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?
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.
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.
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.’
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.
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.
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.
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.’
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.’
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.
.
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. .
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?
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?
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.
.
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. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.’
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.
I would certainly hope it would. And the first thing we need is an honest inquiry.
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
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.
“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.
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)
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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)
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.
“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.
“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.
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.
“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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
1 year ago
Only one question really ” Where on earth did they find the ghastly little Malter Whitty?”
Only one question really ” Where on earth did they find the ghastly little Malter Whitty?”
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 months 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
10 months 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.
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 10 months ago by Mark epperson
Neil Ross
10 months 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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?”
The issue is actually very simple. It is one thing to pursue policies initially that were projected to be helpful; it is quite another to pursue these when these policies were clearly ineffective and not impacting the course of the pandemic. That should have been obvious to anybody with open eyes the moment the second COVID wave appeared. Exactly the same arguments apply to vaccination. When they first came out they looked very promising, although, neither Pfizer or Moderna released their full trial data. But when it was clear that the vaccines were nowhere near as effective as advertised and that severe adverse events were going through the roof, it was absolutely criminal to mandate the vaccines and then extend their use to 6 month old babies. That is outrageous and equally outrageous is that the CDC and FDA are just doubling down on a major blunder of epic proportions. Far better to admit right away when things re not quite going as they should have done. And incidentally, the full Pfizer and Moderna trial results should have been made available right away because the number of deaths in the vaccine arm was greater than in the control arm. So much for prevention of hospitalization and death. After all it does one no good to have a vaccine that purportedly prevents one from getting COVID (which it didn’t) or reduces death from COVID only to have it increase the risk of death from other issues (e.g. cardiovascular and strokes).
I guess many people were frustrated with the circumstances so instead of taking an objective point of view they have succumbed to the cynical, the emotive and the conspiratorial. Just read some of the other responses and you’ll see how folks have convinced themselves in ridiculous ways.
The issue is actually very simple. It is one thing to pursue policies initially that were projected to be helpful; it is quite another to pursue these when these policies were clearly ineffective and not impacting the course of the pandemic. That should have been obvious to anybody with open eyes the moment the second COVID wave appeared. Exactly the same arguments apply to vaccination. When they first came out they looked very promising, although, neither Pfizer or Moderna released their full trial data. But when it was clear that the vaccines were nowhere near as effective as advertised and that severe adverse events were going through the roof, it was absolutely criminal to mandate the vaccines and then extend their use to 6 month old babies. That is outrageous and equally outrageous is that the CDC and FDA are just doubling down on a major blunder of epic proportions. Far better to admit right away when things re not quite going as they should have done. And incidentally, the full Pfizer and Moderna trial results should have been made available right away because the number of deaths in the vaccine arm was greater than in the control arm. So much for prevention of hospitalization and death. After all it does one no good to have a vaccine that purportedly prevents one from getting COVID (which it didn’t) or reduces death from COVID only to have it increase the risk of death from other issues (e.g. cardiovascular and strokes).
I guess many people were frustrated with the circumstances so instead of taking an objective point of view they have succumbed to the cynical, the emotive and the conspiratorial. Just read some of the other responses and you’ll see how folks have convinced themselves in ridiculous ways.
It is one thing to make decisions early on based on the need to appear to do “something”. It is quite another to continue on with such interventions when it is clear to anybody with eyes that they were useless. Further, it was completely dishonest to talk about flattening the curve without pointing out that the area under the curve remains unchanged no matter what one does. So the only rational for attempting to flattening the curve is to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. Now, while the healthcare systems in the US and UK may have been stretched in the 1st two months of the “pandemic” (although not so evident given that NYC which was very badly hit initially did not need to make use of the Jaffitz center or the Mercy Hospital ship for extra beds), this was certainly not the case from say May 2020 onwards, at which point insane and unproductive policies should have been dropped like a hot potato.
The unfortunate fact is that the behavior of 3 letter agencies in the US (more letters in the UK!) and public health officials was such that it will take a very very long time, if ever, to regain the public’s trust.
“this was certainly not the case from say May 2020 onwards,”
Not in the UK.
In January 2021 national staffed hospital capacity was almost but not quite overwhelmed – this with extra surge capacity in place and with almost a year’s worth of experience in managing this disease.
This was because a lot of people decided to meet up over Christmas and New Year even though there was a more transmissable variant (Alpha) circulating at that time.
You should stop peddling misinformation on this topic. Perhaps read Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson from the Oxford Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and you’ll find out what the real situation was.
You should stop peddling misinformation on this topic. Perhaps read Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson from the Oxford Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and you’ll find out what the real situation was.
“this was certainly not the case from say May 2020 onwards,”
Not in the UK.
In January 2021 national staffed hospital capacity was almost but not quite overwhelmed – this with extra surge capacity in place and with almost a year’s worth of experience in managing this disease.
This was because a lot of people decided to meet up over Christmas and New Year even though there was a more transmissable variant (Alpha) circulating at that time.
The Swedes didn’t do too badly by a) sticking to the original WHO pandemic guidelines b) possibly looking at the almost too good to be true real life experiment aboard the Diamond Princess.
When measured against their comparative neighbours it’s clear they did very badly indeed and thousands of people were sacrificed for their futile ideology. Even their own king admitted it.
That is actually totally false. Yes in the 1st year they did worse than some of their nordic neighbours, but right now, for the last year, they have done a lot better than their neighbours. Perhaps stop peddling misinformation.
That is actually totally false. Yes in the 1st year they did worse than some of their nordic neighbours, but right now, for the last year, they have done a lot better than their neighbours. Perhaps stop peddling misinformation.
When measured against their comparative neighbours it’s clear they did very badly indeed and thousands of people were sacrificed for their futile ideology. Even their own king admitted it.
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.
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?”
It is one thing to make decisions early on based on the need to appear to do “something”. It is quite another to continue on with such interventions when it is clear to anybody with eyes that they were useless. Further, it was completely dishonest to talk about flattening the curve without pointing out that the area under the curve remains unchanged no matter what one does. So the only rational for attempting to flattening the curve is to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. Now, while the healthcare systems in the US and UK may have been stretched in the 1st two months of the “pandemic” (although not so evident given that NYC which was very badly hit initially did not need to make use of the Jaffitz center or the Mercy Hospital ship for extra beds), this was certainly not the case from say May 2020 onwards, at which point insane and unproductive policies should have been dropped like a hot potato.
The unfortunate fact is that the behavior of 3 letter agencies in the US (more letters in the UK!) and public health officials was such that it will take a very very long time, if ever, to regain the public’s trust.
The Swedes didn’t do too badly by a) sticking to the original WHO pandemic guidelines b) possibly looking at the almost too good to be true real life experiment aboard the Diamond Princess.
If you have little information,
YOU DO NOT LOCK THE COUNTRY DOWN.
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.
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?
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.
You mean the reflex is to control as many lives as possible on the flimsiest excuses.
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.
No Robbie, I suspect it you who have lost perspective (or is prepsective different – only joking).
No Robbie, I suspect it you who have lost perspective (or is prepsective different – only joking).
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.
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.’
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.
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.
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.
You mean the reflex is to control as many lives as possible on the flimsiest excuses.
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.’
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Follow the money.
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.
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.’
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.
.
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. .
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?
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?
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.
.
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. .
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
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.
“Most people would rather die than think and most do”*
How’s the beach?
(*BR.)
“Most people would rather die than think and most do”*
How’s the beach?
(*BR.)
I would certainly hope it would. And the first thing we need is an honest inquiry.
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.
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.
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.
Follow the money.
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.
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.’
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
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.
I would certainly hope it would. And the first thing we need is an honest inquiry.
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?
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.
“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.
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)
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.
‘non debemus dicere omnis error stultus est’. You’ll know who said that CH I’m sure.
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.)
ChatCPT seems to have overtaken poor old 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.)
ChatCPT seems to have overtaken poor old J Watson.
‘non debemus dicere omnis error stultus est’. You’ll know who said that CH I’m sure.
“these can happen in an open and transparent way”
Lol. Dream on.
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.
“these can happen in an open and transparent way”
Lol. Dream on.
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.
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)
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.
In the past 20 years public enquiries have mostly been coverups.
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.
“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.
“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.
In the past 20 years public enquiries have mostly been coverups.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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..
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!
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!
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!
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!
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?
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.
The last time ‘a head rolled’ was Charles I in 1649, although some might argue for Admiral Byng in 1757.
The last time ‘a head rolled’ was Charles I in 1649, although some might argue for Admiral Byng in 1757.
Why?
Why, in response to Gen Z blather, is indeed the only possible response!
Why, in response to Gen Z blather, is indeed the only possible response!
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.
Why?
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?
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.
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.
Only one question really ” Where on earth did they find the ghastly little Malter Whitty?”
Shouldn’t that be WALTER WHITTY?
No. He reversed the capital letters on Walter Mitty.
Thank you!
Thank you!
No. He reversed the capital letters on Walter Mitty.
Shouldn’t that be WALTER WHITTY?
Only one question really ” Where on earth did they find the ghastly little Malter Whitty?”
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.
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.
40% of deaths were in care homes? I wonder which section of the population costs the Government the most….. no, surely not!
40% of deaths were in care homes? I wonder which section of the population costs the Government the most….. no, surely not!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-worsened-america-rage-virus-for-which-theres-no-vaccine-lockdown-vaccine-mandates-ron-desantis-stanford-masking-2670cd39?st=k2ajsi0rhug29c5&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
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.
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
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.
“All Quiet on the Irish Front” McCusker?
“All Quiet on the Irish Front” McCusker?
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.
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.
Governments had 2+ years of thinking time.
Very easy actually, it just needs practice.
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?
No.
I bet the insurance industry would do a better job of deciding potential risks.
Undoubtedly.
Undoubtedly.
I bet the insurance industry would do a better job of deciding potential risks.
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.
Didn’t we have a National Pandemic Plan?
It was something like “nihil facere” or do nothing, and quite right to!
We did and Public Health specialists.
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.
We did and Public Health specialists.
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.
Didn’t we have a National Pandemic Plan?
It was something like “nihil facere” or do nothing, and quite right to!
No.
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.
What are you two on about? Practice? Thinking time? They had niether, decisions had to be made under intense pressure with conflicting information.
They panicked despite years of preparation.
A classic case of funk if ever there was one.
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
Thank you for that interesting link.
Thank you for that interesting link.
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
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.
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.
“The UK is an old, sick country.”
Precisely, then let ‘nature’ take its course, survival of the fittest is the rational option.
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.
“The UK is an old, sick country.”
Precisely, then let ‘nature’ take its course, survival of the fittest is the rational option.
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.
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.
They panicked despite years of preparation.
A classic case of funk if ever there was one.
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.
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?
What are you two on about? Practice? Thinking time? They had niether, decisions had to be made under intense pressure with conflicting information.
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.
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?”
The issue is actually very simple. It is one thing to pursue policies initially that were projected to be helpful; it is quite another to pursue these when these policies were clearly ineffective and not impacting the course of the pandemic. That should have been obvious to anybody with open eyes the moment the second COVID wave appeared. Exactly the same arguments apply to vaccination. When they first came out they looked very promising, although, neither Pfizer or Moderna released their full trial data. But when it was clear that the vaccines were nowhere near as effective as advertised and that severe adverse events were going through the roof, it was absolutely criminal to mandate the vaccines and then extend their use to 6 month old babies. That is outrageous and equally outrageous is that the CDC and FDA are just doubling down on a major blunder of epic proportions. Far better to admit right away when things re not quite going as they should have done. And incidentally, the full Pfizer and Moderna trial results should have been made available right away because the number of deaths in the vaccine arm was greater than in the control arm. So much for prevention of hospitalization and death. After all it does one no good to have a vaccine that purportedly prevents one from getting COVID (which it didn’t) or reduces death from COVID only to have it increase the risk of death from other issues (e.g. cardiovascular and strokes).
I guess many people were frustrated with the circumstances so instead of taking an objective point of view they have succumbed to the cynical, the emotive and the conspiratorial. Just read some of the other responses and you’ll see how folks have convinced themselves in ridiculous ways.
The issue is actually very simple. It is one thing to pursue policies initially that were projected to be helpful; it is quite another to pursue these when these policies were clearly ineffective and not impacting the course of the pandemic. That should have been obvious to anybody with open eyes the moment the second COVID wave appeared. Exactly the same arguments apply to vaccination. When they first came out they looked very promising, although, neither Pfizer or Moderna released their full trial data. But when it was clear that the vaccines were nowhere near as effective as advertised and that severe adverse events were going through the roof, it was absolutely criminal to mandate the vaccines and then extend their use to 6 month old babies. That is outrageous and equally outrageous is that the CDC and FDA are just doubling down on a major blunder of epic proportions. Far better to admit right away when things re not quite going as they should have done. And incidentally, the full Pfizer and Moderna trial results should have been made available right away because the number of deaths in the vaccine arm was greater than in the control arm. So much for prevention of hospitalization and death. After all it does one no good to have a vaccine that purportedly prevents one from getting COVID (which it didn’t) or reduces death from COVID only to have it increase the risk of death from other issues (e.g. cardiovascular and strokes).
I guess many people were frustrated with the circumstances so instead of taking an objective point of view they have succumbed to the cynical, the emotive and the conspiratorial. Just read some of the other responses and you’ll see how folks have convinced themselves in ridiculous ways.
It is one thing to make decisions early on based on the need to appear to do “something”. It is quite another to continue on with such interventions when it is clear to anybody with eyes that they were useless. Further, it was completely dishonest to talk about flattening the curve without pointing out that the area under the curve remains unchanged no matter what one does. So the only rational for attempting to flattening the curve is to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. Now, while the healthcare systems in the US and UK may have been stretched in the 1st two months of the “pandemic” (although not so evident given that NYC which was very badly hit initially did not need to make use of the Jaffitz center or the Mercy Hospital ship for extra beds), this was certainly not the case from say May 2020 onwards, at which point insane and unproductive policies should have been dropped like a hot potato.
The unfortunate fact is that the behavior of 3 letter agencies in the US (more letters in the UK!) and public health officials was such that it will take a very very long time, if ever, to regain the public’s trust.
“this was certainly not the case from say May 2020 onwards,”
Not in the UK.
In January 2021 national staffed hospital capacity was almost but not quite overwhelmed – this with extra surge capacity in place and with almost a year’s worth of experience in managing this disease.
This was because a lot of people decided to meet up over Christmas and New Year even though there was a more transmissable variant (Alpha) circulating at that time.
You should stop peddling misinformation on this topic. Perhaps read Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson from the Oxford Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and you’ll find out what the real situation was.
You should stop peddling misinformation on this topic. Perhaps read Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson from the Oxford Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and you’ll find out what the real situation was.
“this was certainly not the case from say May 2020 onwards,”
Not in the UK.
In January 2021 national staffed hospital capacity was almost but not quite overwhelmed – this with extra surge capacity in place and with almost a year’s worth of experience in managing this disease.
This was because a lot of people decided to meet up over Christmas and New Year even though there was a more transmissable variant (Alpha) circulating at that time.
The Swedes didn’t do too badly by a) sticking to the original WHO pandemic guidelines b) possibly looking at the almost too good to be true real life experiment aboard the Diamond Princess.
When measured against their comparative neighbours it’s clear they did very badly indeed and thousands of people were sacrificed for their futile ideology. Even their own king admitted it.
‘Dry tinder’.
That is actually totally false. Yes in the 1st year they did worse than some of their nordic neighbours, but right now, for the last year, they have done a lot better than their neighbours. Perhaps stop peddling misinformation.
‘Dry tinder’.
That is actually totally false. Yes in the 1st year they did worse than some of their nordic neighbours, but right now, for the last year, they have done a lot better than their neighbours. Perhaps stop peddling misinformation.
When measured against their comparative neighbours it’s clear they did very badly indeed and thousands of people were sacrificed for their futile ideology. Even their own king admitted it.
If you have little information,
YOU DO NOT LOCK THE COUNTRY DOWN.
Governments had 2+ years of thinking time.
Very easy actually, it just needs practice.
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.
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?”
It is one thing to make decisions early on based on the need to appear to do “something”. It is quite another to continue on with such interventions when it is clear to anybody with eyes that they were useless. Further, it was completely dishonest to talk about flattening the curve without pointing out that the area under the curve remains unchanged no matter what one does. So the only rational for attempting to flattening the curve is to reduce the burden on the healthcare system. Now, while the healthcare systems in the US and UK may have been stretched in the 1st two months of the “pandemic” (although not so evident given that NYC which was very badly hit initially did not need to make use of the Jaffitz center or the Mercy Hospital ship for extra beds), this was certainly not the case from say May 2020 onwards, at which point insane and unproductive policies should have been dropped like a hot potato.
The unfortunate fact is that the behavior of 3 letter agencies in the US (more letters in the UK!) and public health officials was such that it will take a very very long time, if ever, to regain the public’s trust.
The Swedes didn’t do too badly by a) sticking to the original WHO pandemic guidelines b) possibly looking at the almost too good to be true real life experiment aboard the Diamond Princess.
If you have little information,
YOU DO NOT LOCK THE COUNTRY DOWN.
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.