Karol Sikora drew our attention to this exchange between the Prime Minister and Mr. Hugo Keith KC over whether the lockdown caused more harm than good.
Sunak was drawing attention to a particular type of economic analysis called cost-benefit analysis (CBA) performed by academics from Imperial and Manchester.
But also I think – analysis has been done subsequent to this that I wasn’t aware of at the time from professors of medicine and economics at Imperial and Manchester that applied a QALY analysis to the first lockdown and its duration. And their QALY analysis, which you’ll be familiar with, is a tool of health, a public health analysis, suggested that the lockdown in its severity and duration is likely to have generated costs that are greater than the likely benefit. So I think –
In a variant of the CBA analysis called cost-utility analysis (CUA), the benefit part is calculated by constructing a QALY or quality-adjusted life year, which weighs the length of life gained by its quality. One of the strengths of QALYs is that they wrap up in one measure with what economists call “intangibles” such as pain, grief and suffering, which we all know so well from the lockdowns.
The bottom line in the cost benefit analysis of the lockdown in the U.K. was negative in every scenario.
Future scenarios showed in the best case a QALY value of £220k (seven times NICE guideline) and in the worst‐case £3.7m (125 times NICE guideline) was needed to justify the continuation of lockdown.
Even in the best case scenario the benefits of lockdowns were substantially outweighed by the costs and far outweighed the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) threshold to justify a positive recommendation for intervening.
But Mr. Keith, faithful to the whole direction of the inquiry, was having none of it and closed down the PM by pronouncing the immortal lines “I don’t want to get into quality life assurance and models”.
Writing in today’s Telegraph, Sarah Knapton reported: “The exchange was telling, demonstrating a lack of scientific rigour from the inquiry barrister, while proving Sunak had a better handle on the evidence than many.”
Mr. Keith’s line shows the world the crass ignorance of the briefing that the KCs have received and the bias permeating every session.
It seems, the Government messaging to “stay home, protect the NHS, save lives”, as the lockdowns mandated, did anything but save lives.
Ours is not to reason why, but to pay tax and die – with apologies to Lord Tennyson.
Prof. 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.
I was surprised Sunak did not know of the QUALY data. I was aware of public reports on that quite early on.
as Chancellor, did he not have a voice. Should he not have asked for that data.
I would bet money on Keith knowing all about QALYs. He knows it’s a subject best avoided!
No don’t count on it, these ppl are incredibly dumb. His answer actually shows he has no clue what it even is.
A top KC who gets paid ££££s will not be “incredibly dumb”. If you look at the cases he has been involved in, it’s clear he will have developed an acute political awareness. You don’t get to be a top KC by just knowing the law.
Speaking the truth can be career limiting or, at the very least, close doors to you. I should know, I’ve found myself there at least three times in my past.
I spoke the inconvenient truth and took the hit. You might say I’m my own worst enemy, but I don’t regret it.
Perhaps that tendency is why I also couldn’t shut up about lockdown and the rest. I think I’m just wired that way.
“Speaking the truth can be career limiting or, at the very least, close doors to you.”
Exactly.
Yes I’m just a millionaire a couple of times over instead of 10 times over had I kept my thoughts private. My mouth has cost fortunes and now my career is basically over, albeit I cannot claim poverty.
Join the club, GDA…
You might be right but you’d be surprised how supposedly intelligent ppl are completely innumerate. On reflection the speed with which he moved on suggests you are right, though his explanation of Qaly was wilfully misinformed.
I know lots of “intelligent” people who are gullible or capable of great intellectual laziness when it suits them. However it seems to me that to get to the top of a profession like law, or politics, requires you to have the skills of a professional liar and to know which side your bread is buttered.
So, two things can both be true at the same time
A KC has a huge advantage in a conventional courtroom – he has read his brief, he knows which questions he wants to ask, he knows which subjects he wants to explore and how to close down the areas he doesn’t. The witness is often nervous, may be scared.and may not have the same level of articulation as the KC. A KC doesn’t get to his or her position without being clever and skilled both inside or outside the courtroom.
But, if you come up against someone who is self-assured or confident, knows their subject and crucially knows how to prevent having words put in their mouth then any of the KC’s shortcomings or his prepared position may be exposed, as I believe they were here. I suspect he is probably fuming about this brief exchange, especially as it happened on the last day, for now, and was widely reported.
Yes, that’s a good point.
As I’ve said before there should really be two or maybe three adversarial teams who can call witnesses and cross examine them – one that is defending the government’s actions, one that is advocating for more restrictions and one for none. That way more people would be exposed to the holes in the whole thing.
Spot on. As I mentioned in the “roundup” commentary earlier today: “And the likely increase in deaths by alternative routes, due to lack of service & extended waiting lists for a range of other diseases. It’s entirely possible to demonstrate that the concept of “lockdown” had a negative effect, just based on QALY using the original definition of the term. No surprise that the barrister steered clear of it.”
A cynic might suggest that the so-called “Inquiry” is actually a self defence process.
Indeed. I think it’s more than self-defence, it’s an integral part of covid theatre, to consolidate the Big Lie that there was a Deadly Pandemic and a Public Health Emergency.
Smoke and mirrors. People will remember only the conclusions drawn at the end.
We’ll remain labeled as conspiracy theorists, whereas we’re simply performing the radical act of remembering specific details.
I think it’s a subject he’s been instructed to avoid.
Keith is clearly an ignoramus. This retard has been hand picked to guarantee the “right” outcome. QALY is a basic concept used in public policy.
A discussion between an ex-Chancellor and a top end barrister. Keith is clever enough to avoid the topic altogether; it’s not on his agenda. I assume you are using the term “ignoramus” in the legal use of the term, so as to deliberately pretend to not know something!
I don’t know if it’s ignorance or malevolence, does it even matter? I’ve spent so much time around lawyers to be aware they are not terribly numerate, even supposedly brilliant ones. They have a niche skill, the law, bugger all else but think yr right about his political acumen
A Cost Benefit Analysis? How does that apply?
Someone please tell me, what benefit at all was there from lockdown?
Well you’ve nailed it. Zero benefits, 400bn costs. -400bn.
Well, there could be a list of those that made a profit out of it, along with that lost revenue etc, including those that lost their reputation on account of their behaviour. However, I’m sceptical of the availability of honest reports on either side.
Indeed. Lockdown is a novel intervention with an obviously huge cost. As such, it’s up to lockdown advocates to provide a compelling case with real world evidence that there was a benefit. I’ve not seen any such compelling evidence.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/12/13/russias-friendliest-bank-will-help-brics-implement-the-climate-agenda/
Climate change in Russia will cost the economy 580 billion roubles pa between now and 2027 apparently.
Why is ‘Climate change’ always bad news? A little global boiling would certainly be much appreciated in the UK over the course of the next few months and would help to reduce fuel bills for everyone. Why such negativity?
He’s a Lawyer for God’s sake, and a KC. Years ago the title QC actually meant the holders thereof had at least a shred of Honour.
He won’t give a shit – as long as he’s paid.
If he’s never heard of a cost benefit analysis/risk assessments then I’m the King of Scotland. It’s the FIRST question any Lawyer asks re possible injury claims. But as most on here know it ain’t about that is it.
And as for the Good Lady, Christ, she’s an utter disgrace to my once honourable profession. A pure Government puppet. They chose her well.
And in the very unlikely event anyone connected with these bastards reads this, complain to the Law Society and try to get me struck off the roll.
No doubt that these two were hiding behind their very expensive sofas when covid insanity kicked off.
It’s really bad what happened and him being put in charge. You could see years before that this was essentially their idea of a counter coup. But the consequences for the people of this country will be distastrous. And whoever comes next will be even worse. Until the population understands that the real evil emanates into these people from elsewhere. It’s sick what they have done to their own population.
Recently, the Germany parliament allowed a professor to speak freely on the ‘health’ controls and he did not hold back.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq2TZPEWjcA&t=610s
SMOKING GUN: German Professor in the German Parliament Explains All!
Vaccine scepticism has become mainstream. It always follows this trajectory – first they ignore you then they laugh at you then you fight them then you win, as Gandhi said. But the real battle lies elsewhere. Lets say 90 percent of people learned that they were stabbinated with a bioweapon – this is only meaningful if they care about it. If they were that easy to control the first time around then believe me they will be suckers for the second round. It is their karma to follow that path. Revelation talks about spiritual death and about of a third of people consigned to it. We will have to learn to acknowledge the dead walking amongst us. We could make something beautiful out of it.
Some on here claiming Hugo Keith is somehow thick. This is a hyper-intelligent, well paid puppet with a moral vacuum the size of Heather Hallett’s arse, being told to throw as much smoke as possible to divert attention from the psychopath puppet masters who are currently paving the way for the WHO pandemic treaty.
A binding agreement to initialise and light the touchpaper for a single global control cartel most probably orchestrated by a tie in deal with the WEF and its “penetrated cabinets”, Gates and the Chinese. With Covid having been the initial grooming exercise.
I can see no other explanation anymore.
I’m a pleb but that’s a great post