Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance are marking their own homework with their 'independent' report on lockdowns, and no surprises that they omit to highlight any of the glaring failures in the approach they took.
Lockdown proponents continue to get a free pass in making unwarranted assertions about lockdowns being necessary and effective, despite the evidence clearly showing infections falling ahead of lockdowns being imposed.
Boris, Hancock, Whitty and the rest who drove the lockdowns will never admit they were wrong as it would be psychologically devastating for them. But in time the world will silently resolve the measures were mistaken.
What we require is a clear acknowledgement that, with masks. our political leaders inflicted an intervention on the British people that was unethical, ineffective and harmful, and their commitment never to do so again.
In March 2020, Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty said people should not wear face masks because they don't work. Then he said they might work a bit. Then, with no new evidence, he supported making them compulsory. Why?
In case Boris is tempted to ban attendance at football games later today, here is a compendium of the evidence that the risk of catching COVID-19 outside in the fresh air is very low.
The Prime Minister is due to meet with Sir Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty tomorrow to decide whether to impose any more restrictions. It will hinge on how quickly Covid hospital admissions are rising.
We're publishing a guest post by our in-house doctor, formerly a senior NHS medic, about the hospital data released this afternoon. Does it support the claim that there's an Omicron tsunami heading our way? Er, no.
This is a pivotal moment. If Boris holds his nerve, refuses to impose any further restrictions and the Omicron outbreak burns itself out of its own accord, the spell cast by SAGE over the nation could finally be broken.
Is Boris's refusal to impose Plan C restrictions a turning point? Will the PM base his Covid decisions on real-world data from now on rather than apocalyptic modelling?
