Camilla Tominey has written a scathing critique of the Covid Inquiry in the Telegraph, accusing it of devolving into a blame game rather than rigorously assessing the efficacy of lockdowns. Here’s how her article begins:
What on earth is the point of the Covid Inquiry? Lockdown was arguably the most controversial policy to be implemented in British peacetime history. It had huge ramifications for the nation’s health, its economy and for an entire generation of children. The impact is still being felt, with nearly 7.8 million patients languishing on NHS waiting lists. Wednesday’s Autumn Statement laid bare the stultifying effect it has had on the U.K.’s growth rate and the eye-watering sums it has added to our national debt.
We needed a thorough investigation into whether the coronavirus cure was worse than the disease; a forensic cost-benefit analysis of whether shutting down the country for months on end was the right policy.
But we haven’t got that. Far from it. Instead, we have an embarrassing merry-go-round of blame that is repeatedly failing to answer the central and most important question of all: How many lives were actually saved by lockdown, and was it really worth it?
In June, researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid across the world. Their findings suggested that lockdown in spring 2020, when compared with less strict policies adopted by nations like Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. To put that into context: In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales. Flu deaths hit a five-year high of 15,000 in England last winter.
The report’s authors said their study showed that the draconian measures had a “negligible impact” on Covid mortality and were a “policy failure of gigantic proportions”. They concluded: “The data are in: The deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”
“The data are in.” Information we desperately lacked at the start of the pandemic we now have in droves. Yet is any of it being properly pored over by the inquiry? No. Are any “lessons being learnt” or meaningful conclusions being drawn? It appears not.
In conclusion, Camilla Tominey issues a stark warning: If the inquiry fails to address the fundamental question of the efficacy of lockdowns, it would be deemed a dereliction of duty in the face of future pandemics.
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.
This enquiry and its conclusion + WHO treaty could be leading us to lockdowns again. There is a need to push back.
There certainly is, we are in deep deep trouble on many fronts.
If we want our children to have even a fraction of the freedoms we had then something needs to happen pretty damn speedily.
But in my heart I know we are past the point of no return, I’m convinced we had the best years, the post war years.
Almost universal material wealth in the developed world in exchange for socialist fascism: a faustian pact…..
It is possible things will correct themselves in a few decades. But in the mean-time it is hell on earth.
Politically things can and do change, but technologically, once introduced in to a society they are here for good.
This is and will be the ruination of society as we know it.
Technological Singularity will be upon us within two decades, the consequences are too concerning to even contemplate.
Digital Ids and CBDCs yes, I agree. Other stuff I don’t know.
That’s just for starters. Think millions of people whose jobs have been taken over by algorithms which can do both manual and cognitive tasks much faster and more efficiently. Most humans will become useless second class citizens, the elite of course will control the algorithms.
‘The data are in.” Information we desperately lacked at the start of the pandemic we now have in droves.’
In fact the incompetence is several orders greater, because we did not lack for information:
‘.…the 20,000 cases in China is probably only the severe cases; the folks that actually went to the hospital and got tested. The Chinese healthcare system is very overwhelmed with all the tests going through. So my thinking is this is actually not as severe a disease as is being suggested. The fatality rate is probably only 0.8%-1%. There’s a vast underreporting of cases in China. Compared to Sars and Mers we are talking about a coronavirus that has a mortality rate of 8 to 10 times less deadly to Sars to Mers. So a correct comparison is not Sars or Mers but a severe cold. Basically this is a severe form of the cold.’
06 Feb 2020, Prof John Nicholls, Coronavirus expert in China during the outbreak.
‘It is therefore arguable that in the case of infections like coronavirus or rhinovirus colds, which are normally quickly self-limited, the best approach would be to relieve the patient’s discomfort and disability and leave their immune system to take care of the virus.‘
A view from the Common Cold Unit, D.A.J. Tyrrell 1992
Information, by the way, that I have submitted to the inquiry…….
And quickly filed under B for bin no doubt.
Hallett will give it the same serious attention that she gave Carl Hennigan and his 65 pages of evidence, mostly ignored.
The conclusion of this enquiry was reached before it started.
Considering the discharge of the infected into under-resourced care homes and the demonisation of genuinely safe and effective Ivermectin and even Vitamin D, it is obvious that they were very happy that as many people as possible should die.
“… it would be deemed a dereliction of duty in the face of future pandemics.”
There was no pandemic.
Any future “pandemic” will be a Davos Deviant manufacture.
Indeed there was no pandemic and neither was there a “mistake”
“Was lockdown a terrible mistake?”
I really don’t understand how people can be clinging to the cock-up theory in November 2023.
Codswallop
Who cares if “lockdowns” or “mockdowns” “work” (whatever that means) against a mild for most respiratory virus of the type we’ve coexisted with since time immemorial. COVID did not merit depriving us of normal life for even a day
There are many fundamental questions- such as
was there a pandemic
what are the proper limits of state power
can enforced medical treatment be justified
where did Covid come from
why was the whole world in lockstep
Sorry but this won’t do
Go back to first principles
Supposed Covid sceptics who seem to have swallowed whole the Big Lie
I do not accept the enemy’s distortion of reality
Correct. Where is the pandemic? There’s a rise in deaths when they were committing murder in old folks homes but other than that….
Noone needs an inquiry to come up with the answer, just an ounce of common sense.
Which is admittedly not present at all in Westminster.
Sweden had no lockdown, less with Covid deaths, less all cause mortality and excess deaths and it did not damage its children at all.
And instead of having blown £500bln for nothing and still being in the red for that sum and the ever increasing interest on it, it has already paid back the comparatively little extra government debt it took on and an already lower gov.debt/GDP ratio than before 2020.
This ‘inquiry’ is a farce and a grift, nothing else.
It seems it was Neil Ferguson et al’s Imperial College Report 9, 16 March 2020, that dictated suppression of ‘the virus’, aka lockdowns and restrictions, “until a vaccine becomes available”.
It wasn’t disclosed in Ferguson et al’s report that Neil Ferguson is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, arguably the world’s biggest pusher of vaccine products.
Ferguson et al’s report was hugely influential on the grossly disproportionate and ill-targeted global response to Covid-19 – is it a focus of attention at the Hallett Inquiry?
I queried the influence of Neil Ferguson in my BMJ rapid response published on 25 March 2020, saying:
See: Is it ethical to impede access to natural immunity? The case of SARS-CoV2.
Was anyone in the scientific and medical establishment questioning the influence and conflicts of interest of the BMGF-funded Neil Ferguson in March 2020?
“Is”, EH, “ Is”…Gates is a known vocal eugenicist and his global funding of so called vaccines ( and the manipulation of media to push his horror story narrative) is tantamount to genocide given the scale of deaths and known long term harms. He is to Fauci & co the equivalent of Mengele to the Nazis – experimenting his death cult practices on the masses. Let him and every single one of his extended support be first in the queue as a guinea pig for the next Novichok variant testing …depopulation for the masses and not “of”..
Ms Tominey’s article is not even close to scathing – she is repeating the line taken by the DT editors consistently: pandemic = fact; drugs= safe and effective. Nil discussion of the GoF experimentation horror story: zero examination of the originator role played by US military role: Fauci et al collusion, racketeering, fraud: zero examination of excess deaths, VAERS and Yellow card…… the charge sheet is imho very long: ffs there is no mentioning the ongoing revelations of the scale of fraud by Pfizer/MHRA revealed in the treasure trove of Pfizer’s own documents the release of which was forced by a US Judge. Indctment should be extreme journalistic cowardice by all DT journos and Editorial staff. The sale to an Arab state funded organ is horrendous to contemplate.Ms Tominey as with other DT cowards is propping up Hallett & Co by doing their gaslighting for them – Tominey is a stain on GB News too.
In a slightly different note.
Where are we with the WHO IHR amendments.
From what I can gather we have until 1st of December to reject these and so far it appears New Zealand, Estonia and Slovakia have rejected these.
This is coming from X, so not entirely sure if fully reliable.
Is this a chink in the MSM armour? Nick Triggle, who was the only BBC journalist to occasionally and very timidly pop his head above the parapet during Covid, has acknowledged today that the enquiry has shown “there was little formal attempt to measure or quantify the knock-on effects of what was a completely unprecedented policy. And three years on, those harms are all too clear. Rising rates of mental health problems in the young, record-high hospital waiting lists and continued attendance problems at school.”
This is tantamount to treason at the BBC…..or are the rats beginning to think about jumping from the sinking ship?
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-67514356
I think he knows how very wrong it all was, but is too afraid to say what he really thinks. I used to read his reports. I think he had doubts from the start.