The chair of the coronavirus inquiry has rejected an application by HSE to keep the identities of two junior clinicians confidential.

Lawyers for the UKHSA applied for an order suppressing the publication of their names, arguing they risked abuse and harassment on social media and in person.

Both men attended an infection prevention and control (IPC) group meeting to discuss guidance on masks and personal protective equipment (PPE) during the pandemic.

Baroness Hallett ruled that their names could be published in the minutes because the public interest in reporting on the group's work outweighed any risks.

From February 2020 until its disbandment in 2022, the IPC group drafted guidance on the use of personal protective equipment in healthcare settings and was made up of clinicians and officials from the NHS, government and public health agencies such as Public Health England Formed, then health secretary Matt Hancock was replaced by UKHSA in 2021.

Critics say the IPC panel moved too slowly to strengthen its recommendations on personal protective equipment after it became clear that the coronavirus could spread through tiny particles in the air.

The Covid-19 Airborne Transmission Coalition (CATA), a group of healthcare organizations and individuals working to strengthen guidance, described it as a "shadow" organization with "unclear" accountability structures.

The UKHSA said the "intense and aggressive" public discussion around the subject meant it was "highly likely" that junior staff would face online abuse if they were named in the minutes published as a result of the investigation.

A 2022 social media post accused the IPC panel of having "the blood of many innocent COVID victims" on its hands, adding: "We will not forgive. We will not forget."

Another, from early 2022, called the group "pure psychopaths."

Baroness Hallett said in her ruling She "opposes such attacks and abuse of any public servant in the discharge of his duties."

But the IPC panel's work is important to her investigation and the public should be able to fully assess the evidence, including the names and qualifications of those involved in the meeting.

"Overall, I do not believe that disclosing the identities of applicants would cause them objective harm or harm," she said.

Eight media organizations, led by the Guardian, believe it is in the public interest to know who was involved in the decision-making.

Mistreatment of scientists, medical staff and other officials involved in the pandemic response has been a theme throughout the coronavirus investigation.

Last week, Dame Ruth May, who was England's chief nurse from 2019 to July 2024, spoke of the impact of "pretty horrific" comments online.

"Sometimes you have to make decisions, or be involved in decisions, and that means you can be vilified, especially on social media," she said.

In June 2023, Chief Medical Officer of England, Professor Sir Chris Whitty said in his evidence Abuse and threats against independent scientists could undermine responses to future health crises.

He will give evidence to the inquiry for a third time later on Thursday.

In November 2023, Professor Jonathan Van Tam, Sir Chris’s former deputy, Told inquest his own family had been threatened with 'throats cut' during pandemic.