Report comment

What is the basic premise of the inquiry? Does the caveat of the 'response' mean it won't cover if any other option than that lockdown was the only option? How can we measure against the do nothing option when you cannot prove a negative. The zeitgeist is lockdown and isolation but some Scandinavian countries took a different path and seem to have come through also.
I understand that lead in times to mobilise such inquiries take time and so it's also sensible to presume that the learning will move on apace too. We don't even know for sure how the virus spreads, it's length of incubation, whether children are lower risk spreaders, that the new emerging paediatric condition is down to covid-19 yet? Seriously, we are still flying blind on facts and clear knowledge but talking about an inquiry of the response. Hindsight doesn't apply either as there was absolutely no other differing projection than predicted Armageddon. The media frenzy scared everybody. The NHS emptied its hospitals with many going back to care homes without a test because it simply wasn't available. This situation has never happened before in living or documented memory unless you reference the great plague as a comparator. We've seen over 30,000 deaths. Compared to what? The predictive models have no reference either. Will the inquiry try to quantify how many deaths were avoided? Where are you going to get a baseline? Italy, Spain, Iran or African nations. We still have absolutely no idea whether their approach was 'the' factor which allowed differing reported cases and deaths.
As a country we chose a path of lockdown with the impact to our lives that will be poured over as much as the second world war. There is no urgency or immediate need for this inquiry other than saying 'we are doing something, we are having an inquiry' Set a date for 2023 and let's get this crisis over first.