. So I was from a

very much a middle class background. But

if those the the top universities get

their their selection right, who they

choose and if they get the the support

right so that people from your sort of

background feel encouraged and drawn

towards them and then supported once you

get there then they can be great

levelers. Okay. So so but let's park the

sort of Oxbridge debate because that's a

sort of uh you know that debate will go

on for as long as those universities are

preeminent I imagine. I think the most

important thing in politics is where

where you're going and what you're

trying to achieve and one of the most

important skills that I think is

incredibly hard to communicate in

politics but is vital to doing the job

well is empathy.

Right? And you can't

walk other people's um uh shoes except

through empathy and and you the lived

experience of a particular background is

incredibly important and I'm I'm a you

know I'm a big fan of welcoming people

trying to get people into politics from

all sorts of backgrounds. So I'm not

disagreeing with your critique. The

point is each and every one of us has

our own background. The way that you can

try to get over the problem that you

describe is through empathy and that's

and that's incredibly important.

I can't have empathy for what it's like

to be a woman, for example, because I've

never been one.

No, that's not true. You can have

empathy for it,

but not but sorry. I can have empathy,

but I I I I believe that empathy comes

real real true empathy for someone else

comes from understanding the pain or

struggle or situation they're going

through.

And I can never truly understand the

pain or struggle that say for example a

woman facing discrimination when she's

trying to raise money

is going through because I have never

experienced that. So I can guess what it

might feel like. It's like almost like

the topic of racism, I think. Like no

one can know. I don't know how a white

male politician that's gone to Oxford

will know what it's like to be called

the n-word on the playground when I was

11 and how that made me feel like the

feelings of shame and being different

that I then went on to feel. Yeah.

So, so I I I tend to believe that the

the way we create a truly empathetic

political system is by finding a way to

get people in. I've come from like low

economic housing and different

backgrounds and minorities. So when I

look at the political landscape and I

see that a lot of, you know, a lot of

people have come through a very like too

many people have come through a very

privileged background, it makes me think

that the decisions that are going to go

on to be made will lack that true

understanding of what it's like to grow

up in a house that is like damp and

moldy and there's rats and stuff.

So there's there's I'm grinning because

there's two ways to answer this, right?

But the thing that's absolutely

screaming at me to say to you is that is

why you should go into politics.

But I feel like I can't get in because

because

of course you can get in. You'd be you'd

be I I'll sign you up now. It depends on

which party you want to join. That's uh

I can only speak for one of them. But

but go for it. So firstly, that's my

actual response. But the other thing is

it's it is wrong to say that you cannot

um uh that you can't empathize with with

others and others situations. You can't

have lived somebody else's life,

but you can seek to try to um to

understand where they're coming from.

And and I certainly do that. And you

know, that's part of representing a

constituency. I think it's actually

really hard to communicate in politics.

uh this this the empathy point because

it's really easy to generalize um and

and it comes down to the fact that if

you poll people, right, most people

think that politicians are useless, but

when you name a politician, they tend to

think that they're their local person,

their local MP, they tend to think that

they're great, right? So there's a gap

between what people think of politicians

as a whole and think of individuals who

they've interacted with.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think I think I

think I can def defin definitely emp

empathize with pain and suffering and

all of those things. I just think in

order to create a truly like

representative political system, sure,

it needs to be full of people who have

actually gone through those things as

opposed to, you know,

I think the thing that's always put me

off is because when I heard about this

like, you know, everyone's come, you

know, a lot of politicians have come

from a certain background and then you

see how promotions and stuff are done.

It makes me think that it's a bit of

like a, you know, a system where we're

we're promoting our friends and bringing

them up and if they've gone to Oxbridge

and I went, you know, I studied with

them, I'll I'll promote them when I get

there. So I want it's always felt to me

like running would be very very very

difficult um because I didn't go I don't

come from that sort of privileged

Oxbridge like typically quite boys club

place. That's how it feels right for me.

So I might be wrong. I think I I I

really think you're wrong because I

think actually the system in a way um uh

because of this problem

um the system is actually tries to draw

people through faster.

Um

is it doing a good enough job?

Uh I mean look at actually um give him

his credit, you know, look at who Boris

Johnson has put in his cabinet, right?

And um I know that you're immediately

thinking of people he was at the same

school and university as. Right. Um but

there are an awful lot of people who

weren't. Right. And I don't want to go

through the individual backstory of you

know the guy who arrived age nine from

uh Kurdistan with only a his dad with

only a pound in his pocket. Yeah.

Right. um Saja Javid who grew up in one

of the poorest streets in Bristol and

made it uh from there and by the way

who's from a family of amazing amazing

uh men um his I think he's got four

brothers there's five of them um uh

Rishi Sunnak right he grew up in a his

his mum's a pharmacist he grew up in a

pharmacy right there are there are loads

of people who have made it from

difficult backgrounds and and actually

I'm sad that you have the impression

that that you do cuz it's not really my

experience of uh of of being there.

So you you you make the decision then to

move towards politics. You become

eventually George Osborne's chief of

staff in 200

2005ish. Yeah. And in 2010 you became

the MP for Midsuffk.

West SuffK.

West Suffuk. Okay.

Right. And that that was your

I guess your your entry into politics.

Yeah.

Moving forward then you you you know you

get promoted a few times and then

Theresa May comes in and

demotes you.

Yeah. Yeah.

So she demoted you to Minister of State

of Dig digital culture.

Digital and culture. And God that was a

brilliant job. I mean so

why did she demote you?

She demoted me because they decided they

wanted a uh a clean break from the

Cameron Osborne years.

She didn't like George Osbor George.

Well, she fired him pretty brutally and

I was just, you know, head below the

parapet enough to get through and she

demoted me. I was I was attending the

cabinet at the time and um she I I

remember the meeting it was um they had

told the press that they were going to

fire people until 11:00 a.m. and then

start hiring people. And I was asked to

go and see her at 10:50. So I thought,

"Oh, this isn't going to go very well."

I walked in and I was she'd been running

about 15 minutes late. So I walk in and

there's a clock on the wall in her

housecom's office and it says 11:05 and

I said oh it's gone 11 so I guess this

is going to be okay and because I

thought well you know at least make a

laugh if she's going to be firing me you

know why why make it unpleasant and uh

she said well that depends how you react

because um I uh there isn't a a space

for you in my cabinet uh but I know

you're really interested in digital and

that's one of the big things that's

going on in the

Uh, so would you like to be the uh the

number two uh in DCMS and uh and and be

responsible for digital policy and just

keep your head down and and sort and um

and sort that out? And I I leapt at it.

It was absolutely wonderful.

This is maybe a bit of my political

naivity, but when I when I was reading

through that you'd be you'd been the

minister for like digital business,

enterprise, energy, and ultimately

health.

Yeah. How can one person know anything

about any of that stuff? How can anyone

be a master of like five, six different

things?

Yeah, because that's not the job. So, um

it's not the job to be the master in a

way. It's the job to be the people's

representative amongst the experts. So,

your job as the minister is to be able

to be the representative of the people

who is responsible for the direction of

that policy area. and you have endless

experts. Your job is not to be an

expert. It's to listen to the experts

and then decide democratically what

direction do we want to go. So take I

mean an area that I do know you know I I

did have a background in take on um the

future of the internet and um

what was your background in that? uh

well only that I I you know I can code

and I understand a bit of um about

technology

but the big question was how do you keep

children safe online

right and how you make take the internet

from a sort of a wild west

and social media to a place where people

have more protection you know is it that

was the the the you know most important

question in that area at the time and

for that yes you need experts but you

also need a you basically You need a

view of where you want to get to. It's a

it's a it's you want to you you need to

set the mission and the direction. It's

leadership that's needed.

My background is social media and I

actually whenever I see like the social

media policies being set, I always the

the debate we have in social media and

digital is like who is it that's making

these decisions because the people we

see

when we obviously the spokespeople as

you've described

Yeah.

we know that they don't know it like us.

So we think that we we we we pray that

the decisions aren't made poorly. So

let's take cuz that can be the subject

we use to describe all of these

industries that you've you've led as

minister. So

as it relates to say social media when

you're trying to understand what

policies to set for children to keep

them safe.

Yeah.

You're telling me there's this like

group of experts behind the scenes who

are discussing and feeding information

and then your role to play is in

deciding

Yeah. on the trade-offs.

The trade-offs, right? Which would which

needs expertise to know what the

trade-offs are.

Yeah. Yeah.

Um and then also and communicating them

communicating it to the public. Yeah.

Understanding what the public is

expecting because sometimes experts can

get so close to their subject matter

that you got to be like yeah but there's

you know there's 60 million people over

there who aren't experts and they need

the voice in the room as well.

You're ultimately the person when you're

in charge of digital that is making

these calls. So you speak to the experts

then make the calls. My my thing is on a

topic like digital the harm that can be

done if someone doesn't understand that

area of expertise because ultimately the

minister makes the call you can like

destroy an industry [ __ ] an like

[ __ ] an economy so I've always

thought that the person making the call

should be

should be really experienced in that

subject matter and that doesn't seem to

be the case because of the design of the

political system

because of democracy ste it's democracy

and that's good and right because when

you have technocratic government you can

you just get you know experts are so

focused on their area

that sometimes they just don't see the

big picture.

So you're saying you need that impartial

kind of outsider to

Yeah, that's what that's what I tried to

be as a as a as a minister. Um, and also

so it's about lifting people's eyes to

the to the the you know the big social

trade-offs. And I mean that in the best

sense that you know the trade-offs

within society um how free to be versus

uh how safe to be in the in the

internet. It's an absolute classic of

political philosophy right and um people

have been worrying about that question

in the offline world for 300 years. and

we were bringing that sort of approach

um into the online world as opposed to

just leaving it as a completely

libertarian space. Um but the the job is

to is to synthesize the expert view but

not just not just follow it because

the experts can become so focused but

also they can't sometimes provide the

leadership

right to say we we're going over there

and and you know like yes of course

we're going to take on um Facebook over

some of the harmful content. Yeah, of

course we are. We're not just going to

lie down and say that they can make the

rules up.

It's interesting because when I see the

political debates with things like

Facebook, a lot of the government

officials both here and in the US

haven't got a [ __ ] clue what Facebook

is. And you can see them asking Mark

Zuckerberg the most dumb, naive

questions about the platform. And then

as an outsider watching, yeah, that

these people that don't understand what

they're talking about are ultimately

going to be writing the legislation as

someone that works in the industry and

could actually tell you what in my view

having worked in the industry for 10

years deep in it.

Yeah. that fully understands things like

the Cambridge Analytica scandal and data

data privacy and really also understands

the context of the media pressure which

is sometimes

uh comes doesn't come is agenda based

um and and I I worry

so getting right so getting a rational

solution out of that bundle of problems

yeah

is not easy

yeah so what would you it kind of is

but it is dem but it but it is

democratic to ensure that somebody who

is who represents

um represents people

is ultimately making the decision but if

they're any good they'll listen to the

advice that you get.

I think I think my view is that they

should represent the people for sure and

I think that spokesman role in

leadership is incred incredibly

important but I also feel like they

should h like have deep understanding of

the nuance and complexity and have

experience in the thing which kind of

brings me on to you became in charge of

health as well the health minister which

is obviously something not in your

wheelhouse.

No. So I'm I'm a um doctors ask me you

know why should a non-d doctor yeah be

responsible for the health service. Now

two answers to that first is well it's

pretty arrogant of doctors to say it

should be a doctor what about a nurse

right because there's more nurses in the

NHS than doctors park that minor local

issue right the reason is cuz I am there

as the representative not just of those

who work in the health service but of

the people who use the health service

which is to say all of us. And so I

think actually it's better for the

health secretary to essentially be

somebody who is a who is there on the

side of the patients.

You of course you listen to the the

clinical advice you know and some of the

most amazing brains in the world right

like like Chris Witty Jonathan Vanam

these people are amazing wonderful

communicators very shrewd advisers

ultimately it's right that the person

taking the decisions is representing the

people through the democratic process we

have

um and not representing the uh the

producers if you like that is a that is

a better way of structuring it.

You think you you believe that?

I really do.

I mean I look I I don't know these

issues deeply enough to to know the full

complexities and this is maybe even

proving my point that I don't understand

the nuance of politics. So I can't

actually say if that's a better or worse

system. One would assert though that the

best solution might be to have someone

who understands the side of the patient

because they are one. We're all humans.

We all live in this society. So we use

the NHS. That gives me a little bit of

empathy as to the the you know the the

the system from a patient's perspective

but also someone that understands health

and and the nuances of that. Maybe

that's spent the last 10 or 20 years as

you know working within the industry and

can understand those layers you know

more than someone who was working in

digital 5 minutes ago can. It's just an

observation as like a naive outsider

like why do people that don't have

experience in a subject matter become

the minister for it? Yeah, it's quite a

common um it's it's quite a common

critique of politics.

Um and different countries deal with it

different ways, right? So some countries

the entire cabinet is made up of people

who aren't in parliament. Um like you

know the US cabinet is made up of people

who who have to by law not be in the

Senate or the House of Representatives.

But then you get even more of a divide

between the sort of political and and

the democratic over here and the

essentially technocratic over there.

Actually, I think that our system is

better than the US system because it's

because these two things are emerged

together. Um because you do you get in

taking these decisions, you get

incredible um advice. You get access to,

you know, the all the industry experts

that you want to talk to and and

ultimately you're making, you know,

you're making balanced judgments. The

way the UK does it as well is the civil

service will never put forward a

proposal that they don't think is

workable. That's the that's the deal,

right? So you do have these long-term uh

experts who have been in in the field um

and they will uh they'll say okay this

is where the way I I tried to do it was

I'd say this is where I think we need to

get to how should we best get there and

then the experts will come up with a

plan of how to get there uh and you know

you might have a view on some of the

details of that but essentially I saw my

job as saying this is the mission and

then communicating how we get there and

then being advised on the way from A to

B because the the thing you lose if you

go for your model is you lose the

democratic input and um and and that can

lead to things going wrong.

In 2019 you when Theresa May stepped

down, you ran to be the next prime

minister or at least to lead the party,

right?

Well,

and that would lead you to being the

prime minister.

Yeah.

Um

why did you want to be the prime

minister?

Because I thought that there was a need

for a complete fresh start.

Did you think you'd win?

No.

I'm extra honest. Yeah.

No, but I I had fun trying. Um,

no, I didn't I didn't think I'd win. Um,

but I wanted to get some I wanted to get

some arguments made, right? I worried

that my I worried that we were the party

was talking not enough about how it's

enterprise that leads to prosperity.

Is it a publicity thing running? Because

they I watch the US elections every

year. I'm obsessed with it. And it and

the same people run every year. they

know they're not going to win, but I

think the the exposure and publicity you

get is incredible.

Yeah, there's a of course um that's one

of the consequences. I basically had an

argument I wanted to make which was

which was okay, Brexit decisions been

taken.

Uh let's get that done and get on to

building a stronger economy in the

future and basically get it done as

quickly as we can and move forward. That

was the argument I wanted to make. I

managed to make the argument quite sort

of loudly because I was running Um and

then um uh well and then I pulled out

pulled out came seventh got behind

Boris.

I 10 was it?

Did you come seventh out of 10 or was it

I sixth or seventh?

Oh yeah. And then you got behind Boris.

And then I got behind Boris. Um

because you knew he would win.

Yeah. It was obvious that he was going

to win. Also, I came to the view that um

he he could sort the problem that we

were stuck with of Brexit better than

any of the other candidates. Um and also

I thought, you know, this guy has great

capabilities

and he needs people around him. I've had

so many people tag me on Instagram, even

on Telegram and in my Twitter DMs in a

picture of them starting their Hule

journey. And it's one of the most

amazing things in my life that I get to

do a podcast, which of course needs

money to to to fuel. And I have a

sponsor like Hule who I genuinely

believe is going to help every single

person who starts their heel journey

change their life because this podcast,

the central intention of this podcast is

to help people live better lives. And we

get to sit here and I get to promote to

you a product which has not only helped

me change my life, but it's going to

help millions of people and is helping

millions of people live a nutritionally

complete life. It's so it's such an

incredible product. And for me, the

reason why it's incredible is because it

gives me my protein. It gives me my

vitamins, minerals, it's plant-based,

it's low in sugar, gluten-free, it does

all of that in a small drink that tastes

good. There are other products, there's

foods, there's the hot and savory

collection, many other things. But for

me, this ready to drink is the absolute

savior of my diet throughout the week

where I'm moving at such pace. Look, I

don't want to labor the point, but if

you haven't tried here, give it a try.

And if you do, tag me, Instagram,

wherever you try it, give me a tag.

Anyway, back to the podcast.

We move forward to co

which was, you know, you you get

appointed as being the health minister

when a pandemic rolls in.

I know. I remember I remember seeing the

um the the Chinese publication on the

1st of January. So, it's New Year's Day

and I saw this uh thing on the inside

pages of one of the newspapers

um to say um the Chinese just announced

that there's a a new uh disease um and

nobody knew we didn't know it was a

corona virus. It might have been a flu.

Uh and nobody knew whether it was

serious or not. But I remember thinking,

"Well, maybe this is it." But I didn't

really think it was until

um until a couple of weeks later. When

was that that cuz I you know, I was

reading through all of the minutes from

your Sage meetings to try and understand

the the kind of phases of

cuz I listen I run business, right? And

we have crises and chaos and all those

things and there's various stages you go

through of trying to understand exactly

what this is and then how you know how

impactful it's going to be. Yeah. and

then what we should be doing and I kind

of ran through all of that. So when when

in your view did you start to realize

that

this wasn't just a cold or

end of January. So the Chinese published

the sequence of the genome of the of the

virus. So we then knew it was a corona

virus. Um that was bad news right

because we had a stockpile of flu

vaccine uh for this sort of emergency if

it had been a flu. Um, and the fact that

it was a corona virus and spreading this

rapidly in China was bad news. And then

at that point, I remember Chris Witty

saying to me, it's 50/50.

Something this contagious, either they

can hold it in China

or if it gets out of China, it's going

to go global. So, we were by the end of

January, we were on to um developing the

vaccine, for instance.

um and

trying to get the testing system up and

running. And then we had this surreal

month during February when nobody else

was sort of thinking that this was a big

thing and we still thought it was 50/50

but 50% chance of a global pandemic is

you know very very bad and we were I

remember standing next to the speakers

chair in the House of Commons for a

PMQ's watching

every single question was about

something else and nobody asked a

question about what became known as

COVID and I remember thinking at the end

of the session, the end of half hour,

every single question that has been

asked is totally irrelevant because it's

all about other things and we've got

this one fact in China and it is

it's totally dominant.

Why weren't you raising the bell?

Oh, I was I was giving statements to

parliament and what have you and we were

preparing inside government for what

needed to happen. So at the end of

January uh uh JVT came and said um I

said how long will it take to get a

vaccine? He said well normally it would

take 5 years but we think we can do it

in a year to 18 months.

He said January.

Yeah. If everything goes well and I said

your mission is to have a vaccine by

Christmas and we we he and the team that

we built pulled it off. Um so we were

getting things moving and then it was

when we saw the pictures from Italy. Do

you remember the you know that was the

moment

that I knew it was global

and that was what month?

That was the end of February.

February. Yeah.

Yeah. It was the end of February half

term

cuz everything was calm at this point.

We were watching it happen overseas. I

mean like I remember this the China

scenes.

Yeah.

Everyone was kind of calm about it. Old

China having a problem. That's kind of

how it felt.

And then the Italy moment was was

terrifying.

Yeah. That was the moment when it was

obvious it was coming.

Right. Um and um I remember having a

call that uh my my my German opposite

number who I got you became very close

to. He phoned me up. He said, "Have you

seen these pictures out of Italy?" I was

like, "Yeah." He was like, "This is it."

And he's like, "Yeah, this is it."

Um so that was the end of Yeah. That was

the end of February.

But still in March, there was a lot of

confusion in those stage minutes about

what to do. Yeah. About what was going

to happen. Could could we stop it?

Complete lack of data. That's the that

was the problem. Total positive data. Um

we had a um we didn't have a testing

regime. We had to build that from

scratch. Uh and so you didn't know how

many people had it. Um we didn't know

the characteristics of the disease. Uh

we didn't know what the um we didn't

know what you know what the symptoms

were largely because the symptoms of CO

are so varied that they didn't have a

full symptom list. One of the things

that we didn't know for ages which we

now take for granted knowing is how many

people have had it and have got the

antibodies. There was a big debate after

the first peak of um some people saying

uh they're optimists like me, but it

turns out far far too optimistic, right?

Saying, "Oh, you know, threequarters of

people must have had it by now, so

basically we're fine. Uh and we're

through it." And then so I got a survey

done taking people's blood and got the

got a representative sample. It took

ages to get this thing up and running

and we eventually got the data through

that said that something like in London

15% of people had had it and outside

London it was under five. It's like

Christ that means almost nobody's had it

and still we've had all these deaths and

that means you know that was the moment

we knew we had a major problem because

there was no way through this other than

the vaccine

and Sage at this point and the meetings

that you're having there there's kind of

this resignation that it is going to

just wipe through the population but but

the issue is the the objective is now

just to try and stop it smashing the NHS

basically.

Yeah. So the the what happened was you

know we saw those predictions of the the

reasonable worst case scenario but the

big problem was we were going up the

reasonable worst case scenario

quickly

you know and I remember I remember of

course I remember the the day that the

first person in the UK um died of COVID

but but I remember the day that oddly

something like the 32nd person died and

it's a funny say that number but it's a

there's a reason for it. I was sitting

on the side of my bath at home and I got

the news that we'd had 30 32 deaths and

suddenly there was a this isn't you know

one person for whom we've got a protocol

of how you manage that um terrible as

that is this is like big numbers and it

was a big jump in the number and I knew

that that that number was going to get

bigger and the worst period the the most

um sort of frightening period of the

whole thing was after we'd done the

lockdown we'd pulled every lever we

could. So, I remember sitting in the

cabinet room and saying, "We're going to

have to tell people to stop all

unavoidable social contact."

And you probably remember, you know,

that being said, and

um the the really frightening time was

after we'd done all those things,

brought in the lockdown, we'd done

everything, right? And if this disease

had carried on going up, there was there

was absolutely nothing more we could do.

We'd shut the schools. We'd shut

hospitality. You know, we'd pulled,

you know, we'd set out at the start of

March a a a set of options of levers

that we could pull to try to stop this

thing. And by the middle of March, we'd

pulled every lever. And it was a um and

and so the next two weeks as the numbers

carried on going up, they carried on

going up for about 10 days because of

the incubation period. That was that was

that was really scary. And then and then

and then they started to turn and then

we knew we could get this thing under.

The criticism leveled at the UK is that

we were the last like major western

country to pull those levers you've

described in mid-March. And when you

look through the minutes there is just

like several weeks of like confusion and

indecision. And obviously in those weeks

as you've described there what you

didn't from what I've seen in the

minutes and subsequent interviews is

what you didn't know was the speed of

transmission that was going on.

And obviously because of that 14-day

death delay.

Delay. Yeah. So, so it's funny that I'm,

you know, it's funny that the previous

conversation we had was about how you

should have the experts making the

decisions. Yeah. The truth is we didn't

have the the experts didn't have the

data either.

So, these were difficult calls actually

in terms of where we were on the curve.

We pulled the levers ahead of other

countries because we were a bit behind

Italy and and um uh uh Spain. Um but the

um

lever so Spain and Spain, France and

Italy went into lockdown on the 9th of

March.

Yeah. But we reckoned that we were

several weeks behind them in terms of

the progress of the virus that it as in

it had come to those countries first and

then from them to us. But either way

and that was wrong. the big picture. We

we were much closer to them than than

than uh we were being than the best

estimate, right, by these by the best

people who were in Sage, the the

scientists. And you know what it felt

like was this is an enormous call. So

the costs of action are huge.

The costs of inaction are also huge. So

you you know we knew when we were

sitting around the cabinet table making

these decisions that the that the the

the balance between these two was an

enormous enormous unknown. So in a with

an unprecedented virus with very little

data.

We were essentially you know doing these

things that were so we knew we were very

were going to be very damaging. If you

think about the story about I I told

earlier about coming in I I came into

politics partly because I had this

searing formulative experience of

something completely outside of our

control nearly knocking out the

livelihood of my family. Right? And here

I am

participating in decisions that were

going to have a more devastating impact

on on businesses

and and and people who rely on social

contact in order to to survive and

thrive. So we were hugely aware of the

of the pain that would come from the

decisions as well as the pain that would

come from uh from delay. And the other

thing that we didn't know was how the

public would react, right? And this is

there there's an optimistic story which

is the public were amazing, you know,

and and the advice that we were getting

was we're not sure whether the public

will will will put up with lockdown for

very long. Um and so you got to time the

period of lockdown. Actually, the public

were amazing once you explain that, you

know, there's a serious problem.

Um we're all going to have to uh do

something. it's going to be

uncomfortable, but we'll get through it

together. And the public were amazing.

Obviously, with Italy, Spain, and France

locking down first, there was also a bit

of a case study as to how publics will

react if if presented in a certain way

um to the lockdowns. The

because we were later in locking down

people.

If you look at the numbers, they say

that there's about 20 if we had locked

down a week earlier, 21,000 people would

still be alive from that first wave.

When when you hear that,

Yeah.

How does that how does that sound and

feel? And also around that time Boris

Johnson goes and does that interview and

references one of the options being

taking it on the chin. And then in

hindsight, how does that all feel for

you personally? That thought that one

week earlier we could have saved 21,000

lives.

Yeah. Um

it's

obviously it's something that I'll I'll

always think about. Um,

you know,

if I search for what I really believe

about that and the honest truth is the

honest truth is that

we didn't know.

And of course, you know, hindsight is a

wonderful thing. And

it was about it was judgments based on

on on these you know this the the the

balance of these two scales. Um and um

I think that whenever you go through a

period of history ultimately it's about

learning from it. You know you've got to

make sure that that if this if a

pandemic you know a disease happens

again we'll be far better prepared. And

I think that the I think the Far East

was far better prepared because they'd

been through MS and SARS and and um

honestly that how how I feel is like I

really wish we'd known then what we knew

now. What what if you in hindsight then

because we're playing games of hindsight

now which are as as they say it's 2020

but what are when you look back honestly

at the decisions that were made and how

you got the data and the way that the

meetings were handled with Sage and all

of these and ultimately what led to

these decisions what in hindsight which

is a wonderful thing that we can only

deploy in in the past in hindsight what

do you think were the mistakes or the

areas where we could have done better in

the decision-m how we got the

information and all those things what

were those mistakes in hindsight.

Well, um you know, we made there were

some mistakes that we made in terms of

the measures.

Yeah.

How they were brought in

as in not hard enough or

just you know

just details about the things that

really really matter to people. Um I'll

give you one example. Um funerals.

We brought in rules saying that six

people could go to a a funeral. I think

it was it very very restrictive

but for some people especially people

who were shielding

the rules were interpreted as in some

cases even the spouse shouldn't go to

the funeral if they were shielding. Now

that was that was terrible. I remember

watching that the film of a young boy

who died who was buried by people in

hazmat suits without his parents there

and

you know that was just awful and

you know you listen to that right and we

changed the rules and made it made it

clear so you know that was a that was

all all the time I tell you know all the

time we were on the lookout for, okay,

what do we need to be doing differently?

Cuz it was unprecedented.

And there was a um

and you know, in hindsight, some of it

looks like these were sort of hard and

fast and obvious decisions. They weren't

obvious decisions at all, and we were

constantly sort of questioning ourselves

uh in terms of um in terms of whether we

got the judgment right.

What was your life like in that time?

Oh, yeah. Well, I I so my alarm went off

at 6:00 every morning and um I'd um you

know, I I basically had about

uh half an hour with the kids in the

morning and then uh I'd get picked up at

7:30, maybe 7:00 and uh and then and

then work just, you know, unbelievable.

um until about about midnight. And I you

know what my my permanent secretary

Chris Wald at the start said, "This is

not going to be over in a in a couple of

weeks, right? You've got to get we've

all got to get ourselves into a position

where we can just keep going. This is a

marathon, not a sprint." And um um and

there was a um a weekend basically meant

that we didn't start work till about

9:00. And so that was the you know that

was the the time off. so to speak. And

that it was like that for three or four

months during that period.

What about your mental health position?

Cuz I

Yeah.

You know, cuz that feeling that going

home every day with that feeling that my

decisions could sway as we saw

negatively in this case, you know, 21

million 21,000 lives for better or for

worse and ultimately, you know, 160,000

people died. You're going home with that

every day with that thought that your

deci the decisions you're making now as

health secretary

Yeah.

are life and death. How do you relax?

How do you

Yeah, I think that's

I relaxation I got to through exercise.

Um but the um in the health department

the sense was a total sense of mission.

Um and I've never been in the military

but some people say this is what it's

like when you're on a military operation

as well. um as in there was a focus over

how to optimize how we could make

decisions. You know, of course there

were sleepless nights, but really we

thought, you know, when we had some, you

know, Chris Witty himself is a brilliant

advisor on how to keep yourself, you

know, personally in the um in in the

zone. So the the sense of mission that

we were trying to solve something that

was incredibly difficult as best as we

could um was very very strong in that

period.

Did you have anxiety?

It depends what you mean by anxiety. Of

course I was anxious about every you

know all these big decisions

about that that awful sense of

nervousness that you know can be

crippling at times you know that

yeah but it was yes up to the but not

about I you know I didn't I didn't find

it I I didn't find it crippling. I found

it motivating. Do do you know when I say

anxiety, do you know what I mean? I

mean, there's the the kind of phrase of

describing something as being an anxious

situation, but then actually suffering

with anxiety.

Yeah. Not not in a medical I didn't feel

that in a medical sense. I basically

felt like I got up in the morning and I

did my level best and then I went to

sleep and then I woke up and repeated

the exercise and that and for me that

was the only way to get through it

without sort of collapsing in a hoop. If

you'd known that a pandemic would roll

in, would you have avoided that health

secretary job? Be honest with me.

I

don't know. I don't know. That's a great

question.

Someone's got to do it.

Would you have

if you knew that that situation was

coming?

If I knew this situation was coming,

there's about hundred things I'd

immediately have done, right? We would

have

No, no, no. I mean, would you have put

yourself in that role if you knew the if

if I said now there's a pandemic coming

next week. Do you want do you want the

job of being health secretary?

Such a what if question?

But I I would answer it.

The honest truth is yes.

You would take it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Cuz someone's got to make the decisions.

Okay. So, one of the one of the

Do you know what do you know what the

the overriding sense is um that I'm

trying to articulate not particularly

well is a sense of this sense of duty,

right? when the really bad stuff happens

and and you're in the job, you got to

stand up and be counted.

One of the decisions that was made was

and ultimately criticizes this whole

care home stuff. What's your view on

that before we

Yeah. So, so okay, this is a really good

example of um the the the

of of of learning from what you're

seeing on the ground. So the criticism

runs that um the NHS made a decision to

get people out of hospitals because we

needed hospital space and send them into

care homes and that took COVID with them

and a lot of people died.

Um that criticism is wrong. Um but

there's a different criticism which is

more accurate. The re the reason that's

wrong is um twofold. There's been a

piece of work that's a piece of uh

analysis that's done that shown that

approximately 2% of the uh infections

that got into care homes were from that

route. Um the um and the reason for that

is that when those people went into the

care homes they were they then isolated

in the care homes um because they

weren't tested because the tests didn't

exist. Now I wish to God that the tests

had existed and we you know that was a

big part of my life trying to build this

testing system um but they they didn't

exist and most of those people who left

hospital actually went home not into not

into care homes. The truth is that the

peak in the care homes came about a

month later. So the facts don't even

stack up this narrative but there've

been there you know there's a few false

narratives that have got going about the

pandemic and that's one of them. The

truth is, and we couldn't say it, we

didn't want to say it at the time

because we didn't want to demotivate

people, but the truth is that the main

route of the virus getting into care

homes sadly was from staff because staff

live in the community and this disease

was rife in the community, but I didn't

want to stand at that podium and give

the impression I was blaming the staff.

The thing that we then did was we

changed the rules so you could not work

in more than one care home. And in the

second wave the number of deaths in care

homes was far far lower and we had the

testing. So actually the what we needed

to have done was do the do the pol the

staff movement policy much earlier

and we hadn't we hadn't spotted that

that was the route. Um and so you know

there there's an inquiry that will come

and go through all these things and I'm

actually looking forward to it because

there's a whole series of points where

we've got to make sure we learn the

right lesson. Uh, and then there's a

couple of other things that are upper

there that, you know, just aren't true

and need to be like this whole, you

know, we talked about criticism as a

politician, right? One of the things

I've been criticized for is for giving a

contract to the local pub landlord,

right? I don't know whether you've read

that story.

Yeah, I've heard all of that stuff.

Yeah.

It's just not true.

We'll talk about that. I want to just

because the point on the care home bit,

it's good. So, you've answered one of my

points there, which was about that whole

rumor that people were being released

from the NHS into care homes and that

was causing issues. The thing that that

I saw from the Sage minutes was that on

the roughly the 10th of March, which was

fairly early in all of this,

Sage did say that there should be

special policy consideration given to

care homes and various types of types of

retirement communities.

Presumably, you had the data at that

point that said elderly people were

being disproportionately affected by

so around the 10th of March,

but it's there should probably should

have been an action taken. And then in

the sage minutes, you don't really see

care homes or retirement communities

mentioned again until a month later when

there's been serious death in care

homes. I think people going into care

homes were 10 times more likely to die

than if they had just gone gone home

because of the because of the more than

10 times more likely to die. I think at

the peak of the the pandemic, the first

wave, they were 17 times more likely to

die in a care home than had they just

gone home to live with, you know, in a

private home.

Yeah. But that's because there's lots of

reasons for that. You've got to unpack

it. So firstly, it is the most

vulnerable people who live in care

homes. So their their vulnerability to

the disease is much greater. Secondly,

you know, the nature of care homes is

obviously that the disease can spread

more easily and every European country

uh had this problem. But the broader

point about the sage minutes um uh

around that time um action was taken but

we didn't get to the policy that I think

had the best impact which was the

stopping people from working in more

than one care home for several months

afterwards. And if we if we'd known that

that was going to be the thing that

would say stop it as much as it did

obviously we would have done that

um we would have done that earlier. But

but again it comes down to to not

knowing.

Yeah. And I I guess this is a point of

judgment. Hindsight has revealed that

that was a mistake. Some countries got

it right. New York didn't get it right

either,

but other countries did get that,

you know. And the other thing we were

worried about, so we were worried about

a different problem that didn't happen.

And sometimes this, you know, it's you

it's important at the to think about at

the time the things we're worrying

about. So in Spain,

a whole care home full of elderly people

had died because the staff had all gone

home.

So we were also worried about making

sure that the care homes remained

staffed because people in care homes die

if the staff aren't there. So thankfully

that never happened, but we were worried

about the the the care the you know we

were worried about the opposite problem

at the same time. and um uh and and you

know thankfully we avoided one

but but the other one came to pass.

Do you look back on that that decision

in particular cuz that's one of the big

criticisms that a lot of people level at

the um handling of the the process. Do

you look back at that as a another

mistake in hindsight?

Because you you as you say, you were

trying to make the best decision on

balance, right?

I I know I know for sure and

what you've done differently is make it

better. Yeah.

What? So on this foresight hindsight

thing, I know for sure

that I did my best

and I know that the team around me

worked with, you know, did work with the

right motives to get through as best we

could.

the um the importance of learning how

best to handle this situation

for god forbid if it happens again

is absolutely vital but I worry as much

about learning the wrong lessons as

learning the right lessons. So that's

why it's important that we have this

sort of discussion about about the care

homes in particular

um to to make sure that just because

something is in the narrative it doesn't

necessarily mean it's true. Uh without

doubt, if I'd known then what I know

now, we would have brought in the staff

movement rule much earlier. In fact, do

you know what? You should probably have

it in normal times as well because lots

of people die each year in of flu in

care homes and you know, so the and the

and the processes of how flu gets into a

care home are probably the same as COVID

because it's just another communicable

disease. when people like mark the

success of um our handling of the

pandemic, one of the ways that they

choose to do it is to compare it to

other countries and in that first wave

in particular, our deaths were just so

much higher than the comparable

countries. So, does is that not an

indicator that we messed up or that we

got it or that our judgment calls turned

out to be the wrong ones?

A combination of a combination of

things, right? combination things like

the timing of the decisions to lock

down.

Um the obesity of our nation compared to

others is one another factor.

Um one of the factors that um the

experts think is a cause is that lots of

people travel from all over the UK to

Spain and Italy during that halfter

term. And so it was brought back and

seeded across the whole country. Whereas

other some other countries like France

had it very badly in a in a couple of

cities but didn't have the spread in the

way we did. So there's some things that

are essentially you know just just facts

of life that were outside anybody's

control. Obviously that's not you know

what you're getting at and it's not the

stuff that really affects how I think

about it because it's the it's the

active decisions that

we also need to you know we need to go

through and learn from. So would you

that's what I'm saying is is is the the

the large number of deaths that we had

versus other countries

a indicator that we made poor decisions

in that first wave.

Well now you see Stephen you're getting

into gotcha questions.

No I genuinely cuz because we're going

to come on to the good stuff right we're

going to come into the fact that we're

out of lockdowns for everybody else.

So the but the way the reason I I

reacted that way is that is that it is

self-evident and obvious that you've got

to improve decisions and learn from

them. And the best and the best proof

point of this and the best um sort of

it's obvious from anybody who's run any

organization is you constantly got to be

asking was that the best decision?

And part of leadership

is to allow your team to

essentially learn from and change their

decisions, not stay stuck with them just

because that's the decision that we

took. and in the second and subsequent

waves

we have done relatively better

internationally. So how I feel about all

that is I feel um I feel sad that the

performance in the first half

if you like was not as good as it could

have been.

Okay, that answers the question.

And then I feel and I but I feel pleased

that we learned quite a few things

and in a way you know we did better

second time round.

Yeah. But the thing I felt at the time,

and this is true in any organization

I've been in, is that if you want people

to perform at their best, they have to

know that if they screw up, they're not

going to get shouted at. The question is

not who did that, it's how do we fix it?

Yeah.

And that was a that attitude was a big

part of um of of how things, you know,

we managed to get better. You know,

testing is another example, right?

testing first it was you know it was far

we we didn't have any we built it as

fast as we could that needed to go much

faster by this Christmas the Americans

were saying why can't we have a testing

system like uh like the UK you know and

my view is that uh do Harding did an

amazing job but every time we had a

screw-up the question that we asked was

how do we fix it not whose fault is it

did you actually think that was a gotcha

question because do you think do you

think I'm the type of person that would

sit and

I don't think you are which is why I

called you out on it because

No yeah yeah I It's every question I ask

is honestly honestly genuine because and

and then you're right there's so many

things that we did better than all of

these other nations and I'll be honest

I'm sat here really lucky that we're

able to do this in person because of the

decisions that the UK took.

So no what I meant by gotcha is that you

know the the question of um will you get

the guy to say he that there was x

screw-up is a classic of the today

program. I I bas my

and actually frankly makes some of the

decision-m harder.

No, I I no I I understand what you're

saying. Um my question was that is the

was the the the increase in death at the

start does is that evidence as people

claim that we made in hindsight cuz

that's all we have now in hindsight the

decisions were wrong. And also there's

this other exacerbating factor which was

I mean the World Health Organization at

the time and even I tweeted it said that

there wasn't we couldn't wait for a

vaccine. They said that we that's what

they said. They said we couldn't wait

for a vaccine because sometimes vaccines

I mean there's not a vaccine for SARS

still. Sometimes they take five or 10.

So you so you you thought there was

always going to be a vaccine.

Yeah. And and and it's true that

sometimes Yeah. In number 10 he was

basically the only other person who

agreed with me.

Why did he say the take it on the chin

thing?

Um

cuz I use that in my

he was I I remember that he was he was

actually trying to argue against that.

He was saying he was saying it comes

down to how difficult it is to

communicate in uncertainty. He was

saying some people are saying we ought

to take it on the chin. I don't agree

with that. I think we need to act. But

so one of the reasons it's hard to

communicate in politics and one of the

reasons it's hard to communicate

empathetically

is that you have to both have the actual

conversation but also every single word

you say

can be twisted

will be taken and analyzed for better or

for worse. And I don't hold this against

the media particularly, but they they

will look at them those words both

within the context and out of context.

And so, you know, this is true of this

interview, but I knew that coming into

it and have decided just to try to

answer the questions. Um the um but that

is part of communication. So I the the

the you know Boris saying that um some

people say we should just what I can't

remember the exact word.

take it on the chin, right? But I don't

think that's the way we should do it.

Instead, we should do it that way. It

was written written up as Boris Float's

idea of taking it on chin. Well, he did

float the idea, but he then immediately

rejected it for a different proposition.

I I did read the Sage minutes and to to

his and your credit, you don't mention

her immunity as a as the strategy to

take forward in those minutes. Correct.

From what I saw. So although that was a

widespread narrative, it's not actually

what was going on in the meeting. The

truth there is that some people were

pushing the herd immunity idea,

right?

And then um the ca it came it came it

bubbled up and came to a head.

Yeah.

And I had I went out and killed it. I

was like no we are not doing that.

So you you knew that a vaccine was going

to be

I had at first it was faith right. At

first it was faith and it gradually

became more and more real.

Okay. Um, and I just I I I knew that

we'd got a vaccine for Ebola,

right?

And the the Oxford vaccine actually

comes from the work several years before

to get an Ebola vaccine.

Mh. And I had I just had this belief and

maybe it's because I'm an optimist once

the data came out in about May that

showed that only you know this tiny

proportion of the public had had

antibodies and had had exposure and

therefore it was obvious and

categorically impossible to get to uh

the levels of antibodies you need across

society without a huge amount of

suffering and death. Um i.e. the people

who'd been promoting her immunity were

now evidently and scientifically wrong.

It wasn't just it was a bad idea, it was

provably a bad idea. Once we got to that

point, there was only one way out and

that was a vaccine. And you know, I

believe in the power of human ingenuity

and I uh believed in the team in Oxford.

Um, and I also thought that when the

whole world is searching for something,

then

then somebody was going to get it right.

And so we brought in u people to to go

and buy from around the world like like

Kate Bingham. And we took this attitude

which was sure we back the British one,

but we absolutely we're going shopping

as well, right? And and and money is no

object. Um and um and and and that's

what we did and thank god we did it.

Was there a tipping point where because

in the sage minutes there's there's this

understanding that this is going to go

through the population and that really

the the central objective has to be to

protect the NHS

and then was there a tipping point where

you realized the vaccine was going to

come and it was going to come quickly.

So the strategy then has to go to like a

the vaccine's on its way so now it's

about actually limiting death as well.

So it was once we found out then um that

only a small proportion of the

population had had it.

Mhm.

It was obvious from then on that the

only way out was through a vaccine. And

therefore the policy became to suppress

the virus until a vaccine makes us safe.

And I then repeated that all the way

through the summer, the autumn and in

the autumn I was arguing for, you know,

to keep this thing under control because

the vaccine's around the corner. And

people were briefing against me that no,

you know, Hanok's the only one who

believes in the vaccine and it's a

running joke that there's only one

person who thinks the vaccine is going

to happen and and and partly to try to

stop some of the complications that had

happened in testing. I report I just

spoke directly to the prime minister on

this one and didn't go through his then

advisers in number 10 and and and it and

it came good. We have a brand new

sponsor for the podcast and it's a brand

called Crafted as you can see on the

table in front of me if you're watching

this on YouTube. crafted our brands that

sell really meaningful affordable men's

jewelry and I've been a crafted customer

I think for about 3 years now and all of

the pieces that crafted have created

have deeper meaning the piece of jewelry

I wear the most I want to introduce you

to the pieces and why I wear them is

this sand timer unsurprising and the

thing for me about sand timer is it's

probably the most clear reminder that

our time here on earth is finite and

when you live in such a way where you

can literally see your time pouring away

and you realize ize that it is scarce

and that we're not all here forever. You

start to make better decisions. You stop

worrying about pettiness and

trivialities that consume our lives. I

always have this Crafted Sand timer

around my neck as a reminder of that.

And this is why I wanted Crafted to

sponsor this podcast because I can use

their meaningful jewelry every episode

to deliver a meaningful message. Quick

one. As many of you know, I've been

trying to make my life a little bit more

sustainable as it relates to energy ever

since I sold my Range Rover Sport and

bought an electric bicycle. And My

Energy, as a sponsor of this podcast,

are one of the brands that make that

transition much, much easier. They are

at the forefront of British renewable

eosmart technology. And their products

are really, really changing the game. If

you're on YouTube, you can see what I'm

holding in my hand. This is called the

Eddi, right? It's the UK's number one

solar powered diverter. So, what is a

solar diverter? It's a device for people

like you and me. That means you can

divert your excess energy back into your

home rather than back into the grid,

which will save you power and money.