THERE’S growing disquiet at the direction of the Covid Inquiry.
When we now see the disastrous consequences of locking us in our homes, you might think that examining this orthodoxy might be a good place to start.
Instead, the inquiry has been described as, “a farce - a spectacle of hysteria, name-calling, and trivialities,” while “working on the premise that we should have locked down harder, sooner and longer.”
That’s not me saying that, it’s Carl Heneghan, eminent Professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford University, who says that premise was false.
Notably, he was one of the few scientists who publicly opposed the policy because he knew that the epidemiological modelling on which decisions were based was notoriously unreliable.
Without a more rigorous analysis, he believed there was no evidence that it worked.
So, while the 200-member Sage committee “morphed into a pro-lockdown lobby,” the Professor and a few others spoke out about the “silencing of science.”
Countless others had concerns too.
I found the arbitrary imposition of draconian regulations infringing personal freedom intolerable and voted repeatedly against lockdown.
Regrettably, ‘groupthink’ swiftly became the norm, leading to mandatory mask wearing, closed businesses and schools, virtually compulsory vaccination and ridiculous fines, all while the cost soared to over £400 billion.
Chaired by Baroness Hallett, a former Court of Appeal judge, the inquiry is hosting a vast team of lawyers, civil servants and clerks, costing £56 million so far.
It is appropriate to find out what ministers and their advisers were thinking at the time, but none of them expected private comments made on WhatsApp to be made public.
Here I have some sympathy.
Tittle-tattle should not be the focus of this inquiry; how we can avoid the ravages of lockdown should.