The Hallett Inquiry never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. When Sir Patrick Vallance accused Sir Chris Whitty of being a “delayer” with respect to lockdowns, the opportunity missed was to not ask Sir Patrick what possible benefit would have accrued from locking down earlier and harder.
We’ve now also had Sir Chris Whitty saying that an earlier start to lockdown should have been considered. Another missed opportunity; “Why Sir Chris? What do you believe that would have achieved?”
This brings us back to the purpose of the lockdowns. Both Vallance and Whitty were of the view that the purpose of lockdown was to ‘flatten the curve’, in Boris Johnson’s memorable phrase “to flatten the sombrero”. In this clip from mid-March 2020 Vallance explains the purpose was to reduce person-to-person contacts, a policy that 10 days later morphed into the first lockdown.
Perhaps even odder was why Vallance said in his evidence to the inquiry on Monday that we should have locked down around March 13th or 14th 2020, when in this clip, recorded on March 13th 2020, he seems to be promoting herd immunity and GBD-type protection of the vulnerable!
And why did we want to flatten the sombrero? Of course, as we all know, it was to save the NHS. Well, the NHS was saved. In fact, hospital bed occupancy was lower during the lockdown than it’s ever been, averaging less than 65% over April, May and June of 2020.
The clips linked to by Guy de la Bédoyère (here) in his article in the Daily Sceptic on November 21st 2023 and added to by the editorial team’s ‘Stop Press’ addition (here) reinforce the crucial point that the lockdown was intended to stop the NHS being swamped rather than to prevent infection, which Whitty et al. believed, rightly, to be pretty well inevitable whatever policies were followed. Whitty conceded, at that time, the point made by Professor Simon Wood (see Figure 2) in May 2020, that infections peaked in advance of lockdown, as illustrated in Figure 2, which I’ve lifted from a damning article by Fraser Nelson in the Spectator.
If lockdowns didn’t reduce the eventual number of overall infections, what was their point? Why now, with the benefit of hindsight are Vallance and Whitty suggesting that an earlier lockdown would have been a good idea?
Just how ineffective lockdown was as a tool for ‘case’ suppression can be seen by looking at Australia. In the space of 2.5 weeks from December 22nd 2021 to January 9th 2022 ‘cases’ went from 172 per million to 3,213 per million, an increase of 1,800%. What’s more, this was while over 80% of the population were already vaccinated. It was also at the height of summer and while most Australians were still petrified and observing many of their draconian lockdown restrictions.
The same was true in New Zealand. From February 10th 2022 ‘cases’ went from 56 per million to 3,957 per million by March 8th. An increase of 7,066% in less than a month.
As with Australia, over 80% of the population were vaccinated, it was high summer and many people were still following Covid restrictions.
So, why, against all the evidence are Vallance and Whitty maintaining the fiction that Government action can control an airborne virus? And why is the Hallett Inquiry going along with this? I think there are two reasons. Firstly, it’s simply an attempt to maintain the narrative. Hallett has pre-judged that what was done was done for the best of reasons and that while people might argue about whether it should have happened a week or so earlier, the use of lockdown was absolutely the right thing to do.
The second reason is that I believe we haven’t seen the last of lockdowns. It wouldn’t come as much of a surprise to see the policy being wheeled out in a modified form to enforce various Net Zero policies, in which case we can’t have Hallett trashing it now, can we?
It’s remarkable that the both the efficacy of lockdowns and of vaccines is not being challenged by Hallett. Truly, a missed opportunity of epic proportions.
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.
Covid land evil we cannot forget
leaflet to print at home and deliver to neighbours or forward to politicians, media, friends online.
‘So, why, against all the evidence are Vallance and Whitty maintaining the fiction that Government action can control an airborne virus? And why is the Hallett Inquiry going along with this?’
‘When George in pudding-time came o’er,
And moderate men looked big, Sir,
I turned a cat-in-pan once more–
And so became a Whig, Sir:
And this preferment I procured
From our new faith’s defender,
And almost every day abjured
The Pope and the Pretender.
And this is law, I will maintain,
Until my dying day, Sir,
That whatsoever king shall reign,
I’ll be the Vicar of Bray, Sir.
The illustrious house of Hanover,
And Protestant succession,
To these I do allegiance swear–
While they can keep possession:
For in my faith and loyalty
I never more will falter,
And George my lawful King shall be–
Until the times do alter.
And this is law, I will maintain,
Until my dying day, Sir,
That whatsoever king shall reign,
I’ll be the Vicar of Bray, Sir.’
How apposite. I’d not heard of this poem/song before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
There’s a movie too, starring Stanley Holloway.
Great, pertinent, poem.
Nice to be reminded of this. I well remember singing it at school.
They could have murdered more old people sooner and increased the fake death counts?
They could have ramped up the fear porn earlier?
They could have made more money for themselves through graft and theft?
So many possibilities.
It might be remarkable that the policy is not being challenged by the Inquiry, but it might be by the general public. It might morph into a general loss of confidence in other political ideas, less compliance, and lower turnouts in elections. We’ll see.
Why is no one even mentioning the fact that the lockdowns were initially imposed to flatten the curve and give hospitals time to get prepared?
Here in NL they said from the start that the illness itself was not that extraordinary and that the majority of people could be treated and recover, except that there was not sufficient hospital capacity. Three years and many billions of euros later, that situation has not changed. It will, in fact, have only got worse – the population is aeging rapidly, with at the same time an influx of “refugees”. A larger population with a greater need for health care and nothing, nada was done to rectify that, the government would rather spend money on sacrificing gas boilers to the climate gods in the hope of turning down the global thermostat.
Yes, they will try it again, but more people are aware of the failures of previous lockdowns, Western countries have more debt and fewer resources to pay for enforcement. People freezing in their homes, with no electricity to provide them with telly/uboob entertainment and barely any food will not be so compliant.
This to me is the big question, the elephant in the room that never seems to be addressed.
Even Whitty, Vallance et al will concede, albeit grudgingly, that lockdowns are harmful. I forget how many billions they have cost, and will continue to cost into the future of course as the damage becomes more and more obvious. So, why not ensure that we don’t “need” them again, at least not for the purposes of “protecting” the NHS? So instead of spending billions on future lockdowns (which we have already been told will be sooner, harder and longer than those previously – even though we have never “needed” them before in human history) why not spend billions on improving health service capacity and staffing, which will also have the highly beneficial effect of allowing people access to better healthcare – without having to wait months or years for the simplest of interventions – when there isn’t a supposedly deadly pandemic going on?
I can’t get my head round why this isn’t discussed more, other than the usual reluctance to interfere with the National Religion. Even the media aren’t on the case. Easier to just lock us all down again I suppose. But probably not cheaper.
Because it gives them a fantastic reason to lock us down again. One of the reasons why I’m pissed off that there has been no focus on this aspect is the simple fact that we need an expansion of health care anyways (real health care, i.e. beds, nurses, doctors, not useless DEI waste of spacers).
Two hospitals in the area of The Hague have been shut down over the past few years, and they were talking about closing down a third. This is despite the fact that the population is actually growing. Add to this the fact that the population is rapidly aeging, which means a greater demand on health care, it makes no sense. Unless, of course, it is also a perfect solution for denying health care to the elderly in the future, which I certainly see coming. The refusal to put more money in health care has nothing to do with cost and everything to do with politicians only looking out for their next career advancement to an international organisation, all of which are captured by a small group of megalomaniacs.
One of the highest taxed countries in the world, but the money goes to Brussels, to weapons for far-away wars, to housing illegal aliens in lovely hotels, to funding ridiculous ‘green’ schemes that only serve to make a handful of people incredibly wealthy. And then these f-wits wonder why Wilders won the election.
Harder and sooner…this is what our taxes fund is it? A foregone conclusion with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Done for the best reasons like all government policy. Just trying to keep us all safe, are they? We all know, on here at least, that what they want is a reason to lock us down again and do it before anything happens probably i.e. in anticipation of something happening, isn’t that what the ‘Pre-pandemic treaty’ is about, and with much stricter rules. Lockdowns which led to so much depression, suicides, lonely deaths, business failures, economic hardship from which we’re still trying to recover. They’d do it again, would they? It beggars belief but this is what the Hallett inquiry is slowly making its way towards. We need to sweep the board clean of these types of people. They do not have our best interests at heart one little bit. We need better leaders, deserve better leaders because the current lot are corrupt, lazy, ignorant and in some cases just plain evil.
Beautifully said … but I would add one thing…
” …because the current lot are corrupt, lazy, ignorant and in some cases just plain evil.”
I don’t think that covers all the possibilities. In my view, many in leadership positions (in politics, media, public health, judiciary, etc) are compromised in some way, whether through bribery, blackmail or intimidation.
Yes, good point. I agree with you, Michael.
In addition, absolutely determined to not admit that they (at very best), royally screwed up.
No wsy will our Beloved Leaders ever admit they were wrong. Even if that means them accepting Hallett’s certain verdict of, “Next time, it must be: – Sooner, Harder, Longer”.
The only guy I’ve heard so far, apologise for making mistakes, is Anders Tegnell in Sweden. And his advice was enormously better than our incompetent, venal, corrupt R.souls.
The chart showing the Gompertz or SIR curves lifted from the Spectator: It shows the peak of infections at around 17 March. That’s 22 days before the peak in deaths.
Lockdown was announced on 23 March. Where’s the dip in deaths 22 days later (about 14 April)? There is nothing observable.
There is a slight change in the deaths curve from 19 April which can be seen in the arithmetic of second order differences (rate of rate of change) – but not visually in the graph. If that is due to lockdown it suggests a 27 day lead time between fatal infections and death – which puts peak infections at around 12 March.
To ‘flatten the peak’ lockdown would have to be before peak infections. Even if lockdown had any beneficial effect at all imposing it a week earlier would not have flattened the peak.
Not only was it immoral, unethical, unfair and destructive – lockdown didn’t and couldn’t work.
The only thing remarkable about this “enquiry” is that some people still think it’s an enquiry and that Hallett, Keith&co are missing opportunities rather than doing their job and exactly following the script when they ‘miss’ them.
My 5 cents on that particular issue:
The establishment is angry that the UK did worse than some other European countries, most notably France, Germany and above all Ireland, it also being an island.
Most idi*ts among it and the population/voters also thought and many amazingly still think that OZ/NZ had it right and that the UK should have done the same and could thereby have avoided Covid completely.
That all these countries and approaches later also failed was not known yet at the time, Germany was King as it had only a very small first wave and track&trace already in place (hence the futile and catastrophically costly focus during the summer on replicating that in the UK), Sweden was the bogeyman then, and its later crystallizing overall relative success as well as Germany’s, OZ/NZ&cos overall relative failure is continued to be ignored by them, as it must:
They absolutely cannot and may not bring themselves to admit that Sweden was right and above all that the UK also initially had it right for about a week!
Instead, they must find a way to justify the actions taken and the £500bln mistake made and blame (the English sport and DNA) their disastrous consequences on something or someone else: Johnson’s dithering and visit to Cheltenham is the easy and chosen target here with regard to the comparison with other failed countries- remember that the Covid years were basically a 24/7 p*ssing contest among countries as to who had less Covid cases and deaths.
As an aside, it was obvious that the sombrero stories were totally bogus and that an entirely different agenda was behind all this, when they refused to lift the lockdown after Easter and came up with a new goal no one ever heard of before, namely to ‘get R under 1’ (which it already was at the time…), itself replaced with other quickly made up new targets when that and they were then reached.
Meanwhile, Pfizer is suing Poland for not wanting their product:
https://www.politico.eu/article/pfizer-is-suing-poland-over-covid-vaccines-this-is-how-we-got-here/
The graph for Estimated Fatal Infections, looks like the graph of actual reported fatalities attributed to CoVid.
Otherwise upon what was the estimate based?
Since there is a 21 to 28 day time lapse between infection and death, and allowing for reporting delays, those peak deaths in early March were infected in early February, which means the accelerated phase of infection started to build in early January.
That means low level viral activity started in November/December (or prior) 2019. So when should lockdown have started? and anyway – Sweden.
Respiratory viruses are transferred mostly by airborne aerosols in enclosed spaces like hospitals (!), particularly with good airflow. Coughs and sneezes spread diseases. This gives the amount of viral material an opportunity to build up, stay in the air long periods, circulate, and infect people long after the infectious person/people have left the area. The notion that shed viruses drop to the floor within 1 metre, or whatever idiot number, from the infectious person, is nonsense.
Although they can be transferred person to person, this is not the best adapted method of reproduction. It is why respiratory viruses are respiratory viruses – they don’t need interpersonal contact unlike, for example, Polio or Typhoid viruses of the gut, transmitted in the fæces which requires contact with contaminated fæcal material for transmission to occur. They evolved to use airborne transmission as this can infect more people, more quickly.
It makes one wonder at the level of knowledge and education of the ‘experts’ – or maybe they just tell whatever lies that serve the interests of their political paymasters.
We need an independent inquiry. Not sure how it should be formed or led-probably not the Daily Sceptic for obvious reasons-perhaps the Spectator?
In Smiley’s People, John le Carré depicts the heads of British intelligence and the upper echelons of government as devious British schoolboys who want their pudding. Seems apt.