The BBC was allowed to “misrepresent” the risk posed by Covid to most people to boost public support for lockdown, Government adviser Professor Mark Woolhouse has told the U.K. Covid Inquiry. The Telegraph has the story.
Professor Mark Woolhouse, an eminent epidemiologist and Government adviser, lambasted the corporation for having “repeatedly reported rare deaths or illnesses among healthy adults as if they were the norm”.
He said this created the “misleading impression” among BBC News viewers at the start of the pandemic that “we are all at risk” and “the virus does not discriminate”.
In reality, he said it was known at the time that the risk of dying from Covid was 10,000 times higher in the over-75s than the under-15s.
But Prof. Woolhouse told the Covid Inquiry the BBC did not correct its reporting, saying: “I suspect this misinformation was allowed to stand throughout 2020 because it provided a justification for locking down the entire population.”
He said further evidence of this was provided by a briefing dated March 22nd 2020 by a sub-group of the U.K. Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) that focused on the public’s behaviour.
This stated that “a substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group… the perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging”.
Prof. Woolhouse said the “misperception” created by the BBC’s coverage that everyone was at risk was a “barrier to targeting interventions at the vulnerable minority who truly were at high risk from Covid”.
In his written submission to the inquiry about the impact north of the Border, he said: “I fear that Scottish Government’s pandemic response was compromised as a result.”
He also concluded that lockdown had been “least effective at protecting the most vulnerable precisely because of their need to have contacts with health care and social care workers — self-isolation was not an option.” The expert added: “This should have been recognised from the outset.”
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.
Well blow me, the BBC spreading misinformation well I never.
Also known as “lies”
Clearly Bozo and Co felt no need to call in Tim Davie for a severe word.
I wonder why. Who exactly is running the BBC?
How much money did the Convict party shovel their way? £500 million wasn’t it?
To find The Science ™ I just follow the Money.
The BBC know a thing or two about the employment of fear to get people to conform. This is a beauty from decades ago. The mythical TV licence van.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7luWzbouo
If I am not much mistaken, being stressed too much can negatively effect your immunity. Maybe not such a good idea if you want to save lives?
And exercise in the fresh air and sunshine is good for the physical and mental health of almost every non-Transylvanian.
Which is why they told us to stay inside.
And going to the beach was a “National Incident”…..Police (pigs).
They weren’t the only ones. I remember early on seeing a news report on my regional independent news channel about the first covid death here. With lots of footage of a grieving family and an elderly active man in his 70s. It wasn’t until very late in the report that we were informed that he was recovering from several severe illnesses, with the punchline from his grieving daughter, don’t let this happen to your family. It was also the last piece of news coverage that I watched on the MSM.
I did buy a copy if his book “The Year the World went Mad”, published in 2022. A cynic might observe that he made a profit that way, but it was worth reading. Essentially, it’s against the ‘Lockdown’ concept.
Off topic, just making people aware:
Another petition, its not got too many signatures so far.
Legislate against any form of Digital ID
Legislate against Digital ID to prevent digital consolidation and exploitation of our personal and private data. We believe digital ID and the consolidation of a person’s private and sensitive data pose a significant threat to human and civil rights.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/653440
Just signed and forwarded it.
Apologies for length but thought worth sharing, from this lot:
https://collateralglobal.org/
Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya among others are involved.
You can donate here: https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/collateralglobal
I wrote to them about their repeated use of the “p” word and phrases like “the next pandemic” which I feel undermine our cause. To their credit, a bigwig wrote back to me and said he didn’t want to get hung up on semantics and they are against all the things that I am against. I donated in the past but am not inclined to do so again as I feel that we already know all about lockdown harms, and what is needed is not more documenting of them. Also they seem pretty well funded as per this https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12998042/filing-history
Dear CG Supporter,
The important work we have done so far since 2020 has only been possible due to thousands of donations large and small from members of the public as well as contributions from foundations.
We are now asking you to join us in 2024 as we prepare an ambitious set of activities worldwide to analyse the harms of Covid policies and challenge the mainstream pandemic narrative with rigorous evidence and analysis.
We have four main priorities this year: country evaluations, global reviews, public inquiries and preparing for the next pandemic.
Our work is critical to ensuring that, next time, our pandemic responses better balance societal trade-offs and maximise the health & well-being of all people.
Support us with a monthly or one-time donation: here
The more we raise, the more we can do
Support our 4 priority activities in 2024
This year, we are prioritising four critical activities:
Independent national Covid pandemic evaluations.
We will soon launch our first round of country evaluations. These will systematically analyse the data on the social harms of Covid policies with the goal of influencing the national debate about the Covid response, including public inquiries and formal government evaluations. Current plans include the US, Canada and UK, but we anticipate rapidly expanding to India, South Africa, Uganda, Germany and elsewhere.
Global systematic reviews.
We are organising a series of global systematic reviews, building on our previous work, to plug significant evidence gaps. Current plans include reviews on excess mortality, macroeconomics effects, and child development, as well as control strategies such as lockdown and focused protection.
Inquiry into The UK Covid-19 Inquiry.
We will soon begin a formal analysis of how the UK Public Covid Inquiry has engaged with scientific opinion and interpretation. We have been covering the inquiry, with weekly analysis in Unherd, since it began in June 2023. Once we complete our report, we will hold a public event in London and submit the analysis to the Inquiry as evidence.
Preparing for the next pandemic.
We plan to challenge the dominant biomedical model of pandemic preparedness and promote viewpoint diversity and scientific debate in policy advisory systems. To start, we will organise a series of workshops and trainings worldwide to help the scientific and policy community to better understand the negative impacts of strict infection control policies on society.
Together these initiatives will help us build an accurate picture of the impact of the global responses to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic; this can rigorously challenge mainstream thinking and help inform more compassionate and scientifically based policy approaches for the future.
We hope you will join us in this mission so that we can promote policy responses that maximise health and wellbeing for all
Please consider supporting us through our crowdfunding campaign, accessable here.
Thanks for posting tof.
Last off topic post of the day from me
End of Life Protocols – Together Declaration
They are looking for people to share stories. Maybe worth a spot in tomorrow’s NR?
Well, thanks for posting this, however, I’ve now wasted 9 minutes of my life listening to this Amanda woman babbling about general stuff and repeating well-known facts and that’s enough. Either get to some point. Or put you stuff into a written document (writing was invented for a reason) people can digest and process at their own speed or f… off.
I have just sent letters to my local councillors and the Member for Kashmir – Debbie Abrahams – asking why Oldham MBC have signed up to Cities 100 without asking the constituents or putting the information in any manifesto.
Letters provided courtesy of Together.
They are doing good work
Well said, Professor Woolhouse.
In reality, he said it was known at the time that the risk of dying from Covid was 10,000 times higher in the over-75s than the under-15s.
Ok. I’ve dug out the vaccine priority article I recently mentioned.
“We worked out that if you give 20 people in a care home a dose of vaccine, you’ll save a life,” he said. “If you give 160 people in their 80s a dose of vaccine, you’ll save a life. But once you get down to people in their 60s, you’re up to more than 1,000. If you go down to teachers or policemen, you’re approaching one in 50,000.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/30/older-groups-must-remain-top-priority-for-vaccines-warn-government-advisers
This means that, in January 2021, absent COVID vaccination, it was estimated that 95% of all people in care homes would not die because of COVID, 99.38% of people in their 80s would not die because of COVID, 99.9% of people in their 60s would not die because of COVID and 99.998% of all working-age people would not die because of COVID. In other words: Sars-CoV2 was never a signficant risk to anyone, not even fragile people in care homes. And this according to the JCVI, likely pushing the envelope regarding death rates in order to justify covaxxing someone.
Yes. And they KNEW that before the first lockdown.
They downgraded Covid from a High Consequence Infectious Disease 5 days before the first lockdown because they had more data and knew it had low mortality rates.
They would have been going through the process of assessing the data; agreeing the downgrade and getting the Comms signed off for weeks before then.
I think the Government, along with other NATO members and the 5 Eyes, were ordered to lock down by the US Military.
It’s notable that Sweden (in the EU but NOT NATO) did not lock down.
We can speculate about the reasons behind the published reasons until the cow comes home and thus, merrily waste our time without gaining any insight. It’s much more important to make sure (as good as we can) that the Labour-run, that is, union-backed, Hallet panto doesn’t get away with cementing the notion of COVID having been non-high consequence disease of very high consequence, ie, that extraordinary measures were called for in an extraordinary situation. The next attempt at unleashing the scamdemic once again is essentially round the corner as past events suggest that the forces behind this, whichever they are, are trying this about every five years. MERS-3.1415926 or whatever they will call it is thus bound to arrive around 2026 – 2028.
Why the focus on the BBC?
Every mainstream media source covered covid in the same way i.e. making out it was an unprecedented threat to everyone and constantly showing scenes of ICUs supposedly jammed beyond capacity both here and abroad.
I would the because BBC are funded by the licence payers under a charter to be independent, impartial and truthful
ICUs are very likely always filled to their capacity because if they aren’t, the cost-savers are going to auction off the empty beds.
My only disagreement with him is this: the BBC were very keen to promote the messages they did and nothing would have stopped them.
In October 2020, the Royal Society and the British Academy published a report – COVID-19 vaccine deployment: Behaviour, ethics, misinformation and policy strategies, prepared by Melinda Mills and others, see:https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/set-c/set-c-vaccine-deployment.pdf
This report was all about supporting the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, including “Inoculating the public against misinformation”, see Section 6.2.
In the view of this report, misinformation was anything that threatened the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, with the suggestion to “Bring in legislation and enforce criminal prosecutions for spreading misinformation”.
How interesting it is to review this report in January 2024, and consider who really were the purveyors of ‘misinformation’ throughout the phony manufactured Covid crisis…
It seems it was politicians and bureaucrats in governments; and the WHO; and the medical and scientific establishment; and the mainstream media which grossly misled the public about ‘Covid’ and the Covid vaccine products, and testing, and surveillance, and masks/muzzling, and social distancing/restrictions/quarantine/lockdowns.
So yes, there should be criminal prosecutions against those who actually spread the misinformation and deliberately terrorised and misled the public.
In regard to the Royal Society and British Academy, and their conflicts of interesting in publishing their report which promoted the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, see my email to the Presidents of these organisations, sent on 4 December 2020: https://vaccinationispolitical.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/failure-to-disclose-conflicts-of-interest-covid-19.pdf
To my mind, misinformation includes the suppressing and withholding of important facts that might influence peoples actions, as well as telling outright lies. I had reasons to question aspects of the vaccine rollout in January 2021 and asked my MP if he could provide answers to some important questions. From what I can tell he passed those questions on to people that were qualified to answer them, but nothing came back either to him or me.
Six months later, and with the benefit of some hindsight, it’s pretty clear why nothing was forthcoming. My original questions were concerning a relative in a care home and the impact of vaccination in December 2020 on her and other residents.
At a care home near to me (The Sands in Morecambe) they managed to keep Covid out throughout 2020. In December 2020 the residents received their first Covid vaccinations. There’s a newspaper report that touches on what happened next, published on 21 July 2021: https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/lancashire-care-homes-saw-most-21115762 The title is rather misleading, but the text within the report is more revealing “At The Sands, 19 of these people lost their lives during the third national lockdown from January to March this year.” This year being 2021. Other care homes and their residents in our county appear to have encountered the same issue.
They won’t get away with this crap second time around or whenever. ——People will tell them to stick their masks up their arse. They can F Off with their vaccines and their Lockdowns.
At a care home near to me (The Sands in Morecambe) they managed to keep Covid out throughout 2020. In December 2020 the residents received their first Covid vaccinations. There’s a report that touches on what happened next here: https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/lancashire-care-homes-saw-most-21115762 The title is rather misleading, but the text within the report is more revealing “At The Sands, 19 of these people [20] lost their lives during the third national lockdown from January to March this year.” This year being 2021.