The government has published draft terms of reference for the covid-19 inquiry. The next stage will be a four-week consultation on the terms of reference. The purpose of these meetings will be a final version of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference.
Can we trust the government after two years of the biggest brainwashing campaign of all time to review its own mistakes and crimes committed? Read our leaflet here that shows how much really needs to be investigated and who needs to be held accountable.
The following is the policy paper, published 10 March 2022 on the government website.
UK COVID-19 Inquiry: draft terms of reference (HTML)
The inquiry will examine, consider and report on preparations and the response to the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, up to and including the inquiry’s formal setting-up date. In doing so, it will consider reserved and devolved matters across the United Kingdom, as necessary, but will seek to minimise duplication of investigation, evidence gathering and reporting with any other public inquiry established by the devolved administrations.
The aims of the inquiry are to:
1. Examine the COVID-19 response and the impact of the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and produce a factual narrative account. Including:
In relation to central, devolved and local public health decision-making and its consequences:
preparedness and resilience;
how decisions were made, communicated and implemented;
the availability and use of data and evidence;
legislative and regulatory control;
shielding and the protection of the clinically vulnerable;
the use of lockdowns and other ‘non-pharmaceutical’ interventions such as social distancing and the use of face coverings;
testing and contact tracing, and isolation;
restrictions on attendance at places of education;
the closure and reopening of the hospitality, retail, sport and leisure sectors, and cultural institutions;
housing and homelessness;
prisons and other places of detention;
the justice system;
immigration and asylum;
travel and borders; and
the safeguarding of public funds and management of financial risk.
The response of the health and care sector across the UK, including:
preparedness, initial capacity and the ability to increase capacity, and resilience;
the management of the pandemic in hospitals, including infection prevention and control, triage, critical care capacity, the discharge of patients, the use of ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions, the approach to palliative care, workforce testing, changes to inspections, and the impact on staff and staffing levels;
the management of the pandemic in care homes and other care settings, including infection prevention and control, the transfer of residents to or from homes, treatment and care of residents, restrictions on visiting, and changes to inspections;
the procurement and distribution of key equipment and supplies, including PPE and ventilators;
the development and delivery of therapeutics and vaccines;
the consequences of the pandemic on provision for non-COVID related conditions and needs; and
provision for those experiencing long-COVID
The economic response to the pandemic and its impact, including government interventions by way of:
support for businesses and jobs, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, loans schemes, business rates relief and grants;
additional funding for relevant public services; and
benefits and sick pay, and support for vulnerable people.
2. Identify the lessons to be learned from the above, thereby to inform the UK’s preparations for future pandemics.
In meeting these aims, the inquiry will:
listen to the experiences of bereaved families and others who have suffered hardship or loss as a result of the pandemic. Although the inquiry will not investigate individual cases of harm or death in detail, listening to these accounts will inform its understanding of the impact of the pandemic and the response, and of the lessons to be learned;
highlight where lessons identified from preparedness and the response to the pandemic may be applicable to other civil emergencies;
consider the experiences of and impact on health and care sector workers, and other key workers, during the pandemic;
consider any disparities evident in the impact of the pandemic and the state’s response, including those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and equality categories under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as applicable;
have reasonable regard to relevant international comparisons; and
produce its reports (including interim reports) and any recommendations in a timely manner.
RESPOND to the Survey NOW
Baroness Hallett will consider people’s views on the draft Terms of Reference before recommending any changes to the Prime Minister. This will be done as quickly as possible.
See suggested 'model answers' and how to complete the form below.
To save you time, I have included guidance to make the process as straightforward as possible.
Some of the key omissions of the Covid 19 pandemic and Emergency Response Covid 2020 Bill have been identified and you can use the list provided below to help complete the form. Do not simply cut and paste the entire list, rather use it for ideas on content. It will be much more effective if everyone uses their own words. Obviously you can amend and add your own points to ensure your individual concerns are properly addressed.
Link to the Government Survey is HERE
[Open the link to the survey in a new window, and use the information below to help you complete the form]
You are submitting as an individual
Answer 2: you do not need to provide background about yourself
Its up to you, but I suggest NO
Question 3: (Page 1)
Answer 3: – respond ‘No’
Saying No gives you the opportunity to add in any of the pre-formed issues or to add your own in the next section - See Below
Question 4: This is where you can take ideas and inspiration from the list provided below:
Suggested list of omissions – please personalise your response for greater effectiveness
Mortality Data reporting: why did media only report covid deaths, rather than contextualise mortality in a general sense (e.g. daily cancer deaths, strokes, etc.).
The Science: Why was asymptomatic spread suddenly considered to be true and indisputable, in spite of it being completely at odds with all previous understanding of the spread of respiratory viruses? Who was responsible for this?
Children: Where is the focus on children in the inquiry, and the effects the government policies had on them? This must include from birth, as babies have been ignored completely in the current Terms of Reference.
Strategy: Why was the existing Pandemic Strategy jettisoned and replaced with lockdown of healthy population which had never been done ever before?
Behavioural Change: Why was the use of ‘Nudge’ & SPI-B used to continually promote fear instead of calming the anxiety levels of the population down? (the deleterious effects of anxiety on immune health being well established)
Media Advertising: Why was over half a billion pounds spent on media advertising campaigns, some of which had to be recalled? Also, which body is responsible for assessing the claims made in the government media campaign and what evidence was submitted to them? All advertising claims have to go through ASA so we would like to know how PHE were able to make the (false) claims that they did?
Media: Why did Ofcom announce that views different to the government position should not be given attention by broadcasters? Censoring ideas and questions that diverged from government policy was extremely dangerous.
Evidence: Why was only one institution’s (ICL, Neil Ferguson’s team) consistently used for modelling in spite of each scenario being inaccurate by orders of magnitude? Why were other teams and institutions not consulted?
Evidence: What were the criteria, who was driving the decisions and why was no cost/benefit analysis carried out for a. Lockdowns, b. Social distancing c. masks and d. border controls?
Death categorisation: Why was ‘tested positive within 28 days of death’ used rather than establishing dying directly from Covid (clinical observation of the patient)?
Death categorisation: Why was so little mention made of underlying health issues and co-morbidities as causative factors?
Evidence: Who was responsible for the decision to lock down the healthy population (unprecedented) rather than protecting highly vulnerable groups? What evidence was cited? What ongoing verification of evidence validity was done?
Vaccination: Why was the decision made to expand vaccinations to all age groups including children when it was clear that the risk-benefit equation did not add up in younger age groups based on epidemiology? Who was responsible for this change in policy and why?
Education: What evidence was used for keeping schools closed for so long? Clinical evidence did not back up the claim that children were primary drivers of spread. Evidence all pointed to most being nosocomial spread in hospitals.
Education: Why were NPIs such as social distancing and mask wearing continued when they were removed in the rest of the population? In higher education why did they continue to not offer (and many intend not to return to ) face- to-face education for so long?
PCR Tests - What evidence was there for the mass-testing of healthy children used, again with PCR tests not designed for diagnostics outside of clinical symptoms?
PCR Tests - Why was PCR mass-testing of a healthy population used when these are confirmatory diagnostic tests, not meant for this purpose?
Economy: Why were certain sectors (hospitality, health, travel) suspended for so long in the absence of any evidence that they were areas of transmission in healthy people?
Vaccine Passports: Why were they brought in – who drove this decision? This was never debated widely by the public. Vaccines did not prevent transmission so this measure was totally nonsensical.
NHS – why were beds reduced significantly during this period?
NHS - Why were the Nightingale Emergency Hospitals, constructed at a cost of millions never used?
Why were so many other illnesses not treated – why were services shut down leading to horrendous backlogs with cancer screening, dental emergencies etc.?
Mental Health: Why were impacts to people not considered when making decisions – especially Children?
Care Homes – why were vulnerable and elderly placed directly back into Care Homes when infected? Why were families prevented from seeing their loved ones? Why was social isolation not considered to be a risk factor?
Emergency Powers: Why was our Democracy and Parliament suspended? Looking at the epidemiological data from the time (age stratification of mortality), there was no justification for this.
Lockdown: Why was the Public Health Act used to implement a Lockdown? This needs to be amended to prevent a recurrence of immediate lockdowns ever again.
Parliamentary scrutiny – cost benefit analysis – not whipped into line without any consideration for costs risks and consequences
Evidence: What evidence was cited and used that led to the decision to implement Vaccine Mandates for Care Workers and NHS Staff, given we already knew vaccines did not stop transmission?
Evidence: Where is the cost-benefit analysis for the ongoing collateral damages from non-pharmaceutical interventions? If there isn’t one, why not? What steps are being taken to handle the consequences now?
For page 3, choose from the relevant suggestions below or add your own individualised ones
Why was the existing pandemic strategy discarded? What evidence or cost-benefit analysis was done to substantiate the government’s u-turn to implement an unprecedented lockdown?
Why were schools closed down? Who decided this and based on what clinical evidence? Investigate thoroughly the ongoing developmental damage to children. Assess QALY effects on the future generations due to educational and social disruptions.
Why were loved ones kept from seeing relatives in hospital and in Care Homes? Why has this persisted until the current time in spite of the inhumanity of the policies for those at the end of their lives?
The notion of asymptomatic spread: all NPIs hinge on this and there is no adequate evidence for it. The universal acceptance of this notion needs to be thoroughly investigated.
Use of PCR mass-testing on a healthy, non-symptomatic population. It is based on the wrong assumption (asymptomatic spread). What evidence was used before making the decision to implement this? Who was responsible and do they have conflicts of interest?
Investigation into the behavioural science (SPI-B) recommendations to intentionally raise fear levels of the general public. Why were psychologists disproportionately represented rather than other medical experts? How were these members selected? Many of the measures, such as mandating mask wearing and advertisements that exacerbated deep fear have consequences that will continue generations to come.
The use of masks. This policy has never done anything except propagate fear. We would like to know who said they were effective and why they changed the party line in July 2020. The lack of efficacy needs to be publicly admitted so people can feel safe in abandoning this totally useless and harmful practice. There needs to be a forensic inquiry into why masks were suddenly adopted (in lockstep across several nations) and who was in charge of this policy. Investigate any individual financial conflicts or that of their affiliated institution.
Health outcomes and mortality following the covid injections. Every single citizen who received the Covid injection should be followed up longitudinally for years in order to get a true assessment of the clinical picture. This should be compared with a comparable control group composed of the unvaccinated population. England is well placed to conduct this research due to having a large population who did not receive the injections. All health outcomes must be included (e.g. cancer incidence, auto-immune diseases, neurological damage and all other disorders that were flagged as signals in the Yellow Card System).
Page 4: answer ‘Yes’:
Please use the following to inform your answer (paraphrasing if possible)
A sufficient body of staff should be employed to allow adequate data handling for those submitting their stories and evidence of harm. We are aware that Christopher Chope MP has already received 100,000 emails documenting harms from the covid-19 injections. Each of these should be given the attention it deserves. In addition, a sufficient budget should be allocated to ensure that those harmed are compensated in a meaningful way.
Experts who were silenced from the start of the pandemic should now be meaningfully consulted (e.g. Collateral Global, HART Group, UsForThem, Law or Fiction and Together Declaration among others) in order to ensure there is a breadth of expertise and viewpoints in assessing the information gathered.
[Complete the form by signing the declaration]