The statistics watchdog has formally intervened after two Oxford academics complained that the Covid Inquiry cited “highly uncertain modelling”. The Telegraph has the story:
Two Oxford academics wrote to the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) to complain that in its latest report, the inquiry cited “highly uncertain modelling” with a “degree of confidence and authority that the underlying evidence cannot sustain”.
Prof Carl Heneghan, Director of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Dr Tom Jefferson, a Senior Associate Tutor at the university, contacted the statistics watchdog last month.
They said the inquiry “repeatedly” stated that Covid vaccination “saved millions of lives globally” and cited estimates that 449,241 lives were saved in England and 25,386 in Scotland by March 2023.
They pointed out, however, that those estimates were “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”.
Responding to their letter, the OSR said it had formally contacted the Covid Inquiry and issued advice on how it could assist the public with their understanding of different types of modelling….
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.
Prof Heneghan told the Telegraph that he welcomed the OSR’s response, which he said was “significant”, as it showed it had “accepted the substance of our concern”.
“This is a huge inquiry which has incredibly important findings and recommendations, and the fact it is costing over £200 million. They need to understand what is evidence based,” he said.
Prof Heneghan added that between him and Dr Jefferson, they have “60 years of experience judging the quality of evidence”, saying: “In that time, we have learned one simple lesson: models are not facts.”
Worth reading in full.
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.
Apparently, A Covid Inquiry spokesman said: “The Office for Statistics Regulation is not questioning the Inquiry’s findings”
Really? I thought they were doing just that!
The research findings from this PolyBio Symposium should be front page news as it’s not just Long Covid that has resulted in these long term symptoms. https://2026-spring-symposium-polybio.netlify.app/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5gWVEjudQ&t=6s
At last, two Oxford evidence based medical experts advice is adhered to by the hallett inquiry.
I thought the government never held an enquiry, unless they knew the outcome?
Questionable?
I’d call it CRAP.
There’s only one sensible action that should be taken about the Hallett enquiry. Dump the whole kaboosh into an active volcano, preferably along with all the lockdown apologists.
Vaporise the lot of them.
There will never be any conclusion which acknowledges the shortcomings of modelling or concedes any point with regard to its accuracy or validity. To do so would mean the same conclusions could be drawn around climate modelling and in so doing undermine the supposed rationale for destroying our industrialised way of life.
The phrase “Lies, damn lies and government statistics” used to be accepted wisdom. Now, too many people believe they can do no wrong.
Mark Twain’s famous dictum needs to be updated for the 21st Century. There’s lies, damn lies, statistics, and then there’s computer modelling.
Repeat after me: Models are not Facts. That’s the nutshell we have to carry round in our pockets.
Or even more precisely for the scientific community, much of which has never realised that:”models are not data.”
Ditto for all the nonsense about Climate Change. The models are creating a problem that is just not there.
Hallett and the other elite stooges currently gobbling at the taxpayer’s trough should explain that if the clotshot was so wonderful, how it was that the mortality rate of younger people (1-44 year olds) went up by 10% to 15% in the months and years following its rollout?
Even now, the average weekly mortality of that age cohort in England & Wales is 318 (52 weeks ending 12 June 2026, ONS statistics) whereas before the first clotshots were administered late in 2020 it scarcely went above 310 and even dropped below 300 for periods. It peaked at 348 late in 2023. Fortunately it’s been dropping since, but only slowly.
The statistics should be presented the other way around. How many have been killed by it, and how many sickened?
And remember that excess mortality was riding so high after everyone had been poisoned that they actually changed the way in which it was being calculated, so they could bring it down (2023 if my memory serves me correctly). The State, and many, many other, are guilty of mass murder and injury. And that’s why the truth will never come out.