Austria’s powerful Constitutional Court has demanded detailed data from the Government Health Ministry justifying the coronavirus response. News.com.au has the story.
The 14-member court issued 10 sets of questions to the Health Ministry on January 26th in order to prepare for a “possible oral hearing” into a number of complaints it has received against Austria’s COVID-19 measures.
The Health Ministry has until February 18th to respond.
Austria plans to ease some restrictions from Tuesday as its nationwide vaccine mandate, the first in Europe, comes into effect.
But in order to justify his Government’s heavy-handed rules, the court has asked Health Minister Wolfgang Mückstein to provide data across a broad range of topics including hospitalisations and deaths ‘with’ as opposed to ‘from’ COVID-19, the efficacy of masks and vaccines, and evidence supporting the now-rescinded ‘lockdown for the unvaccinated’.
“The ‘lockdown for the unvaccinated’ is likely to be based, among other things, on the consideration that persons without Covid vaccination have a higher risk of hospitalisation than vaccinated persons, which is likely to entail a higher risk for the healthcare system,” the court wrote.
“What is the effect of the ‘lockdown for the unvaccinated on the hospital burden, expressed in percentages?”
The court asked for information on which virus variants were associated with these numbers, a breakdown by age cohort, and for “percentage allocation” outlining where infections occurred, such as family, work, shopping or leisure activities.
Another question asked, “By what factor does wearing an FFP2 mask indoors or outdoors reduce the risk of infection or transmission?”
A number of other questions related to vaccines, with the court requesting data on their efficacy in reducing severe illness, preventing transmission, and the durability of protection.
“By what factor does Covid vaccination reduce the risk of severe disease?” the court wrote.
“In media reports, there was talk of up to 95%. Now, the general risk of dying from Covid-19 (not differentiated by age and health status) currently appears to be 0.1516%.
“What does a stated vaccination efficacy of, for example, 95% refer to? What do absolute and relative risk reduction mean in this context?”
The letter also requested the Covid-related hospitalisation risk over a one-year period for an unvaccinated 25-year-old compared with a double-vaccinated 25-year-old, and the same for a 65-year-old.
It concluded with a question about Austria’s excess mortality statistics.
In December, the Der Standard newspaper reported that there were one-third fewer COVID-19 deaths in 2021 compared with the previous year, but that weekly excess mortality was higher.
“Is this true?” the letter asked. “If so, what was the total excess mortality in 2021 that could not be explained by COVID-19 deaths, and what is the explanation for this excess mortality?”
Austria has seen record high case numbers in recent days, fuelled by the Omicron variant.
Good to see a high court taking a detailed interest in these technical questions, unlike our own largely supine and deferential judiciary. Also good to see an interest in the unexplained wave of non-Covid excess deaths this winter. The Government’s response will be interesting, as will the court’s ruling.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Yes, please do continue to dismantle the arguments and take the p*ss out of the entire thing. I know you have day jobs so it can’t be your priority but it gives us more ammo as we spread the word among our own circles.
The inquiry was never going to be an honest attempt to reflect on what happened and why. Far too many powerful people and bodies nationally and internationally are in this up their necks. Many of the most guilty know very well what happened and why, and they know very well that there was no deadly pandemic that required such extraordinary and unprecedented measures. No inquiry is needed to establish this because it was obvious from the start.
In answer to the question, I would say it’s right and proper that someone qualified monitors and records and comments on the inquiry, and publishes the results, for the historians in many decades or more from now to look and have confirmed what they surmise – that this was the biggest peacetime folly and evil in human history, considering the global scale of it. But no-one should expect any reckoning in their own lifetime. Apart from anything else, the general public have no appetite for it, no desire to be told they’ve been had.
It’s very depressing. Whatever faith I had in humanity has been weakened considerably.
In a similar vein I did a 7 page critique being the requested comments under Every Story Matters though being doubtful about it, mainly so it is on the record for the future which may not be so long if there continue to be more deaths etc.
The ‘The Pharma-Bio-security-industrial complex’ would allow no other conclusion than lockdown hard and wait for a vaccine.
“We will get back on some of the issues that yesterday’s session shed light on, but in my view, this is going to go as follows: it was all Boris’s fault and Rishi’s (politely referred to as “Dr. Death” in the exchange). We should have locked down harder, sooner and longer, and bang! SARS-CoV-2 would have vanished like snow off a dyke. ‘Follow the models’ will be the Inquiry’s closing motto.”
Basically, the line Farrar takes in Spike, over 2 years ago. The whole enquiry is an expensive charade (like the pandemic, a cynical person might argue).
I don’t think you need to be a cynic to argue that the “pandemic” was a charade – the lockstep, the press conferences, the parties and the eye-testing and shagging, the absurd flip-flopping regarding the “science”, scotch eggs, covid only lethal when standing up, desperate attempts to censor dissent. It was obvious from early on that there was nothing much going on in terms of illness and death at a societal level that would pose a threat that warranted suspending normal life. As soon as we were able to re-enter the UK without “quarantine” we went to Sweden and were hugging and shaking hands with complete strangers.
We saw the liberal establishment at play, if you are guilty of wrong think they will destroy you.
Please keep buggering on. We know the enquiry is a whitewash but there may be points to score.
A sincere thank you Professor Heneghan. I followed you and Mike Yeadon from the outset. No jab for me and thankfully no jab for our two grown up children due to your influence. Keep at it Sir. ‘Nil illegitemi carborundum.’
It is indeed professor Edmunds who is the f**kwitt. This was obvious from a very early stage in the alleged pandemic.
Edmunds is indeed a nasty principle free PoS. And a F**wit. Having took Pharma’s shilling he would probably have vaccinated his own kids in the vein of John Selwyn Gummer ( now climate nutter Lord Deben ) who attempted to feed his daughter Cordelia the BSE/Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease hamburger in 1990 in front of .
I say don’t give them any more attention. They deserve to grind away for 2 years with their tedious, fake inquiry and we should ignore them so that they know that NOBODY cares what they have to say. It would give them too much satisfaction to think that we are hoping for some kind of justice.
Let’s face it, the court is rigged.
Heneghan has done his job though, thank God.
Because of his work millions of us know the danger of the vax.
There are more of us than them.
They’re terrified of us.
Hallett will bitterly regret lending her time to this inquiry: her name will enter the vernacular, alongside Boycottt and Quisling, with hers the definition for all time of an establishment-sponsored whitewash.
In her shoes I would be scuttling for the door, hanging my head in shame.
The Non Turnout for Andrew Bridgens speech is all we need to know about this farce inquiry ! F em all , Barstewards !!
I have read to the whole transcript of the 19th of October and to say I am shocked it so put is mildly. I probably was naive in thinking that this inquiry was going to be unbiased, but nothing is further from the truth if these proceedings are anything to go by.
My observations:
First of all Mr. Keith asks leading questions, especially of prof. Noakes and prof. Edmunds- guiding them towards answers which show how marvellous their work was, how good the lockdowns were (and they should have started sooner). – Then there is the questioning of prof. Henegan….Mr. Keith starts to try and diminish Carl’s credentials and then asks questions about the Great Barrington Declaration which Carl did not sign (I did by the way) and refuses to listen to Carl’s reasoning why and actually tries to trip him up and interrupts him all the time. I am really surprised Carl kept his cool. To ask Carl about the potentially libellous comments by Dame McClean, is completely inappropriate in an inquiry. Carl’s session was too short to get any meaningful evidence.
Further bias is shown by Dame Hallett as she sings the full praises of both prof. Noakes and Edmunds. (Interestingly both prof. Noakes and prof. Edmunds both think they can stop climate change as well as a respiratory virus…. section 21-22 and section 78).
So where to go from here.. I am really unsure, but of one thing I am sure that in it’s present format this inquiry is not going to achieve anything useful. So maybe it maybe best to step away, but I would not do so without complaining. I am certainly happy going to send a letter of complaint to Lady Hallett about Thursday’s proceedings. It was an absolute disgrace.
Is there any way to change the direction of the inquiry? Have previous inquiries been criticised and stopped? I would certainly want a counter to Mr. Keith, asking intelligent, challenging question rather than Mr. Keith’s cooing over the splendid pandemic response
KCs only ever ask leading questions to get the answers their clients need to prove their innocence. They will never ask open questions to uncover the witness’s views.
Keith is just the latest in the line of those who can do press ups under snakes
True. It needs an opposing Counsel to do the job. Maybe that will come with real trials not a corrupted inquiry.
Please continue.
The inquiry spotlights our arrogant entitled socialist fascist Whitehall bureaucracy.
The great British public, as we have just seen in Tamworth and other constituencies, do not like being taken for fools.
Every article here and elsewhere about the risible silliness of this inquiry’s doings is another nail in this dreadful government’s coffin.
The Inquiry was only ever intended to exonerate the Public Health $cientists, China and Big Pharma-funded modellers and anyone who supported Lockdowns.
Just like the original Iraq War Inquiry was intended to exonerate Blair and the warmongers.
Don’t bother covering it. It’s pointless.
Yes,because the damning of the inquiry needs to be forensic
Well done both for trying and thankyou.
I tried to watch this live but Edmunds was still on when I connected. Lasted all of five minutes before I had to switch the smug prick off. I’ve now read the transcript of Carl’s evidence and it was indeed a total hatchet job. Utterly shameful. The inquiry has lost all of the little credibility it had.
I would be interested to know if Carl Heneghan intends to take this up with the JCIO and the BSB. At the very least he should send a formal and strongly worded complaint to Lady Hallett making clear that a public apology is required, plus an undertaking that the evidence he submitted will be properly examined in public. Otherwise referrals to the two regulatory bodies will be made.
Obviously the inquirey is nothing of the sort. The Chairwoman is not douing her job as we the public see it properly. I suspect malfeasance in public office, which is a very serious offence is happening before our eyes. The Barrister for the inquiry obviously has an agenda and should be struck off. Now we see how bad happens.
I spent a great deal of time listening to the Grenfell inquiry. The quantity of incompetence behing the deaths was staggering. Some of it was due to all manner of people with no qualification giving opinions which were not sensible or scientifically correct. The same is happening here, modellers who actually have zero knowledge of Covid, or much else for that matter are treated as though their opinions (often shown to be incorrect by scientific scrutiny) are seen as “experts” whilst real scientists like Carl, with an actual track record, are treated like dirt.
The Andrew Bridgen debate on Friday showed what the Elite want, the whole lot thrown under the carpet, nothing was anyones fault. Actually every MP (650 of them) is currently responsible for more than one death every week. Where is the penalty? They should all be in Jail for life.
I agree with both sides on here whether we should cover any more inquiries, both opinions have merit. I will just quote Abby Robberts….Covid inquiry AKA whitewash!
I do not know what a KC is nor who it is but the person sounds like a real piece of work. My hunch it is some sort of legal “expert”. However, since when is it the job of a “legal expert” to demean a medical professional, or anyone for that matter? His/her lack of respect towards Professor Heneghan, speaks volumes. Surely there were other KC’s with a soupçon of decorum to perform this task? The legal profession surely is ashamed of this person’s job performance. I know I am.