When a public inquiry costs millions of pounds and spans years of evidence, most people expect it to provide closure. I wasn’t expecting perfection — science is rarely tidy, particularly after a pandemic — but I did expect the Inquiry to confront the hardest questions directly. Instead, I kept returning to a different thought. Perhaps the biggest lessons from COVID are not hidden in the answers the Inquiry gave, but in the questions it left largely unexplored.
That became clearer when I sat down with Dr Ros Jones, a retired consultant paediatrician with four decades of NHS experience who has questioned aspects of the UK’s pandemic response since the earliest months of COVID. Long before the Inquiry began, she and colleagues had submitted evidence to regulators about vaccinating children, yet much of that work never surfaced publicly during the hearings. Our discussion wasn’t about reopening old arguments. It was about whether the Inquiry examined the issues that matter most if we genuinely want to improve public health.
The Inquiry Looked at Governance More Than Biology
Reading the report, I was struck by how much attention went to regulatory process, communication, procurement and organisational decision-making. Those things matter, but they are not the same as understanding biology. If someone develops myocarditis after vaccination, the obvious next question is not simply how often it occurs, but why. What mechanisms are involved? Could there be subclinical cases? Are some people genetically or immunologically more susceptible, and how might future vaccines identify them before exposure rather than after? These are the questions that move medicine forward, yet I found relatively little exploration of the underlying mechanisms. It became a recurring theme in our conversation. Ros argued that understanding mechanism is essential if medicine hopes to minimise future harm rather than merely count recognised complications after they occur.
UK COVID Inquiry - Vaccines and therapeutics (Module 4) >
Children Forced Us to Think Differently
One of the most uncomfortable questions throughout the pandemic concerned children. Very early on it became apparent that healthy children were generally at low risk from severe COVID compared with older adults. That shaped Ros’s thinking almost immediately, drawing on both her paediatric experience and earlier pandemic planning, and once it became clear, the ethical calculation changed. Medicine has always worked from a simple principle: interventions in children should primarily benefit the child.
As the programme expanded, however, much of the public messaging shifted towards protecting wider society — reducing transmission and shielding vulnerable adults rather than delivering direct clinical benefit to the individual child. Ros regarded that shift as one of the defining ethical issues of the pandemic response. Whether or not one agrees, it deserved sustained examination. Instead, children occupied a surprisingly small part of the Inquiry, despite becoming one of the most contentious aspects of the vaccination programme.
Prior Infection Never Really Became Central
Another issue kept returning as I worked through the evidence. By the later stages of the pandemic, millions of people had already been infected. Natural infection changes immunity; hybrid immunity changes it again. Yet much of the policy discussion continued to sort populations by age and clinical vulnerability alone, rather than folding previous infection into a more individualised assessment of benefit and risk.
That feels like a missed opportunity. One lesson I think medicine should take from COVID is that immunity is not binary. It evolves, and future vaccination strategies need to reflect that complexity rather than assuming identical starting points for everyone.
Trust Cannot Be Rebuilt by Communication Alone
Perhaps the biggest surprise wasn’t scientific but psychological. Before COVID, vaccine hesitancy occupied a relatively small corner of public debate; afterwards, it became mainstream. That change cannot simply be explained by misinformation. People accept uncertainty remarkably well when they believe they are being treated honestly.
What they struggle to accept is certainty that later has to be quietly revised. The Inquiry discusses communication at length, but I think it underestimates how trust is actually built. Trust comes from transparency: from acknowledging uncertainty early, admitting when the evidence changes, and allowing legitimate scientific disagreement without immediately assuming bad faith.
Medicine Needs Better Risk Stratification
One theme emerged repeatedly during our discussion: not everyone responds to medicines in the same way. That is obvious in almost every other area of medicine, yet during COVID vaccination policy often treated enormous populations as though the benefit-risk calculation were essentially uniform. I increasingly think future programmes should move towards identifying susceptible subgroups rather than assuming one schedule fits everyone.
Ros made a similar point about future vaccine research. Her concern was not that vaccination should be abandoned, but that properly designed studies might identify children or individuals who need different schedules, or different approaches altogether. Better risk stratification, she argued, would reduce harm rather than undermine vaccination — which strikes me as an entirely reasonable scientific question.
What Happened to the Missing Voices?
One part of our discussion was procedural rather than scientific. Ros described preparing an extensive witness statement after being invited to submit evidence. In the end, neither she nor several other groups who had submitted statements were called to give oral evidence, and she notes that her statement was not published alongside many others. Whether or not one agrees with every argument those submissions contained is almost beside the point. Public inquiries build confidence when people can see difficult evidence being examined openly — not by appearing to avoid uncomfortable conversations.
The Real Lesson Is Bigger Than COVID
Reading the Inquiry, I was reminded of something medicine sometimes forgets. Our goal is not to prove that earlier decisions were right, nor that they were wrong. It is to understand reality more accurately than we did before. COVID forced extraordinary decisions under extraordinary circumstances, many made with incomplete information. That is understandable.
What matters now is whether we are willing to investigate the questions that remain. How do we identify the people most likely to benefit, and those at greatest risk? How do we communicate uncertainty without destroying confidence? How do we investigate biological mechanisms instead of stopping at statistical associations? And perhaps most importantly, how do we build a scientific culture where asking difficult questions is recognised as part of good medicine rather than mistaken for opposition to it?
Those are the questions I hope define the next chapter. If the greatest legacy of the pandemic is simply another report on a shelf, we will have learned remarkably little. If instead it drives us to ask better questions, something genuinely valuable may still emerge from it.
Timecodes
0:00 Introduction
1:15 Why revisit the COVID vaccine debate?
2:48 Dr Roz Jones’ NHS career and pandemic planning experience
7:50 Why children changed the COVID conversation
13:20 The UK COVID Inquiry and missing evidence
20:40 Childhood vaccination and benefit-risk assessment
28:15 Pregnancy, neonatal outcomes and surveillance
37:20 Vaccine injury and clinical recognition
45:10 Public trust, regulation and transparency
53:00 What should change before the next pandemic?
58:30 Final reflections and audience questions
Vejon COVID-19 Review is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
