Open Letter Criticizes 'Biases' of UK COVID Inquiry

Facts

Dr. Kevin Bardosh, of the University of Edinburgh, and Prof. Sunetra Gupta, of Oxford University, wrote a letter accusing the UK government's COVID Inquiry of being biased in favor of 'bereaved family groups' and against those who were harmed by pandemic policies.¹
The letter, signed by 55 academics, claims the inquiry lacks 'neutrality,' resulting in 'predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time.' It says the government has neglected to hear evidence from victims of pandemic policies or scientists who opposed them.²
The signatories claim that before 2020, the 'consensus' on 'non-pharmaceutical interventions' like lockdowns said such policies were ineffective and could 'cause substantial harm to society.' However, the inquiry, 'assumes that these measures are effective and appropriate.'¹
The authors say the inquiry'has not seriously questioned the hypotheses and assumptions' used by the government, including by modelers whose data supported pandemic policies.¹
They believe the next segments of the inquiry, which they point out has cost an estimated £300-500M ($383-639M), should include 'a much broader range of scientific experts with more critical viewpoints.'¹
An inquiry spokesman said the investigation has included opposing scientific views and will continue to do so regarding 'the impact of lockdowns,' 'key scientific and policy questions,' and 'health and wellbeing.'²

Establishment-critical narrative, as provided by The Telegraph. Not only has this inquiry ignored world-leading epidemiologists critical of lockdowns, but its treatment of the few it has called upon has been confrontational. COVID infection rates were falling before lockdowns, which shows what little scientific rigor the government has and continues to put into this issue. What's worse, the inquiry didn't originally plan to include the topic of children until parents protested.
Pro-establishment narrative, as provided by Guardian. This inquiry has been rigorous and detailed in its socially- and medically-focused scientific pursuits. While some still claim that the government did too much in response to the virus outbreak, what this investigation has found is that leaders such as former Prime Minister Boris Johnson were too slow to act and thus left the elderly population at fatal risk. The public health community followed the best available science at the time.