At times, the Covid public inquiry has had the appearance of a show trial – one that starts with the premise that lockdown was essential to saving lives and should have been imposed earlier in the spring of 2020, and that is seeking to find the guilty parties who prevented this happening. As Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, writes in The Spectator this week, the inquiry is failing to provide much illumination on the question that matters rather more: did lockdowns actually work, and did they do more good than they did harm?
Most popular
Michael Gove
‘I’m a new kind of Christian’: Jordan Peterson on faith, family and the future of the right
Another participant with an interesting perspective on the subject of lockdowns has been in front of the inquiry this week, although his most telling remark appeared not in his session before the inquiry but buried deep in his written evidence.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in