In March this year I predicted in this column that the official Covid Inquiry would be a whitewash. It seems I was right. I can almost smell the fresh paint already. At that time four vital aspects were missing from the inquiry and, as far as I am aware, they still are:
- The accountability of advisory groups like SAGE
- The abuse of propaganda
- The harms of the vaccines
- The ‘benefit’ of lockdown
Moreover, they stated that ‘the inquiry will not investigate individual cases of harm or death in detail’. Initially, the terms of reference included no mention of the harms: social; economic; and health (both physical and mental) but after some robust responses by the public to the consultation about the Terms of Reference these are now included.
However, it has been announced by the chair of the inquiry, Baroness Hallett, that the first three ‘modules’ of the inquiry will, over 2022-23, look exclusively at: pandemic preparedness; decision-making; and impact on health workers. Thus, according to John Dobinson on the website of Time for Recovery on 24 July, the early stages of the inquiry will “ignore the damage done by lockdowns completely”. This is at odds with the Noble Baronesses own claim that she was going to prioritise the harms. In her own words: “People lost loved ones and could not mourn properly. Children and young people lost educational opportunities. Businesses failed. Physical and mental health suffered. People felt isolated.”
Clearly, there is a ‘hidden hand’ at work here and Baroness Hallett has not been given free rein to run the inquiry the way we all hope that she would have liked. It is disappointing that she has lacked the courage to stand up to and oppose whatever forces in government or the Department of Health and Social Security have put pressure on her.
Thus, the official Covid Inquiry, barely out of the traps, appears biased and most probably already has its recommendations prepared. It must simply spend the next two years working out how it arrives at them. The recommendations related to the above three modules (pandemic preparedness; decision-making; and impact on health workers) are predictable and my money would be on:
- insufficient pandemic preparedness leading to a justification for more rapidly introduced restrictions such as lockdowns, face masks and vaccine mandates
- decision-making processes being insufficiently slow leading to a series of standing SAGE-like committees that have a strong desire to justify their own existence (see bullet point above for what that will lead to)
- healthcare staff were stressed and overworked, and we must do more to protect the NHS so that it never again becomes ‘overwhelmed’ leading to continued NHS-worship, pot-banging, and cancelled screening and treatment.
I doubt that the fact NHS staff were paid in full throughout the period when others were losing jobs and income will be taken into account or that there will be any mention of the care home workers who were sacked for refusing to be vaccinated with a useless vaccine that has well known harms associated with it.
If this is what the Covid Inquiry is going to occupy itself doing for the next 18 months, then I see absolutely no hope that it will ever address the questions related to the harms induced by the non-pharmacological measures such as lockdowns and masks. By 2024 it is more likely that the government will be seeking a chair for the official Monkeypox Inquiry.
Opinions from the Unity News Network (UNN) editorial team & various contributors. | UNN always clearly distinguishes between news and opinion pieces and as an open minded outlet we publish views from a variety of people and organisation that do not necessarily reflect the views of UNN or its writers. Articles published under UNN Opinions are always opinion pieces and if published on behalf of a contributor will contain that authors name at the start of the piece.
