The call to treat the Covid Inquiry with the same level of seriousness as the Government's actions during the Great Panic of 2020-21 is a demand for accountability. Continue reading
Just as the general public was subjected to strict restrictions and lockdowns during that time, those involved in the inquiry should be subject to stringent measures themselves.
They ought to be instructed to stay at home, with some freedom for daily exercise but without the capacity to disrupt our lives further.
This approach is advocated on the belief that it won't result in any tangible loss. The anticipation is that the inquiry's report will echo a prediction made long ago, emphasizing that the lockdown measures were neither implemented swiftly nor with adequate force.
This prediction points to a lack of genuine interest in thoroughly examining the possibility that the entire response to the pandemic was a grave mistake, driven by panic and orchestrated by individuals lacking the qualifications to manage even a small local council.
This skepticism is rooted in the inquiry's treatment of individuals like Professor Carl Heneghan, who displayed exceptional courage and resilience by opposing the national lockdown policy during the critical period.
It's a clear indication that the inquiry may not be approaching its task with the open-mindedness and impartiality required for a comprehensive review of the pandemic response.
Along with being a renowned academic, Prof. Heneghan is a general practitioner who practises close to the real-world operations of the National Health Service (NHS).
In 2013, the Health Service Journal recognized him as one of the top 100 clinical leaders, individuals who not only excel in their professional domains but also have a broader impact.
However, during the extended period when extremists called for a complete countrywide shutdown based on now clearly erroneous assumptions, Professor Heneghan's reputation was undervalued.
One might expect that given Sweden's more effective management of Covid, which aligned with his ideas, his standing would have improved.
It might also be assumed that the Covid Inquiry would treat him as a significant figure to be listened to with attention and respect.
Nevertheless, in his own words in an unsettling article in The Spectator, he explained that the inquiry focused on trivial matters like old WhatsApp messages containing impolite language, rather than the critical issues outlined in his 74-page statement.
He further noted that his credentials as a clinical epidemiologist with 450 peer-reviewed publications were unfairly questioned.
This situation underscores the persistence of closed-mindedness that existed at the outset of the pandemic. The establishment, which exacerbated a crisis into a catastrophe, wreaking havoc on the economy, education, healthcare, and personal freedoms, appears to have learned nothing from the ordeal.
This suggests a likelihood of repeating similar actions in the near future, driven by the same impulse to wield power through fear.