Professor Mark Woolhouse of the University of Edinburgh, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M-O) that modelled Covid outcomes for SAGE and the Government, has told the Covid Inquiry his team was never asked to model the harms of lockdown or how to avoid it. Madeline Grant has more in the Telegraph.
Professor Mark Woolhouse of the University of Edinburgh, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M-O), was a rare voice of reason throughout the hysteria. It was he who rubbished the notion that elimination was ever possible, and the SNP’s Anglophobic claim that Covid was “reseeded” into Scotland from the Typhoid Marys of England when the first lockdown ended. He repeatedly warned that using worst-case predictions (those ‘graphs of doom’) to shock people into compliance could trigger a general loss of scientific credibility. All this proved prescient.
This week, while giving evidence to the Covid Inquiry, Prof Woolhouse made a particularly damning declaration. Though lockdown was often framed as a last resort which no one wanted to impose, he begs to differ. “The harms of the social distancing measures – particularly lockdown, the economic harms, the educational harms, the harms to access to healthcare … societal wellbeing … mental health – were not included in any of the work that SPI-M-O did and, as far as I could tell, no one else was doing it either,” he told the inquiry.
So his team was never even asked to model the harm lockdown might inflict. Nor were they asked to consider alternative ways of mitigating health risks. “The question of how to avoid lockdown was never asked of us,” he added, “and I find that extraordinary.” Too right. This ought to be a national scandal. Saying “hindsight is always 20/20” doesn’t cut it; not only were many people warning about collateral harms at the time, expert authorities weren’t even being asked to consider such warnings.
Myopic decision-making was accompanied by an equally damaging tendency to view the public as a faceless bloc, ignoring the risk levels different individuals faced. So back in March 2020, the nation was, in Woolhouse’s words, “concentrating on schools when we should have been concentrating on care homes”.
This led to two of the pandemic’s most colossal mistakes – the neglect of vulnerable elderly patients and lengthy school closures, even though children were 10,000 times less likely to die from Covid than the elderly and the evidence for school transmission was patchy at best. We are still counting the cost, especially to less privileged pupils.
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.
Man of the ppl, Dr professor vice chancellor king of the world Chris Packham, the worlds greatest scientist!
Jeez Louise, seriously, an article about Chris Packham’s choice of hat?!
If I had a pub I’d call it The Cock and Bull, and there’d naturally be a picture of a cockerel and a bull outside.
Am I the only one homing in on the fantastically named The Pecker and Bush pub?
It goes without saying that if I owned a launderette I’d call it ‘Sit&Spin’. Rude not to.
In fairness any chance to mock the man who sees himself as the heir to Attenbore has to be taken with glee. Of course the fact that this jumped up trouble causer is wearing a £500 piece of headgear only confirms that for his childish mumblings the
BBCtaxpayers are paying ridiculous money.Well personally, I can hardly wait for the next riveting installment about which aftershave Chris favours and how much it sets him back. I’d be quite intrigued to know what his skin care routine involves as well, seeing as he looks nowhere near his age. You bring the wine and I’ll bring the snacks.
It’s just unusual to see an article about Mr Packham that has the comments section open for business, to be honest. Or is it just anything that Toby writes about him where we’re not allowed to comment…?
Apologies if there are alcohol-free beer enthusiasts among our number but I am suspicious of people who drink it
Revolting stuff.
Friday night is gallon night.
I just don’t see the point
Every night is vino night chez ToF, though as I’ve said before I am
also partial to locally brewed golden
ale.
Completely off topic now there is a beach wedding going on in front of us and not only is there an army of professional photographers and cameramen provided by the resort but most of the guests are sitting there filming instead of paying attention. I find people weird!
It’s the same at concerts. An artist you have paid a fortune to see, and they are playing all your favourites, yet you are distracted by the numpties holding up their phones recording it all. Why don’t they just enjoy the experience? Do they ever actually watch what they’ve filmed? I always think they are missing out.
One of the last concerts I went to before I got too grumpy was Ben Harper. You’d think his audience would be fairly reverential but I ended up having a row with people around me who kept chatting.
I did traumatise my tastebuds by trying an alcohol-free Becks when I was pregnant and it was so vile it was grapefruit and soda from that day forth. One of the things I don’t understand about alcohol-free drinks is that they’re the same price as the real stuff. Over here it’s 17 euros for a bottle of Gordon’s gin, but it’s also 17 euros for a bottle of sugary water with flavourings that has ‘Gordon’s’ on the label. Who in their right mind is going to buy this alcohol-free version for that money when they can just buy the tonic ( or mixer of choice ) for a tiny fraction of the price and just make do with that on it’s own? It’s mental, right? A glass of lemonade would be a few cents in comparison, stick some ice and a slice in it, there’s your alcohol-free beverage! People are strange.
Anyway, I’ve never liked gin because it tastes like old ladies’ perfume, as does tonic actually.
Alcohol-free “spirits” are plain weird if you ask me. At least alcohol-free beer hydrates you.
The hat still has its security tag affixed.
He must have stolen it.
On the salary he gets from the BBC he can afford it.
Anyone who drinks an alcohol-free beer whilst wearing a stupid hat that cost £520 from Prada (but about £5.20 at Primark) is a colossal plonker.
Perhaps it’s the Primark version.
Alcohol free beer has a nasty ‘dry’ taste, its the only way I can describe it. Drinking fake alcohol is like vegans eating fake meat. Why bother, when there are tasty alternatives available, if that’s your thing.
I think it lacks taste. In fact, it’s a bit like drinking decaf coffee or tea. To me they just taste like hot water. As if somebody poured some water from the boiled kettle and went, ”There’s your coffee/tea” and you’re meant to close your eyes and imagine you’re drinking an Americano/Rington’s brew. Tastes of nothing. I’m harking back to when I was preggers though, a dim and distant memory now, as I stay well away from that sort of kack these days, of course.
Same with skimmed milk – it’s just water with a smidgen of milk added – but people kid themselves they are drinking milk. Someone’s making a profit!
He probably thought it said Pravda.
Is Truth his thing though?
Biggest take from this is How TLF-ck can a Bush Hat be £520 !!
The cost of his nylon (i.e. fossil fuel based hat) is notable.
But just remember that his hat size is certainly greater than his IQ score.
Shows how stupid he really is: £500 plus for a hat = T*at.