A fascinating article published on November 6th 2023 in the Daily Sceptic by the ‘In-house doctor’ included a link to an email thread between Neil Ferguson, Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty. The emails were written on March 15th 2020. Figure 1 reproduces a part of one of these emails, with Ferguson forecasting that up to 469,896 people would be hospitalised, of which 182,749 would need ICU beds.
In the event, having emptied 60-70% of all hospital in-patients, the first lockdown saw our hospitals recording the lowest bed occupancy rates ever recorded, freeing up plenty of time for TikTok dance rehearsals.
It would appear that it was Ferguson’s alarmist predictions along with pressure from Dominic Cummings that resulted in Vallance and Whitty doing a reverse ferret, abandoning the orthodox, consensus position of mitigation and protection of the vulnerable on the way to herd immunity, and, instead opting for the radical, untested, Chinese Communist Party-inspired lockdown.
The rich irony, and a point seemingly glossed over by the Hallett Inquiry, is that quite possibly the very day that these emails were written may well have been the high water mark of transmission and infection in the U.K.’s first wave.
Of course, one consequence of this is that any action adopted by Johnson, Hancock, Whitty, Vallance and Co would have appeared to have been the right one. They were riding the down-wave. Infections were falling regardless of any Government action.
Professor Simon Wood produced a paper setting out in detail that the infection peak pre-dated lockdown. Prior to publication he’d spoken to Fraser Nelson (Editor of the Spectator) who followed up their conversation with an article in the Spectator on June 5th 2020 in which Nelson notes that the Norwegians had also noticed infections falling prior to lockdown some time earlier. The following month, Chris Whitty himself told MPs that the R rate went “below one well before, or to some extent before, March 23rd”.
Figure 2 reproduces the Government’s Coronavirus Dashboard chart for daily deaths in England for the period March 15th to April 18th 2020.
An ONS paper that looked at the mean time from COVID-19 infection to symptom onset, hospitalisations and death states:
- The time between COVID-19 infection and symptom onset varies between one and 14 days, with an average of five to six days.
- The median delay (lag) between symptom onset and hospital admission varies between one and 6.7 days depending on age and whether the patient lives in a nursing home.
- Time between symptom onset and death from COVID-19 ranges from two to eight weeks, with reported median times of 16 or 19 days.
Using these time lags and counting backwards from the ‘peak deaths day’ of April 8th we can see that the ‘onset of symptoms’ must have peaked about 16-19 days earlier, around March 20th to 23rd (remember lockdown one started March 23rd). However, the onset of symptoms was pre-dated by infection, one to six days earlier – some time around March 15th to 20th.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Ferguson, Vallance, Whitty et al. didn’t have access to these data back in March 2020, but it didn’t take long before they did. It was blindingly obvious by mid-April that infections hadn’t followed Ferguson’s curve and that, if they’d counted back, they could have seen that lockdowns hadn’t led to the down-wave but rather they’d ridden the pre-existing down-wave.
It should always be remembered that lockdowns were the unorthodox, the novel, the untested. While I suppose panic may account for the adoption of this policy in March 2020 it looks nothing short of criminal to have opted for lockdown again in November 2020 and January 2021, and still to be defending it now.
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.
“…would have [appeared to have] worked”.
The entire inquiry is the 200m dog turd on the 400bn COVID cake of iniquity.
469,896 forecast hospitalisations. Such a preposterously precise, not to say inflated number (yes I know–hindsight) should have immediately set alarm bells ringing.
Why does the precision of the number trouble you? Would rounding it to the nearest 10/100/1000/10000 have made you more comfortable? If so, why?
By feigning accuracy, it is intended to imply credibility and veracity that a rounded number would not, but it is an accuracy which is simply impossible for a computer modelled prediction.
In so-called climate science, they present global warming increases in tenths and hundredths of a degree, which is an output accuracy greater than the accuracy of the input data, to pretend it is real scientific calculation because it has a decimal point and numbers after it.
Some people fall for it.
I’m not sure I buy your analysis. The reason models such as Neil Ferguson’s and the climate models give spurious accuracy is that they tend to start with actual observed data, which are precise (number of people in hospital with Covid on 10 March 2020, say; or average global temperature on 1 January 2023). Then various assumptions are applied to this starting data – the R rate for Covid or the rate of growth in fossil fuel-related CO2 in the climate models. And, obviously, output is generated, reflecting the impact of applying the assumptions to the starting base data.
The advantage of not rounding the output data (the disadvantage being spurious accuracy) is that you avoid the need to explain that you have rounded it and why you chose the degree of rounding. Much easier just to say “this is the output data from applying these assumptions to this opening data”.
To address your “some people fall for it” point, I didn’t. I recognised that it was simply spurious accuracy generated by the application of modelling and did not give it an ounce more credibility than if it had been rounded. And I don’t at all believe that enhancing the credibility of the output data was any part of the rationale for not rounding the data.
No less preposterous with foresight.
Just pack it in. Sick to the back teeth of reading about this crap.
There was NO PANDEMIC. Is DS deliberately attempting to alienate its members?
This country, the Western world is on the verge of self-destruction and DS is still rehashing old news.
As Armistice weekend approaches the least DS could do would be to honour our fallen war dead in some ways. In view of the impending violence we are likely to see this weekend perhaps DS could provide one or two morale boosting stories to lift our spirits. How about retelling the Dam Busters raid or The Great Escape or even more pointedly the Dunkirk story for we are surely facing another Dunkirk moment.
Why is there no analysis of the Mail story which has already set the headlines for this weekend:
“Far right extremists disrupt peaceful, genocidal protestors at the Cenotaph.”
Quite frankly this is a fucking disgrace – ban me for that comment if you feel obliged to.
I hear you, hux, and get where you’re coming from. It would serve DS more to be more topical, not flogging a dead horse continually with over-analysis, harping on and rehashing stuff that’s been done to death on here over the last few years. But banging on about flaming lockdowns and a cold virus *still*???
Who gives a sh*t? Not the multi-jabbed citizens of Pfizer Nation in the Middle East, that’s for sure. No amount of clot shots, green passes or face muzzles are going to save them and I’m going to hazard a guess catching a cold is the least of their worries right now. Same goes for the Jewish folk in the West and anyone who gives a stuff about our supposed democratic societies that are going to hell before our eyes.
Is the DS still going to be looking retrospectively, harping on about bloody lockdowns and masks this time next year? It’s just tedious and bordering on obsessive now.
Thank you for the support Mogs. Much appreciated.
Whilst I agree with your comments about the persistence of covid coverage, the MSM are still persistent in ramming the purported dangers of the sniffle down our throats. Personally I find the continual covid coverage tedious, but it is also necessary to continue to shout Horlicks at every possible chance to shout down the official narrative. For me, it has gone beyond annoyance to mildly supressed anger, I will not accept the narrative, and unfortunately apart from the DS there are few voices left in opposition. Gentlemen, you are not alone in your frustration.
The problem is that they will lock us down again quite happily if there is no fight. Look at the “enquiry” designed only to suggest harder lockdown was warranted.
And there are still far too many people in my sphere who think it was all justified.
The purpose of the covid whitewash is to show that national ‘normal’ government is incapable of dealing effectively with pandemics, and that such matters would be better handled by an international body, with experts guiding it.
Know what you mean but I think that both functions are required of an entity like DS. Events such as the those concerning the Cenotaph are of greatest importance to us at this moment, of course; but the fact is that many influential people are still promoting lockdowns – and they have to be confronted. Not to challenge them would be simply to surrender the arena. It’s a bit of a bore, I agree – but I feel it’s a very important and necessary bore. I often find myself scrolling past (or through) articles about Covid to get to more immediate concerns, but I’d have missed some very important stuff if they hadn’t been put in front of me in the way the DS does. There’s a lot of space available, after all. If I’m in the mood to read something, I read it; if I’m not, I don’t.
I don’t believe that the government and its advisers had to wait for official death registration and ONS processing of the deaths data. They would have had much more timely data than that – though I think that in itself may have led to an overestimation of Covid death counts. Whatever. The rate of increase in the death rate up to 23 March clearly pointed to a peak in deaths occurring in early April. For the death rate data to be showing this trend, the infections leading to those deaths must have followed a similar trend sometime previously. From this we can confidently say that infections had peaked and were declining well before 23 March and that this analysis of the data should have occurred to SAGE et al.
The fact that death rates were already increasing in March shows that Imperial College’s ‘Report 9’ was rubbish. Their prediction showed the increase starting in mid April. As deaths were already increasing before the publication of their report it’s a wonder they bothered to present it.
To determine if the first lockdown ‘worked’ I would expect to see some downward deflection or kink in the death rate graphs. The most obvious kink is the peak on April 8 – but that’s far to soon to have been caused by lockdown. The trouble is the only other downward kink I can find in the data is around 19 April – 27 days after the lockdown announcement – and it’s a very small kink. One implication of that is that infections peaked 27 days before the peak of deaths on 8 April which puts peak infections on 12 March – well before the publication of ‘Report 9’ on 16 March, the introduction of the Coronavirus Act to Parliament on 19 March or the lockdown announcement on 23 March. Another implication is that lockdown had a very small beneficial effect on death rates.
They had NHS data that tracked the number of COVID related phone calls. This data suggested infections had peaked before lockdown could have had an impact.
Possibly, though the number of phone calls may simply have reflected the level of alarm and suspicion of symptoms rather than actual infections.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-lost-billions-how-your-money-is-wasted-on-global-white-elephants/
This is what I would call relevant news in today’s world – how successive British governments steal our money and spray billions across unaccountable international NGO’s.
This should raise blood pressure.
I used to read LS first, then CW Hux’.
Latterly I’ve reversed that order to reflect quality first.
Alison Pearson in today’s DT has a top notch article. Pithy, ballsy and on the money.
Many thanks.
This is a practical, lawful way for you to lower your blood pressure & remove your funding from these wasteful practices.
It uses Magna Carta, which can never be revoked by Parliament as it predates Parliament. Hence why the political class hate it & the rights which it affords to the people under Common Law.
Focus your anger into positive action.
https://www.probityco.com/
Thanks BB.
Don’t think you need worry on that score. BP in a permanently raised condition these days – and not only because of one’s distinctly un-vegan diet.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/coming-soon-the-next-contagion-epic/
It looks like their next Scamdemic will be based on the ‘Nipah’ virus and with millions already thrown at the usual suspects for “vaccines” I would put money on this being their next big one. I still maintain this next kill program will commence once the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty has been rubber stamped.
The Nipah virus is actually Japanese Encephalitis renamed. It’s the modern version of the C1984 which we all know was simply a re-branded version of ‘flu. And guess what? It requires a PCR test.
Well fancy that!
My comment on the article was ‘When I read referrals to Jeremy Farrar, Matt Hancock, WHO and PCR tests in one article, I reach for my revolver.’ With apologies to Hanns Johst’s character Schlageter, whose actual quote was “I release the safety catch on my Browning.”
I wish I had a gun.
You mean the Nipah virus that has a handful of cases each year?? Very deadly indeed….
But it’s amazing how easily controlled people are if you keep them in a state of perpetual fear through terrorism psych ops.
BTW terrorism via psych ops is an unlawful act of warfare under the Geneva Convention & gives one a lawful excuse to withhold taxes unless incontrovertible proof that those unlawful acts of warfare are not being funded by your taxes by end of the financial year.
https://www.probityco.com/
Need to remember the prime minister went into hospital from 6th to 12th April 2020, and there was nobody’s hand on the tiller even after that until he had recuperated a bit.
That was our only hope………
‘It’s better not having a government…..’
Mr Cocquyt, Belgian
18 Feb 2011
I have a Belgian acquaintance who said that in those 2 years without a government the country had never been so well run!
A bit like when a set of traffic lights go rogue. People seem to manage quite nicely and are more courteous to one another. And the traffic keeps moving.
This was first raised by Simon wood in May 2020 !!!
Did COVID-19 infections decline before UK lockdown?
Simon N. Wood, University of Bristol, UK. June 1, 2020
They also did have access to this article and data on 18.3.2020!!!:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-18/99-of-those-who-died-from-virus-had-other-illness-italy-says
And this: https://twitter.com/HoskingTheTimes/status/1241812905865216000
The “real Covid scandal” has little and less to do with Dominic Cummings. The “real Covid scandal” is that the fake pandemic was orchestrated from the highest level in order to seize political power to an unprecedented extent.
“Lockdown” was not a mistake. It was a deliberate act of societal sabotage carried out on a global scale.
What Covid really revealed – what the inquiry will never so much as hint at and what nobody in the mainstream wants us to talk about – is that some greater authority exists above almost all national governments, with both the desire and ability to dictate the domestic policies of almost every nation on Earth.
And spoiler alert: It’s not Dominic Cummings
http://www.zerohedge.com/political/uk-covid-inquiry-just-more-propaganda
As I have stated more than once – hat tip tof – there was No Pandemic.
There is only one question which needs asking – if there was no pandemic why did the government act in the way they did?
(And of course I know the answer).
The data on Worldometer website which collected official data from Governments, shows peak deaths UK in early March, indicating peak infection rate early February (21 to 28 days, infection to death).
The Worldometer data was date of reported death, not date of actual death.
This doesn’t match the data in the above article.
The Worldometer data shows the peak death rate about the same for all European Countries.
I followed this site from the start. It seemed reliable.
I am not confident of anything a UK Government ‘dashboard’ published.
Hindsight is, quite literally, 2020.
How the Great Barrington Declaration got such derisive press will baffle me forever. It seems so obvious that it was the best alternative approach to authoritarian pandemic management since sliced bread. For some of you commenting below the line, I’m playing devil’s advocate in even suggesting there was a pandemic – I believe there was something that can very loosely be labelled a “pandemic”.
But it was mild in terms of historic pandemic severity, and lockdown, as well as being counterproductive to all other aspect of life outside of respiratory diseases, defied all logic too!
If the virus (or whatever it was that was killing people) was, as the official narrative stated, highly transmissible, affected almost exclusively the vulnerable, the immunocompromised, and the elderly, then even in the absence of lockdown measures, this particular segment of the population would have stayed home, not had relatives over, and not gone down the pub, as per common sense and as they had been doing long before the concept of “lockdown” ever saw the light of day!
The best question the Hallet Inquiry could be addressing, would be: What would have been the impact on hospitalizations, deaths and NHS pressures, had the vast majority of people who are not severely affected by Covid, continued to mix among themselves as they wished, while sensibly being cautious around the elderly (as most people instinctively do)?
“Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Ferguson, Vallance, Whitty et al. didn’t have access to these data back in March 2020, but it didn’t take long before they did…..”
——-
Well they certainly had access to other data which indicated that panic wasn’t appropriate … because 5 days BEFORE the first lockdown the Government, on the advice of its $cientists/Medics, downgraded Covid from a High to a Low Consequence Infectious Disease …… because they had sufficient data to know that it had low mortality rates and who was at most risk (the very frail/elderly).
Whitty estimated a mortality rate of 1%. It was far lower than that …. around 0.2%
Even IF the Government thought that “3 weeks to flatten the curve” was necessary, at the end of that 3 weeks it was blindingly obvious that the curve had flattened. So the lockdowns should have been called off.
They weren’t ….. because this was never about health and a mild virus.
They did have access to this data, and the public did too:
https://twitter.com/HoskingTheTimes/status/1241812905865216000
That the policies were implemented anyway – with all the collateral damage that then transpired – is one of the gravest misadventures in our country’s history.
“Ferguson, Vallance, Whitty et al. didn’t have access to these data back in March 2020″.
Not true, as they did have this information. It was in the public domain, and it was being reported by mainstream (=serious) commentators: https://twitter.com/HoskingTheTimes/status/1241812905865216000. They would have had more data that wasn’t in the public domain backing this up.
See also this from David Paton: https://x.com/cricketwyvern/status/1722255809483325932