Last week, we invited Daily Sceptic readers to submit suggestions of questions or topics that the U.K. COVID-19 Public Inquiry – which is presently consulting on its terms of reference, closing April 7th – ought to address. Here are some of the suggestions.
- How did the Public Health Act come to overrule basic rights?
- The classification of ‘cases’, Covid deaths, and the use of mass PCR and LFT testing in healthy people.
- Lack of cost/benefit analysis of measures, including not estimating the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost by everyone. Whether the three lockdowns were justified from a health standpoint and from an overall cost benefit standpoint.
- Divisive nature of Government policy, asking people to report their neighbours and discriminating against and demonising the non-vaccinated.
- The lack of a clear exit strategy when imposing the lockdown measures.
- The evidence for the claim that the ’vaccines are safe’ and for the quickly shifting goalposts of ages to be vaccinated.
- How can you claim it was for health when you locked down gyms and leisure centres? Particularly as some leisure centre gyms have GP referral schemes and are part of cardiac rehab phase 4.
- Did the Government consider the impact on the drop in tax revenue, which funds the NHS, as a result of business closures and people losing their jobs?
- How many people died because of the lockdowns, through delayed treatment, suicide and by other means?
- Why did the Government lock down when it had determined that COVID-19 was not a high consequence infectious disease?
- One of the worst aspects of Government restrictions was that power was given to thousands of managers, proprietors and other operators of businesses, which enabled them to dictate to their workers and staff just what should be done. That the measures were more often than not irrational and counterintuitive was ignored. With the various relaxations that have taken place, some of these people have continued to march, bark, hector and bully more or less unimpeded.
- Why were so few swabs available for sample collection in 2020?
- Why has the MHRA not made any comment or public report on the monthly Yellow Card adverse event record? Surely, its job is to examine this information to determine if it is reliable, understated or overstated, and to make recommendations as the regulator? If another medicine was producing these reports would they just keep logging numbers without any comment? And if they have been advised not to comment, by whom?
- How were mandates implemented without any scientific backing? I am thinking about the Rule of 6, not allowing sitting on a bench outside when walking, the scotch egg debacle, where you were only allowed to sit down in a pub when there was a substantial meal, the mask mandates overall, but in particular having to wear a mask when walking in the pub but being allowed to take the mask off when sitting down, etc.
- The use of the fear narrative by Government bodies such as Public Health England (now UKHSA).
- Why was the Coronavirus Act extended for so long each time?
- Writing as a doctor, I would like to know the veracity of clinical diagnosis of death ‘with Covid’. In my view, a review of all patient clinical notes and imaging by an independent panel should occur for a selection of NHS hospitals treating affected patients during 2020-2021. We should be absolutely clear whether Covid was the predominant cause of morbidity and mortality. The whole theatre of shutting down society was driven by irrational fear, in my opinion. A central issue is the over-emphasis on laboratory tests rather than clinical symptoms and signs of disease. I have contributed my experience of the time to Parliament.
- I believe the current terms should be extended to look at the adverse effects of Covid restrictions on children and young people. These include:
- The effect of face masks and other restrictions on the development and speech of babies and children.
- The impact on children with special needs and their families of the removal of support services such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and respite care during the pandemic.
- The rise in mental health problems amongst children during the pandemic.
- The impact on young people who left school during the pandemic when there was a severe shortage of apprenticeships and employment.
- I think the inquiry should look at the following topics:
- The decision to ignore WHO guidelines on what should count as a Covid death and instead count any death within 28 days (initially 90 days) of a positive test. This makes the numbers look worse than they actually are by allowing deaths from other causes to count as Covid deaths.
- The decision to deliberately frighten the public into compliance and to bend the available information to fit that narrative.
- Whistleblowers contributing to the inquiry will need support and protection.
- There is only one question that needs answering in my view and that is “How should the next pandemic be managed?” This question needs to be answered for a range viruses with different transmission and death rates. The resulting plans should then be placed in the public domain.
- What is the infection fatality rate (IFR) of a virus that will lead to Government imposing future restrictions? There should be a bar set in law that is met before restrictions can even be considered in the future.
- The inquiry should look into the impact of lockdowns on the mental health on those who were single and living alone – especially given the fact that those in Government seemed to enjoy relative freedom to develop personal relationships during that period.
- Why did SAGE predict the first peak in June 2020, when it was very clear it would peak in April? That is key, because it was the prime cause of the panic which then ensued, and it raises the question: why on earth were people who got such a simple forecast so dramatically wrong allowed to continue to advise the Government?
- Why isn’t the inquiry looking at the moral problems posed by the pandemic? Why did politicians not articulate the rights of patients to refuse treatment? Why did no-one in the medical profession remind us that consent is the cornerstone of all medical practice? Why did the Government allow the denigration of ‘anti-vaxxers’?
- Given the track-record of Professor Neil Ferguson over many years, of which the low point was perhaps the cull of several million farm animals, what was the justification for canvassing and heeding his advice in this case?
- My general practitioner declined to issue me a prescription for ivermectin and it quickly became impossible to source this treatment online. Who made this policy and why was this not made public at the time?
- Why was it thought necessary to ban several substances that had been approved for decades and with good safety records, thus potentially allowing people to die while waiting for the ‘panacea’ of the vaccines to arrive? Even if those treatments had been useless, what harm would have come of their potentially prophylactic use?
- How can supposedly democratic countries guarantee they are actually democratic? Democracy stands on the foundations of free speech and opinion, yet both of these core values were coarsely trampled over during a tyrannical overreach of elected officials.
- How is the responsibility of the state defined versus the responsibility of the individual? Is the onus of responsibility on state or individual? What is the limit that state can dictate to individual?
- How can the news media be guaranteed to be balanced? Permitting one voice, one opinion, is not balanced.
- Why were established scientific guidelines – including those espoused by the WHO prior to the pandemic – suddenly rewritten with no justification? This includes the rationale behind imposing a single clinical model of treatment rather than exploiting the diversity of medical and scientific resources worldwide in order to establish both the actual severity of the pandemic and possible prophylactic and clinical treatments.
- The accuracy of scientific modelling and to what extent if any, that models were updated and corrected by actual outcomes. The reasons why SAGE models used were not just badly wrong, but always wrong in the same direction. The role of scientific modelling in guiding Government policy.
- The descriptions given to modelled outcomes (e.g. ‘reasonable worst case’) and how those descriptions came to be interpreted by the media.
- The use of out-of-date data by the Prime Minister and his advisers to support policy.
- The failure to model or consider financial or any other medical outcomes besides Covid.
- The actual data which were used to justify the wearing of face masks and the resulting impacts on adults and children of compulsory face masks.
- The actual data which were used to justify or support lockdowns.
- The allowance of SAGE members to make regular media appearances to push, support or influence policy.
- The role of OFCOM in shutting down opinions on media at variance with Government policy. The role of the media – particularly television – in maintaining a substantial element of fear of Covid among the population. The actual or implied requirement to publish daily Covid data on television – ignoring deaths from all other causes – and therefore missing context. The role of the media in failing to challenge NPI’s other than to demand that they should have been stricter and sooner.
- The failure of the Government to allow a ‘devil’s advocate’ or ‘red team’ approach within its policymaking.
- The failure of the various financial support schemes to interrogate basic Companies House, HMC&E and Bank records to minimise the predictable large scale fraud which occurred
- The (continuing) failure of GP surgeries to conduct an acceptable level of face-to-face consultations.
- A full breakdown of who benefited from the PPE and other contracts and by how much.
- The glacial emergence from restrictions in spring 2021 when infections were extremely low.
- Why the Downing Street civil service thought it was acceptable to party at a time when the populace couldn’t see their dying parents.
There’s still time to submit your responses to the inquiry consultation. You can do so here.
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.
Good point, and one to add.
Why were doctors not encouraged to report vaccine complications on the Yellow Card system?
Colleagues were bemused when I tried to press for this.
Why were/are they not COMPELLED to report ‘vaccine’ complications?
Why were they not told to be vigilant for any suspected adverse reactions?
Why were they not instructions on what to look for?
Utterly shocking the neglect displayed by GP’s.
Orders from above, and “money talks”. Plus, many are just a paper-intensive staging post to the dysfunctional hospital systems.
Because the whole govt rhetoric and credibility depended on the ‘safe and effective’ mantra to get people to comply, so nothing could be seen to be challenging that. It should be a criminal act for medics to NOT report such ‘complications’ and for anyone to order non-reporting (with even the ‘I’m too busy’ not being an excuse), as it seems the Hippocratic Oath is now no longer sufficient.
especially when, according to the data Pfizer was court ordered to release, Pfizer knew exactly what to look for in terms of adverse events, pages and pages and pages of them
I think you know the answer to that one…
Your colleagues perhaps value £100k+ a year more than medical ethics??
I think medical ethics as we perceive them died a death a long time ago.
I’m not sure what we are left with now as patients.
90-Day Pfizer ‘Bombshell’ Busted in 9 Pages
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/03/22/pfizer-documents-reveal-vaccine-dangers.aspx
Newly Released Pfizer Documents Reveal COVID Jab Dangers
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Next Events
Tuesday 22nd March 2pm to 3pm
Yellow Boards By the Road
Junction A332 Windsor Rd/
A330 Winkfield Road
ASCOT SL5 7UL
Stand in the Park Sundays from 10am – make friends & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens
(Cockpit Path car park free on Sunday)
Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
at what was it 15.00 per shot in the arm multiplied 3 times by a population of 66 million. You do the sums, for the typical Doctor that buys a nice new 4×4, a few holidays and possibly a career step up. So whats a few injuries and deaths, they were only following the Government orders
Perhaps the inquiry should look at precisely why, in the midst of a ‘pandemic’, which the “vaccines” were considered to be the only possibly solution and way out of, GPs were paid an additional sum on top of their normal remuneration for administering the “vital” jabs, particularly when it isn’t the case that they were seeing patients face to face.
If those working in mass vaccination centres did not receive a payment per jab, and I would be very surprised if they did, then why should GPs receive that payment which incentivises them to jab, possibly without due regard to whether it might be appropriate for a particular patient’s health condition for them to receive the jab.
I, for one, would like the inquiry to consider this important issue – particularly for future reference if we are ever in this hideous situation again.
Are your bemused colleagues aware that it is they who are accountable under the Nuremburg Code? That they & they alone are accountable for any injuries from bioweapon injections which they have performed? No recipient of the bioweapon injections was able to give fully informed consent as no medic knew the full list of ingredients, rendering consent as invalid. “I was just following orders” was & is no defence in law for any medic under Nuremburg.
Inquiry should also consider this issue – why were people vaccinated en masse without the full list of ingredients being known.
The covid death count would be interesting, ie how many died WITH or OF covid, plus why were PCR tests used when it was explicit that they were not for this purpose
I suspect that we’ll never know the former, as the official record is the official record.
PCR tests will be excused away as a wartime exigency. Best weapon that we had at the time, and so on. I would however like to know who first poured the phrase “gold standard” into the thirsty press.
Someone authorised their use. Who was it and what are his/her qualifications?
I have submitted the question.
Surely this was provided by the eminent Dr Christian Drosten and quickly nodded-through by the WHO? Thanks to “the power of prestige”, such authorisation carried with it a similar authority to Moses’ receipt of the 10 Commandments?
“gold standard”
The first time I heard it was from the ever so devout and honest Tony BLIAR.
Absolute lie that PCR tests were ‘a gold standard’. They were a tinpot standard, but what was brilliant about them was that they could make unscrupulous Government friends billions.
It was all about making money for ones’ friends, not spending frugally in the public interest.
Only 6 k deaths from Covid in England.
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/01/20/ons-admits-just-6k-covid-deaths-since-feb-20/
For how long has cancer research (and other life-saving medical research) been delayed as a result of lockdown? How many people will die or suffer serious harm unnecessarily as a result?
The research will have been less held up than the TREATMENT. Far, far more people will die as a result of treatments withheld than speculative research being delayed a year or so.
Not necessarily so. The cancer research I’m aware of is being held up as the researchers are too busy catching up with their patients!
While I agree that that’s a major problem, I think you underestimate the number of deaths that delayed research will cause. 9.5 million people die from cancer every year, so delaying a breakthrough by one year would kill millions. The Institute of Cancer Research said about a year ago that it would be delayed by about two years (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/london-institute-of-cancer-research-cancer-research-science-b930360.html), and I can only imagine that that has increased now.
Compensation for those whose businesses have been destroyed by government covid policy.
I’m sure they’ll be fine, Amazon is always looking for fresh meat to grind in their workhouses.
My business was /is effected by supply lines . For the tax year to April 2020 my net was 50k, to 2021 it was 16k and this year it’s 3k. I got f all from from the government as I earned £200 more via PAYE than my self employed income in 2019.
Some great points which won’t be answered at the enquiry.
Will the Daily Sceptic be writing to the enquiry?
Here is the top one from me:
Publish all the correspondence from the Behavioural Insights team sent to the government. All the advice, suggested techniques and presentations. All of it, with names attached. We paid for it, so an FOI should do the trick.
I see almost no reference to this aspect of the pandemic response, the belief within the technocratic class that us plebs need nudged to behave in ways they approve. This to me is more dangerous than anything.
Have you submitted your question?
No, I wasn’t aware of the thing until I read this article 🤓
It’s still open for submissions. There is a link in the article.
And when it comes to the section on how an inquiry should be run, you might want to point out the government is the ‘expert’ in running inquiries, not members of the public.
Most stupid question I think I have yet seen in an official questionnaire.
Submitted.
Brilliant point and well done for submitting it.
You need the same for all meetings between politicians/Govt officials and William Gates III/his senior representatives.
As Gates is a self-serving foreigner, unaccountable to the UK voters, people should assume that his advice would harm the UK populace until proven otherwise.
For me one of the main ones is, “Why did the Government abandon its Pandemic Preparedness Strategy within days of the beginning of the pandemic when it was written for scenarios including ones of much greater severity than Covid-19?”. It does make you wonder whether they should just bin all their emergency plans and have a single sheet of paper that says, “In case of emergency, look at the Guardian web site and do whatever they say”.
The answer is to be found in the actions of William Gates III.
China via the bought head of the WHO, who is not a medic & is a terrorist according to a medic friend of mine, supported by WG III
This website contains some proper investigative journalism, the sort that I’d forgotten existed. Some very interesting material & history of where we are now. Written from a US perspective but still pertinent.
POLITICAL MOONSHINE – Sourced Analysis & Opinion on the Geopolitical Landscape
submit it
I can’t be arsed reading through it all, the list is endless. Suppression of known effective drugs and no preventative medical advice is what has really done it for me…. No actually everything, the whole shit show.
And they wonder why people have gone down the conspiracy theory route. My eyes have truly been opened I wish they hadn’t. I’ve always thought ignorance was bliss (village idiot) to late now.
It’s not a conspiracy THEORY, it’s a case the judge would be duty bound to direct the jury to convict on, if they upheld the principles of UK Legal Practice.
Assuming that Johnson et al haven’t ripped that up the past two years to create a lawless bandit country where anything goes…..
Whatever the whitewash resulting from this so-called enquiry we must also bear in mind that the government’s actions had bugger all to do with the C1984, this was l about manipulation, control and killing and harming the people of this country.
It was all about making the billionaires much, much richer and ordinary people much, much poorer.
The key issue for me is why from the very start of the panicdemic was no effort made to review and test measures that were likely to be useful compared with those that were not. Two years on many of the measures that were adopted have been totally discredited but were they questioned at the time? Here lies the crux of the matter. The absence of independent critical scrutiny across Government and the media. It is really scary to me that almost everyone in a position of power and influence in the world thought in exactly the same way or rather they did not think at all.
You make more money selling bad products for longer than you do replacing bad products with good clinical practice.
UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011
This document contains much considered advice on dealing with a respiratory virus. Why was it ignored in favour of adopting panic and hysteria?
It wasn’t in the interest of William Gates III.
This original strategy was inconsistent with the approach agreed by CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), Jeremy Farrar’s vehicle for coordinating responses to future threats.
As its Wikipedia entry confirms
CEPI was conceived in 2015 and formally launched in 2017 at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland. It was co-founded and co-funded with US$460 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust,[3] and the governments of India and Norway, and was later joined by the European Union (2019) and the United Kingdom (2020).[3][5] CEPI is headquartered in Oslo, Norway.[4]
CEPI had been itching for an opportunity to implement its plans, and SARS Covid-19 seemed to offer it a heaven-sent opportunity.
good list of questions and I’m sure the enquiry would analize where the nearest shredder to put them in is.
I can’t see any other outcome as I cannot see the state having their feet held to the fire in any meaningful manner, I do hope I’m wrong though.
You hope in vain. The
whitewashinquiry will find that almost everything was fine. Lessons will be learned blah blah blah. It will be statist, authoritarian, hubristic groupthink for the sheeple to lap up.IN these situations, I’m afraid there will need to be a ‘minority report’ compiled and published, with the aim of completely discrediting the ‘official whitewash’.
If you want things to change, look to the example of the NIPCC alternative report to the IPCC claptrap.
We can’t rely on Government in any way, it’s time to do it ourselves and to completely humiliate Parliament, the legal profession, the medical bigwigs and big pharma.
‘Just what the fuck were you actually up to?”
That’s my one question.
‘Snogging my horny piece of stuff that replaced the wife in my dick’s affections’ is probably how Matthew Hancock will respond to that one….
The one thing that’s missing here would be: Why is it considered to be acceptable to force singles into complete, social isolation? Not everybody has a family home. But everybody who didn’t was – in theory – legally required to spend the entire time until support bubbles where invented completely alone, ie, neither meet anyone nor even talk to anyone outside of what’s functionally required for essential shopping.
In the context of this, consider the absurdity of forcing people who spent 23 out of 24 hours each day (single capable of working at home) completely alone to wear face coverings to protect all these family people and shop workers socialising with colleagues all day from — what precisely? If social contacts are bad because they spread diseases, surely, people without social contacts must be protected from those with social contacts and not the other way round.
Even support bubbles didn’t really solve the problem because people with private circles of friends will probably already have broken the rules left, right and center before them and those without were still completely f***ed. Public social spaces where people can meet casually and informally are not unessential places people only ever go to to drink alcohol, which ought to be prohibited because it’s so bad for public health.
NB: This group includes me. But I’m certainly not the only one.
Well, my answer to you is: ‘there comes a time when you must ignore guidelines’. I completely ignored all guidelines 99.9% of the time, only submitting when it came to organising and attending my father’s funeral and accompanying my mother in a taxi.
I walked 7 miles a day pretty much every day during the first three months of ‘lockdown’, in the glorious spring weather. I went down to my allotment and grew healthy food. I didn’t go out of my way to get arrested, but I did precisely zero to comply with ‘regulations’.
I never got ill and hence was not a ‘superspreader’. I ate healthily, exercised outdoors healthily and generally disregarded medical guidance which should see those who issued it struck off the medical register.
A second one: Why was lockdown enforcement never extended to people who roam the streets in order to collect money by small-scale and not-so-small-scale harrassment? This by its very nature very promiscuous form of enforced social life was with us all of the time.
” people who roam the streets in order to collect money by small-scale and not-so-small-scale harrassment”
You mean coppers?
No. I mean the subsection of the addict population who finance their hobby by raising small change (not always) use taxes from their livestock in pedestrian zones by being more or less openly threatening (or very openly violent — police doesn’t care about that, either).
Who’s pulling the strings, why is Boza having private meetings with Mr Gates? why are all western governments in lockstep?
Most probably due to the worldwide advice, support and interference from Tony Blair’s Institute for global change, which ‘supports political leaders and governments’.
https://institute.global/
In March, 2020, the institute dedicated their entire team to equip global leaders to confront the Covid 19 crisis – according to their website.
I would imagine that he and his infernal institute are currently interfering in the way forward with the manufactured Russia / Ukraine situation. TB loves a good old crisis and sticking his oar in.
There’s a very good case to made to call Tony Blair a ‘global terrorist’ and to fund insurgents to have him bumped off. You know, like the USA does with its political opponents.
I bet 15 million people in this country would organise a grand knees up the day they heard about his demise….
Yup where does the conga line start?
I bet there would be a massive amount if it was crowdfunded.
Another one: why did sitting MPs go so far as to set up a counter-fact-checking site in order to smear and denigrate scientists far more qualified than they?
Because they are prostitutes and take the shilling.
The key question is this: why did SAGE predict an initial June people based on a doubling of covid each week when the data clearly showed it would peak in April. That is key, because by getting that forecast so massively wrong, they toppled the UK into total utter panic when the truth was known. And, if we hadn’t had that panic, then we’d not have had much of the other stupidity. We know they originally said June, because Cummings told the Parliamentary committee. We know they were telling Johnson the figures were doubling each week (when it was closer to a ten fold increase per week), because that is what he said in a press conference.
It’s the one total disaster that underpins everything else that went wrong.
To pose the Government a question, you first need to know what their position will be. It will go something like: “We reluctantly took the extreme measures we did to contain this deadly and unknown disease as best we could to keep everyone safe. As soon as the vaccination programme had reached a high enough level, we lifted all restrictions as soon as we could consistent with keeping the population safe.”
It’s sophistry and BS, of course, but that’s the narrative which has to be targeted.
‘We joyfully imposed the extreme measures as Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates threatened all hell would break loose if we didn’t. Gates does own Moderna shares after all and the world has to end if he didn’t get a 20-bagger there. We had to wipe out cheap effective treatments as otherwise UEA for Gates’ vaccines was legally impossible. We knew exactly what we were doing and we had planned to lift restrictions once the timetable for the war in Ukraine was agreed globally.’
The most fundamental question that should be at the top of this is list concerns the “virus” itself, given that we are to believe that random clouds of invisible, yet highly intelligent particles are floating around like clouds, ready to home in on any unsuspecting human, is this:
P.S. If my hunch is correct, then it will make all and any of the remaining issues superfluous. In fact, it would turn the world upside down.
There may be an ‘inquiry’. No one will be prosecuted. The verdict will be “We did the best with the data we had.”
The purpose of an ‘inquiry’ is so that the people running it get paid handsomely for doing so.
The ‘Covid vaccine’ programme is still running, people are still wearing face masks and testing themselves ‘for Covid’, and the PCR megalab in Leamington Spa is still operating and unlikely to stop, ever. Travel restrictions ‘due to Covid’ are still in place.
And, sorry to disappoint you, but Tony Blair isn’t going to prison. Never mind. How about another ‘demo’ in London yet again? Wave those placards and shout “Freedom!”
It’s clear that these ‘demos’ are little to do with real protesting but simply a place to meet your friends and have something to do on a Saturday. There are people for whom going on ‘demos’ is simply a way of life.
Why couldn’t Hancock or SAGE even have the honesty to promote Vitamin D? Absolutely brilliant stuff for helping with natural immunity during winter months.
The suppression of the efficacy of HCQ and Ivermectin and the banning of access to these safe treatments – still can’t get them is outrageous.
Big Pharma blocks early treatment
https://metatron.substack.com/p/a-letter-to-andrew-hill-dr-tess-lawrie?s=w&utm_medium=web
Why can’t you get Ivermectin? There are a couple of people on this site flogging it regularly.
What a great list.
Why do we need to jab the whole population when over 99.9% survive the virus? And of the less than 0.1% that died most are either very old, or ill, or both!
Because you don’t get to make lots of money for the big Pharma and Gates which sponsors you if you don’t
This is a viral disease and there needs to be a SKEPTIC clinical scientist as head of the inquiry not a non scientific individual. Any mask promoting,Lockdown demanding child jabbing individuals should give evidence- but to a legal court to pay fir the harm they caused.
I nominate Swedenborg or Freecumbria
Why did the national’s public broadcaster not highlight the strong correlation between 1. comorbidities which are aggravated by white sugar consumption and 2. the Wuhan fatalities which were known in early 2020, instead encouraging viewers to stay home and bake brownies?
The only things that will be addressed by the public inquiry are those issues which will lead to the conclusions that:
what lessons do you think those might be?
We all know it will be another costly whitewash which will let them all off the hook, make a few bland recommendations that won’t be implemented, and all the club can wash their hands and say its all done,
The only solution is a criminal trial for the cabinet, its advisors and the Big Pharma and Gates
In order not just to ensure but to motivate full competency, responsibility and accountability on the part of all those in government and their advisers in any future pandemic event, the enquiry should properly examine whether the evidence submitted to them during the enquiry warrants criminal proceedings being brought against all those responsible in the decision-making process over the last two years. Those in government and their advisers should be left in no doubt that the full weight of the law will be brought to bear on them should their decision-making process and outcome be so far removed from the reasonable, the rational and the competent that it is criminal rather than merely negligent. This is the ONLY way to prevent a repetition of the last two years.
The mode of virus transmission must also be examined in relation to masks. It was thought that it was predominantly by droplet, which is what proper masks can substantially catch, but the knowledge is now that the predominant mode of transmission is by aerosol, which masks cannot stop, making the whole mask episode one of idiotic proportions. Moreover, transmission my surface/touch has also been effectively eliminated, making the whole hand gel thing another irrational response.
There’s also the important question of why the idea of ‘asymptomatic transmission’ (AT) was simply believed and not scientifically examined, as even Fauci has said it was *never* a driver of pandemics, and no credible evidence has been presented to support it. Basically, it’s a myth, a lie, and one that has been used to instil such fear in people that they have reacted wholly irrationally, blindly accepting mask mandates, vaccines, distancing, etc., etc.
You only need to think about it; if AT were a thing, we’d be in a permanent state of pandemic, for every virus, with the only mitigating factor being natural immunity. Clearly a permanent pandemic state has never happened. The whole notion of AT must therefore be dismissed and never again used as an ‘excuse’, a subconscious driver for restrictions.
There must also be an examination of the effective redefinition of the term ‘vaccine’, as the common understanding is that of an ‘immunisation’ result, *preventing* people becoming ill from the virus, not the therapeutic understanding of reducing or treating the resulting illness.
The concept of AT, and manipulating the definition of “vaccines” are similar, in as much as both of them are contrary to common understanding of the terms. Deliberately so, perhaps, to promote a policy, and for marketing a product. Many people would not consider themselves to be ill at all, if there are no symptoms, and as you say “real” vaccination is often interpreted as protection against infection.
“but the knowledge is now that the predominant mode of transmission is by aerosol,…“
If that were true, then surely it would be readily feasible to either:
a) take samples of the air that is likely to be contaminated with the “virus” and have it analyzed to identify the possible culprit.Then carry out controlled experiments to prove or disprove the potential culprit, or;
b) carry out controlled experiments between people who have the “symptoms” and those who do not.
I am unaware of any such experiments other than those conducted after the first world war that tried to establish the means of transmission of the Spanish Flu.
The obvious question must be asked. If experiments as outlined above have not been carried out, then why not?
yep “Act like you have it” – the inquiry should ask a) who coined that slogan and b) who authorised its use
I’d also like to know what this is supposed to mean. How am I supposed to playact being sick? Isn’t this just a covert way to telling people that they ought to be sick, IOW, make them sick, as good as that can be accomplished with words?
Why has no one demanded a referendum on the use of previously universally denounced NPI policies?
A Lock Down is not a health policy, it is a term for isolation in the penal system for riotous inmates, to immediately return convicted criminals to their imprisonment in cells.
Lets ask the people what they think about the last two years. With a generous smattering of hard facts, studies and hard hitting emotional messaging, and undoubtably concerted lobbying, by those for and against. Perhaps we could use a bus?
If the public vote in favour of ever again arbitrarily permitting our faux politcal-representitives to dissolve democracy, issue uncontested blank cheques in our name and foist a net-harmful penal system policy, boosted by charlatans who cite fake foreign (Chinese) propaganda, on healthy people, for a mild and largely unimportant virus with an IFR <0.1%, at least I’ll know to emigrate.
where to? they all did it – almost everywhere. Maybe not Belarus, but do you fancy Belarus?