We wrote about the Hallet Inquiry assuming “that the Inquiry would genuinely look at events of the last three years and the evidence decisions were made on. Chaired by a British judge who seemed to stand no nonsense from politicians, a widely respected member of the Upper House, what could go wrong?”
It’s beginning to look like “what could go right?” would be the more apposite question.
Mr. Keith, the lead KC of the Inquiry, started proceedings with a very long statement. The Inquiry
will focus on those areas of the pandemic and the United Kingdom’s response to it that have caused the greatest public concern, and where there may be a need in the public interest to make urgent recommendations so that we may be better prepared in the event of the next national civil emergency to befall us. That module starts today, Module 1. It commences that process. It investigates what the state of the whole country’s emergency preparedness response and resilience structure and systems were when the pandemic struck in January 2020.
So far, so good; this is a reasonable formulation of the purpose stated by Lady Hallet.
Mr. Keith, however, then makes a further statement which seems more appropriate for a Barrister in court. You know, the type that you see in the movies, horse hair and all:
The Inquiry will come to hear that the UK and Scotland was not prepared, that the capacity of the U.K. to cope with and recover quickly from difficulties caused by Covid was diminished by years of changes to critical establishment, underfunding, cuts, failures to address inequality, and the effects of Brexit.
Yes, yes, you got it right; read the statement on page 27 of the transcript.
So without a jury and no defence council, we have a series of culprits, including Brexit, that well-known facilitator of lockdowns.
Several points struck us:
Science and evidence are unlikely to play any serious part in what follows as the lead has assigned causality. Basic null hypotheses or questions such as “was the UK unprepared, and if so, why” have already been answered and bypassed.
Cuts, changes etc., seem to be the main culprits and the most improbable of all causes: the B Word.
Italy did not have Brexit but suffered equally. However, Italian healthcare workers did at least have sufficient plastic bin liners to separate those with symptoms in the emergency department.
Macron admitted France was unprepared for COVID-19. Will they claim that it was thoughts of FREXIT that swung it?
Perhaps we are thinking of a fair, logical and honest process. We see little sign of that so far. To be prepared, you must know what works and what doesn’t based on what evidence is available. Also, because you are dealing with respiratory agents, you must be flexible. If you do not have evidence or sound evidence, you should generate it; instead of defending evidence-free decisions by misleading as the CDC Director did with the U.S. Congress.
We’re also left pondering why so many organisations require lawyers.
Our burgeoning covid inquiry team – it’s still Carl and Tom with no lawyers – has noted some oddities in the opening statements.
The Cabinet Office thinks the vaccines saved the day: “Thanks largely to the vaccines, COVID-19 has now been brought under control.” No mention of natural immunity then and its role in the transition to an endemic state – it’s possibly too technical for the cabinet office, so it’s better not to go there.
The UKHSA set out their position and, in a nutshell, decided we’re swamping you: “UKHSA has provided the Inquiry team with evidence in response to two rule 9 requests via corporate statements and the disclosure of over three thousand documents, either as exhibits or part of general disclosure for Modules 1 and 2.”
The Directors of Public Health told the Inquiry we learnt about what to do on the BBC: “At the start of the pandemic, DsPH were learning about new policies and guidance at the same time as members of the public, when the televised 5 pm daily briefings were broadcast.”
On Thursday, the Counsel to the Inquiry set to work taking evidence from the experts. Part of the discussion turned to definitions.
However, the Inquiry is manifesting problems that downstream it might find hard to reconcile; relying on experts to come up with definitions off the top of their heads is troubling as their testimony will be riddled with inconsistencies.
Compare the definition given by Professor Whitworth and Dr. Hammer with Professor Heyman’s and see how much trouble the Inquiry already is.
Weds June 14th:
DR. HAMMER: So the case fatality rate means the proportion of individuals who have become ill who die.
Thurs June 15th:
Q: During the evidence of Professor Whitworth and Dr Hammer yesterday, we heard about something called the case fatality rate.
Answer: Yes.
Q: Is that the number of confirmed deaths caused by a virus in relation to the number of confirmed infections?
Answer: No. Confirmed cases.
Q: Confirmed cases, sorry.
Answer: Yes.
Q: The infection fatality rate is less certain because there are those who may be infected asymptomatically, et cetera?
Answer: That’s correct, yes.
The case fatality rates vary significantly over time because of many factors, little of which was discussed.
The number of cases detected by testing will vary considerably
Selection bias can mean those with severe diseases are preferentially tested
There may be delays between symptoms onset and death, which can lead to underestimation
There may be factors that account for increased death rates, such as coinfection, more inadequate healthcare, patient demographics (older age)
There may be increased rates of smoking or comorbidities
Differences in how deaths are attributed to Coronavirus: dying with the disease (association) is not the same as dying from the disease (causation).
The infection fatality rate might draw some flack; it’s a ratio, but let’s not worry about the semantics of correct epidemiological definitions.
“In epidemiology, the terms ratio, rate, and risk have clear definitions.” However, the rate is often used instead of the ratio. Importantly: ratios have no dimensions and can take any value, whereas rates have a time dimension. So, which is it to be?
These interactions offered opportunities to reveal, agree and clear up some vital issues at the outset. But they are glossed over:
Answer: That’s right. In an outbreak investigation, or whenever there’s a new disease, a case definition is rapidly developed based on what’s known at the time.
Q: But that would change over time, would it not?
Answer: Absolutely, it can change over time, and it generally does change over time.
So what was the case definition early on, and what did it change to, on what basis? Answers on a postcard, please.
Professors David Heyman’s testimony is vague on the case definition; he never once mentioned the crucial role the misuse and misreporting of PCR played and assumed asymptomatic to be asymptomatic at face value (oh, and forgot to mention presymptomatic transmission).
We have shown how unreliable the ascertainment of symptoms (or lack of) was.
Remember? As of March 31st 2021, out of 444 papers mentioning asymptomatics and/or presymptomatics, only 18 were of sufficient quality to answer the question on transmission, and none could shed light on the incidence of transmission from asymptomatics and/or presymptomatics.
A year later, only four more possible studies could be added, with the best quality paper remarking on the difficulties of attribution (note how fast the topic had gone ‘off the boil’ in biomedical literature). But none of these technicalities can disturb the witnesses so far: more certainty peddled to the Inquiry then.
We repeatedly warned the public and our readers about the importance of definitions and testing by PCR.
So, what is a case? The Inquiry is missing opportunities for clarity – it could set out the essential definitions and then ask the witnesses whether there are any they disagree with. If so, why?
We’ll continue to update you on the Inquiry, but if you spot any oddities or irregularities, do let us know.
Dr. Carl Heneghan is the Oxford Professor of Evidence Based Medicine and Dr. Tom Jefferson is an epidemiologist based in Rome who works with Professor Heneghan on the Cochrane Collaboration. This article was first published on their Substack, Trust The Evidence, which you can subscribe to here.
Stop Press: Kevin Bardosh in UnHerd agrees with Carl and Tom’s pessimistic prognosis: “In the 150 lockdown questions sent by Baroness Hallett to Boris Johnson, a number of them are leading questions, suggesting that he did not lockdown fast enough or hard enough. This appears to be the theme of the inquiry, which is continuing the same inversion of the precautionary principle that has dominated in the legal profession: the right to be protected from Covid stands above all other rights, even when scientific evidence is uncertain.” 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.
Being a globalist has nothing whatever to do with faith. I did noit know Schapps was jewish and I don’t care, he was incompetent as Transpiort Secretary and he has been disruptive fopr a long time. He has always valued a press release or interview higher than doing his job. Maybe that is why DVLA performed so badly under his watch.
I can see no reason whatsoever why jewish people would not value the independence of the country as much as anyone else in the UK. Globalisation is not free trade (which I support with few restrictions or qualifications) but globalisation has come to mean:
1 surrendering our self government to unelected, unknown, international socialists who develop theor policy at our expense in secret.
2 unlimited mass migration of poor ill educated masses to places which have evolved greater social infrastructure and a capacity for greater output per head, which the poor in the recipient countries are expected to suffer for.
Neither did I. He’s such an unimpressive individual that none of us know the first thing about him!
So true!
Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab are the two names most people would cite when asked to describe a Globalist.
I don’t believe that either man is Jewish.
Both could do with a little chop , if they haven’t already
I wasn’t aware that being a lackey of the WEF and following an agenda that uses climate change as the rationale for eradicating cash payments, eroding basic freedoms and giving governments and corporations almost unlimited power over citizens, had anything to do with Judaism or any other religion.
There’s a Jonathan Miller joke from the Sixties that comes to mind…
Now go away and get our shrubbery or we shall say “anti-Semitic” at you again.
Ah, “the age old anti-Semitic trope that sees the Rothschilds running the world’s media and the global banking system.”
Why is that anti-Semitic? It’s clearly assumed as a given in the article. The Rothschilds had inordinate influence in the banking systems of their day and were instrumental in the relationships between governments and private banks through their so-called independent central banks. They brought the model to the US through their non-Jewish counterparts Morgan and Rockefeller and eventually established the Federal Reserve on Jekyll Island. This same cabal of bankers control the world’s money supply through the IMF, World Bank, central banks in each country and the fractional reserve system which allows them to create debt money out of nothing and give it to their cronies through quantitative easing. These are age old dynastic banking empires that bear the names of their patriarchs in the firms they operate under. One of the big names happens to be Jewish.
What does this have to do with being anti-Jewish or having anything against the Jewish race? Few of the top banking families today are actually Jewish, especially at the top. Why does the name Rothschild allow our whole system of financial corruption to be shrouded by the fig leaf of the Holocaust?
Or are we really that easily discouraged from asking?
Sadly ‘anti-semitic’ has become a catch-all defence against any threats to the status quo, easily invoked because some Jews inevitably occupy positions of power. Regrettably this is also a strategy used by Israel whenever anyone criticises its policies. It’s a dangerous game; both cheapening and normalising anti-semitism, crying wolf, and running the risk of creating greater hostility and mistrust for the very group it pretends to defend.
yes before the first world war the Rothschilds were influential. when I started working in the City they were one of a number of merchant banks, all of whom were even then lightly capitalised by international standards, and of no particular reputation except for their name.so when Rothschilds are so often still mentioned when discussing international finance one must wonder whether the writer does not know the names of any others or it is intended to be anti semitic although it is debateable how many of the present lot of that family regards themselves as Jewish having married out so much
I think there is a perception that Jews are over-represented in international finance and have a tendency to be clannish. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know but there are plenty of instances of particular races being over -represented in particular sectors and probably behaving clannishly which is a natural human trait. If we can’t discuss whether these things are true or not and whether they matter then it’s hard to talk about the world in any sensible manner, while at the same time being conscious of where such reasoning might lead – but that can’t be an excuse to shut down debate and silence people you don’t like.
An antisemite is someone who proposes, implements or agrees with an antisemitic policy, ie one targetting Jews because they’re Jews. That’s the only sensible definition of the term. Any use other use of it is just another case of the tried and trusted American (of course) tactic of substituting (hysterical/ alarmist) name calling and guilty-by-association fallacies for political arguments. In the given context, it basically means Farrage is A Really Evil Guy[tm] and as All Good People Must Shun Really Evil Guys[tm] unless they want to become really evil guys themselves, what he actually said doesn’t matter anymore.
As a Jew, I would like an explanation of the opening sentence, ‘As a Jew that observed the Corbyn years with horror, I’ve developed a hair-trigger sensitivity to resurgent anti-Semitism.’
I would like to know what resurgent anti-semitism the author is referring to. What I observed was a relentless politically-motivated and very obvious smear campaign against a politician who, for all his manifest flaws, is categorically not anti-semitic. Reluctant to read the rest of the article with that ill-informed opener.
Yes I can’t stand Corbyn or his politics but that particular accusation against him never seemed all that credible to me.
His brother Piers on the other hand is carrying out sterling work on our behalf regarding upholding our rights and freedoms.
“RESIST DEFY DO NOT COMPLY!!!”
For god’s sake, let’s get this whole anti-semitism out in the open shall we? It is not anti-semitic to dislike someone of Jewish origin or to insult someone of Jewish origin. It IS anti-semitic to dislike someone because they are Jewish or insult someone because they are Jewish. There is a huge difference. The term anti-semitic is explained in the actual words used in the term as in ‘against semites’. So, it follows that it’s not anti-semitic to support the right for Palestinians to have their own country – something that is often cited as an extreme form of anti-semitism. It’s not, it’s just a way that Jewish nationalists prevent a large body of people (potential enemies now) having their own country on one’s own doorstep – having systematically taken away those people’s lands since 1948 in the first place. That’s not anti-semitic, by the way, that’s what actually happened. I personally didn’t like the way it happened but I have no problem with people being Jewish. It is what is done in their name that I don’t like and then the way that that is weaponised so no one has the right to criticise the state of Israel, which is absolute nonsense. Everyone has a right to a homeland as the Jewish people did when they carved out the state of Israel. For Jewish groups to pounce on Nigel Farage for being anti-semitic for calling out Grant Shapps as a ‘globalist’ is just ridiculous because Shapps IS a globalist who also happen tp be Jewish. Farage didn’t call him out for being ‘Jewish’ did he? Case closed.
I think it should be stronger than that: An antisemite is someone who wants to persecute Jews, who is persecuting Jews or who believes that Jews ought to be persecuted. That’s more than a mere dislike. Eg, I dislike football and football fans. But I’m perfectly ok with the the fact that both exist.
Fair enough, better description, RW.
No one ever thought about the slippery sh1thouse,s religious beliefs he’s just plain dodgy ! Didn’t he have an alias at some point intertwined with some nefarious business deals ! Actually he’d make a great MP , oh hang on …
It was from the infamous Alex Jones decades ago where I first heard the term globalist being used as a description and catch-all for the hidden hand running the gears behind the scenes. I guess I’m more interested in why these connections are becoming more frequented in the mainstream, usually the tactic was to simply ignore and leave it to the depths of the internet where any potential progress in the narrative never really gained traction or a critical mass of exposure to genuinely change perceptions, so why we’re now witnessing these powerful institutions running defence is the more pertinent question in my opinion.
Catherine Austin Fitts calls “them” Mr Global doesn’t she and I’m pretty sure she’s referencing the same elitist cartel pulling the strings. How any of this is anti-Semitic though I’ve no idea – it’s almost as if the propagandists are starting to believe the conspiracy narratives they told us were dangerous and ignore for our health themselves. What’s next – any criticism of the Israeli government to be considered anti-Semitic?
Along with many, I didn’t know anything about Shapp’s religion. He’s been one of many Transport Ministers, but one should note that Ministers in that department have to behave like steering a massive ship. Trying to get it to change course is hard work, with most of it’s policies built in under the direction of the Permanent Sec et al.
Schapps sounds vaccinated to me.
resurgent antisemitism from the Corby years, there’s a trope for a start
If people don’t want to be called Globalists, perhaps they shouldn’t behave like one.
Schwab’s book on the Great Reset singled out Brexit Britain and Trump US for criticism, while praising the EU, CCP, WHO and UN.
“Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism.” – Ayn Rand