Thread by @Francis_Hoar

An improvement on indications of Lady Hallett’s thinking,but it misses central points.
Lockdowns weren’t considered in pandemic plans not just b’cs they were unthinkable but bc’s measures *less* draconian were found to be ineffective & disproportionate.

bbc.co.uk/news/health-65…

It *is* positive that the Inquiry is finally addressing the lack of any adequate prior consideration of the exceptional harm that wld be the inevitable consequence of lockdown; let alone to weigh whether that harm was justified by the supposed efficacy of lockdown.

(I say finally because of the consummate lack of any such consideration in the terms of reference and earlier openings.)

But, first, that is only half what needs to be considered in evaluating the proportionality of the response. The other half is evidence of the efficacy of lockdowns in reducing Covid deaths: something there is precious little evidence the inquiry will consider at all.

And, secondly, a properly open and disinterested inquiry must consider why the very suggestion of lockdown came to be considered out of nowhere - flying in the face of all evidence based pandemic plans across the world - in early 2020.

Arriving from China to Italy in a vacuum of scrutiny and - when it arrived here - a void of democratic debate or accountability. The latter being yet another conspicuous absence from the inquiry’s terms of reference.

I return, without apology, to my explanation of the sound pandemic preparation that there was and its careful evaluation of the evidence of the harm of restricting human behaviour and the lack of evidence of any benefit in curtailing pandemic spread.

https://twitter.com/francis_hoar/status/1329380025427243019

And to some of the questions the #CovidInquiry should be asking.

https://twitter.com/francis_hoar/status/1481957001030782981

@threadreaderapp Unroll