X Close

Questions the Covid Inquiry must ask Can the hearings be rescued from groupthink?

As useful as a mask on a statue. (Christopher Furlong/Getty)

As useful as a mask on a statue. (Christopher Furlong/Getty)


and
February 28, 2023   5 mins

Do public inquiries ever deliver public satisfaction? Often, they provide more questions than answers. And rarely in a timely fashion. It took Chilcot seven years to produce his report into the Iraq war, after two previous whitewashes, and the Grenfell Tower inquiry took four and a half years to produce little more than a “merry-go-round of buck-passing” to the tune of £150 million in legal fees.

As two of the key preliminary hearings in the UK Covid Inquiry take place this week — two years after Boris Johnson said “we owe it to the country to produce answers in a reasonable timescale” — bereaved families and policy sceptics could be forgiven for thinking the whole thing is an excuse to kick controversies and failings into the long grass. Will this inquiry follow the pattern of previous ones and avoid the difficult questions?

There are already concerns. With the World Health Organization refusing to provide a statement of evidence, not all the relevant stakeholders are engaging with the process, while bereaved families already feel marginalised. But the Inquiry’s broad Terms Of Reference (TOR) are encouraging: decision-making, the availability and use of data, “legislative and regulatory control and enforcement”, “the use of lockdowns and other ‘non-pharmaceutical’ interventions (NPIs)”, the impact on mental health of the whole population, the specific impacts on young people and education, and the safeguarding of public funds are all included. As are questions of the treatment of Covid-19 in hospitals, care homes, and “the development, delivery and impact of therapeutics and vaccines”, alongside the consequences of the pandemic on provision of non-Covid treatments.

But how will the Inquiry address these issues? Will it simply reinforce the mainstream public and Government messaging — or will it provide a meaningful examination of this peacetime catastrophe? Given the current narrative regarding the most controversial of pandemic measures, “the use of lockdowns and other [NPIs]”, one might perhaps be allowed a little scepticism. That the UK failed to lock down soon enough is pretty much orthodoxy in policy circles. This was the conclusion in October 2021 of the Health and Social Affairs Select Committee, soon repeated by luminaries such as Jeremy Hunt — and trumpeted by Keir Starmer as early as April 2020.

A serious inquiry shouldn’t simply repeat the mantra — it should consider the novelty of the lockdown model (the WHO’s November 2019 pandemic preparedness report into NPIs did not mention the word “lockdown” once), as well as its long-term effectiveness. The TOR encourage the “reasonable regard of relevant international comparisons”, and it’s to be hoped that this is taken seriously. Italy’s national lockdown was the first in world history —  and yet it has one of Western Europe’s highest Covid death rates. South Africa’s was the strictest lockdown in Africa, and yet it has far and away the highest Covid death rate on the continent. Peru had one of the world’s strictest lockdowns in 2020, and now has the world’s highest Covid fatality rate.

So this inquiry should seek to understand how and why the world’s political and scientific establishment cohered around a completely untried and untested model for dealing with the Covid outbreak. It should attempt to connect this to some of the other themes in the TOR, especially the question of political decision-making, such as how and why did the UK’s scientific establishment depart from the previous consensus that, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said on March 13, 2020, “If you completely locked down absolutely everything, probably for a period of four months or more then you would suppress this virus… but when you do that and then you release it, it all comes back again.”

And it should seek to interrogate how and why the lockdown approach became unchallengeable, leading to a situation in which 40% of the deaths from Covid-19 in the Western world took place in the most vulnerable of all settings — care homes. Why did the Imperial College modellers’ predictions that the lockdown measures would see fewer than 6,000 people dying from Covid in the UK overestimate the effectiveness of these measures by something like 3,000%? And why was the UK’s pre-2020 pandemic planning — which emphasised balancing the costs and benefits of all interventions according to the principles of proportionality and flexibility, minimising the disruptions to everyday social and economic life, and protecting the vulnerable — thrown out of the window?

This core question should be connected to the broader impact on healthcare. Instead of protecting the NHS, did lockdowns produce the crisis we now see flooding the health service? Should more care have been focused on the vulnerable, while allowing the rest of society to continue as normal? Would this have then mitigated the damaging effects of lockdown on young people and societal mental health, as well as avoiding the immensely regressive consequences of school closures?

Although the effects of lockdown should lie at the heart of the Inquiry, there are other aspects of the pandemic which deserve scrutiny.

Why, for example, did the Government ignore the potential benefits of natural immunity, when evidence suggested early on that prior infection confers durable protective immunity in the case of SARS-CoV2, as confirmed by a study just published in The Lancet? The idea of letting the virus spread through those who were at low risk from it (the overwhelming majority of the population), allowing them to generate antibodies, while protecting high-risk groups, was a well-established epidemiological concept, and yet it was dismissed as outlandish, despite being initially advocated by Patrick Vallance.

Why, too, was compulsory universal masking adopted, despite the fact that no existing data supported the use of face-masking in the general population as a protective measure against respiratory viruses? Even the WHO had originally stated that “the wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risks” — including lulling elderly and at-risk people into a false sense of security by making them mistakenly believe they will be safe while wearing them. This has now been confirmed by meta-analysis published in January by Cochrane, widely considered the gold standard of healthcare data review. And what was the point in the use of mass testing for the general population, including in very low-risk children, at a massive cost, without evidence of individual or community-wide benefit from doing so?

The question of treatment is often ignored in the heated exchanges around Covid, but it also deserves serious examination. Why was so little research conducted into early at-home treatments for Covid? Based on existing drugs, these had apparently early benefits in reducing hospitalisations and deaths — which were subsequently confirmed in peer-reviewed studies (see here and here) — as early as March 2020. They were ignored, though, even after the publication of a first early treatment protocol based on efficacy and safety in the prestigious American Journal of Medicine in July 2020.

The potential of a number of early treatments was relatively unexplored, even though they might have worked well to prevent infection and illness. Instead, how many people ended up in hospital because all they were told, at the onset of the first symptoms, was to stay at home, rest, and in the case of a high fever to take paracetamol? And then, once they were in hospital, how many of those who developed serious respiratory issues perished because they were placed on mechanical ventilators? During the first wave, this became the mainstay of treatment for severe and critical cases of Covid-19; however, it soon become clear that a shockingly high number of patients put on ventilators ended up dying. It would later emerge that the use of pressurised oxygen was literally destroying patients’ lung sacs that were inflamed and damaged by the virus, and therefore unable to withstand the high pressure of mechanical ventilators. Why was the ventilation protocol maintained for months despite such appalling results?

Finally, why were fast-tracked, experimental, and, ultimately, little-known “next-generation” mRNA technology-based vaccines offered to everyone, including those at little risk from Covid, even though it was known that the vaccines didn’t prevent transmission, and were associated with serious side effects? Wouldn’t a focused, risk-based approach to vaccination have been more advisable?

There are serious questions to be asked about the management of this catastrophe. The scope of the inquiry is necessarily huge. But the politicisation of the debate around Covid is fraught. There are strong headwinds, built up during the initial years when the lockdown consensus was so powerful. But as the failings of the Covid policy response become ever clearer, let’s hope the the British public isn’t lumbered with yet another meaningless inquiry.

 


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

94 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

Here’s the real question, imo: even if the UK’s Covid Inquiry concludes that widespread lockdowns were harmful, that natural immunity is preferable to a novel type of vaccine (except for those most at risk), and that children should not be kept from school, does anyone believe that the country’s (and the world’s) response will be different if, Heaven forbid, another covid-like virus appears?

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Probably not, because if faced with a risk of unknown quantity the reflex is to try and save as many lives as possible through mitigation.

Frank Ott
Frank Ott
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

You mean the reflex is to control as many lives as possible on the flimsiest excuses.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank Ott

What do you mean ‘control as many lives as possible?’ How is thousands of people dying or not dying a flimsy excuse? Some of you folks have lost all perspective.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robbie K
Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

No Robbie, I suspect it you who have lost perspective (or is prepsective different – only joking).

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

No Robbie, I suspect it you who have lost perspective (or is prepsective different – only joking).

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank Ott

What do you mean ‘control as many lives as possible?’ How is thousands of people dying or not dying a flimsy excuse? Some of you folks have lost all perspective.

Last edited 1 year ago by Robbie K
michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

This was not mitigation, it was ‘grab the first piece of wood, it’s a crutch’. It was ‘trust the modelers, they know more than we do (proof of that – we don’t understand them)’. It was ‘ventilators must be working, only 50% of patients on them die’.
Mitigation would have been following the Great Barrington path. Crude mitigation was my advice to myself and those around me ‘don’t go to hospital, that’s where people die.’

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

The Great Barrington path was utterly ridiculous and completely incompetent, it would have resulted in tens of thousands of people needlessly dying and created a spectacular disaster.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

The Great Barrington path was utterly ridiculous and completely incompetent, it would have resulted in tens of thousands of people needlessly dying and created a spectacular disaster.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

It was known from Italian data in December 2019 that covid contributes to death of people already on a way out: over 80s and/or obese and diabetic and with multiple comorbidities.
For healthy people below age of 70 it was not a statistically relevant problem.
Hysteria fanned by MSM, Labour Party and LibDem drove us into lockdowns.
Big Farma pushed useless “vaccines” to make money.

Frank Ott
Frank Ott
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

You mean the reflex is to control as many lives as possible on the flimsiest excuses.

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

This was not mitigation, it was ‘grab the first piece of wood, it’s a crutch’. It was ‘trust the modelers, they know more than we do (proof of that – we don’t understand them)’. It was ‘ventilators must be working, only 50% of patients on them die’.
Mitigation would have been following the Great Barrington path. Crude mitigation was my advice to myself and those around me ‘don’t go to hospital, that’s where people die.’

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

It was known from Italian data in December 2019 that covid contributes to death of people already on a way out: over 80s and/or obese and diabetic and with multiple comorbidities.
For healthy people below age of 70 it was not a statistically relevant problem.
Hysteria fanned by MSM, Labour Party and LibDem drove us into lockdowns.
Big Farma pushed useless “vaccines” to make money.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

One suspects that the view the inquiry might take of the initial policy responses, when less was understood about the Virus, might be more sympathetic than later Policy decisions when we had more information and appreciation. But we’ll see…hopefully.

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

It was known from Italian data in December 2019 that covid was contributing to deaths of old and already ill.
So why government and MSM pushed total lies that covid effects anyone including children?
Governments knew from “vaccine” test results in January 2021 that efficacy is low and side effects serious, so why vaccines were pushed down age cohorts including children?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

It was known from Italian data in December 2019 that covid was contributing to deaths of old and already ill.
So why government and MSM pushed total lies that covid effects anyone including children?
Governments knew from “vaccine” test results in January 2021 that efficacy is low and side effects serious, so why vaccines were pushed down age cohorts including children?

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

You’ve hit the nail on the head, and unfortunately I doubt the response would be different in future.

One of the side effects of the kind of thinking encouraged by HSE protocols is that getting bad results following a grand gesture is more readily accepted than getting bad results following a commitment to the status quo. If you’re seen to have done something, your arse is (more) covered.

Patrick Nelson
Patrick Nelson
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Follow the money.

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

The general population were somewhat ignorant of what was happening; I do not believe they will allow it to happen again. Any response will be somewhat nuanced.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

It should be, because the response to this one was unprecedented. Covid was as claimed by the sceptics, not much worse than a bad flu, with the peculiarity that it was heavily skewed toward older sicker people than even the flu.
I had a virologist in the family during all this. Not any more, they’ve abandoned research and science, it’s no longer apolitical (if it ever was) but now it matters what you think, not what you discover and they were appalled at the misuse of data and techniques, in particular the PCR tests.
The things that this article doesn’t consider is that while Italy might have been the first ‘National Lockdown’ the concept came from China. It would be very interesting to discover who was responsible for the various Chinese reports on social media, AND what exactly was their intention. Try this still available video, and in particular move to the time points indicated and ask yourself – was this everyone’s experience of Covid? Not in the UK it wasn’t even despite SAGE’s attempt to terrify us all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycrqXJYf1SU
Try – 31m.38s  and 42m 49s to 43m
The above was clearly designed to terrify, then only question is to what end, and by whom? The video makers or the Chinese?
So Italy may well have some claim for a first, but it was China where the ideas began. Based on the videos above & such claims coming out of China, perhaps Italy could claim some justification. Though that means they took no notice of the data from the Diamond Princess. It was the perfect Petri dish and it didn’t end up a floating morgue.
The now infamous Furin cleavage site is also interesting. Even while declaring Trump was spreading false news when he said it came from a Wuhan lab, 2 of his main detractors, US Scientists, turned out to be exchanging private emails over the fact that the presence of the cleavage site suggested a gain of function experiment on a source virus. Though a quickly silenced Australian scientist had been pointing that out very early on in the pandemic.
So, DID all our Governments know equally early on that this got out of a Wuhan lab? Did they know it was a gain of function product, OR even worse did they fear it was a biological weapon?
What would you do IF you were in power and you believed a bio-weapon had got out of a lab? Even more to the point, what IF you knew that say, an ally, lets call them the USA, had funded such research and more than likely in the very lab in Wuhan that you thought had leaked?
This enquiry may well be a whitewash, which is a pity, as many people in high places need not only to be accused, but tried over what I would claim is criminal behaviour. Still, they’ll all be long gone in the 30 years, or in the case of Pfizer data, 75 years that will elapse before the truth will be released.
I think there are two parts to this, the part that should examine what Governments knew about lab release and what they thought had got out and the second part, about the catastrophic decisions and the failure to accept facts as they became clear just how catastrophic the initial decisions were.
One pointer regarding ‘The Science’ – at no time can a true scientist turn around and say ‘Denier’ as their response to questions or attacks on ‘The Science’. The attacks need to be addressed and refuted scientifically. Any scientist who responds to criticism with the accusation ‘denier’ is a fraud in my opinion.
Increasingly it appears the covid ‘cranks’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’ the BBC among others censored are now being proven right. Given that the censored includes many eminent scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, it is time we cleared out much of our Government Science departments and the BBC. Though scrapping the licence fee is probably the quickest and simplest answer to the problem of the BBC’s bias and regular ‘misinformation’.
I’d also love to see other MSM outlets required to print front page apologies for their ‘false news fact checkers.’

Dave Smith
Dave Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Excellent post. The inquiry is a complete waste of time. Until we know exactly how and where this started there is no point at all in it. I suspect like many others that we do know and always have done. The real harm is to trust in government and trust in the scientific method and in academia. That has probably gone for a long time and is not coming back.
.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Malone in his SubStack says we have been subjected to 5th gen PsyWar tactics. Sasha Latypova in her SubStack notes the vaccine was a product of US DoD activity to prepare for a biowar and all the contracts are via DoD funds for a demonstration where all liability is waived. The result is the fine Ed Dowd book and a video on Rumble with Carlson pointing out excess deaths but more critically the disability growth in working age, well educated people. The confluence of interests arriving around the pandemic needs to be examined by our leaders. Despite Fauci’s dreams of perpetual pandemics all to fund his operations, many are now revolted. The riches have been made from this one with us all in a huge experiment with denial everywhere. .

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

But why would USA found research on bio weapons in China if the most likely opponents of USA to use bioweapons would be China, Russia, North Korea and Iran?

Andrew F
Andrew F
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

But why would USA found research on bio weapons in China if the most likely opponents of USA to use bioweapons would be China, Russia, North Korea and Iran?

Dave Smith
Dave Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Excellent post. The inquiry is a complete waste of time. Until we know exactly how and where this started there is no point at all in it. I suspect like many others that we do know and always have done. The real harm is to trust in government and trust in the scientific method and in academia. That has probably gone for a long time and is not coming back.
.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Malone in his SubStack says we have been subjected to 5th gen PsyWar tactics. Sasha Latypova in her SubStack notes the vaccine was a product of US DoD activity to prepare for a biowar and all the contracts are via DoD funds for a demonstration where all liability is waived. The result is the fine Ed Dowd book and a video on Rumble with Carlson pointing out excess deaths but more critically the disability growth in working age, well educated people. The confluence of interests arriving around the pandemic needs to be examined by our leaders. Despite Fauci’s dreams of perpetual pandemics all to fund his operations, many are now revolted. The riches have been made from this one with us all in a huge experiment with denial everywhere. .

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

The enquiry will be an utter waste of time and money. Hallett is an establishment figure without the first hint of qualification for such a job.

The first test will be how she covers the non-existent preparation for the UK’s “number 1 risk”.

https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/pandemic-preparedness-in-the-uk

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

This is all so disappointing. There were many of us who saw the light (on this site and elsewhere) from early on – why is it that so many more millions of people were happy to be duped? That they simply trusted their governments, corporate media, big tech, large corporate and governmental organisations, big pharma and the like when it is patently obvious these are not entities without vested interests. Why were so many doctors, virologists, epidemiologists and other scientists silent? Many we know were fearful of losing their jobs – where were their morals and integrity? A lot of people defending this s/show have slunk off, but more by far treat this years long destruction, lying, manipulation, corruption and illogic like a ‘nothing burger’. This has changed my view of the morality and intelligence of humanity forever.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

“Most people would rather die than think and most do”*

How’s the beach?

(*BR.)

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

“Most people would rather die than think and most do”*

How’s the beach?

(*BR.)

Tonis Arro
Tonis Arro
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

I would certainly hope it would. And the first thing we need is an honest inquiry.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Probably not, because if faced with a risk of unknown quantity the reflex is to try and save as many lives as possible through mitigation.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

One suspects that the view the inquiry might take of the initial policy responses, when less was understood about the Virus, might be more sympathetic than later Policy decisions when we had more information and appreciation. But we’ll see…hopefully.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

You’ve hit the nail on the head, and unfortunately I doubt the response would be different in future.

One of the side effects of the kind of thinking encouraged by HSE protocols is that getting bad results following a grand gesture is more readily accepted than getting bad results following a commitment to the status quo. If you’re seen to have done something, your arse is (more) covered.

Patrick Nelson
Patrick Nelson
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Follow the money.

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

The general population were somewhat ignorant of what was happening; I do not believe they will allow it to happen again. Any response will be somewhat nuanced.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

It should be, because the response to this one was unprecedented. Covid was as claimed by the sceptics, not much worse than a bad flu, with the peculiarity that it was heavily skewed toward older sicker people than even the flu.
I had a virologist in the family during all this. Not any more, they’ve abandoned research and science, it’s no longer apolitical (if it ever was) but now it matters what you think, not what you discover and they were appalled at the misuse of data and techniques, in particular the PCR tests.
The things that this article doesn’t consider is that while Italy might have been the first ‘National Lockdown’ the concept came from China. It would be very interesting to discover who was responsible for the various Chinese reports on social media, AND what exactly was their intention. Try this still available video, and in particular move to the time points indicated and ask yourself – was this everyone’s experience of Covid? Not in the UK it wasn’t even despite SAGE’s attempt to terrify us all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycrqXJYf1SU
Try – 31m.38s  and 42m 49s to 43m
The above was clearly designed to terrify, then only question is to what end, and by whom? The video makers or the Chinese?
So Italy may well have some claim for a first, but it was China where the ideas began. Based on the videos above & such claims coming out of China, perhaps Italy could claim some justification. Though that means they took no notice of the data from the Diamond Princess. It was the perfect Petri dish and it didn’t end up a floating morgue.
The now infamous Furin cleavage site is also interesting. Even while declaring Trump was spreading false news when he said it came from a Wuhan lab, 2 of his main detractors, US Scientists, turned out to be exchanging private emails over the fact that the presence of the cleavage site suggested a gain of function experiment on a source virus. Though a quickly silenced Australian scientist had been pointing that out very early on in the pandemic.
So, DID all our Governments know equally early on that this got out of a Wuhan lab? Did they know it was a gain of function product, OR even worse did they fear it was a biological weapon?
What would you do IF you were in power and you believed a bio-weapon had got out of a lab? Even more to the point, what IF you knew that say, an ally, lets call them the USA, had funded such research and more than likely in the very lab in Wuhan that you thought had leaked?
This enquiry may well be a whitewash, which is a pity, as many people in high places need not only to be accused, but tried over what I would claim is criminal behaviour. Still, they’ll all be long gone in the 30 years, or in the case of Pfizer data, 75 years that will elapse before the truth will be released.
I think there are two parts to this, the part that should examine what Governments knew about lab release and what they thought had got out and the second part, about the catastrophic decisions and the failure to accept facts as they became clear just how catastrophic the initial decisions were.
One pointer regarding ‘The Science’ – at no time can a true scientist turn around and say ‘Denier’ as their response to questions or attacks on ‘The Science’. The attacks need to be addressed and refuted scientifically. Any scientist who responds to criticism with the accusation ‘denier’ is a fraud in my opinion.
Increasingly it appears the covid ‘cranks’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’ the BBC among others censored are now being proven right. Given that the censored includes many eminent scientists who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, it is time we cleared out much of our Government Science departments and the BBC. Though scrapping the licence fee is probably the quickest and simplest answer to the problem of the BBC’s bias and regular ‘misinformation’.
I’d also love to see other MSM outlets required to print front page apologies for their ‘false news fact checkers.’

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

The enquiry will be an utter waste of time and money. Hallett is an establishment figure without the first hint of qualification for such a job.

The first test will be how she covers the non-existent preparation for the UK’s “number 1 risk”.

https://johnsullivan.substack.com/p/pandemic-preparedness-in-the-uk

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

This is all so disappointing. There were many of us who saw the light (on this site and elsewhere) from early on – why is it that so many more millions of people were happy to be duped? That they simply trusted their governments, corporate media, big tech, large corporate and governmental organisations, big pharma and the like when it is patently obvious these are not entities without vested interests. Why were so many doctors, virologists, epidemiologists and other scientists silent? Many we know were fearful of losing their jobs – where were their morals and integrity? A lot of people defending this s/show have slunk off, but more by far treat this years long destruction, lying, manipulation, corruption and illogic like a ‘nothing burger’. This has changed my view of the morality and intelligence of humanity forever.

Tonis Arro
Tonis Arro
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

I would certainly hope it would. And the first thing we need is an honest inquiry.

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

Here’s the real question, imo: even if the UK’s Covid Inquiry concludes that widespread lockdowns were harmful, that natural immunity is preferable to a novel type of vaccine (except for those most at risk), and that children should not be kept from school, does anyone believe that the country’s (and the world’s) response will be different if, Heaven forbid, another covid-like virus appears?

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Ah, another Anthony Gormley-inspired article (not literally, of course).
A more pertinent question might be: when was the last time a Public Enquiry produced results in a timely manner without inordinately enriching the legal profession?
I doubt we’ll see much brought out from the Covid enquiry that isn’t already in the public domain. The only possible conclusion is already established: never again.
Anything else, and anything in between now and its conclusion is just hot, expensive air.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

“when was the last time a Public Enquiry produced results in a timely manner without inordinately enriching the legal profession?”

Never!
Perhaps the most notorious example being the 12 year, £190million, Saville Inquiry of 2010, that reversed the Lord Chief Justice Widgery enquiry of 1972.

Meanwhile we wait with bated breath for the Grenfell enquiry, whilst anticipating that the COVID enquiry will be the biggest whitewash in history since the Crucifixion.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
j watson
j watson
1 year ago

15 statutory Public Inquiries currently in process. Quite a range of subjects when you look through them.
And of those completed in last few years some quite quick – albeit clearly depends on the subject involved.
In general though thank goodness we live in a country where these can happen in an open and transparent way. The 2005 legislation focuses on them being ‘public’, establishing facts and preventing recurrence. Yep that’s as we’d hope.
Clearly though some take too long, cost too much and can get delayed by criminal proceedings etc. Bloody Sunday being a clear outlier (of course had we done it fair and right first time…but that’s a separate debate for another time)

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Agreed, our ‘openness’ and ‘transparency’ are to be applauded.

However we have a long way to go before we ever catch up with the astonishing Roman ‘quaestio de repetundarum’ ( Extortion Court) of the second century before Christ.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

‘non debemus dicere omnis error stultus est’. You’ll know who said that CH I’m sure.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Yes and of course he ‘made his name’ in the ‘quaestio de repetundarum’ with his memorable prosecution of Gaius Verres, former Proconsul of Sicily. (In Verrem.)

P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

ChatCPT seems to have overtaken poor old J Watson.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Yes and of course he ‘made his name’ in the ‘quaestio de repetundarum’ with his memorable prosecution of Gaius Verres, former Proconsul of Sicily. (In Verrem.)

P Branagan
P Branagan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

ChatCPT seems to have overtaken poor old J Watson.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

‘non debemus dicere omnis error stultus est’. You’ll know who said that CH I’m sure.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

“these can happen in an open and transparent way”

Lol. Dream on.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Agreed, our ‘openness’ and ‘transparency’ are to be applauded.

However we have a long way to go before we ever catch up with the astonishing Roman ‘quaestio de repetundarum’ ( Extortion Court) of the second century before Christ.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

“these can happen in an open and transparent way”

Lol. Dream on.

Andrew Roman
Andrew Roman
1 year ago

The purpose of a public inquiry is to delay any risk of criticism until after the politicians whose decisions are being examined have all left office.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

15 statutory Public Inquiries currently in process. Quite a range of subjects when you look through them.
And of those completed in last few years some quite quick – albeit clearly depends on the subject involved.
In general though thank goodness we live in a country where these can happen in an open and transparent way. The 2005 legislation focuses on them being ‘public’, establishing facts and preventing recurrence. Yep that’s as we’d hope.
Clearly though some take too long, cost too much and can get delayed by criminal proceedings etc. Bloody Sunday being a clear outlier (of course had we done it fair and right first time…but that’s a separate debate for another time)

Andrew Roman
Andrew Roman
1 year ago

The purpose of a public inquiry is to delay any risk of criticism until after the politicians whose decisions are being examined have all left office.

Patrick Nelson
Patrick Nelson
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

In the past 20 years public enquiries have mostly been coverups.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

We’re *already* doing it again, with the climate lunacy and net zero:

One sided sided “science” (neo-Marxist activism disguised as science), the complete lack of an overall strategy, ruthless suppression of any dissenting voices, profligacy with public money on a breathtaking scale, wilful ignorance of any and all collateral harms. Etc. Etc.

It’s *exactly* the same playbook by exactly the same idiots of the Long March apparatchik class.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Sullivan
Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

“in the public domain” – if only. The Trusted News Initiative ensured that the truth has been slow to arrive. But as people see themselves how they have been used, the anger is just beginning.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

“when was the last time a Public Enquiry produced results in a timely manner without inordinately enriching the legal profession?”

Never!
Perhaps the most notorious example being the 12 year, £190million, Saville Inquiry of 2010, that reversed the Lord Chief Justice Widgery enquiry of 1972.

Meanwhile we wait with bated breath for the Grenfell enquiry, whilst anticipating that the COVID enquiry will be the biggest whitewash in history since the Crucifixion.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Patrick Nelson
Patrick Nelson
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

In the past 20 years public enquiries have mostly been coverups.

John Sullivan
John Sullivan
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

We’re *already* doing it again, with the climate lunacy and net zero:

One sided sided “science” (neo-Marxist activism disguised as science), the complete lack of an overall strategy, ruthless suppression of any dissenting voices, profligacy with public money on a breathtaking scale, wilful ignorance of any and all collateral harms. Etc. Etc.

It’s *exactly* the same playbook by exactly the same idiots of the Long March apparatchik class.

Last edited 1 year ago by John Sullivan
Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Murray

“in the public domain” – if only. The Trusted News Initiative ensured that the truth has been slow to arrive. But as people see themselves how they have been used, the anger is just beginning.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

Ah, another Anthony Gormley-inspired article (not literally, of course).
A more pertinent question might be: when was the last time a Public Enquiry produced results in a timely manner without inordinately enriching the legal profession?
I doubt we’ll see much brought out from the Covid enquiry that isn’t already in the public domain. The only possible conclusion is already established: never again.
Anything else, and anything in between now and its conclusion is just hot, expensive air.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago

The answer to most of the questions posed in this piece is the same – the media. The Tory-hating, Boris-loathing media, having been shell-shocked by the result of the 2019 GE, were suddenly and unexpectedly presented with an opportunity to make life difficult for the Government.
Whatever the Government decided to do, the media would decide it was the wrong policy. The completely valid decision not to follow Italy and others into an immediate lockdown was a clear point of difference that the Opposition and the MSM could exploit. Faced with vituperative criticism (as in the daily No 10 pressers: “Are you a mass-murderer, Prime Minister?”, “Are you going to resign, Health Secretary?”), which was causing public opinion to waver, the Government lost its nerve.
Thereafter, every decision on lifting lockdown, re-opening schools, Tier restrictions etc, was taken through the prism of how will the media and hence the public respond, not what would be best, in the round, for the country. A craven response from the Government, true, but understandable, especially after Boris seemed to have the stuffing knocked out of him by his own brush with Covid.
Do the Enquiry TOR include the behaviour of the media? I doubt it but they should.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Yes, well said spot on!

In a former life when asked by a hack (journalist) “Are you a mass-murderer” I instantly replied “ No, are you?”. This seemed to throw her, before she replied “Off course not”, to which I replied “Really?”.
At which point the conversation ceased, and she slunk away.

The supine response by this Government is not I think understandable, but simply disgraceful and almost without precedent in my lifetime.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Yes, well said spot on!

In a former life when asked by a hack (journalist) “Are you a mass-murderer” I instantly replied “ No, are you?”. This seemed to throw her, before she replied “Off course not”, to which I replied “Really?”.
At which point the conversation ceased, and she slunk away.

The supine response by this Government is not I think understandable, but simply disgraceful and almost without precedent in my lifetime.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago

The answer to most of the questions posed in this piece is the same – the media. The Tory-hating, Boris-loathing media, having been shell-shocked by the result of the 2019 GE, were suddenly and unexpectedly presented with an opportunity to make life difficult for the Government.
Whatever the Government decided to do, the media would decide it was the wrong policy. The completely valid decision not to follow Italy and others into an immediate lockdown was a clear point of difference that the Opposition and the MSM could exploit. Faced with vituperative criticism (as in the daily No 10 pressers: “Are you a mass-murderer, Prime Minister?”, “Are you going to resign, Health Secretary?”), which was causing public opinion to waver, the Government lost its nerve.
Thereafter, every decision on lifting lockdown, re-opening schools, Tier restrictions etc, was taken through the prism of how will the media and hence the public respond, not what would be best, in the round, for the country. A craven response from the Government, true, but understandable, especially after Boris seemed to have the stuffing knocked out of him by his own brush with Covid.
Do the Enquiry TOR include the behaviour of the media? I doubt it but they should.

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago

The proper analysis of a worldwide panic reaction and manipulation by stakeholders in the shadows would dredge up far too many uncomfortable and disturbing stories and probable facts.

stephen archer
stephen archer
1 year ago

The proper analysis of a worldwide panic reaction and manipulation by stakeholders in the shadows would dredge up far too many uncomfortable and disturbing stories and probable facts.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Good list of issues and questions the Inquiry should (must) cover. We have to learn from this.
Of course the heart sinks at the thought of years of wrangling and obfuscation. But that can’t mean we don’t do this. Little has happened in our lifetimes as life changing as the Pandemic and thus essential we reflect and learn.
Many closed minds will already be putting fingers in ears, but the majority IMO want this done properly and effectively. We clearly made many mistakes. Let’s understand how that happened, listening to those who were faced with the immediate decisions without the benefit of hindsight, and grasp what we must do differently in future.

Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I don’t disagree with this, and no doubt there will be a lot to say. However in my mind the core point is this. ‘why did the UK’s scientific establishment depart from the previous consensus that, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said on March 13, 2020, “If you completely locked down absolutely everything, probably for a period of four months or more then you would suppress this virus… but when you do that and then you release it, it all comes back again.’
When you say, ‘we clearly made mistakes,’ who do you think is , ‘we.’
It is true I think that some people (including in the media) got into the habit of listening to the science they wanted to. For that matter the role of the media in my mind should absolutely be in the inquiry. But the UK, and other western countries, had plans for this. We had understanding and it all went straight out of the window in the name of not much more than keeping up with the Joneses. Vallance’s comment was I think absolutely vindicated. My wife is from Eastern Europe where in March 2020 they had very strong lockdowns and saw an almighty second wave – parts of Eastern Europe had extraordinary death rates in late 2020/early 2021. We imported lockdowns, ‘NPIs,’ masks, health codes and the like from the CCP with no real idea of what that meant.
You are right to say that mistakes were made, but to be meaningful any inquiry has to go over everything. Government, the scientists, the media, the data modellers, the vaccine plans. And a lot of people would probably find it very uncomfortable. Are scientists really willing and able to talk about how, ‘science by twitter,’ became so very vogue? Are we really ready to ask questions about sacking social care workers? It’s been quite something watching the media that shrieked, ‘do something,’ now criticising wastes of money.
You are right and already a lot of people have fingers in their ears and have already made their minds up and it is a shame. Perhaps what covid really will show up is that we now have, for whatever reason, far too little self-reflection. I dread to think how the society and the world we have now would have reacted to AIDS – compared to the generation before us we beclowned ourselves.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

I suspect Vallance et al are v willing to fully engage and smart enough to know it won’t be comfortable. But there will be things they haven’t been able to say or explain and I suspect they’ll welcome the opportunity. As scientists too they appreciate the reflection is part of how we make science better.
I suspect the politicians will be similarly prepared.
Agree with point about the media, albeit not simple lessons one suspects. Certainly though the bit about how some security services were unduly monitoring counter narratives should be covered and one hopes the Intelligence Select Cmtte already doing it’s job on this.
What we have to start off with though, and the legislation underpins this, is it’s about establishing facts and learning lessons. If it becomes too much about blame apportionment we risk losing the lessons. Won’t be easy to strike that balance.

Last edited 1 year ago by j watson
Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

I don’t disagree with this, and no doubt there will be a lot to say. However in my mind the core point is this. ‘why did the UK’s scientific establishment depart from the previous consensus that, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said on March 13, 2020, “If you completely locked down absolutely everything, probably for a period of four months or more then you would suppress this virus… but when you do that and then you release it, it all comes back again.’

Because that in itself is not a solution, it’s merely an observation. Someone had to make a decision on what to do, under huge pressure and with conflicting advice. When other countries are being seen to make those difficult decisions it’s naturally harder to go against their concensus, especially if deaths are increasing.

Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I don’t disagree with anything you or j watson say here. You both make reasonable points.
Vallance’s remarks were indeed an observation, but I don’t think it changes the fact that what followed represented at best a very sharp move away from established thinking and at worst being bounced. I know for certain that in Eastern European countries government scientists faced exactly the same pressures and quandries as did the UK government and the same questions are being asked.
To say the least I’m glad I wasn’t in Vallance’s place.
But I think this is the concern I’ve always had – ‘it’s naturally harder to go against their concensus, especially if deaths are increasing.’ OK – it’s hard to be the odd man out but I do think that the inquiry can reasonably ask how that consensus came about and how it was formed. As I said, the media in my view absolutely has questions to answer. The behaviour of some scientists on social media was reprehensible.
How exactly did the consensus on vaccination for under (say) 50s emerge, or the consensus on sacking unvaccinated social care workers. Was it risk aversion? Or something else? Was it doing it because others did? At time there seemed to be a disinclination to believe anything but the worst – again, how did that come about? I would add here that the medico-scientific aspects are one of several. For example how did the consensus that states should be paying furloughs come about?
I agree completely with j watson that the inquiry has absolutely got to avoid being an exercise in blame. I’m not trying here to attach blame – but if science and policy became a hostage to keeping up with the Joneses then the inquiry should say as much.
As I said earlier – how would we handle AIDS today?

Last edited 1 year ago by Sam Hill
Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

I don’t disagree with anything you or j watson say here. You both make reasonable points.
Vallance’s remarks were indeed an observation, but I don’t think it changes the fact that what followed represented at best a very sharp move away from established thinking and at worst being bounced. I know for certain that in Eastern European countries government scientists faced exactly the same pressures and quandries as did the UK government and the same questions are being asked.
To say the least I’m glad I wasn’t in Vallance’s place.
But I think this is the concern I’ve always had – ‘it’s naturally harder to go against their concensus, especially if deaths are increasing.’ OK – it’s hard to be the odd man out but I do think that the inquiry can reasonably ask how that consensus came about and how it was formed. As I said, the media in my view absolutely has questions to answer. The behaviour of some scientists on social media was reprehensible.
How exactly did the consensus on vaccination for under (say) 50s emerge, or the consensus on sacking unvaccinated social care workers. Was it risk aversion? Or something else? Was it doing it because others did? At time there seemed to be a disinclination to believe anything but the worst – again, how did that come about? I would add here that the medico-scientific aspects are one of several. For example how did the consensus that states should be paying furloughs come about?
I agree completely with j watson that the inquiry has absolutely got to avoid being an exercise in blame. I’m not trying here to attach blame – but if science and policy became a hostage to keeping up with the Joneses then the inquiry should say as much.
As I said earlier – how would we handle AIDS today?

Last edited 1 year ago by Sam Hill
j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

I suspect Vallance et al are v willing to fully engage and smart enough to know it won’t be comfortable. But there will be things they haven’t been able to say or explain and I suspect they’ll welcome the opportunity. As scientists too they appreciate the reflection is part of how we make science better.
I suspect the politicians will be similarly prepared.
Agree with point about the media, albeit not simple lessons one suspects. Certainly though the bit about how some security services were unduly monitoring counter narratives should be covered and one hopes the Intelligence Select Cmtte already doing it’s job on this.
What we have to start off with though, and the legislation underpins this, is it’s about establishing facts and learning lessons. If it becomes too much about blame apportionment we risk losing the lessons. Won’t be easy to strike that balance.

Last edited 1 year ago by j watson
Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

I don’t disagree with this, and no doubt there will be a lot to say. However in my mind the core point is this. ‘why did the UK’s scientific establishment depart from the previous consensus that, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said on March 13, 2020, “If you completely locked down absolutely everything, probably for a period of four months or more then you would suppress this virus… but when you do that and then you release it, it all comes back again.’

Because that in itself is not a solution, it’s merely an observation. Someone had to make a decision on what to do, under huge pressure and with conflicting advice. When other countries are being seen to make those difficult decisions it’s naturally harder to go against their concensus, especially if deaths are increasing.

Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I don’t disagree with this, and no doubt there will be a lot to say. However in my mind the core point is this. ‘why did the UK’s scientific establishment depart from the previous consensus that, as the Government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said on March 13, 2020, “If you completely locked down absolutely everything, probably for a period of four months or more then you would suppress this virus… but when you do that and then you release it, it all comes back again.’
When you say, ‘we clearly made mistakes,’ who do you think is , ‘we.’
It is true I think that some people (including in the media) got into the habit of listening to the science they wanted to. For that matter the role of the media in my mind should absolutely be in the inquiry. But the UK, and other western countries, had plans for this. We had understanding and it all went straight out of the window in the name of not much more than keeping up with the Joneses. Vallance’s comment was I think absolutely vindicated. My wife is from Eastern Europe where in March 2020 they had very strong lockdowns and saw an almighty second wave – parts of Eastern Europe had extraordinary death rates in late 2020/early 2021. We imported lockdowns, ‘NPIs,’ masks, health codes and the like from the CCP with no real idea of what that meant.
You are right to say that mistakes were made, but to be meaningful any inquiry has to go over everything. Government, the scientists, the media, the data modellers, the vaccine plans. And a lot of people would probably find it very uncomfortable. Are scientists really willing and able to talk about how, ‘science by twitter,’ became so very vogue? Are we really ready to ask questions about sacking social care workers? It’s been quite something watching the media that shrieked, ‘do something,’ now criticising wastes of money.
You are right and already a lot of people have fingers in their ears and have already made their minds up and it is a shame. Perhaps what covid really will show up is that we now have, for whatever reason, far too little self-reflection. I dread to think how the society and the world we have now would have reacted to AIDS – compared to the generation before us we beclowned ourselves.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

Good list of issues and questions the Inquiry should (must) cover. We have to learn from this.
Of course the heart sinks at the thought of years of wrangling and obfuscation. But that can’t mean we don’t do this. Little has happened in our lifetimes as life changing as the Pandemic and thus essential we reflect and learn.
Many closed minds will already be putting fingers in ears, but the majority IMO want this done properly and effectively. We clearly made many mistakes. Let’s understand how that happened, listening to those who were faced with the immediate decisions without the benefit of hindsight, and grasp what we must do differently in future.

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

The government, the opposition and the press created an atmosphere of fear and thus a majority of the population supported draconian methods to control Covid. This prolonged lockdowns and brought no sense of realism to the situation.
The same is happening with Ukraine. No emphasis is put on the fact that this conflict has devastated Western economies and has affected the lives of those living near the poverty line both at home and in under-developed countries.
If free speech is not given a platform to voice criticism of government policies, then we are on the way to becoming an autocracy which none of us would want..

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

The government, the opposition and the press created an atmosphere of fear and thus a majority of the population supported draconian methods to control Covid. This prolonged lockdowns and brought no sense of realism to the situation.
The same is happening with Ukraine. No emphasis is put on the fact that this conflict has devastated Western economies and has affected the lives of those living near the poverty line both at home and in under-developed countries.
If free speech is not given a platform to voice criticism of government policies, then we are on the way to becoming an autocracy which none of us would want..

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
1 year ago

We are caught in the inevitable trap between ‘we need an enquiry now’ and ‘you won’t get an independent view without the passage of time’
Those likely to be criticised by any enquiry are still in positions of power – so the enquiry will be delayed, obfuscated and otherwise corrupted.
And I suspect we – the general public – have long since made up our minds who the villains are and we don’t need a public enquiry to tell us!

Andrew Wise
Andrew Wise
1 year ago

We are caught in the inevitable trap between ‘we need an enquiry now’ and ‘you won’t get an independent view without the passage of time’
Those likely to be criticised by any enquiry are still in positions of power – so the enquiry will be delayed, obfuscated and otherwise corrupted.
And I suspect we – the general public – have long since made up our minds who the villains are and we don’t need a public enquiry to tell us!

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago

I believe there are several aspects to the Covid virus that created the environment of Lockdown, masking, non-use of theraputics and vaccine mandates.
The virus was viewed in the US as a escaped biowarfare weapon. Thus the Intelligence and Security Agencies were primarily put in charge with disasterous results.Big Pharma and the associated bureaucrats were able to control the Health environment such that improperly tested and exploratory vaccines were the only approved method of care for Covid sufferers. Thus making billions of dollars.The National Medical professionals (?) were all cowered into accepting the Government Panemic edicts with good reason for themselves as opposed to the Common good of the nation. It was virtually impossible to find a doctor who would disagree (also with disasterous results).The problem is now, we have lost all trust and confidence in the Government and Medical institutions. Natural medicines for me!

Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago

I believe there are several aspects to the Covid virus that created the environment of Lockdown, masking, non-use of theraputics and vaccine mandates.
The virus was viewed in the US as a escaped biowarfare weapon. Thus the Intelligence and Security Agencies were primarily put in charge with disasterous results.Big Pharma and the associated bureaucrats were able to control the Health environment such that improperly tested and exploratory vaccines were the only approved method of care for Covid sufferers. Thus making billions of dollars.The National Medical professionals (?) were all cowered into accepting the Government Panemic edicts with good reason for themselves as opposed to the Common good of the nation. It was virtually impossible to find a doctor who would disagree (also with disasterous results).The problem is now, we have lost all trust and confidence in the Government and Medical institutions. Natural medicines for me!

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago

haha….crazy article, come on Fazi… stop the Whys – and just tell us….

”Why did the Imperial College modellers’ predictions that the lockdown measures would see fewer than
”And why was the UK’s pre-2020 pandemic planning —”

”why were fast-tracked, experimental, and, ultimately, little-known “next-generation” mRNA”

”Why was the ventilation protocol maintained for months despite such appalling results?”

Why was so little research conducted into early at-home treatments for Covid?

”Why, too, was compulsory universal masking adopted, despite the fact”

and so on…

Does not the answer just shout out at you sheep???? Of course it does – the reason is the ‘NEW World Order’ took control of every developed Nation on the planet, and most undeveloped were forced along too – and they were Abused intentionally to further ‘The Great Reset’! To do so they used a created Bio-weapon called covid-19, and another bio-weapon called the ‘vax’, and having captured all the MSM, Social Media, Education, CofE, BofE, ECB, FED, IMF, WHO, BIS, EU, World Bank, UN…. you were led like sheep to be shorn….Next stop the abattoir. (world population is too high they say)

This was used to bankrupt the world, to move Trillions of dollars of created public debt into the hands of the wealthiest Global Elites. It was to get you to use e-passports, onto databases, to see how easy you sheep were to be terrorized into self harming when told to. It was to create rampant inflation to harvest all your pensions and savings and make you wards of the State when you can no longer afford food and lodging. It was to create a Global Depression and Hyperinflation. (coming next) It was to inject you with a genetic poison, it was a huge step on the short path to your total enslavement by our psychopathic overlords – the WEF.

Welcome to your 15 minute Pod city; now eat the bugs’

There you are Fazi – every ‘Why’ you asked; answered. Did you really not know this?

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

This would be a neat solution but c**k-up is more likely than conspiracy.

This doesn’t let the elites off the hook, far from it. Heads should roll.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

The last time ‘a head rolled’ was Charles I in 1649, although some might argue for Admiral Byng in 1757.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

The last time ‘a head rolled’ was Charles I in 1649, although some might argue for Admiral Byng in 1757.

Thomas Fazi
Thomas Fazi
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Why?

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Fazi

Why, in response to Gen Z blather, is indeed the only possible response!

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Fazi

Why, in response to Gen Z blather, is indeed the only possible response!

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

This would be a neat solution but c**k-up is more likely than conspiracy.

This doesn’t let the elites off the hook, far from it. Heads should roll.

Thomas Fazi
Thomas Fazi
1 year ago
Reply to  Elliott Bjorn

Why?

Elliott Bjorn
Elliott Bjorn
1 year ago

haha….crazy article, come on Fazi… stop the Whys – and just tell us….

”Why did the Imperial College modellers’ predictions that the lockdown measures would see fewer than
”And why was the UK’s pre-2020 pandemic planning —”

”why were fast-tracked, experimental, and, ultimately, little-known “next-generation” mRNA”

”Why was the ventilation protocol maintained for months despite such appalling results?”

Why was so little research conducted into early at-home treatments for Covid?

”Why, too, was compulsory universal masking adopted, despite the fact”

and so on…

Does not the answer just shout out at you sheep???? Of course it does – the reason is the ‘NEW World Order’ took control of every developed Nation on the planet, and most undeveloped were forced along too – and they were Abused intentionally to further ‘The Great Reset’! To do so they used a created Bio-weapon called covid-19, and another bio-weapon called the ‘vax’, and having captured all the MSM, Social Media, Education, CofE, BofE, ECB, FED, IMF, WHO, BIS, EU, World Bank, UN…. you were led like sheep to be shorn….Next stop the abattoir. (world population is too high they say)

This was used to bankrupt the world, to move Trillions of dollars of created public debt into the hands of the wealthiest Global Elites. It was to get you to use e-passports, onto databases, to see how easy you sheep were to be terrorized into self harming when told to. It was to create rampant inflation to harvest all your pensions and savings and make you wards of the State when you can no longer afford food and lodging. It was to create a Global Depression and Hyperinflation. (coming next) It was to inject you with a genetic poison, it was a huge step on the short path to your total enslavement by our psychopathic overlords – the WEF.

Welcome to your 15 minute Pod city; now eat the bugs’

There you are Fazi – every ‘Why’ you asked; answered. Did you really not know this?

Rich Thompson
Rich Thompson
1 year ago

Three questions the inquiry should ask.

1. Which OECD country had the lowest relative all-cause excess deaths? (Sweden)
2.Why did we not follow that approach? (a wider culture of sensationalism, censorship and short-termism)
3.How do we do better next time? (actually follow the science)

To share a relevant personal experience. My wife published three papers on covid19: on care home deaths, the impact of treatment interruptions and an analysis of high risk covid comorbidities with policy recommendations, very similar to the later focused protection approach.

In the latter paper, she studied the first 800+ death certificates in an EU country and analyzed the relative risks of each comorbodity for covid mortality. The findings showed that those with hypertension, diabetes, obesity and renal disease were at high risk and should be prioritized for protection and treatment, while those with strokes, cancer and heart disease were at much greater health risk from interruptions to treatments of their underlying condition.

One potential implicit interpretation of the data was that many covid deaths were questionably attributed, thus potentially downplaying the risks of treatment interruptions. Under questioning from journalists on the findings, the Health Minister agreed, made a statement that half the deaths may have been through people seeking treatment for conditions too late and changed the policy on classifying deaths (reversed weeks later by a new political party).

At the time the article was published, by pure coincidence of course, a distinguished Professor on the article was fired and another demoted. A journalist who wanted to write a piece also suddenly did not follow up.

One piece did appear that completely misinterpreted the study with sensationalist headlines about how all of these comorbidities ‘dramatically’ increase your risk for covid. No mention was made about the risks of interrupting other health sercices. Nobody who read even just the abstract could reasonably come to such a conclusion. They did correct it but the damage was done. The study, which took months, had thousands of views, the press piece, which took minutes, potentially millions of views.

There were good people in all positions, who took intelligent, principled data-driven decisions and cared about overall health. There were too many who took short-term political and commercial decisions, with little regard to the long-term impact and the truth.

We will only avoid these mistakes if politicians, scientists and journalists have the courage and integrity to tell the truth and citizens have the curiosity and temperament to take it.

Rich Thompson
Rich Thompson
1 year ago

Three questions the inquiry should ask.

1. Which OECD country had the lowest relative all-cause excess deaths? (Sweden)
2.Why did we not follow that approach? (a wider culture of sensationalism, censorship and short-termism)
3.How do we do better next time? (actually follow the science)

To share a relevant personal experience. My wife published three papers on covid19: on care home deaths, the impact of treatment interruptions and an analysis of high risk covid comorbidities with policy recommendations, very similar to the later focused protection approach.

In the latter paper, she studied the first 800+ death certificates in an EU country and analyzed the relative risks of each comorbodity for covid mortality. The findings showed that those with hypertension, diabetes, obesity and renal disease were at high risk and should be prioritized for protection and treatment, while those with strokes, cancer and heart disease were at much greater health risk from interruptions to treatments of their underlying condition.

One potential implicit interpretation of the data was that many covid deaths were questionably attributed, thus potentially downplaying the risks of treatment interruptions. Under questioning from journalists on the findings, the Health Minister agreed, made a statement that half the deaths may have been through people seeking treatment for conditions too late and changed the policy on classifying deaths (reversed weeks later by a new political party).

At the time the article was published, by pure coincidence of course, a distinguished Professor on the article was fired and another demoted. A journalist who wanted to write a piece also suddenly did not follow up.

One piece did appear that completely misinterpreted the study with sensationalist headlines about how all of these comorbidities ‘dramatically’ increase your risk for covid. No mention was made about the risks of interrupting other health sercices. Nobody who read even just the abstract could reasonably come to such a conclusion. They did correct it but the damage was done. The study, which took months, had thousands of views, the press piece, which took minutes, potentially millions of views.

There were good people in all positions, who took intelligent, principled data-driven decisions and cared about overall health. There were too many who took short-term political and commercial decisions, with little regard to the long-term impact and the truth.

We will only avoid these mistakes if politicians, scientists and journalists have the courage and integrity to tell the truth and citizens have the curiosity and temperament to take it.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Only one question really ” Where on earth did they find the ghastly little Malter Whitty?”

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Shouldn’t that be WALTER WHITTY?

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago

No. He reversed the capital letters on Walter Mitty.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

Thank you!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  michael harris

Thank you!

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago

No. He reversed the capital letters on Walter Mitty.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Shouldn’t that be WALTER WHITTY?

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Only one question really ” Where on earth did they find the ghastly little Malter Whitty?”

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago

This will never happen. It should. But such an inquiry would require too many powerful people to face a reckoning, and that can’t be allowed. These sorts of “inquiries” exist to prop up the aristocracy not tear it down. To pacify the masses, an elite head or two might publicly roll, only to be quietly re-employed 6 months later when no one’s looking.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago

This will never happen. It should. But such an inquiry would require too many powerful people to face a reckoning, and that can’t be allowed. These sorts of “inquiries” exist to prop up the aristocracy not tear it down. To pacify the masses, an elite head or two might publicly roll, only to be quietly re-employed 6 months later when no one’s looking.

Last edited 1 year ago by Brian Villanueva
Jonny Stud
Jonny Stud
1 year ago

40% of deaths were in care homes? I wonder which section of the population costs the Government the most….. no, surely not!

Jonny Stud
Jonny Stud
1 year ago

40% of deaths were in care homes? I wonder which section of the population costs the Government the most….. no, surely not!

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
1 year ago

Not a chance of any truth emerging from the enquiry. But just like the Covid over-reaction itself, some people will be getting rich off the back of it. Time for the lawyers to fleece the public now that politicians and their friends have had a good go.

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
1 year ago

Not a chance of any truth emerging from the enquiry. But just like the Covid over-reaction itself, some people will be getting rich off the back of it. Time for the lawyers to fleece the public now that politicians and their friends have had a good go.

Julian Pellatt
Julian Pellatt
1 year ago

A public inquiry lasting 3+ years. Supposedly aiming to learn from the experience to avoid the same mistakes – but actually seeking to apportion blame and guilt, which is how its conclusions will be read and used.
And whenever the pandemic rolls into town – it will be the same chaos and totalitarian rules all over again! Plus ça change!
The most important consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic was that it created the ideal conditions that enabled the Marxism-inpsired Woking Class elite to grab the levers of power at every level and to subjugate the population of the western democracies to unprecedented authoritarian suppression and restriction of personal liberties, with the cancelling of free speech and fundamental truth at the forefront of their onslaught. In the past four years we have experienced a paradigm shift in political philosophy and social management that will blight our lives ever more in the years, decades and centuries ahead.

Julian Pellatt
Julian Pellatt
1 year ago

A public inquiry lasting 3+ years. Supposedly aiming to learn from the experience to avoid the same mistakes – but actually seeking to apportion blame and guilt, which is how its conclusions will be read and used.
And whenever the pandemic rolls into town – it will be the same chaos and totalitarian rules all over again! Plus ça change!
The most important consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic was that it created the ideal conditions that enabled the Marxism-inpsired Woking Class elite to grab the levers of power at every level and to subjugate the population of the western democracies to unprecedented authoritarian suppression and restriction of personal liberties, with the cancelling of free speech and fundamental truth at the forefront of their onslaught. In the past four years we have experienced a paradigm shift in political philosophy and social management that will blight our lives ever more in the years, decades and centuries ahead.

Mark epperson
Mark epperson
1 year ago

Millions will be spent by every government and special interest group to “cover their ass”. It will resemble a “report” but it will be just spin dressed as a hard-hitting factual finding. The main finding will be some low-level bureaucrat or researcher is responsible, certainly not the folks in charge.

Last edited 1 year ago by Mark epperson
Neil Ross
Neil Ross
1 year ago

Can the hearings be rescued from groupthink?After reading about today’s proceedings (13/6/23) the answer is clearly NO! Even dragged up Brexit – Oh Dear

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago

Waste of time and money; all the armchair conspiracy theorists need to get a life and stop having their paranoid trivia ventilated at public expense.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

“All Quiet on the Irish Front” McCusker?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

“All Quiet on the Irish Front” McCusker?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago

Waste of time and money; all the armchair conspiracy theorists need to get a life and stop having their paranoid trivia ventilated at public expense.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

All so easy in restrospect is it not? Try making the high pressure decisions that affect hundreds and thousands of lives with little information and the spectre of their deaths on your hands.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Governments had 2+ years of thinking time.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Very easy actually, it just needs practice.

Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago

For example, one might work for many years in an organisation whose decisions affect unknowable but large numbers of people, those on the margin often quite dramatically especially as the magnitudes of the changes increase, so the costs and benefits of every decision need to be weighed up in advance in full awareness of the inherent uncertainty in the models and the frequency with which you encounter perverse outcomes. That way you’d be used to thinking in such terms when a crisis struck.

Some sort of job where you have to think about government policies perhaps, maybe with a specific focus on the health of the public as a whole. Did we have anyone on that before, during and since Covid?

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Watson
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

No.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

I bet the insurance industry would do a better job of deciding potential risks.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Undoubtedly.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

Undoubtedly.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago

I bet the insurance industry would do a better job of deciding potential risks.

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

I guess if these sort of people did exist, they would produce a very detailed and expensive pandemic plan, then talk about it briefly, panic and abandon it when a pandemic hits.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Walsh

Didn’t we have a National Pandemic Plan?
It was something like “nihil facere” or do nothing, and quite right to!

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago

We did and Public Health specialists.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Walsh
Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

Yes, there was a plan but they didn’t stick to it. The whole thing was an experiment to see what the government could get away with.

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago

We did and Public Health specialists.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paul Walsh
Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

Yes, there was a plan but they didn’t stick to it. The whole thing was an experiment to see what the government could get away with.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Walsh

Didn’t we have a National Pandemic Plan?
It was something like “nihil facere” or do nothing, and quite right to!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

No.

Paul Walsh
Paul Walsh
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Watson

I guess if these sort of people did exist, they would produce a very detailed and expensive pandemic plan, then talk about it briefly, panic and abandon it when a pandemic hits.

Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

What are you two on about? Practice? Thinking time? They had niether, decisions had to be made under intense pressure with conflicting information.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

They panicked despite years of preparation.
A classic case of funk if ever there was one.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago

The last proper “practice” the UK government had for such an event was the Cygnus exercise in 2016 based on an influenza virus like H2N2.
There were 22 recommendations after this exercise of which, looking at the list, few or none were acted upon.
Most critically nothing was done re: social care capacity / resilience.
So in 2020, they had to make it up as they went along.
How little useful information they were able to glean from anyone at the begining is writ large in the SAGE minutes available for all to view starting on Jan 22 : https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sage-meetings-january-2020

Last edited 1 year ago by Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank you for that interesting link.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Thank you for that interesting link.

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago

The last proper “practice” the UK government had for such an event was the Cygnus exercise in 2016 based on an influenza virus like H2N2.
There were 22 recommendations after this exercise of which, looking at the list, few or none were acted upon.
Most critically nothing was done re: social care capacity / resilience.
So in 2020, they had to make it up as they went along.
How little useful information they were able to glean from anyone at the begining is writ large in the SAGE minutes available for all to view starting on Jan 22 : https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/sage-meetings-january-2020

Last edited 1 year ago by Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Why were there so many people that knew what the government was doing was bad public policy. There was a lot of literature around, even in the early stages, as to who the vunerable were and what was expected mortality rates. If just a member of the public, like myself, knew; then so did the government.

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

So just supposing the Government had taken this information on board, what do you think they should have done differently ?
Shielding the vulnerable. So lets see how big that problem would be for the UK :
If you were going to really protect care home residents you would have had to ensure that all their carers and any visitors didn’t meet anyone else – that is that the care homes and their staff were kept in their own bubbles (not mixing with their families) until all the elderly inmates were vaccinated.
1.49 million people in the UK are in receipt of adult social care (private and NHS and Local authority and direct payment recipients). According to Satista about 490,000 of these are in care homes. There are 1.52 million social care workers (potential transmitters to this vulnerable population).
This doesn’t include those that are being cared for by immediate family members about 13.6 million informal carers according to this paper :
COVID-19 and UK family carers: policy implications
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215036621002066#!
In addition.
The population at risk of severe COVID-19 (aged ≥70 years, or with an underlying health condition with a fully adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of getting severe covid of 1.13 or greater) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals.
34% of households in the UK are multigenerational – 9 million homes.
According to the Actuaries Friday report # 51 : Priority Groups 1 to 9 i.e. over 50s, Health & Care Staff, Extremely Clinically Vulnerable and “At Risk” amounts to around 31m people.
Big numbers. The UK is an old, sick country.

Last edited 1 year ago by Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

“The UK is an old, sick country.”

Precisely, then let ‘nature’ take its course, survival of the fittest is the rational option.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago

Your entire argument is based on the complete false premise of asymptomatic transmission. But that is a red herring and has absolutely no biological plausibility. The solution of care homes would have been simple and require no testing. All that was required is to tell all carers that if they had any symptoms, no matter how small, of an upper respiratory tract infection, they should stay home until better (say 10 days). That would have solved the issue and protected the residents of elder care homes.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

“The UK is an old, sick country.”

Precisely, then let ‘nature’ take its course, survival of the fittest is the rational option.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago

Your entire argument is based on the complete false premise of asymptomatic transmission. But that is a red herring and has absolutely no biological plausibility. The solution of care homes would have been simple and require no testing. All that was required is to tell all carers that if they had any symptoms, no matter how small, of an upper respiratory tract infection, they should stay home until better (say 10 days). That would have solved the issue and protected the residents of elder care homes.

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Lee

So just supposing the Government had taken this information on board, what do you think they should have done differently ?
Shielding the vulnerable. So lets see how big that problem would be for the UK :
If you were going to really protect care home residents you would have had to ensure that all their carers and any visitors didn’t meet anyone else – that is that the care homes and their staff were kept in their own bubbles (not mixing with their families) until all the elderly inmates were vaccinated.
1.49 million people in the UK are in receipt of adult social care (private and NHS and Local authority and direct payment recipients). According to Satista about 490,000 of these are in care homes. There are 1.52 million social care workers (potential transmitters to this vulnerable population).
This doesn’t include those that are being cared for by immediate family members about 13.6 million informal carers according to this paper :
COVID-19 and UK family carers: policy implications
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2215036621002066#!
In addition.
The population at risk of severe COVID-19 (aged ≥70 years, or with an underlying health condition with a fully adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of getting severe covid of 1.13 or greater) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals.
34% of households in the UK are multigenerational – 9 million homes.
According to the Actuaries Friday report # 51 : Priority Groups 1 to 9 i.e. over 50s, Health & Care Staff, Extremely Clinically Vulnerable and “At Risk” amounts to around 31m people.
Big numbers. The UK is an old, sick country.

Last edited 1 year ago by Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

They panicked despite years of preparation.
A classic case of funk if ever there was one.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Peter Lee
Peter Lee
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Why were there so many people that knew what the government was doing was bad public policy. There was a lot of literature around, even in the early stages, as to who the vunerable were and what was expected mortality rates. If just a member of the public, like myself, knew; then so did the government.

Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago

For example, one might work for many years in an organisation whose decisions affect unknowable but large numbers of people, those on the margin often quite dramatically especially as the magnitudes of the changes increase, so the costs and benefits of every decision need to be weighed up in advance in full awareness of the inherent uncertainty in the models and the frequency with which you encounter perverse outcomes. That way you’d be used to thinking in such terms when a crisis struck.

Some sort of job where you have to think about government policies perhaps, maybe with a specific focus on the health of the public as a whole. Did we have anyone on that before, during and since Covid?

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Watson
Robbie K
Robbie K
1 year ago

What are you two on about? Practice? Thinking time? They had niether, decisions had to be made under intense pressure with conflicting information.

Tom Watson
Tom Watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

Yes, that’s probably the conclusion the enquiry will draw. Shame they’re going to have to set a few hundred million pounds on fire to get there.

But it is nice to see that “OK you may have been right all along, but you weren’t in charge at the time so it doesn’t count!” is the last argument your lot have left.

Pascal Bercker
Pascal Bercker
1 year ago
Reply to  Robbie K

You ask an obvious question and make a sensible observation. What I find fascinating is why you should be getting so many downvotes for stating more or less the obvious. When it came to the vaccine, my own decision was easy enough to make, but I had to help someone close to me to decide and advise her on what to do, and suddenly what was obvious and easy for me became agonizing, always second-guessing myself, thinking “and what if I’m wrong and my sister dies and it’s my fault because I gave her the wrong advice?”

Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 year ago
Reply to