Matt Hancock has admitted “do not resuscitate orders” were “wrongly applied” during Covid and should be “reviewed” – but defended lockdown and said its supporters need to unite to defeat sceptics. The Telegraph has the story.
The former Health Secretary told the Covid Inquiry the practice [of DNRs] had been used inappropriately during the crisis, denying people access to potentially life-saving treatment.
He also suggested the U.K. should lock down faster in the event of a future pandemic, despite concerns over the impact of the “medieval” measures.
“Do not resuscitate” (DNR) orders, which instruct doctors not to attempt CPR if a patient’s heart or breathing stops, are generally only supposed to be drawn up with the clear agreement of the person in question.
But concerns were raised during the crisis that blanket DNRs had been imposed on vulnerable people without their consent.
Giving evidence to the Covid Inquiry on Friday, Mr. Hancock said it was “obvious” the orders had been “wrongly applied” in some circumstances and backed an investigation into their use during the pandemic.
The former Health Secretary was asked whether he would support a “systemic review” of all DNR notices put in place in early 2020.
He replied: “I certainly think a review like that should be looked at because it’s obvious that there were cases when DNR notices were wrongly applied. And I think the issue of consent is so important here.” …
Critics have raised questions about whether the benefits of lockdowns outweighed the impact on economic growth, children’s education and people’s mental health.
But Mr. Hancock suggested the U.K. should act even faster in the event of a future pandemic, telling the inquiry: “There needs to be a national debate, in my view, about how we respond immediately.”
He said: “The absolute number one thing that we can do to avoid this sort of trauma for NHS staff is to bring in lockdown measures early in response to a pandemic-level pathogen.
“And I think that those who understand the consequence of waiting before bringing in measures that are going to be necessary need to unite to win that argument.
“There are still people making the argument that lockdown wasn’t necessary, or in future we should try to do without it.
“I think that is false, wrong and dangerous, and the case needs to continue to be made so that should a pandemic-potential pathogen [hit us], which could happen at any time, we’re ready.”
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.
Good interview. Lord Frost manages to use moderate language yet gets in some killer blows against the policy excesses of the last few years. Probably why he did well at the EU, it’s harder to argue against a conspicuously reasonable man.
Lord Frost for PM!
No place for principled men in US sphere regimes these days.
Excuse my ignorance, but if Lord Frost isn’t an MP can he become PM?
Otherwise I completely agree with you, and think the next best alternative would be Steve Baker.
“Excuse my ignorance, but if Lord Frost isn’t an MP can he become PM?”
Yes, though it would likely cause a controversy exploited by his opponents.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home
Frost could be PM from the Lords with Baker as his second running Government in the H of C – it could be made to work.
Are you sure? In a recent TV clip, Steve Baker extolled the virtues of the vax.
Aren’t you mistaking Steve Barclay for Steve Baker?
How mask slavery messes with your mind
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/how-mask-slavery-messes-with-your-mind/
Dr Mark Stephen Nesti
Don’t get complacent. Let’s keep getting the message out with our friendly resistance.
Saturday 12th February 2pm to 4pm
Yellow Boards LONDON
111 Buckingham Palace Road
(Outside Daily Telegraph’s Office & Victoria Station)
London SW1W 0DT
Stand in the Park Sundays 10am make friends, ignore the madness & keep sane
Wokingham Howard Palmer Gardens Cockpit Path car park Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Henley Mills Meadows (at the bandstand) Henley-on-Thames RG9 1DS
Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
I beg to differ.
I found the interview extremely disappointing.
Almost no questions about how or why the government have done what they have done. I feel I have learned nothing, no new insights.
E.g. Frost seems to put the blame for the government’s reaction to COVID on wanting to fit in with a globalist current and international pressure. That doesn’t explain the online bill and why COVID misinformation is on there. Where was the question to Frost?
Four blokes speaking rather pedantically all agreeing with each other just isn’t particularly interesting.
Missed opportunity, I think.
Frost keen to declare that he was busy with Brexit while first lockdown thumbscrews were being applied. By the time he looked up from his desk the draconian stuff had happened.
What about after May 2020?
Maybe. But at least Frost has the best interests of the country at heart – which makes him a man on his own in this bunch .
The real man for the job – therefore no chance.
We are now in the hands of Globalist gangsters and self-serving charlatans.
If only the Tory Party were only ‘Tory”, had integrity and was not rotten to the core!
“I think the problem with the pandemic was we didn’t have any organised opposition, so nothing was tested. The Government found it very easy to get through all kinds of controversial stuff and it was only the growing unease I guess around people like Steve Baker and others that eventually, it was impossible to stop the debate entirely, and again eventually in our system it came out.”
Not entirely untrue, I think, if over-generous to the panicker side, overlooking their hysteria, their infantile arguments, their manipulative dishonesty and their active suppression of dissent..
We all know the real reason….
What an evil face this deranged old man has!
it should worry people enough to question why laws are either being proposed or changed with the gov’s view of almost abolishing freedoms that made many countries distinct from say china. I also don’t like the idea of a digital currency as this gives the state far too much power over citizens, just think, dictators from the past did not have this much technical power that future politicians will have, from the Internet censorship, virtual currency and facial recognition cameras etc.
I am also fearful of the introduction of CBDCs.
However, the black market, specifically illegal drugs, relies almost exclusively on cash transactions.
So, I’m struggling to see how a cashless society could exist?
my guess is the state has one eye on the black market when introducing traceable central bank digital currency to make sure everything is monitored and traceable. the black market could still exist if there is still for example decentralised bitcoin available, this is if the state does not find a fancy way of shutting those down. I hope it does not get to that stage as a cbdc would give the state way more power than it should have.
All economies need a black market – the greater the control of human behaviour the greater the need for a black market
But then the Schwab’s ‘brain implants’ are supposed to be ‘correcting’ human behaviour to suit his devilish purpose, aren’t they?
Why is this man not under arrest, in straight jacket in a secure Instition…. but Julian Assange is?
Not online. All crypto online. So I am told…
And a cashless society will kill all those who don’t or can’t have bank accounts. No more coins chucked in a homeless person’s hat on the ground…
NHSS jab for a cup of Social “Care” Tea?
Homelessness solved by natural wastage in a year!
How? Chaos, fraud, theft, misery, constant tech breakdown, error, scarcity, corruption, scams, destabilisation – you name it Then there will be the suicides.
There was a reason ‘cash ‘was invented all those thousands of years ago
The black market potentially gives states a ready source of untraceable money to fund activities they wouldn’t wish to advertised or have audited…..how would they compensate for that lost income stream? Lets face it, over 50 years of the war on drugs and no closer to victory. Just like the war on cancer.
Facial recognition… yeah.
“Nobody really knew how fast it was spreading and so I don’t find it that surprising that in that moment if one erred on the side of caution.”
This is basically a rationalisation of irresponsible cowardice, and it will be the position eventually settled on by all the Guilty Men and their collaborators. “It was reasonable to panic at the time, and mistakes were made in not rolling back sooner”.
But in reality the true path of caution tempered by reason in March 2020 was avoiding panic, and holding to the established response. The data went nowhere near to justifying the panic action in March 2020, and those in government had no excuse, unlike ordinary folk, for not recognising that. Nobody in government should be falling for modelling tripe without saying “hang on, why should we take this speculation as plausible?”
And nobody in government, ever, should be allowing radical action to be taken without full cost/benefit analysis. That’s the sine qua non of responsible, rational governance.
Panic by government is simply cover for criminal intent.
In his defence I think steering government can be a bit like turning a supertanker, and in March 2020 almost all the crew were running around like headless chickens. Don’t forget – if you worked in Public Health this was your Oscars moment. The big one. If you worked writing garbage computer models, same. Those people are going to be surrounding you all day everyday. It’s hard to see the guy in the back of the room with his hand up quietly saying “we probably should do nothing”.
Having said that, anything that happened after May 2020 should have been stopped by a special tribunal and everyone responsible taken out and shot*
*Only if the law was changed first.
“In his defence I think steering government can be a bit like turning a supertanker, and in March 2020 almost all the crew were running around like headless chickens. ”
That works both ways, though. Remember that in early March 2020 the government was already following established pandemic plans and taking huge amounts of stick for it from lefties and from the liars and bedwetters (Hancock, Gove, Cummings, I’m looking at you rabble) in their own ranks.
They chose to turn the supertanker in the direction of the rocks.
Consider this piece of shameful bedwetting tripe written just as the regime had panicked and blinked in the face of the panickers’ nonsense:
A Health Crisis and Herd Immunity
Lessons from Britain’s disastrous coronavirus response.Posted March 19, 2020 |
Especially a state that has grown so oppressively large, even more so under Johnson.
Once, voting Conservative meant a smaller state. Now the opposite. It’s the Consocialist Party now.
“Public Health”
Um, “Health Security”. An entirely different matter to “public health”.
Do keep up.
I think you are *a little* too harsh.
The skill that politicians have, with hardly any exceptions, is to BS their way through interviews with journalists, to strike power-poses on telly, and to pick as their advisors (on matters about which they know nothing) from BS artists among (recognisably reptilian) people with several letters after their names. They want to be on the right side of history, at least until they next face election.
The issue they had 2 years ago is that the entire world went mental. It might have been Ebola, except caught on a bus. It might have been AIDS, spread by sneezing. I had other problems at the time (a son with severe brain damage in hospital), and didn’t give a fig. But it would have been only extraordinary politicians, or even Big Name Medics who could even contemplate the possibility that it might be … nothing, much, out of the ordinary.
So I’d give Frost points. He seems to have a rare combination of humility and determination *for a politician*. Not perfect, but, above the abysmal average.
“I think you are *a little* too harsh.”
Fair enough. Personally I think you are way too forgiving, and not recognising just how profound an abdication of duty it was not to carry out any cost/benefit analysis whatsoever, and not to actively seek out and listen to dissenting expert opinion before embarking n radical panic measures.
“It might have been Ebola, except caught on a bus. It might have been AIDS, spread by sneezing.”
No, we already knew it was a relatively normal respiratory virus. We’d seen from events like the Diamond Princess and the numbers from China that that’s all it was, and people like Nobel Laureate Michael Levitt was pointing it out. It was just that nobody was willing to listen.
That’s why they changed the story from mass death and people falling dead in the street to “flattening the curve”.
There’s an awful lot of self-serving rewriting of history going on.
“So I’d give Frost points. He seems to have a rare combination of humility and determination *for a politician*. Not perfect, but, above the abysmal average.”
I agree with all that. I understand his failure and sympathise. But nevertheless he allowed himself to be swept up in a panic, failed to resign when he should have, and shares responsibility for what was done.
He just needs to be a little more honest in his analysis, imo. Because the defence he puts up for himself will shelter many far more culpable than him, and will prevent any proper lessons being learned.
The issue they had 2 years ago is that the entire world went mental. It might have been Ebola, except caught on a bus. It might have been AIDS, spread by sneezing.
No, it might not, despite both of these stories were very popular with early COVID propagandists. Both AIDS and Ebola are recent examples of extremely deadly diseases and – in case of Ebola – also causing extremely unpleasant deaths. The symptoms clearly didn’t match Ebola. And the death rates certainly didn’t match AIDS. As the situation in Italy unfolded, it was perfectly clear that comparatively few people were getting infected and that the overwhelming majority of these didn’t even get seriously sick, let alone died. Public authorities freaked out and did a China-copycat installation. Which seemed to have exactly no effect with regard to improving anything. But that time, I frequently thought something like “Thank God, the British government has so far kept its senses”.
At latest after the mad scramble for ventilators ended up with them being shelved due to lack of need for them and the original Nightingales had remained unused, someone with at least half a brain should have had a “Hold-a-sec! It doesn’t seem that what we are doing makes much sense!” moment and cancelled the whole operation CovStorm in face of a more traditional and rational approach.
And the other eastern copycat idea was the wearing of face nappies on crush-loaded public transport, e.g. in Tokyo.
When the construction of the “Nightingales” occurred, it seemed to me that it might have been a budgetary tactic by the MoD, soon before a proper Budget (which was suspended by the Chancellor soon after). Much of the work was done by them using methods used at times of war, like in Afghanistan and so on.
Absolutely right, the truly cautious and appropriate response was to do nothing, when in doubt do nowt, also known as wise and masterly inactivity. But instead they savaged society and only promised to relent if we all took the poison.The question as always is why?
“Yeah. And it felt worse because it was, in inverted commas, for a ‘good cause’. Normally totalitarianism is for bad things, and everybody knows they’re kind of bad.“
This is a rather remarkable naivety – totalitarianism is always for a “good cause”. The point is that those “good causes” tend to look different according to whether you look at them from inside or outside.
And other cultures and times often don’t share our view of what constitutes “good”.
‘Good’ is just whatever what suits the crazed Globalist politicians manic agenda of money, power, control and vaccines.
We no longer have a core morality in the West.
How can we have any ‘morality’ when we are still force vaccinating children with a gene therapy experiment that serves no medical purpose for them and which is proved to cause myocarditis, strokes and blood clots – and very likely triggers cancer development?
“We had already had minor key ways of using it, don’t put chocolates at tills in supermarkets kind of thing and so on. So, I think it was sort of quite already embedded in the way people thought about things, so some of it just happened naturally. “
This is precisely why those of us who recognise how the “thin end of the wedge” and the “slippery slope” work argued against such things from the start (like the seatbelt laws that so many here defend because “seatbelts work”, “just wear the damn seatbelt”, and “you’ll make us look stupid if you oppose seatbelts”.
But once you have laws to coerce people “for their own good” or “to reduce costs on the NHS”, those laws will immediately be referenced to defend further extensions. As indeed happened here – reference to seatbelts was one of the first resorts of those defending mask and “vaccine” mandates. “You wear a seatbelt, don’t you? You supported the seatbelt law? So just wear the damned mask/take the damned jab”.
Such practices need to be forbidden at the outset. That’s why the US First and Second Amendments are written in straightforwardly prohibitory language. Because if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.
“Laura Dodsworth says in her book that she thinks the use of behavioural psychology is actually undermining of the entire democratic process because it affects people on a subconscious level. And therefore, it’s arguably unethical“
Dodsworth is absolutely correct in this. And it’s unethical even when it seems harmless, trivial and effective for the greater good.
We need him as Prime Minister
We need a leader as Prime Minister…
In the old days apparently, the One who they made leader, was always found at the front of every battle.
That is, an authentic leader, who will deliver the good for the people, will be the one who is willing to give *even* their life, for the people.
Well said.
Ahem! I fought in many a battle, I led from the front, and I was willing to give even my life for the people. Who of today’s generation can make the same claim…? I’ll wait…. Still waiting….
Someone I know was due for cardioversion treatment this past Wednesday, his heart rate has been low, erratic and he is physically exhausted all the time.
The day before his appointment, the hospital contacted him with bad news – positive PCR result on the test required for NHS treatment that we already pay for.
He’s now facing another 8 weeks before getting the treatment, and the worry is he won’t make it that long considering his symptoms (no covid symptoms by the way).
I told him to bite the bullet and go private, he could probably have the procedure done tomorrow and a few hundred quid is a lot better than being dead.
Another sickening example of how the NHS is killing people. I believe those waiting for treatment in the most life threatening situations are being given false positives on purpose, because their mortality is statistically higher for the 4-8 week period they can be classified as a covid death.
Someone sent me this today:
Folks,
Your NHS has been hijacked.
The new NHSX formed in 2019 is basically being run by The World Health Organisation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
SURE, YOU CAN TRUST OUR POLITICIANS WITH THE NHS?????
It’s a digital version of the NHS and it’s all part of the Agenda and “The New World Order”
The full description of this new “Corporation” is:
THE NEW JOINT ORGANISATION FOR DIGITAL DATA AND TECHNOLOGY
Doctors and Nurses will be few and far between.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1UFGZpHP_w&t=4s
already removed by youtube for violating community guidelines
Well, we can’t have the community thinking incorrectly, can we?
Check out Wikipedia – for many people about the same as holy writ (and much more widely consulted). Uncited judgements are standard. People are wrong because Wikipedia, of all creatures, says so.
Above all, the community must be guided – by removal of naughty ideas and condemnation of those with the nerve to have them.
Please spread this far and wide – the population is totally ignorant of what is being planned for them!
It will hear nothing from the BBC.
The people simply must find out about this! It will wake then up!
HMG downgraded Convid 19th March 2020 due to low mortality rates. There is no amount of bullshit that can change this fact. They used the terrorist made-up fraudulent IFR of 3.4 percent to make everyone petrified and to make them believe they were going to die then when the IFR was proven to be 0.1 percent the criminal pre-determined agenda carried on regardless. Lying and trying to scam people into believing their pathetic excuses to the contrary wont wash.
High consequence infectious diseases (HCID)
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid#status-of-covid-19
Worlds number one epidemiologist confirms Convid is LOW MORTALITY like the COMMON FLU – April 2020:
BREAKING NEWS ! Prof Dr John Ioannidis Stanford University On Real Data On Coronavirus Pandemic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btvDL6kIDsA
Good articles:
https://in-this-together.com/covid-19-is-a-statistical-nonsense/
https://in-this-together.com/covid-19-the-uk-scamdemic-part-2/
“HMG downgraded Convid 19th March 2020 due to low mortality rates.”
They did it as this meant they could duck the rules which state that “new” vaccines cannot be used if there are existing prophylactics. Ergo, they already knew back then (as did Fauci, admits as such in an email linked to the Project Veritas leaks – damn fool that I am I did not keep it) that Ivermectin and HCQ worked very well from early treatment onwards.
Which suggests they were already working with Pfeizer and co. to promote GloboJab.
“You can see that on masks. I’m always baffled by the attachment of the medical establishment to masks, but anyway, I think the reasonable thing to say about masks is that possibly there is a very marginal benefit. I don’t think that is outweighed by the downsides of having masks and that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to debate. So, I definitely come on one side of that debate. “
Then you’ve failed to properly consider the downsides.
It’s frankly impossible to sustain the position that “a very marginal benefit” (accepting it solely for the sake of argument) could possibly outweigh the huge downsides of mask mandates, in terms of spreading and sustaining fear, breaching basic liberties, and all the hams they inflict on people vulnerable to such harms.
“and all the hams they inflict on people vulnerable to such harms“
Damn! Inflicting hams – if only!
I think the transcript might be in error.
Why so? I’ve just gone back and listened to the interview in parallel with rereading the transcript at that point and, aside from a few details unimportant to the sense, it seems accurate.
It’s possible Frost mis-spoke, if he’s actually against masks, and gave the wrong impression.
Good discussion, by the way.
Do you know if Frost considered this, among the many hams [sic] inflicted by masking:
He’s definitely against masking, it’s not clear but there’s a double negative there.
See my reply below. Any double negative implies support for masks, so it appears you are saying he mis-spoke. Which is fair enough.
Chinese flu? That’s so yesterday….
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/02/11/amid-ukraine-tension-us-deploys-nuclear-ready-b-52-bombers-uk
Yes its the West who have parked 130,000 of their troops on the border of another country because the don’t agree with their democratic choices!
It’s the US sphere, that you rather quaintly term “the West”, and its military alliance, with a recent track record of waging wars of aggression and funding and inciting “colour revolutions” all over the place, who have been pushing themselves ever further east towards the Russian heartland for 30 years now, after promising not to.
Honest observers (which means not many of those you will hear loudly in US sphere politics and media) will admit that if the tables were turned the US would be threatening war against the power breaching its “Monroe Doctrine”.
Stop pushing NATO eastwards and threatening Russia, and the problems in the Ukraine will be resolved. Keep pushing and encouraging the worst elements in the Ukrainian regime not to compromise in the hope that it will result in their winning all their most extreme fantasies with US money and guns, and it will likely end very badly, most of all for ordinary Ukrainians.
Last I heard Zelensky was not keen on Ukraine being used for a US proxy war.
There are plenty there who think it would win them what they want..
Ukraine is a failing state and further aggression there will most probably lead to its collapse. Zelensky fears this.
Very interesting conversation, but disturbing in that they seem to think that everyone was taken in by the nudge unit when in fact they were not.
Two downsides with what I read of the transcript.
Firstly he thought MPs were already ‘tired’ of the fight with the government. So having got some joy with covid they were probably too ‘tired’ to fight about net zero, on-line bill (despite misgivings) and Bill of Rights ( no mention at all). Poor dears!
Secondly on balance he was not against masks.
And this is the best we have! God help us.
Have a listen, I think the transcript is mistaken and he was against the mandating of masks.
He definitely says what is written in the transcript on this point:
https://youtu.be/nQ0U0t00NHQ?t=2786
“I think the reasonable thing to say about masks is that possibly there is a very marginal benefit. I don’t think that is outweighed by the downsides of having masks..”
On its face, that’s as peyrole suggests. If a benefit is not outweighed by the downsides, then that is in favour of the proposition.
As I noted above, it could be that he mis-spoke, and gave the wrong impression of his position. Did he mention masks elsewhere in the interview?
It’s a double negative if you read it carefully
Ok, it’s clear then that you are reading it incorrectly and that he mis-spoke (if you are correct that he is against masks).
He began by asserting that there was an arguable case for benefits from masks.
He went on to set against that “downsides” that could outweigh them.
But he stated (mis-stated?) that he “didn’t think” that those downsides do outweigh the aforementioned benefits.
I presume you are taking “outweigh” as one negative and “don’t think” as the “double negative”. If so, then you are simply misinterpreting it, as far as I can see, because the double negative supports masks.
Feel free to explain where I have gone wrong, if you believe you can, but please do not just try to “gaslight” me by repeatedly just asserting that it is not as it clearly appears to be – that’s just annoying and rude. If you have extra knowledge of his position that allows you to confirm that he mis-spoke on masks, then please just say so.
I’m a big fan of the Irreverent podcast, I even find the Bible stuff interesting. Like, I suspect, most listeners I came to it via Jamie Franklin’s appearance on The Delingpod.
I, like Stewart below, was very disappointed with this podcast. In the London Calling podcasts between Toby Young and James Delingpole (which I love and make me laugh), I have always definitely been in the JD camp. There is no excuse for what has happened in the last two years worldwide – it has been a Great Reset agenda and nothing can excuse those who have followed it mindlessly.
Frost for PM – we need a “Save Britain” Party!
Tice just doesn’t cut the mustard.