The UK government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic continues to damage public trust in its ability to respond to future crises, according to research published this summer, with just a small minority believing national or local systems are prepared for future emergencies. The nationwide Cabinet Office-commissioned survey of the UK population found that just 19% believed central government was ready to manage a major emergency, while only 14% felt their local authority was prepared.

Many of the 10,000 respondents to the survey explicitly cited the government’s pandemic response – widely seen as slow, chaotic and poorly communicated – as the reason for their lack of trust. These findings are not surprising. Indeed, they echo last year’s Covid-19 Inquiry evidence, which concluded the government had “failed its citizens” by planning for the wrong type of outbreak. Released under the banner of building resilience, this year’s report instead reveals a picture of a population expecting more shocks, but lacking faith in the country’s ability to manage them.

Despite widespread scepticism of government and infrastructure preparedness, the research points to a notably higher level of public trust in the emergency services. Fire, police and ambulance services were viewed far more favourably, with respondents expressing confidence in their ability to respond effectively during crises.

The importance of preparedness for low-probability events also – perhaps surprisingly, given the bulk of the report’s findings – drew considerable support. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents felt that it was important to be prepared for emergencies or disasters that may be unlikely to occur, pointing to a general recognition that risk cannot be measured only by likelihood, and that HILP events still warrant attention.

While respondents revealed a broadly positive perception of the power of preparedness, they also highlight gaps in confidence and priorities. When asked whether there are effective actions people can take to prepare for emergencies or disasters, nearly three quarters agreed or strongly agreed. Just 7% dismissed the idea, suggesting that most people see value in taking at least some steps to improve readiness.

Perceptions of the extent of personal capabilities, however, revealed less confidence, with just half of respondents feeling that they could take action to prepare for emergencies that might affect their local area. In other words, while belief in the effectiveness of preparedness is high, not everyone feels equally able to translate that belief into practice. These findings suggest a clear paradigm: people endorse preparedness in principle but do not consistently act on it personally. Although nearly half of those surveyed said they had taken some personal steps to prepare – such as storing supplies or having a back-up power source – only 13% felt their household was genuinely ready for a prolonged disruption. Meanwhile, most people believe the government should lead on planning and communications, but only a small number recalled having received any advice on emergencies in the past year.

The Cabinet Office’s survey results underline the hierarchy of threats as seen by the public. War stood out most starkly, although just 65% of respondents said it would have a large or very large impact on them personally if it were to affect their local area. By contrast, just over half viewed a large-scale human disease outbreak or pandemic in the same way – despite the world’s recent experience of Covid-19. And roughly half felt a terrorist attack or a cyber attack on critical infrastructure would result in a large or very large personal impact – somewhat surprising given the prevalence and impact of both.

These findings highlight the gulf between professional assessments of risk and how those risks are lived and understood by the public. Outside the world of resilience, people think differently about resilience. To think of terrorism or war feels perhaps overwhelming; its consequences hard to consider. Such perceptions matter. They shape public willingness to prepare, to follow guidance, and to support wider resilience measures at a time when it is arguably needed most.



This article was published in the Q3 2025 issue of CIR Magazine.

View as PDF

Contact the editor