Covid consensus

SIR – While I support Matt Ridley’s plea for a “faster and cheaper” Covid inquiry (“The six lockdown questions we need answers to”, Comment, March 17), there is one vital question that needs to be added to his list.

Why did the scientific community abandon its core guiding principles of integrity of knowledge, openness and respect of challenge? “Cancelling” those scientists who, with sound scientific evidence, dared to challenge the consensus, is one of the abiding shames of our Covid response – one that must never be repeated.

Dr David Slawson

Nairn

SIR – Matt Ridley asserts that the Covid Inquiry is “assuming it knows what went wrong – that we locked down too late”. Yet Baroness Hallett, the chair of the inquiry, has stated repeatedly that she is yet to reach any conclusions and is not acting on any assumptions. She will consider all the material that has been provided, including both oral and written evidence.

Mr Ridley outlines where he feels the inquiry is giving insufficient attention. However, most of the areas he highlights have either already been covered during our investigations or are set to be covered in future investigations.

Baroness Hallett does not intend for this inquiry to run and run. Nonetheless, the public deserves a serious, thorough and comprehensive examination of the UK’s planning for and response to the pandemic.

The inquiry will produce timely and detailed recommendations as we progress. The first report will be published this summer, with public hearings set to conclude in 2026.

Ben Connah

Secretary, UK Covid-19 Inquiry London W2