Baroness Dido Harding urges a retrospective look at UK government’s limited financial support for self-isolating workers during the pandemic, saying enhanced aid might have reduced infections and fatalities, amid testimony revealing resistance from Rishi Sunak to expanding payments.
Baroness Dido Harding, former head of NHS Test and Trace, has made a compelling case regarding the UK government's handling of financial support for self-isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Speaking during the ongoing Covid inquiry, she asserted that increased financial aid for individuals required to self-isolate could have significantly reduced infections and fatalities. This assertion comes at a critical moment as the inquiry delves into the policies surrounding testing, tracing, and isolation that shaped the pandemic's trajectory in the UK.
In her testimonies, Baroness Harding expressed frustration at what she described as an "intransigence" from then Chancellor Rishi Sunak regarding her repeated calls for enhanced financial support, claiming she faced consistent rejection of proposals aimed at expanding the financial resources available for isolating individuals. During this period, in September 2020, the government did implement a £500 self-isolation payment targeted at low-income workers, yet the restricted eligibility meant that many were unable to access this support. Additional discretionary funds were also made available to some local authorities, but these measures remained inadequate.
The former NHS executive highlighted that, by international standards, the UK allocated disproportionately little to support disadvantaged individuals in isolating effectively. "If we had allocated more of the NHS Test and Trace budget to isolation support, I strongly suspect that fewer would have died and infection rates would have been lower," she stated during her evidence session. This commentary aligns with findings from various studies that underscored the importance of financial assistance to enhance compliance with public health measures. A briefing from the Nuffield Trust and the Resolution Foundation pointed out that the lack of adequate financial safety nets deterred individuals from isolating, with many fearing economic hardship above health risks.
In the face of Harding's claims, it's notable that a senior civil servant from the Treasury, Dan York-Smith, indicated that measures such as extensions to statutory sick pay and the furlough scheme were introduced as part of a broader economic response to support workers. However, concerns that such payments might create "perverse incentives" were cited by Sunak, suggesting a fear that some workers could end up financially better off by isolating than by working.
The recent disclosure of diary entries by the government’s then chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, adds another layer to the narrative. Vallance's entries reveal that there was significant contention over whether financial incentives should play a role in encouraging self-isolation, with a prevailing indication that policymakers favoured enforcement tactics over supportive financial measures. He noted that, despite pressing from Harding, Chancellor Sunak's resistance to financial support was strong. Vallance himself reflected that the government's instinct was to focus on enforcing isolation rather than supporting it financially.
The ongoing inquiry continues to unravel the tapestry of decisions that were made during the pandemic, with Harding's testimony serving as a poignant reminder of the potential impact of economic support in managing public health crises. Despite the various forms of assistance that were eventually rolled out, many, including Labour Party officials, believe these measures fell short of what was necessary for effective public compliance. In February 2021, the Labour Party highlighted that only a minority of workers qualified for the £500 self-isolation payment, revealing a significant gap in support that likely hampered public health efforts.
As the inquiry progresses, the focus on financial support for isolation appears increasingly critical, especially given the stark comparisons to measures taken by other developed nations. The findings so far could shape future policies, ensuring that lessons from this unprecedented health crisis are heeded to prevent similar mistakes in the future.
📌 Reference Map:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative is recent, dated 3 June 2025, and pertains to ongoing Covid inquiry proceedings. However, similar discussions have been reported in the past, such as in October 2023, when Rishi Sunak was criticised for blocking calls to pay the poorest to isolate during the pandemic. ([telegraph.co.uk](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/31/rishi-sunak-rejected-calls-pay-poorest-isolate-pandemic/?utm_source=openai)) Additionally, in February 2021, Labour urged Sunak to extend Covid self-isolation payments. ([theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/21/labour-urges-rishi-sunak-extend-covid-self-isolation-payment-anneliese-dodds?utm_source=openai)) The report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. The article includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The report includes direct quotes from Baroness Dido Harding and Sir Patrick Vallance. Similar statements have been reported in previous articles, such as Harding's comments on the lack of financial support for self-isolation. ([thelondoneconomic.com](https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/workers-with-covid-too-scared-to-get-tested-due-to-lack-of-cash-support-dido-harding-says-217878/?utm_source=openai)) The wording of the quotes varies slightly, indicating potential paraphrasing. No exact matches were found for the specific phrasing used in the report, suggesting potential originality or exclusivity.
Source reliability
Score:
4
Notes:
The narrative originates from Asian Leader, a less well-known outlet with limited online presence. This raises concerns about the reliability and credibility of the information presented. The report references other reputable sources, such as The Guardian and The Telegraph, which adds some credibility. ([telegraph.co.uk](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/10/31/rishi-sunak-rejected-calls-pay-poorest-isolate-pandemic/?utm_source=openai), [theguardian.com](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/feb/21/labour-urges-rishi-sunak-extend-covid-self-isolation-payment-anneliese-dodds?utm_source=openai))
Plausability check
Score:
6
Notes:
The claims made in the report align with previous discussions and findings regarding the UK's handling of financial support for self-isolation during the pandemic. However, the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets in the report raises questions about the comprehensiveness of the information. The tone and language used are consistent with typical reporting on this topic.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents recent claims regarding the UK's financial support for self-isolation during the pandemic. While the content is recent and includes updated data, it recycles older material and originates from a less well-known source, raising concerns about its reliability. The quotes used vary in wording, indicating potential paraphrasing, and no exact matches were found for the specific phrasing used, suggesting potential originality or exclusivity. The plausibility of the claims is supported by previous discussions on the topic, but the lack of supporting detail from other reputable outlets in the report raises questions about the comprehensiveness of the information. Given these factors, the overall assessment is 'OPEN' with a medium level of confidence.
