The Covid Inquiry has been accused of relying on dodgy modelling that “overstates” how effective vaccines really are. The Telegraphhas the story:
In its latest report, the inquiry presented “highly uncertain modelling” with a “degree of confidence and authority that the underlying evidence cannot sustain”, according to two Oxford professors.
Prof Carl Heneghan, Director of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Dr Tom Jefferson, a Senior Associate Tutor at the university, have urged the UK’s statistics watchdog to open an inquiry.
In a letter to the Office for Statistical Regulation (OSR), they say: “The inquiry repeatedly states that COVID-19 vaccination ‘saved millions of lives globally’ and cites estimates that 449,241 lives were saved in England and 25,386 in Scotland by March 2023.
“Yet the report itself acknowledges that these estimates are derived from mathematical models that rely on assumptions about vaccine efficacy, waning immunity, prior infection, behavioural responses and hypothetical counterfactual scenarios that were never observed.”
The professors go on to say that the inquiry relies on “counterfactual modelling” and it gives the public “an impression of evidential certainty that does not exist”.
Prof Heneghan told the Telegraph he believed it was “incredibly important” that the Covid Inquiry “sticks to the facts” as its work will have an impact on how the Government responds to pandemics.
Prof Carl Heneghan accuses the inquiry of promoting “evidential certainty that does not exist’”
He said the reports “will exist in the public record and in future pandemics, it will be relied on to create policy. Using modelling to create statements of fact which the evidence does not support – the mistakes are so bad in my view that they should issue a correction.”
This is the latest controversy relating to the inquiry’s use of modelling in its reports. Earlier this year, the statistics watchdog criticised the inquiry for stating that 23,000 deaths could have been avoided if the UK had locked down earlier.
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.
11 Comments
Newest
OldestMost Voted
lulu-b45
4 months ago
The problem is that the government and public health authorities have been taken for a long long ride by Big Pharma, pretending that their so-called vaccines are effective, that they cannot now be seen to have made a huge mistake. And look more foolish than they already are. Hallett and her parrots are there to prevent this
Sforzesca
4 months ago
So, Ferguson was 100% correct all along then as I thought at the time. Thoroughly vindicated by the Inquiry as were the likes of Whitty and Edmunds, our World Class experts.
Why has Ferguson not yet been Knighted one has to wonder.
Not forgetting a big thanks to Pfizer and AZ without whom the world’s most tragic medical “mistake” would not have been possible.
All power to bigpharma, long may they control all politicians (or is it the other way round..)
EppingBlogger
4 months ago
The usual measure is not “lives saved” but quality life years saved. Keeping a 77 year old alive is not worth as much as keeping a 40 year old going for the indefinite future. Indeed, if keeping a 77 year old alive but with impaired health damaged by the treatment comes at the cost of innumerable young people’s education and mental health, then treatment is not obviously a good choice.
These trade offs are routine in healthcare decisions. That is why very expensive medicines and costly support for ultimately unviable lives are difficult but essential considerations.
Did the enquiry know nothing of this.
Im only a dumb accountant of an age when most of the HoC thinks I should be euthenised (OK, the Bill didn’t quite say that – yet) but I have read about these decision parameters.
I mentioned QALYS to a colleague during the scamdemic and she compared me to Hitler – incidentally that would be at least a written warning according to our firm’s conditions of employment, but she like so many Covid Nazis obviously felt emboldened. Needless to say I didn’t report her. She never apologised, or regained my respect.
Sunak mentioned QALYS in his testimony and the barrister had not heard of them.
So many people became like imbecilic children during “covid”. If it saves just one life….
It’s like when people moan about “healthcare rationing”. Morons. Every single thing on Planet Earth is rationed.
The vast majority of people had a lower quality of life during the lockdowns than they had in 2019. If, on a scale of 1-10 the average amount by which people felt their quality of life decreased by was 3 this would be equivalent to tens of millions of quality life years being lost not to mention the millions or possibly tens of millions of quality life years lost to vaccine injuries and deaths.
Ian Wray
4 months ago
Is there anyone who takes the Covid Inquiry’s findings seriously?
It is not whether the findings or indeed the inquiry is to be taken seriously.
It is for the Establishment and the drug companies behind it to be able to claim that a very expensive inquiry was held taking many years which exhaustively examined all the evidence led by a judge of impeccable credentials and independence and it found that everything we [the Establishment] have said all along is true and what anyone says otherwise is not.
Have you never seen an official letter in response to any issue dismissing concerns? It goes on for pages about lots of irrelevant stuff and then says at the end that the concerns are unwarranted and no action is necessary.
Tonka Fairy
4 months ago
Conflating precision and accuracy has long been a trick used.
Monro
4 months ago
Very well done, the excellent Professor Heneghan.
No confidence whatsoever that the OSR will do much but these things must be pointed out and publicised.
Dr Clare Craig
4 months ago
Snap!
HART had a response here.
They seem to have different standards for lockdown modelling and vaccine modelling.
It has been perfectly obvious in my opinion from the manipulations revealed by Baroness Hallett’s supposed ‘inquiry’ that it is designed to omit any inconvenient evidence which is inconsistent with the predetermined outcome.
In my humble opinion, which Baroness Hallett is perfectly entitled to disagree with and object to, I believe she is as bent as a nine pound note. Of course she may well not be but then one has to explain away all the oddities of her inquiry.
This is not the first judge led inquiry which appears to have had a predetermined outcome. They have been going on for decades.
The problem with this of course is that if judge led inquiries are as bent as a nine pound note this suggests at least some of our judges are also bent as nine pound notes. Of course I am sure they will all disagree with my views.
I am at least nominally meant to be able to hold and express my views under our long tradition of free speech [according to Queer Stalin.]
Thank you for reading. Please help us keep the Daily Sceptic going by becoming a donor.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
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.
The problem is that the government and public health authorities have been taken for a long long ride by Big Pharma, pretending that their so-called vaccines are effective, that they cannot now be seen to have made a huge mistake. And look more foolish than they already are. Hallett and her parrots are there to prevent this
So, Ferguson was 100% correct all along then as I thought at the time. Thoroughly vindicated by the Inquiry as were the likes of Whitty and Edmunds, our World Class experts.
Why has Ferguson not yet been Knighted one has to wonder.
Not forgetting a big thanks to Pfizer and AZ without whom the world’s most tragic medical “mistake” would not have been possible.
All power to bigpharma, long may they control all politicians (or is it the other way round..)
The usual measure is not “lives saved” but quality life years saved. Keeping a 77 year old alive is not worth as much as keeping a 40 year old going for the indefinite future. Indeed, if keeping a 77 year old alive but with impaired health damaged by the treatment comes at the cost of innumerable young people’s education and mental health, then treatment is not obviously a good choice.
These trade offs are routine in healthcare decisions. That is why very expensive medicines and costly support for ultimately unviable lives are difficult but essential considerations.
Did the enquiry know nothing of this.
Im only a dumb accountant of an age when most of the HoC thinks I should be euthenised (OK, the Bill didn’t quite say that – yet) but I have read about these decision parameters.
I mentioned QALYS to a colleague during the scamdemic and she compared me to Hitler – incidentally that would be at least a written warning according to our firm’s conditions of employment, but she like so many Covid Nazis obviously felt emboldened. Needless to say I didn’t report her. She never apologised, or regained my respect.
Sunak mentioned QALYS in his testimony and the barrister had not heard of them.
So many people became like imbecilic children during “covid”. If it saves just one life….
It’s like when people moan about “healthcare rationing”. Morons. Every single thing on Planet Earth is rationed.
The vast majority of people had a lower quality of life during the lockdowns than they had in 2019. If, on a scale of 1-10 the average amount by which people felt their quality of life decreased by was 3 this would be equivalent to tens of millions of quality life years being lost not to mention the millions or possibly tens of millions of quality life years lost to vaccine injuries and deaths.
Is there anyone who takes the Covid Inquiry’s findings seriously?
That is not the point.
It is not whether the findings or indeed the inquiry is to be taken seriously.
It is for the Establishment and the drug companies behind it to be able to claim that a very expensive inquiry was held taking many years which exhaustively examined all the evidence led by a judge of impeccable credentials and independence and it found that everything we [the Establishment] have said all along is true and what anyone says otherwise is not.
Have you never seen an official letter in response to any issue dismissing concerns? It goes on for pages about lots of irrelevant stuff and then says at the end that the concerns are unwarranted and no action is necessary.
Conflating precision and accuracy has long been a trick used.
Very well done, the excellent Professor Heneghan.
No confidence whatsoever that the OSR will do much but these things must be pointed out and publicised.
Snap!
HART had a response here.
They seem to have different standards for lockdown modelling and vaccine modelling.
https://hartuk.substack.com/p/from-fantasy-to-historical-fact-in
It has been perfectly obvious in my opinion from the manipulations revealed by Baroness Hallett’s supposed ‘inquiry’ that it is designed to omit any inconvenient evidence which is inconsistent with the predetermined outcome.
In my humble opinion, which Baroness Hallett is perfectly entitled to disagree with and object to, I believe she is as bent as a nine pound note. Of course she may well not be but then one has to explain away all the oddities of her inquiry.
This is not the first judge led inquiry which appears to have had a predetermined outcome. They have been going on for decades.
The problem with this of course is that if judge led inquiries are as bent as a nine pound note this suggests at least some of our judges are also bent as nine pound notes. Of course I am sure they will all disagree with my views.
I am at least nominally meant to be able to hold and express my views under our long tradition of free speech [according to Queer Stalin.]