Those of us with relatives in care already knew the Covid ‘protective ring’ was a sick joke – but what now?

The High Court has issued a landmark ruling that the government policy of discharging patients from hospitals to care homes at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic was unlawful – a case won by two women whose fathers died from Covid-19.

The verdict is welcome but will not provide much relief to the families who lost loved ones after 25,000 people were sent from hospitals to care homes in March and April 2020, many without being tested for Covid.

Those of us with relatives in care homes knew that the government’s claim at the time to have thrown a “protective ring” around this under-resourced, overstretched sector was a sick joke. Yet again, it was the poor relation of the NHS. What ministers wanted was to avoid the gruesome TV pictures we had seen from Italy about hospitals being overwhelmed.

My family had a narrow escape. My 95-year-old mother caught Covid, as did several of her fellow residents. We had an agonising dilemma: would it be better for her to go to hospital or remain in her care home? We were unable to visit her and she was too ill to speak on the phone. We lobbied for a hospital admission, and got one, bucking the trend at the time. Remarkably, my mum recovered and has just celebrated her 97th birthday. Five of her friends who stayed in the home died from Covid.

I don’t know whether the virus was imported into the home from a hospital. It was clear that the home was struggling to cope, like many others. However, I can’t criticise the staff, some of whom suffered their own tragedies and who typically provided fantastic support recently after my mum had an operation.

What will be the impact of the High Court ruling? Although it underlines something we already knew, it will affect the government’s scorecard on the pandemic. Boris Johnson, of course, has a powerful plus point on the vaccine. But the treatment of care homes will now be an even bigger minus. To limit the damage, the prime minister has ensured the delayed official inquiry into the handling of the pandemic will not report until after the next general election.

When the inquiry comes, the government will blame Public Health England (PHE) – a convenient scapegoat, since it has since been disbanded. Matt Hancock, the health secretary at the time of the hospital discharges who is now writing a book about the government’s record in the crisis, can point to a High Court statement that he acted reasonably but that PHE "failed to tell ministers what they knew about asymptomatic transmission" of the virus.

Whether the government has learned lessons is another matter. The tragedy is not over: for the carers and the cared for, there is still no “protective ring” today. The sector remains underfunded, the workers have poor terms and conditions and vacancies are rising again (the rate is currently at 9.5 per cent in adult social care).

The promise of more resources from the “health and social care levy” – a more palatable name for this month’s national insurance rise – has barely materialised. Surprise, surprise, the initial boost will be devoted mainly to tackling record NHS waiting lists, a far more visible and politically dangerous issue than what goes on in care homes, whose doors have only just reopened to visitors. Plus ca change. Nothing much will: despite the High Court ruling, and Johnson’s grandiose claim to have reformed the care system.