Module Two of the Covid Inquiry is now up and running. This module looks at Government decision-making, the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and the impact of lockdowns.
A statement by the Lead Counsel to the Inquiry, Mr. Keith, was up first on Tuesday October 3rd. Immediately, Mr. Keith came to a contentious issue.
The number of deaths across the United Kingdom, calculated by whether COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate, is now over 230,000. By the measure of excess deaths or excess mortality, the figures are likely to be similar.
The figures for England and Wales show that between Week 11 2020 to Week 38 of 2023 there have been 2,089,552 deaths, of which 207,814 (10%) mentioned Covid.
Compared to the five-year average, there is an excess of 195,951 deaths. However, we have just shown the methods used to calculate the excess affect the estimate; also, it is incorrect to assume that all Covid deaths equate to the excess.
It is incorrect to assume all Covid deaths (whatever that means) are excess deaths. Particularly given ‘Covid deaths’ could be assigned in 14 different ways, and as we have shown in 2022, the excess deaths remain unexplained.
However, Mr. Keith makes some useful comparisons:
But a broad comparison is still useful. It shows, for example, here that the United Kingdom had a lower burden of excess mortality than indeed many countries. The example that we’ve chosen here is Italy, which had a greater degree of excess death than the United Kingdom. So we were by no means the hardest hit, but we did have a higher burden in terms of the calculation of excess deaths than many other countries, and we’ve put on this chart France, South Korea, Sweden and Denmark.
A lot has been made of Sir Patrick Vallance’s diaries that have been passed onto the Inquiry. An entry from June 10th 2020 from Dr. Vallance records: “I am [worried] that a ‘SAGE is trouble’ vibe is appearing in No 10.”
It may even be the Government selected on occasion from SAGE what it wanted. There is a: “Paper from No 10/[Cabinet Office] for 1[metre]/2[metre] review,” notes Vallance. “Some person has completely rewritten the science advice as though it is the definitive version. They have just cherry-picked. Quite extraordinary.”
But, there’s also a perplexing explanation of modelling by Mr. Keith supporting its use and placing the onus on us – because we just don’t understand.
My Lady, little or no work had ever been done on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions such as closing schools and lockdowns, not least because there hadn’t been a respiratory pandemic recently, and no such societal measures had been applied in the United Kingdom for over 100 years. But this field of mathematical and statistical models in public health is an extraordinarily complex one, and there was a basic difference between forecasting and the construction of model-based scenarios, both processes engaged in by this committee.
Forecasting essentially concerns asking the question: what do we think will happen? Model-based scenario construction asks the question: what might happen if we do X or Y? How effective will closing schools reduce the spread of the virus?
That difference between forecasting and model-based scenarios was crucial, because scenarios were often wrongly treated by many as forecasts, so that when a particular scenario didn’t come to pass, for example, the number of deaths that were estimated in that scenario did not come, and, for example, the number of deaths did not go up to the particular levels estimated on the closing of schools, or one of the other social restrictions that was imposed or could be imposed, this was treated as a failure of modelling or as the deliberate propagation of a climate of fear. It wasn’t.
The first reader to decipher this stuff gets a complimentary subscription to Trust the Evidence and our deluxe package: a pint at the John Snow in Broadwick Street with Carl and Tom (don’t worry, the pump’s handle is gone).
Not all is lost! Sir Patrick had some difficulty with this, too, back in September 2020, and there’s some element of recovery when the KC says:
The craving for certainty of what is to come, particularly in the early stages of a pandemic, may mean that model outputs are seen as ‘the answer’, which they can never be. …
So, was there an over-reliance on epidemiological modelling? Was too much time spent analysing the differences between the various models? Could more attention have been paid to tracking the policy responses of other countries and, as I’ve indicated, the likely economic and social impacts of the lockdowns?
But, again, the KC makes a flip-flop:
What may, however, be clear is that there is evidence from Imperial College in June 2020 that, had a lockdown not been imposed at all, i.e., had just the earlier measures of March 13th, March 16th, March 18th and March 20th been imposed, the virus would probably – probably – have continued to grow exponentially.
But the control in this is Sweden, which receives no mention – odd.
On page 103, the KC mentions the September 20th meeting that Carl attended.
On Sunday September 20th the meeting to which I’ve referred took place, chaired by Mr. Case and attended by the Prime Minister, the CMO, the CSA, and Professors Edmunds, Gupta and Heneghan, Dr. Anders Tegnell, from Sweden, and Professor Dame Angela McLean, the Deputy Government Chief Scientific Adviser, also attended. The Chancellor also attended, but he says in his written statement he doesn’t have strong recollections of that precise discussion.
Perhaps we should leave the last words for day one of the Inquiry to Dominic Cummings. “This is a shitshow. We should have gone a month ago as we said.”
On day two, Ms. Twite spoke on behalf of Save the Children U.K., Just for Kids Law and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, pointing out how children were glossed over in the decision-making processes:
So we ask the Inquiry to start by recognising the distinct needs of children, and then we ask the Inquiry to ask whether the Government considered those needs.
To do that, we ask you look both at how those decisions were made. Did they carry out any impact assessments for children? Were modelling and analysis done about different rules for children? Were children mentioned in their discussions?
Mr. Stanton represented the British Medical Association (BMA). Seems they think there should have been more lockdowns, contact tracing, masks and reduced household mixing – the BMA stance is clear, we need more of everything – and while we’re here, let’s throw the kitchen sink at it next time.
The BMA believes that the United Kingdom Government’s response to the pandemic was categorised by a failure to take a sufficiently precautionary approach.
Also up was Joanna Goodman of the COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice, who gave a rather harrowing story of how her father passed away.
Ms. Goodman also painted a picture of several problems in the system that, here on TTE, we’ve banged on about.
Answer: “A lot of people who were in hospital for the entire period, so it was very clear that they contracted Covid. A number of people who also believed that their loved ones had contracted Covid, like we believed my dad did –”
KC: “Yes?”
Answer: “At an outpatient appointment. Also people not being tested on discharge from hospital, and often then going home, becoming ill, being re-admitted. Or actually going home to someone else who was vulnerable in the household. So particularly you can imagine elderly couples whereby one of them would have been in hospital, wasn’t tested, and on arriving home became ill.”
KC: Right.
Answer: “And then their partner then went on to become ill. And, yeah, I think it’s one of the saddest things that there are a number of people in our group who lost both parents to COVID-19.”
As well as the issues in care homes
But also actually concerns around access to healthcare for care home residents. So a lot of members reporting that their loved ones contracted COVID-19 and having concerns about how it had come into the care home, but also feeling as though, because their loved one was a care home resident and had a number of health conditions, it was almost assumed that what they would need was palliative care and that that should be provided in the care home rather than it being possible for them to be admitted to hospital for treatment.
Also up was Dr. Alan Wightman of the Scottish Bereaved Families for Justice, who laid out the problems of confinement in care homes we’ve previously discussed:
The fact that care homes seemed to have been regarded almost as isolation hospitals. Which they’re not.
They’re not designed to hold people in isolation. They are designed to encourage older, predominantly older residents to mix, not be isolated, and not stay in their rooms. And yet, at a certain point in time, they were treated as isolation hospitals, which went against what the care staff had been trying to achieve in normal business.
As we said, some of this stuff is harrowing, but it highlights the sheer incompetence of the thinking:
But we’ve also got instances of where people appear to have been discharged because they were in their early 80s, they were sent home, knowingly having Covid. I mean, we’ve got an example of a gentleman, 84, sent home to his 82-year old wife, and known to be infected with Covid, but there was nothing more the hospital felt they could do for him, sent him home, she got Covid as well, and they both died because of it.
And the irrational approach to different rules access borders:
“It was very confusing which country had which rules. There was also people being treated, that lived on the borders, being treated in England; there was a lot of healthcare workers that lived in Bristol that were going to Wales, so there’s a whole big question around: was it right that different nations had different rules in place, and why, and should that happen again? I’m not here to judge, but it doesn’t seem logical when you’ve got porous borders to allow that, or –”
KC: “And did it make it extremely hard to adhere to, if there was an unnecessary degree of complexity or confusion?”
Answer: “Absolutely. I was travelling between England and Wales, so I was personally affected and I couldn’t – you know, it was difficult, was I wearing a mask here, wasn’t I wearing a mask there? You know, going across the Severn Bridge was like going across the Mexican border; you didn’t know whether you were going to get stopped.”
Perhaps we’ll leave the last word for day three to Mr. O’Connor, one of 11 KCs to join the legal team to support Hugo Keith (please don’t mention the costs of all this, though).
Research suggests that older people who previously did not need support to maintain their independence are now requiring care and support for the first time, and much earlier than would otherwise have been the case. Those who were already struggling to carry out activities of daily living, such as walking, eating, showering and getting dressed, are now finding things harder. The significant drop in activity levels amongst over 50s, and only a third of people aged 75 and over have been active during the pandemic.
Let us, however, leave our readers with a question: is the decline in independence the effect of SARS-CoV-2 or the effect of the restrictions?
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.
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.
‘…..scenarios were often wrongly treated by many as forecasts’
The usual cop out through semantics.
If the scenarios were not forecasts, then they were completely pointless. Why bother with them if they have no predictive value?
Utterly useless for planning purposes, as we have seen time after time after time……
What a complete shower…..!
Just like the Climatrons when their predictions failed to materialise, they relabelled them ‘projection’.
And also like the Climatrons, all reliant on modelling.
A proper scenario would be to compare the spread of an epidemic with perfect mixing to one with limited mixing. That would show that flattening the curve leads to the epidemic lasting a lot longer and resulting in large amounts of herd immunity. Hence small amounts of acquired immunity so that when you unlock you just get another wave.
Those “many” included, at the time, Whitty and Vallance and pretty much the entirety of SAGE, if I remember rightly.
‘….is the decline in independence the effect of SARS-CoV-2 or the effect of the restrictions?’
Quite clearly an effect of the restrictions and the vaccinations which, certainly in this household have, via giant cell arteritis and its steroid treatment, caused one family member to contract severe dementia and complete loss of independence.
Incandescent at the simperings of so many buffoons at this worryingly misdirected enquiry…..
Saddest of all is that, no matter what you think about lockdowns and restrictions and their importance for covid control, there was nothing to stop the over 50s (hardly old, but then I would say that when I’m in my mid-40s) or over 75s from leaving the house daily for a walk – other than the incessant fear porn of course. You could pretty much guarantee a brisk hour’s walk would not result in a covid infection. So not only did they not avoid covid by staying at home (and probably then caught it in hospital in the following months when requiring treatment for illnesses or injury caused by inactivity), they also reduced the quality and quantity of the rest of their lives, not to mention the burden on Our NHS.
No one was prevented from catching anything by staying at home. Airbourne, therefore by definition everywhere. Perhaps a good vacuum chamber would have been effective, but only at killing people. Masks, useless. Lockdown useless and harmful. All the effective things were banned, Ivermectin, and lots of other drugs. However the experiment was a success, vaccinating people without full disclosure, improper testing (actually almost none and there were deaths reported, and ignored). That is usually called Genocide by deceit.
None of these models ever seem to take into consideration the fact that only a small percentage of people exposed to a pathogen actually develop any sort of illness. I guess that is by design so they can claim their interventions work when not every single person in the world gets sick at the same time.
And the dead totals from Rona are bollocks. They include the fake tests and dying from something else but having a ‘symptom’ of Rona so the Quacks can attach Rona to the death cert and collect money – evthg was paid. But I doubt the money for Rona theme, will make an appearance in this sham confirmation er sorry, ‘inquiry’.
230 K did not die from Rona. 20-30 k died from and only from Rona. The rest were falsified numbers, including older people murdered with Midazolam (30 K?) but blamed on Rona.
This ‘inquiry’ is f*ing propaganda and about as real as the ‘science’ of Rona.
And didn’t they relax the rules for writing out certificates? Almost back to the Harold Shipman days – he would have made full advantage of it.
Yes that was mentioned in the book ‘Pseudo Pandemic’, New Normal Technocracy. Memory is a bit hazy but that was mentioned in the book that laws that were put in place post Harrold Shipman were relaxed.
Doctors were instructed to add Covid unless they could prove the patient did NOT have it. Hm…
They never seem to do any model validation as that would probably invalidate their model.
Surely you have realised that any of these computer models from Imperial are entirely fixed to produce the desired result? 500,000 deaths we the claim, at a cost of a few million quid I expect.
What Imperial College produced was not evidence. It was madey-uppy shite.
And as the headline draws attention to it: The virus could not have ‘continued to grow exponentially’ because it never started to grow exponentially. Death data which would have been available to planners (though it was not available to the general public until a few days later) up to the lockdown announcement showed that the rate of increase was already slowing – it never was increasing exponentially. That data showing the slowing of the rate of increase pointed to a peak in deaths occurring around 6 April – the peak was actually on 8 April.
The death data available up to the lockdown announcement on 23rd March pointed to a peak in early April which was already inevitable because the infections leading to those deaths had already occurred.
Sorry (not sorry) to keep banging this drum:
It was not exponential:
The above chart shows a best-fit exponential for the death data for England and Wales to 23 March 2020 and also the deaths where Covid was ‘mentioned’ on the certificate.
The planners should have trusted this empirical evidence:
The above chart shows change in rate of increase in 3-day average death count for England and Wales up to the peak on 8 April 2020. The red shows deaths that occurred before the lockdown announcement and the blue post lockdown. The red trend line reaches zero (the peak, no further increase in rate) on 6 April 2020 – two days earlier than what actually happened.
That’s what they should have done: Trust the Evidence
Not only was it not exponential but this has been known for several generations. Exponential growth in a finite world breaks realizability (a.k.a. common sense) when the number of infected is greater than the number of susceptible. And on to infinity. Reductio ad absurdum.
Being a deterministic process some event has to happen to kick it off the curve and onto a sensible one. This has to happen in an uncontrived way. Or, by Occam’s razor, it was never growing exponentially in the first place. For example the standard SIR model of 1927 vintage doesn’t grow exponentially. i.e. The model that is the basis for all the Covid modelling.
Of course an epidemic is a stochastic process. Its growth happens to be exponential multiplied by a logit-normal distribution with expected value corresponding to the standard SIR model. Remember one infects two who infect four. Or do the two try to infect each other and the first one?
More on YouTube
Also, phone calls to the covid phone line had peaked before any restrictions could have had an impact. Chris Whitty knows the first wave had peaked before restrictions could have had an impact. No doubt he’ll be correcting the Lead Counsel’s mistake.
No doubt he’ll be correcting the Lead Counsel’s mistake.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha.
I remember Owen Jones arguing with Peter Hitchens about that….The fact that the curve was already decreasing is not an argument for Lockdown, but against.
Mmm, I take your point but we mustn’t give an easy target to the lockdowners. The rate of increase in deaths was slowing and It’s certainly an argument against lockdown. The daily rate of increase started at around 100% – ie double the number of deaths in the first day but by the end of the first week we were ‘only’ getting about 50% more deaths each day and by the time of the lockdown announcement we were getting around 20% more deaths each day. We reached the peak and the point that the number of deaths each day began to decline on 8 April.
With an average lead time of around 27days from infection to death (for those poor people who died) the infections leading to the deaths on 8 April were happening around 11th/12th March – ie before lockdown.
It’s not an inquiry. It’s a stage play from the same team that brought you the “covid pandemic”.
Shameless as well. We can all see the public inquiries going on in other nations that are actually savaging the establishment rather than slapping it on the back.
I wasn’t aware of that. Whereabouts?
From memory the Aussies and Americans. Seem to remember the Germans getting some good scrutiny.
Rand Paul has been giving Fauci a good grilling, for sure.
Never mind the conclusions, the whole thing is based on a false premise – that there was a “deadly pandemic” that constituted a “public health emergency”.
Whitty agreed with Prof Simon Wood, of Bristol Uni, that cases had peaked in advance of Lockdown 1.
Keith is trying to rewrite history. It’s not contentious that as cases had peaked before Lockdown then there was never a chance of runaway infections.
Yes didn’t Whitty say this to MPs?
“ it was almost assumed that what they would need was palliative care and that that should be provided in the care home rather than it being possible for them to be admitted to hospital for treatment”…..And with family members not aloud to enter, and Drs that can diagnose over a zoom call, it was fertile ground to bump up the ‘covid’ death numbers.
Aka virus spreads via permanent chains of transmission.
Nice idea, obviously loved by bigpharma, but patently false – which is why lockdowns, masks, distancing don’t really work.
Back to the drawing board you germ theory enthusiasts –
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-5-29
Also –
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra070553
If the NHS, sorry the governments propaganda health machine, actually cared about keeping us healthy they might try extolling the virtues of Viatamin D3/K2.
Also bear in mind that Hancock said, in Parliament, Vitamin D doesn’t work. May hell welcome him and his ilk with open arms.
Deciphering the bit about modelling and forecasting is actually not that difficult. A model is a computer simulation of some complex scenario which takes a set of input assumptions and calculates an output from that. Eg, if we assume that we’ll see 8000 COVID deaths next Wednesday given an assumed infection rate of 2.7182818 and assume that holding school sessions under water with triple-tested kids wearing two masks below their scuba gear reduces the infection rate at a speed of 0.049787 per day, how many deaths will the instead get next Wednesday? The important thing here is that this is a theoretical test of the effects some real world measure based on assumptions, ie, it’s all hypothetical and meant to be this way.
Of course, all of these subtle details will get lost when this is translated into headlines which will then shriek 8000 COVID deaths next Wednesday unless schools session immediately moved under water! But that’s certainly entirely unintentional and by no means meant to frighten anyone into actually supporting this proposal.
I have to take exception to the word exponentially, as used so often in fear-mongering.
Exponentially means increase at a continually increasing rate – or happening faster and faster – and continuing to infinity.
There are not enough people in the world to sustain an exponential rise in deaths, infections or anything else, however, that said, it does appear that the stupidity of our ruling classes is showing exponential characteristics.
Interesting, and then there is this, slightly off topic but still covid related.
https://youtu.be/qXglXTxXPlo?si=dGmE9Bmo7SVGYOeB
This “Inquiry” has one purpose only:
to absolve The Establishment from deliberately wrecking the economy and ruining millions of lives over a virus THEY ALREADY KNEW had very low mortality rates and who was vulnerable.
One does need to remember that the Barrister for the enquiry is there to represent the Government. Do not believe a word Mr Keith says. He is there to argue against any Government blame, and he will try very hard. The other side need to push very hard indeed for direct proof of every word presented, by all witnesses.