U.K. Covid public inquiry commences today

[Pupp]

Covid inquiry first preliminary hearing to begin https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63080466

Okay, will get flamed for starting yet another Covid thread but this will produce a lot of news over the next couple of years so I think it’s worth having a dedicated thread to follow/discuss the proceedings, evidence, and conclusions….

Won’t get properly going until the public hearings scheduled for the Spring but makes contextual sense, I think, to reserve a spot from the preliminary ground setting hearings that commence today.

[Douglas Quaid]

What do you think the chances are that the enquiry says the government overreacted and all of the lockdowns and other nonsense should never have occurred?

I think slim to none.

[bigee]

Douglas Quaid said:

What do you think the chances are that the enquiry says the government overreacted and all of the lockdowns and other nonsense should never have occurred?

I think slim to none.

Agreed, will be 'should have locked down sooner ' etc.If we are actually allowed to use the term anymore it will be a whitewash.

[julianm]

Can't wait to hear the findings on whether all that mask wearing worked.

[PurplePangolin]

A very large carpet is being ordered….

[Murph7355]

bigee said:

Douglas Quaid said:

What do you think the chances are that the enquiry says the government overreacted and all of the lockdowns and other nonsense should never have occurred?

I think slim to none.

Agreed, will be 'should have locked down sooner ' etc.If we are actually allowed to use the term anymore it will be a whitewash.

It'll be both and everything inbetween.

[oyster]

For me it's worthless if it only has a remit focussed on public health.

If it fails to make a judgement that closing schools and opening garden centres was anything other than heinous, then we'll know the terms of reference.

[Murph7355]

oyster said:

For me it's worthless if it only has a remit focussed on public health.

If it fails to make a judgement that closing schools and opening garden centres was anything other than heinous, then we'll know the terms of reference.

Not forgetting all the economic moves they made....

[Lotobear]

oyster said:

For me it's worthless if it only has a remit focussed on public health.

If it fails to make a judgement that closing schools and opening garden centres was anything other than heinous, then we'll know the terms of reference.

This is spades; it will focus on those who, it will be argued, 'may' have died due to not locking down sooner or harder (though how they will prove that is anyone's guess).

There will be no account taken of the wider societal damage it caused, only that it was the 'correct' thing to do save for not doing it sooner.

..road tankers full of whitewash currently being mobilised.

[Brave Fart]

The terms of reference of the COVID-19 inquiry can be scrutinised here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-covi...

It appears that things such as the impact on children's education, the economy and the furlough scheme do all fall within its remit.
We'll see of course, but to dismiss the inquiry as a whitewash in waiting seems rather unfair.

[oyster]

Brave Fart said:

The terms of reference of the COVID-19 inquiry can be scrutinised here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-covi...

It appears that things such as the impact on children's education, the economy and the furlough scheme do all fall within its remit.
We'll see of course, but to dismiss the inquiry as a whitewash in waiting seems rather unfair.

To be fair they are mentioned in that. Thanks for sharing the link.
Whether they carry equal weight in the enquiry remains to be seen. The fact the terms of reference includes representation by families of Covid bereavements but not representations from families affected the the Covid response isn't a great show of impartiality.

And one other thought - given the economic fallout we are seeing now and for the next few months/years can be directly attributed to the Covid response (albeit global and not just UK), is it not too soon to be having this enquiry?

[remedy]

Pupp said:

Covid inquiry first preliminary hearing to begin https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-63080466

Okay, will get flamed for starting yet another Covid thread but this will produce a lot of news over the next couple of years so I think it’s worth having a dedicated thread to follow/discuss the proceedings, evidence, and conclusions….

Won’t get properly going until the public hearings scheduled for the Spring but makes contextual sense, I think, to reserve a spot from the preliminary ground setting hearings that commence today.

Reports that Dulux is all out of white paint.

[williamp]

Live feed

https://youtu.be/Giw7iQk2Z74

Apalled by the lack of masks. Thats a superspreader event right there...

[Brave Fart]

oyster said:

To be fair they are mentioned in that. Thanks for sharing the link.
Whether they carry equal weight in the enquiry remains to be seen. The fact the terms of reference includes representation by families of Covid bereavements but not representations from families affected the the Covid response isn't a great show of impartiality.

And one other thought - given the economic fallout we are seeing now and for the next few months/years can be directly attributed to the Covid response (albeit global and not just UK), is it not too soon to be having this enquiry?

Both fair points, I think. But note that the (a) to (e) aims at the start of the document states the the Inquiry will "listen to and consider carefully the experiences of bereaved families and others who have suffered hardship or loss as a result of the pandemic." My bold.

So in principle, if (say) I had lost my business as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, I might be included in 'others' who had 'suffered hardship or loss'. Whether my story would be considered admissible remains to be seen, of course.

Regarding timing, it's a tricky one. Leave the Inquiry too long, and people will complain that memories have become dulled, and impacts diminished. Hold it too soon, and - as you suggest - some consequences may not yet be clear.

[Pupp]

I think anyone who is anticipating Heather Hallett , in the chair, will unquestioningly be doing the bidding of the establishment in this might be in for a disappointment. She’s a tough and very independently minded fact finder.

[Pastor Of Muppets]

The four lawyers working on the Scottish Covid-19 inquiry have all quit.

Was it because they didn't like being told what the outcome would be?

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thescott...

[JagLover]

Lotobear said:

oyster said:

For me it's worthless if it only has a remit focussed on public health.

If it fails to make a judgement that closing schools and opening garden centres was anything other than heinous, then we'll know the terms of reference.

This is spades; it will focus on those who, it will be argued, 'may' have died due to not locking down sooner or harder (though how they will prove that is anyone's guess).

There will be no account taken of the wider societal damage it caused, only that it was the 'correct' thing to do save for not doing it sooner.

..road tankers full of whitewash currently being mobilised.

I, and many of the people I know, have come down with Covid over the summer. So presumably we should have locked down earlier than March 2020 and still be locked down now to prevent these current infections.

I expect no recognition from the inquiry though that any delay from locking down earlier merely postpones inevitable infection.

Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 5th October 10:37

[oyster]

Brave Fart said:

oyster said:

To be fair they are mentioned in that. Thanks for sharing the link.
Whether they carry equal weight in the enquiry remains to be seen. The fact the terms of reference includes representation by families of Covid bereavements but not representations from families affected the the Covid response isn't a great show of impartiality.

And one other thought - given the economic fallout we are seeing now and for the next few months/years can be directly attributed to the Covid response (albeit global and not just UK), is it not too soon to be having this enquiry?

Both fair points, I think. But note that the (a) to (e) aims at the start of the document states the the Inquiry will "listen to and consider carefully the experiences of bereaved families and others who have suffered hardship or loss as a result of the pandemic." My bold.

So in principle, if (say) I had lost my business as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, I might be included in 'others' who had 'suffered hardship or loss'. Whether my story would be considered admissible remains to be seen, of course.

Regarding timing, it's a tricky one. Leave the Inquiry too long, and people will complain that memories have become dulled, and impacts diminished. Hold it too soon, and - as you suggest - some consequences may not yet be clear.

I will try to keep an open mind.

But the fact they reference bereaved families as a particular group they will listen to and merely mention others as [b]others[b/] does indicate a certain bias already to the health viewpoint for this enquiry.

[Ari]

julianm said:

Can't wait to hear the findings on whether all that mask wearing worked.

Of course it did, experts said so (once they'd u-turned from their original advice).

Ignore the facts, you just have to believe, brother...

[anonymous-user]

Can't wait to hear the findings on whether health passports the covid pass worked.