15,841 Cases Added to Sunday’s Daily Total Due to Technical Glitch
Even hard core sceptics might have experienced a tremor of doubt yesterday on seeing the daily total of new cases: 22,961. Is Witless and Unbalanced’s graph of doom going to turn out to be accurate? Er, no. The reason Sunday’s figure were so high is because 15,841 additional cases were added to the “daily” total, which, without them, would have been 7,120, which is almost exactly what they were seven days ago on September 29th (7,143).
So where did these extra 15,841 cases come from? Apparently, they are positives spread out over a seven-day period between September 25th and October 2nd but which were omitted from the daily totals due to a technical glitch. The Guardian has more.
Boris Johnson said earlier on Sunday that there was “a failure in the counting system which has now been rectified”. He told BBC One’s Andrew Marr Show it was a “computing issue” and all those who had a positive test had been notified.
While PHE said the technical issue did not affect people getting their test results, Test and Trace and PHE joint medical advisor Susan Hopkins, has said it resulted in a delay in cases being passed into the contact tracing system.
“All outstanding cases were immediately transferred to the contact tracing system by 1am on 3 October and a thorough public health risk assessment was undertaken to ensure outstanding cases were prioritised for contact tracing effectively.”
Michael Brodie, the interim chief executive at Public Health England, said the “technical issue” was identified overnight on Friday 2 October in the data load process that transfers COVID-19 positive lab results into reporting dashboards.
“After rapid investigation, we have identified that 15,841 cases between September 25th and October 2nd were not included in the reported daily COVID-19 cases. The majority of these cases occurred in most recent days. Every one of these cases received their Covid-19 test result as normal and all those who tested positive were advised to self-isolate. NHS Test and Trace and PHE have worked to quickly resolve the issue and transferred all outstanding cases immediately into the NHS Test and Trace contact tracing system.”
Just when you think you this Government’s handling of the crisis could not get any worse, Matt Hancock says, “Hold my beer.”
Stop Press: Robert Peston in the Spectator this morning has more on the cock-up:
The reason for the confidence-destroying lag was a glitch in two of Public Health England’s ‘legacy’ computer systems, which meant that data was not being transmitted properly. Or at least that is what a senior official tells me. The glitch has apparently now been fixed. But confusion has been sown and damage done.
Stop Reality: Lord Bethell, a Health Minister, has told the Conservative Party Conference that Britain will look back on the Government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis “with pride” and compared it to the 2012 London Olympics.
“Inhumane, degrading, inexplicable” – Amnesty International’s Verdict on Government’s Care Homes Policy
The Mail on Sunday ran a story yesterday about an Amnesty International report on the disastrous impact of the UK Government’s management of the coronavirus crisis on care homes. It could not be more damning.
It is an excoriating verdict that will, undoubtedly, give voice to the rage and anguish of thousands of families: the Government’s pandemic policies violated the fundamental human rights of vulnerable older people in care, a major report has concluded.
“Inexplicable” decisions were made that were “heedless at best”.
The measures exposed elderly residents to the virus and then, crucially, blocked them from receiving life-saving medical care. And ultimately this led to tens of thousands of deaths, according to the Amnesty International analysis, shared exclusively with the Mail on Sunday, ahead of publication.
The report will show, starkly, that Ministers “knew from the outset” that COVID-19 posed an exceptional danger to the 400,000 residents of UK care homes, many of whom are frail and live with multiple health conditions. But while claiming time and again that the need to protect them was at the very heart of policy, what actually happened was quite the opposite.
Homes were “overwhelmed” by infections and older people were subjected to “inhuman and degrading” treatment. The review paints the Government as “directly responsible” and lays bare a litany of failures and sinister edicts that resulted in tragedy.
The piece is worth reading in full.
One of the most interesting details in the report is that of the roughly 28,186 excess deaths recorded in care homes from March 2nd to June 12th, 18,562 were attributed to COVID-19, while the remaining 9,624 made no mention of “novel coronavirus” on the death certificate. Amnesty International says some of these deaths will have been due to undiagnosed Covid, but others will have been an indirect result of the Government’s attempts to “protect the NHS”.
The exact causes have not been revealed – yet figures show vastly fewer patients being treated for heart attacks, cancer, strokes and diabetes since the pandemic began. Dementia deaths – unrelated to Covid – have also surged by more than 50%.
Could this be ‘collateral damage’ of the decision to divert all resources and attention to tackling the virus?
As this newspaper has reported over the past five weeks, while pandemic restrictions eased across the UK, care homes remained in lockdown – barring families from being with their loved ones. It means many residents have been effectively isolated for almost eight months now. Hundreds of families have written to us, almost all telling harrowing tales of watching a husband, wife or parent slowly waste away and “give up” – starved of any human contact.
Amnesty International has had similar reports – and recognises the devastating impact on health of prolonged isolation, which has been well documented in medical literature. They attempted to collaborate with the Government, NHS England and Public Health England on their report, requesting information that has, thus far, remained hidden.
This includes details about how and why decisions were made to restrict care home residents’ access to NHS services during the pandemic and implement blanket “do not resuscitate” orders.
Importantly, they also asked for data in order to compare the death rates of older people in hospital with those in care homes.
This would give clearer pictures as to how many – had they been allowed treatment – might have survived. But at time of going to press, the official bodies had failed to provide any of this.
Amnesty concludes by calling for an independent public inquiry to begin ASAP, with legal powers to compel officials to produce documents and records that, to date, they’ve kept secret. Ministers, including Matt Hancock, would also be summoned to give evidence under oath and forced to justify their actions.
Excellent suggestion. You can read a summary of Amnesty’s report here and the full version here.
Dishy Rishi May Be Our Best Hope
Rishi Sunak has given an interview to Harry Cole and Matt Dathan in the Sun, confirming his reputation as the most sceptical member of the Cabinet when it comes to the lockdown.
[T]he Chancellor warned his boss, friend and neighbour he was not a robot and he would not be silenced in the fight against future economy-crippling lockdowns.He said that the response to the virus must be viewed in the round and not merely on case numbers.
And he warned that a further lockdown would cripple not just the economy but society, too.
Cementing his position as the leading hawk in the Cabinet against tougher clampdowns, Mr Sunak pleaded for ministers to strive for a return to normality in the face of the virus.
And with Mr Johnson warning of a “bumpy road ahead” through to the New Year, Mr Sunak sounded caution at extreme measures for the sake of the long-term future of the country.
He continued: “Lockdowns obviously have a very strong economic impact, but they have an impact on many other things.
“We have to look at this all in the round and beating coronavirus is important and minimising the harm that it causes is important.
“But there are other things that are important. Kids not being in school for months… if university students’ learning is impacted that’s not a good thing.
“People not showing up for medical appointments because they’re worried is not a good thing.
“And obviously the economic impact on people’s jobs and incomes and security is not a good thing.
“Having a difficult economy has an impact on both our ability to fund public services like the NHS but also on individual people’s long-term health outcomes.”
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Let’s hope Rishi’s backbone doesn’t weaken as Government documents leaked to the Guardian reveal that a new three-tier lockdown system is being planned for England, paving the way for harsher restrictions including the closure of pubs and a ban on all social contact outside of household groups.
Called the “COVID-19 Proposed Social Distancing Framework” and dated September 30th, it has not yet been signed off by No 10 and measures could still be watered down.
Alert level 3 – the most serious – contains tougher measures than any seen so far in local lockdowns since the start of the pandemic. They include:
– Closure of hospitality and leisure businesses.
– No social contact outside your household in any setting.
– Restrictions on overnight stays away from home.
– No organised non-professional sports permitted or other communal hobby groups and activities, such as social clubs in community centres.
– Places of worship can remain open.
– Schools are not mentioned in the draft. A government source said this was because Boris Johnson had made clear that classroom closures would be a last resort and the reopening of schools was considered within Whitehall to have been a relative success.Any attempts to impose more stringent measures are expected to provoke renewed anger among Conservative backbenchers, who are likely to demand a vote in parliament should they come into force.
Worth reading in full.
Prof Ferguson Even More Alarmist Than I Thought
A reader has written to clarify some things about Professor Neil Ferguson’s previous barmy predictions. It seems I understated his alarmism.
You wrote:
“Worth reminding people again that Professor Ferguson’s estimates of the impact of previous viral outbreaks have been almost comically inaccurate. In 2001, he predicted that foot and mouth disease could kill up to 50,000 people. It ended up killing less than 200. In 2005, he told the Guardian that up to 200 million people could die from bird flu. The final death toll from avian flu strain A/H5N1 was 440. And in 2009, a Government estimate based on one of Ferguson’s models estimated the likely death toll from swine flu at 65,000. In fact, it was 457.”
Correction:
In 2001, Ferguson was involved in “modelling” for Foot and Mouth disease. Because of that some extra seven million sheep and cattle were slaughtered that needn’t have been.
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, better known as “mad cow disease”, increasing to 150,000 if the epidemic expanded to include sheep. The reality is: “Since 1990, 178 people in the United Kingdom have died from vCJD, according to the National CJD Research & Surveillance Unit at the University of Edinburgh.” (2017)
In 2005, Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people would be killed by bird-flu or H5N1. By early 2006, the WHO had only linked 78 deaths to the virus, out of 147 reported cases.
In 2009, Ferguson and his team at Imperial College advised the Government that swine flu or H1N1 would probably kill 65,000 people in the UK. In the end, swine flu claimed the lives of 457 people in the UK.
In 2020… well, the rest is hysteria.
If Lockdowns, Masks and Social Distancing Work, Why Haven’t Deaths From Flu and Pneumonia Declined?
A reader took a screen grab of the above ONS chart in the most recent episode of Andrew Neil’s show on Spectator TV comparing deaths from flu and pneumonia in 2020 with the five-year average. They were fractionally below at the beginning of the year and they’re fractionally below now, but have tracked the five-year average pretty consistently since January 1st. This begs the question: if the Government’s non-pharmaceutical interventions did little to stop transmission of flu and pneumonia, why should we think they’ve done anything to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2?
The same point is illustrated by this graph, taken from a September 29th post on the Centre For Evidence-Based Medicine’s blog. It shows respiratory disease deaths continuing to trend under the previous 10 years.
Stop Press: A reader has calculated the daily hospital discharges of Covid patients and compiled a chart to illustrate this. There’s a caveat:
It’s not perfect, I had to take the deaths data from NHS England as the coronavirus.data.gov.uk deaths include deaths outside hospitals, and even then the results jumped around a bit – hence I’ve only plotted the 7-day averages on the graph, to smooth this out a bit.
But as I often see people saying why don’t the govt publish the recoveries figures, this might be the next best thing. Especially as on every single day I have data for, the average discharges figure has always been above the average deaths figure – in the current “second wave” you’re 6x as likely to be discharged as you are to die in hospital!
Lockdowns Had Little Effect on COVID-19 Spread in US States
There’s an interesting, if unsurprising, piece of statistical analysis in the National Review that concludes the “shut downs” in US states had no effect on transmission of the virus. Here’s the kernel of the argument.
If lockdowns really altered the course of this pandemic, then coronavirus case counts should have clearly dropped whenever and wherever lockdowns took place. The effect should have been obvious, though with a time lag. It takes time for new coronavirus infections to be officially counted, so we would expect the numbers to plummet as soon as the waiting time was over.
How long? New infections should drop on day one and be noticed about ten or eleven days from the beginning of the lockdown. By day six, the number of people with first symptoms of infection should plummet (six days is the average time for symptoms to appear). By day nine or ten, far fewer people would be heading to doctors with worsening symptoms. If COVID-19 tests were performed right away, we would expect the positives to drop clearly on day ten or eleven (assuming quick turnarounds on tests).
To judge from the evidence, the answer is clear: Mandated lockdowns had little effect on the spread of the coronavirus. The charts below show the daily case curves for the United States as a whole and for thirteen U.S. states. As in almost every country, we consistently see a steep climb as the virus spreads, followed by a transition (marked by the gray circles) to a flatter curve. At some point, the curves always slope downward, though this wasn’t obvious for all states until the summer.
The lockdowns can’t be the cause of these transitions. In the first place, the transition happened even in places without lockdown orders (see Iowa and Arkansas). And where there were lockdowns, the transitions tended to occur well before the lockdowns could have had any serious effect. The only possible exceptions are California, which on March 19 became the first state to officially lock down, and Connecticut, which followed four days later.
Even in these places, though, the downward transitions probably started before the lockdowns could have altered the curves. The reason is that a one-day turnaround for COVID-19 test results probably wasn’t met in either state. On March 30, the Los Angeles Times reported the turnaround time to be eight days. That would make the delay from infection to confirmation not the 10 we assumed, but more like 17 days (6 for symptoms to appear, 3 for them to develop, and 8 for test processing). In early April, the Hartford Courant reported similar problems with delayed test results in Connecticut.
What’s more, there’s no decisive drop on the dates when lockdowns should have changed the course of the curves. Instead, the curves gradually bend downward for reasons that predate the lockdowns, with no clear changes ten days later.
Lockdown partisans might say that the curves would have been higher after the ten-day mark without the lockdown. While we can’t redo history to prove them wrong, the point is that the sudden and dramatic changes we should see if they were right aren’t there. If we showed people these curves without any markings, they would not be able to discern when or even if lockdowns went into effect.
The conclusion:
The evidence suggests, then, that the sweeping, mandated lockdowns that followed voluntary responses exacted a great cost, with little effect on transmission.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: The WHO has just released data showing the last three pandemics were worse than the present one. Jim Hoft has the full story in the Gateway Pundit. Bottom line: The WHO estimates that 750,000,000 people have had the coronavirus. With one million global deaths, that puts the mortality rate at 0.13%, the same as seasonal flu.
Downing Street Cancels Halloween
Downing Street has threatened to fine parents of trick-or-treating children if they gather in groups of more than six. The Evening Standard has more.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister told a briefing of Westminster journalists that the rule of six was “clear” and that it applied to children as well as adults.
He also said they were asking children not to meet in groups of six or more when trick or treating. It means parents face fines of up to £200 if their children are caught in large groups going door-to-door on Halloween.
However, millions of people across the UK are already under – or coming under – tighter lockdown rules including bans on different households mixing.
Asked who would be fined if groups of more than six children met in the street, he said: “We’ve set out the enforcement around the restrictions. We set that out clearly.
“We are asking the public to abide by the rule of six and it’s a matter for the police to enforce the rules.
“It’s correct, parents will be fined if children meet in more than groups of six children.”
Once again, Boris sounds like he’s reading from a script written by his enemies. What happened to the fun-loving libertarian Tory I used to know? As Julie Burchill writes in the Telegraph: “It’s like Falstaff tried to become Henry V and ended up as Hamlet, bumbling about on the battlements, trying to keep everybody happy and thus getting on the wick of one and all.”
Round-Up
- “It’s Grim Up North” – Mine and James Delingpole’s latest London Calling podcast
- “Following the evidence for hospital admissions” – Piece for the Spectator by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson putting rising hospital admissions into context
- “NPHET recommends Level 5 restrictions for entire country” – Ireland’s National Health Public Emergency Team has recommended that “Level 5” restrictions are imposed for four weeks, the most severe level there is, following 364 more cases yesterday (and no new deaths)
- “Dr Martin Feeley and Professor Samuel McConkey in studio” – Watch two Irish public health experts debate the effectiveness of the lockdown and further restrictions
- “More than 1,000 UK pubs plead for government help after dire Friday trading following 10pm curfew” – More than 1,000 UK pubs have signed an open letter to Rishi Sunak pleading for a rethink of the 10pm curfew
- “Planet Normal” – In the latest Telegraph podcast, Allison Pearson and Liam Halligan talk to a whistleblowing doctor about the revolving door between NHS executives and influential consulting and outsourcing firms who are doing very well out of the ‘crisis’
- “Military will help distribute Covid-19 vaccine, says Hancock” – Let’s hope the word “distribute” in that headline isn’t a euphemism
- “URGENT UPDATE: Societal Damage from Bad Science, not the Virus? Why are they doing this?” – Latest YouTube video by Ivor Cummins
- “Beat Covid Without a Vaccine” – The Wall St Journal says home testing and Covid passports could contain any further outbreaks
- “Corona False Alarm?” – Review of the new book by Dr Karina Reiss and Dr Sucharit Bakdi. You can order it on Kindle here
- “G-A-Y nightclub owner launches legal challenge against 10pm COVID-19 curfew” – Best of luck to him
- “Spectator Out Loud: Douglas Murray, Sam Leith, Melissa Kite and Toby Young” – Listen to me and others reading out our latest Spectator pieces
- “We can’t work from home forever” – Good piece by Kevin McCullagh in Spiked. Without face-to-face interactions, productivity, innovation and workplace culture will wither away
- “How To “Talk Covid” and the End of the Pandemic?” – Omar S. Khan’s latest blog post
- “Next year should spell new leader for the Tories” – Clare Foges in the Times says that every PM runs out of steam and for Boris that moment has almost arrived
- “Lockdown sceptic Richard Madeley: Covid-19 press conferences are ‘naked media manipulation’” – Another good rant from Richard Madeley on Kevin O’Sullivan’s show on TalkRADIO yesterday
- “COVID-19 emergency measures and the impending authoritarian pandemic” – Academic paper warning that the authoritarian measures introduced to control the spread of the virus could last for a long time
- “This BBC interview showed just how much Boris Johnson has changed” – Michael Deacon, the Telegraph‘s sketch writer, is unconvinced by Boris’s claim to be firing on all cylinders on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday
- “The greatest power we have is to refuse to vote for people who insult us – so save democracy and vote for my None Of The Below Party” – Peter Hitchens’s column in yesterday’s Mail on Sunday
- “Life as a Uni fresher in lockdown – it’s like living in ‘UK’s most expensive prison’” – Anonymous student writes in the Telegraph
- “A Saturday night out in Newcastle” – Encouraging signs of a rebellion brewing in the North East
- “Undetected breast cancer warning for thousands of women” – According to BBC News, 30,000 women missed out on mammograms between March and July
Love in the Time of Covid
We have created some Lockdown Sceptics Forums, including a dating forum called “Love in a Covid Climate” that has attracted a bit of attention. We have a team of moderators in place to remove spam and deal with the trolls, but sometimes it takes a little while so please bear with us. You have to register to use the Forums, but that should just be a one-time thing. Any problems, email the Lockdown Sceptics webmaster Ian Rons here.
Update: Some of you have asked how to link to particular stories on Lockdown Sceptics. The answer used to be to first click on “Latest News”, then click on the links that came up beside the headline of each story. But we’ve changed that so the link now comes up beside the headline whether you’ve clicked on “Latest News” or you’re just on the Lockdown Sceptics home page. Please do share the stories with your friends and on social media.
Woke Gobbledegook
We’ve decided to create a permanent slot down here for woke gobbledegook – and pay tribute to those who are doing their best to expose the woke cult as a barmy, authoritarian, hard Left movement with its roots in Marxism.
Yesterday brought news of an unlikely ally in this fight – actor Rupert Everett. He launched into a tirade against the wokesters at the Cheltenham Literary Festival yesterday, comparing them to the Stasi. The Mail has more.
Everett, 61, who found fame playing a gay public school pupil in the 1984 drama Another Country, said: “We’re in such a weird new world, a kind of Stasi it feels like to me, and if you don’t reflect exactly the right attitude, you risk everything just being destroyed for you by this judgmental, sanctimonious, intransigent, intractable, invisible cauldron of hags around in the virtual world.”
A useful reminder that not all luvvies have been captured by the cult. Could Everett be a potential recruit for Laurence Fox’s Reclaim Party?
Stop Press: Douglas Murray urges us to fight back against Critical Race Theory in his latest Telegraph column.
“Mask Exempt” Lanyards
We’ve created a one-stop shop down here for people who want to buy (or make) a “Mask Exempt” lanyard/card. You can print out and laminate a fairly standard one for free here and it has the advantage of not explicitly claiming you have a disability. But if you have no qualms about that (or you are disabled), you can buy a lanyard from Amazon saying you do have a disability/medical exemption here (takes a while to arrive). The Government has instructions on how to download an official “Mask Exempt” notice to put on your phone here. You can get a “Hidden Disability” tag from ebay here and an “exempt” card with lanyard for just £1.99 from Etsy here. And, finally, if you feel obliged to wear a mask but want to signal your disapproval of having to do so, you can get a “sexy world” mask with the Swedish flag on it here.
Don’t forget to sign the petition on the UK Government’s petitions website calling for an end to mandatory face nappies in shops here.
A reader has started a website that contains some useful guidance about how you can claim legal exemption.
And here’s a round-up of the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of mask (threadbare at best).
Stop Press: A reader has written to us praising her “amazing” grandson.
My amazing almost-12 year-old grandson is the only child who will not wear a mask at his new primary school, pleading exemption for his mild asthma! Hats off to him for his courage and conviction and I’m at least grateful that the school are allowing him to be exempt – although in the first two weeks of term they had four assemblies on the importance of mask-wearing!
Samaritans
If you are struggling to cope, please call Samaritans for free on 116 123 (UK and ROI), email jo@samaritans.org or visit the Samaritans website to find details of your nearest branch. Samaritans is available round the clock, every single day of the year, providing a safe place for anyone struggling to cope, whoever they are, however they feel, whatever life has done to them.
Shameless Begging Bit
Thanks as always to those of you who made a donation in the past 24 hours to pay for the upkeep of this site. Doing these daily updates is hard work (although we have help from lots of people, mainly in the form of readers sending us stories and links). If you feel like donating, please click here. And if you want to flag up any stories or links we should include in future updates, email us here.
And Finally…
Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the geniuses behind South Park, have produced a “Pandemic Special” that was broadcast last week. Sixty minutes of eviscerating cynicism about the massive over-reaction to the virus, from the government on down. You can watch the trailer here and Eric Cartman’s social distancing song here. No news at present about how to watch it in the UK.
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 now is that the country has become institutionalised. The more restrictions people get the more they like it. It gives meaning to their lives. They are all little soldiers fighting the Covid battle. If you wear a mask you’re not only saving lives you are seen to be saving lives…just when you’re out shopping. Normal people have never been able to attain such a perception of virtue and power so easily before. You can now help to win a war just by staying at home and watching Netflix.
The novelty has to wear off at some point soon, e.g. now the weather is rubbish and sitting out in the garden is no longer an option
My thoughts too. Things have to get much worse before many people will wake up. There are many who know it’s all a nonsense, but they are just shrugging their shoulders and saying oh well it’s just the rules for now. But when it really hurts- bad weather, darkness and rain, nothing to look forward to to get through the Winter months, job losses, no medical treatment for themselves or someone they know, etc… then perhaps they will stop just shrugging their shoulders, wake up a bit more and comply less.
Agree. Not to mention realising that social distancing and masks do bugger all and are causing the demise of the high street and various sectors such as hospitality, entertainment, retail and heritage.
Agree it is starting my barber who speaks to a lot of his cute.ers confirms this.
Wait till the queuing starts!
Already started. Had to queue outside my local post office this afternoon. There was a cold wind and it was drizzling. I got an elderly man to get in front of me in the queue. No way was I going to have him standing out there for ages. The government seems to want to kill people off by having them stand outside in the cold and the rain.
Every little helps.
Ups the number of new coughs.
And you have to pay for heating all day…
when furlough stops and they lose their jobs
I think it will dawn on them. I still don’t know anyone who has had COVID never mind died but I know one person who has died of cancer after his treatment was suspended and three whose condition has worsened as a result of treatment being delayed including one who now has a terminal prognosis. I also know several people who have lost their jobs. I’m sure as more and more people see themselves or their loved ones become collateral damage in Boris’s war on COVID people will start to push back. Sadly most people will need to suffer directly before they wake up.
Personally I know loads who think they’ve had covid, and probably have had it (including myself). Most had this in early spring. But I’m not personally aware of anyone who’s had anything worse than a week in bed sweating, and most (inc myself) have had something about as a mild as a regular cold (but no nasal effects, all throat so more likely covid than a normal cold)
I don’t get out and about much but I sometimes wonder about all this. Today an urgent vet visit and petrol top up, both unmasked.
Neither the vet nor petrol station attendants were remotely bothered though they were masked. I get the impression they feel they have to comply with government guidelines but aren’t bothered if I don’t . Nobody really believes this Covid madness.
Zombies do. The ones you see wearing masks in their cars. Or on a breezy beach. Or, I imagine, in bed – nauseating notion.
Hopefully that would keep them out of the gene pool!
or riding their bicycles with a mask but no helmet…
My brother in law ( unmasked ) was challenged by a friend in Waitrose who told him she would wear a mask until she died if it kept her safe. Obviously oblivious to the narcissism implicit in her attitude. I think that is the real plague we are seeing the effects of.
The consequences are too stark.
It may feel that way for some now but they are actually creating a lot of problems for themselves on both levels by not questioning the narrative.
They either end up being slaves to the cabal, or they suffer serious mental stress when certain cards begin to fall. All that virue bollocks for nowt.
The cabal doesn’t want them, that’s one of the main purposes for the vaccines.
Have been on a couple of coach trips in the last week – the only ones this year – and found them both quite depressing. Whilst unmasked, most of the not very many other passengers were, some for the entire outing of 12 hours plus. But the worst and most disconcerting was being asked to supply our details just to get a drink or something to eat somewhere during our first trip. I just lied about everything, and gave false details, something I would never have ever done before. Being continually exhorted to download the T&T app, and then scan the ever-present QR code in every premises is really quite unpleasant. Yet so many seemed happy to comply. Even in the open air, on the coast, I saw solitary runners wearing masks as they jogged along the prom. Same true for cyclists. In the wind and the rain! Almost unbelievable. But nothing is, anymore. The same was true for our second trip to an historic home yesterday, although masks were less evident, which made things seem more ‘normal’. Except for the café at the house. Same level of T&T compliance enforced – lied again – but the atmosphere was awful;… Read more »
I just bail out now from anywhere with the “rules” – sod them. I’m not handing over money for a reduced service, giving over my details to be T&T’d, by staff in hazmat, penned and herded, and surrounded by naps. Utterly joyless. I realise I have do others things now. I’ve rediscovered the joy of my flask and cool bag or rucksack and I take off now into the great outdoors. Will be doing that in the winter, getting out my nature books and all that. Gotta make your life the best it can be in these idiotic times.
To be honest, Helena, a flask, spotter books and country walks sound blissful and much nicer than most other pastimes, even under normal circumstances.
Country walks are great, but that’s all that will left and then of course before too long they’ll be trying to enforce mask wearing at all times outside of the home.
Gtec, unless the ‘rules’ have changed you are under NO obligation to provide personal details. Gov.uk states that it is opt-in. Any establishment asking (or telling) you to do so does not know the rules and regulations (and I’m not even sure there are any actual laws in place either).
DavidC
As far as I understand it, whilst it is ‘voluntary’ to give your personal details, premises are now under a legal obligation to collect your information, not just ask for it, under pain of penalty.
So, if you refuse to give your details, they could be fined, so they deny you entry.
Which can be difficult when you’re with someone else. So I lie, which I really detest doing, but that is what the government has done to me, to us all. Bastards.
I Just checked on the government website.it says specifically you are to be refused entry if you refuse to give your details over unless you have a mental health issue that prevents you from doing so.thats the only exemption I could see.false details however can only be challenged if they have a suspicion they are false..love minnie m ouse 🙃
I have such a mental health issue, I’m sane and therefore allergic to tyranny. perhaps we could try announcing that to any track and traitors standing at doors.
You tolerated far more than I can. I’ve stopped going anywhere that requires that sort of thing. A visit to the post office is all the dystopia I can take in one day. And I keep my money until the government and businesses learn to appreciate it again.
It’s Soviet Russia all over again. Civilised modern countries don’t treat the people like this. People can’t see it though.
At times now, I find myself wondering whether there is any point in soldering with such a grim existence and only the prospect of a genocidal vaccine to look forward to. But it’s very clear that they want us dead, so I will keep going to the bitter end, if only to spite the evil bastards, that comprise the UK government.
Don’t give up. There’s still plenty of simple pleasures out there and lots of rational thinking people.
Case in point, my kids have started riding ponies and we got our at the start of lockdown. Shows started up again in July time and in fairness to the horsey types, they seemingly couldn’t give a toss about distancing or masks. I’m really enjoying it 😂
As a horsewoman myself I find we are split between gung ho sceptics like me and complete bedwetters. My horse is on a yard where another owner is so paranoid she wears gloves and a muzzle at all times and won’t even go in the barn if someone else is in there. The irony is she’s a bold rider across country and her horse is a complete nutter! Clearly has a real issue calculating relative risk!
Glad you keep your cool. I couldn’t put up with her.
Thanks.
From UnHerd
Freddie Sayers talks to eminent epidemiologists Dr Sunetra Gupta, Dr Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Martin Kulldorff, who met in Massachusetts to sign a declaration calling for a different global response to the pandemic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE
https://unherd.com/2020/10/covid-experts-there-is-another-way/
youtube com watch?v=rz_Z7Gf1aRE
unherd com/ 2020/10/covid-experts-there-is-another-way/
Chin up James..isn’t the darkest hour the one before dawn?
Nope. It’s not.
The video and declaration needs to disseminated as widely as possible. Towards the end of the video the rational and strength of their proposals becomes abundantly clear.
it will end as everything is cyclical and its just about timing
The soviet Union collapsed because it was bust. We are collapsing in to a totalitarian state for the same reason.
They can’t win but its not knowing how long this will go on for that is the problem. We must resist
Thanks for expressing your point so well. I agree entirely. I also worry about the droves who seem to revel in what they see as having their very own bit-part in a disaster movie.
I refuse to use the pejorative term, L**kd**n, as I am not a US convict, but all the time I hear the term being bandied around cheerfully like they were talking about a new fashion; it’s even frequently used as a verb!
Every day I feel I’m doing my bit for liberty just by going into shops and travelling on a bus without a mask – I don’t find it easy. Whatever else it is a mask is no symbol of courage.
It’s the equivalent of refusing to do the Hitler salute.
Eventually, we will be vindicated.
Stockholm syndrome.
Hang in there
Second…
Fourth…
(Repost) Here’s another poster, this time with the simple and easy-to-repeat slogan: “Get a life, bin the mask”.
The underlying message I’m aiming at is that there is no scientific evidence that wearing a mask will protect you against viruses, but there’s plenty of evidence that wearing a mask will do you harm. Therefore, you can extend your life by not wearing a mask. I have no idea if it will resonant with the general public, but I’ve stuck one in my car window anyway.
I initially considered adding some kind of justification to the poster, but I decided that leaving it as just “Get a life” would allow the reader to fill in their own meaning of life, be it family, friends, having a job, freedom to choose, sovereignty over their own body, and so on.
Make them think of what has been taken from them and perhaps they will resist.
Available here, free for any purpose.
We need these slogans put onto car stickers. Any takers?
You can buy the “bin the mask” slogan as stickers on Redbubble.
The price is a bit of a piss-take, but I haven’t found anywhere cheaper to post my designs.
If anyone has any suggestions for an online print service with good prices that will allow me to create an online shop then I’ll get right on it.
Be prepared to have your windows smashed in by some ‘do-gooder’. Seriously. We are the minority.
Good point. See that neighbour everyone suspects of snitching? Put it on her car.
That’s why I have bought a hoodie. It will make a good souvenir of this lunacy, and until then anyone is welcome to “remonstrate” with me; but any physical touching will attract a lawfully-robust response.
You only have ONE hoodie with an anti-lockdown print on it? I’m busy replacing all the items in my wardrobe which no longer fit with anti-lockdown slogan bearing ones.
No not on car stickers unless you want your car keyed by zealots. We need sheets of stickers with facts and key messages that you can subtly stick everywhere. That tactic heirs well fit extinction rebellion etc. You can even stick them on NHS and PHE propaganda posters.
Terrific poster!
Great stuff!!!
Manchester Evening News: Manchester nightclub owner launches legal challenge to government’s 10pm curfew.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music-nightlife-news/manchester-nightclub-owner-launches-legal-19050075
Here’s a nauseating, woke, virtue-signalling article from the BBC, written as though it’s aimed at children, but apparently intended to be read by adults.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-876f42ae-5e44-41c0-ba2d-d6fd537aadfe
Read that this morning. In a way it backs up the point that the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’ is nowhere near as severe as the real pandemics our ancestors had to deal with. This article is a really embarrassing indictment on how cowardly humanity has become.
Have been listening to podcasts about past pandemics including the Justinian, Black Death (plagues) and Spanish Flu (podcasts recorded way before all this hysteria) what we are are experiencing is utterly inconsequential in comparison. If a survivor from 1351 could jump in a time machine and arrive today they’d be saying “call that a pandemic”. You wonder what we would have done with something serious. Perhaps the BBC News headlines would have read ,” UK Government to euthanize population to beat Krona Virus. Also read that pandemics were were previously only regarded as pandemics if the victims are from the younger age group.
Jasmine is not diverse enough .. No Asians amongst her ancestors. Someone at the BBC should be cancelled for this
With thanks to Prof Steven Riley of Imperial College London and the World Health Organization for background advice on previous pandemics and their impact. Says it all really.
Pandemics end when excess deaths return to normal. Regardless of anything else.
And guess what. We’ve been at normal since summer
Warning: Grab a sick bucket before opening!
https://unherd.com/2020/10/covid-experts-there-is-another-way/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups%5B0%5D=18743&tl_period_type=3
I posted this earlier under yesterday’s article. It bears repeating and this is a video of very sensible epidemiologists not called Ferguson
Playing Devil’s Advocate here:
In the new abnormal that has been established in recent years, if 52% of scientists* said ‘This virus could decimate the population unless we lockdown society’ and 48% said ‘It’s probably not much worse than a severe flu; we should carry on as normal’, wasn’t that a clear instruction from the scientific community for the government to panic?
* not counting those who either felt they didn’t know enough about it to express an opinion, or weren’t given the opportunity.
I think we all know, it’s the scientists that have the government’s ear that are the problem – as they were involved in the initial decision making. As for the ethics of groups of scientists making decisions on behalf of others in their best interests, that is a different discussion altogether. For now, I’m happy to concentrate my ire and fury at those in power as they are controlling the narrative (see Foucoult)
In my opinion, the real problem is that nobody seems to be able to distinguish between science and scientists.
The scientific method was created because human reasoning is deeply flawed. We have evolved to survive: thinking is slow and expensive, so rules of thumb have kept us (our rather, our genes) alive. But those rules of thumb trip us up, so we needed a mechanism to prune out faulty thinking. As thus the scientific method was born.
If people stopped deifying individual scientists and just did some sodding science, we wouldn’t be in this mess.
But instead, we defer to the opinions of well-known scientists, as though their fame somehow makes them better at science. Even the best can err. Richard Dawkins is a good example of somebody I respected greatly who recently epically shit the bed on Twitter over lockdown.
Dawkins Remain position revealed how deeply elitist and anti-democratic he is. He expressed the view that we should never have had the Referendum because only someone which a Phd in Economics was capable of making a judgement on the issue.
Spot on! They key to the current mess is to apply scientific method, i.e. evidenced-based and open to challenge. The way that Prof Gupta and others have been ignored because they are not part of the coterie of insiders currently sitting on SAGE. It is also a concern that the scientists involved appear to have little practical knowledge or experience of infection control (more of an environmental health issue than computer-based epidemiology). From a science and engineering perspective the output of a computer model is no more than an opinion until validated against real-world test data. That testing needs to be on a consistent and clearly documented basis no the Orwellian practice currently being exhibited where cases (deaths) have morphed into cases (positive tests). And in the case of positive tests no informed discussion and presentation of results taking into account the potential prevalence of false positives from community-based PCR tests.
Didn’t I read somewhere on this site that 32 out of 34 Sage advisors are beholden to Bill Gates?
https://gbdeclaration.org/The Great Barrington Declaration
Dr Kulldorff,Harvard, Dr Gupta, Oxford, Dr Bhattacharya, Stanford
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
I realised at least 10 years ago that Richard Dawkins is an arrogant, opinionated idiot!
IMO it’s an almost irrelevant distinction now. The scientific method has now been broken. Almost all scientific endeavour today is driven by money or power. Falsifiability and reproducibility are no longer part of the process. Karl Popper would turn in his grave.
More here: https://unherd.com/2018/02/flawed-science-concern-us/
he is an atheist like all the toher marxists, his bedfellows
Science isn’t a democracy. It is not a matter of votes, but of evidence.
Is it? It definitely SHOULD be a matter of evidence!
Science has given way to ‘the scientific consensus’ or, as it’s often truncated, ‘the science’.
I think we all know, it’s not the scientists making the decisions.
Blaming them lets the politicians off the hook – and lets the public off the hook for not only failing to demand responsible government but, when it suits their agenda, actively baying for government to act irresponsibly.
We reap what we sow. The roots of what’s happening now go back a long way but responsible government went out of the window four years ago, cheered on by many people who are appalled at what’s happening now. (Leaving the EU might well have been a good idea – personally I don’t care one way or the other – and it might well have genuinely been the will of the people. But anyone with any concern at all for good government should have recognised that treating a narrow margin in a binary vote as a clear instruction from the public was grossly irresponsible.)
the people who have the government’s ear are not real scientists, they are civil servants.
only Ferguson pushed for lockdown with his ridiculous projections. He is not a scientist but a mathematical modeller. Those on the SAGE committee many have received funding from Gates or are associated with GSK but even they did not push for lockdown according to the minutes.
Ferguson’s model was neither peer reviewed nor published and it is NOT the scientific method to rely on an unpublished model
They are lying when they say they are following science. They are NOT!
One of the most creative-aggressive posts I’ve seen on here for a while!
Thank you, Alethea – high praise!
You forgot to ask the most important question: “How many of those scientists are bought off in a hundred different ways?”
Almost all of them. It’s almost all advocacy work now, AKA policy-based evidence making.
Not really
For a start they are paid not it panic
Secondly they need to consider the good of the country in the round
Thirdly the evidence that the actions taken would likely lead to a better outcome than doing what normally would have been done in the past was and is thin and it was likely that the risks outweighed the potential benefits
I appreciate the irony, Julian.
Interesting observation working in the out of hours over the weekend . I telephoned two patients both of which described symptoms which were significant and potentially life threatening. I said I would like to see one myself to assess ,the other I said needed to go straight to A and E .
Both said they couldn’t do that as they had ” covid ” symptoms and had tests booked for tomorrow.. Whitless and Unballanced claim the NHS is open , the problem is the hysteria generated by Prof Doom and Gloom informs people otherwise.
That’s 2 more casualties to add to the list.
As I’m early on here – and following up on previous request a while ago for advice for my friend trying to get her stoma bag reversed (since March). All routes suggested her – PALS, GP duty of care exhausted and non- productive or helpful. Answer phone to department at hospital and no one has returned her call.
Separate letter to consultant/department. Standard letter back (and I paraphrase) ‘because of pandemic all services are assessed on clinical need for years to come and unless you are emergency you won’t be seen until you are dead’
So any further suggestions from here? The answerphone is a real barrier. A&E?
Try this organisation:
https://www.colostomyuk.org/
Thanks Wendyk
Isn’t A & E appointment only now?
If you have symptoms which are serious eg chest pain , or symptoms suggestive of a stroke please ring 999 . Suggesting you should book an appointment for such problems is not helpful .
It’s not Carrie’s idea. It’s a real thing I’m afraid
Emergencies occur by appointment?
If either died, would it be murder, manslaughter or suicide?
Rishi should resign citing collective ministerial responsibility of they bring this traffic light shite in.
His first best option – if he is ambitious for the top job – is to resign this week.
Agree – start vocally opposing the restrictions. The first one out of him and Starmer to do it, will be the next PM
I listened to his speech on Sky. It sounded as though he was a Conservative, and certainly completely at odds with both the content and tone of Johnson and Hancock. He is running out of time to protect his ‘clean skin’. Surely he must know this?
He doesn’t strike me as a stupid man.
If he sticks around much longer he will be indelibly tainted.
But if he resigns in protest?? I think he has to be careful in picking his moment – and that will be luck as much as judgement. Most ministers who resign on a point of principle disappear.
Having said that, I’m not sure Johnson could survive for long a high-profile resignation.
And having said that, I’m not prepared to trust the Conservative Party again. Like all the mainstream parties, I think it’s rotten.
Indelibly tainted? Wasn’t Gordon Brown chancellor all through Blair’s Iraq war? He still got a turn at the controls.
Whatever happens how, Labour will win in 2024. The Tories will take a long time to come back from this, whatever they do.
Yes, but Brown really was already damaged goods when he became PM – tainted as it were.
Re 2024 (or before?) election – I just don’t know. But I do think the current situation is potentially existential for the Conservative party.
Agreed but i can’t see either of them doing it
Probably Sir Kneelalot has dug himself in too deep.
Sunak might have created an opening though.
Indeed it is. If a Chancellor resigns, any Prime Minister’s days are numbered. We all know what happened to a certain PM in 1990 after her deputy resigned and made a speech in the Commons…
Nigel Lawson? She survived that, although weakened (hence Major compelling her into the ERM).
Surely it was the cumulative weight of Cabinet opinion against her which did for her, and Howe’s speech brought it all to a head. Even then maybe she could have survived, a bit longer at least, if she’d taken that first ballot seriously enough.
I have no faith in Rishi, given that he is ex-Goldman Sachs.
Good point.
That makes no more sense than saying ‘I have no faith in him, given that he’s brown’
It just happens to be a more socially acceptable thing to say.
I have no faith in him because he’s already magicked-up hundreds of billions of pounds and will doubtless do some more of that when the economic collapse translates into a financial collapse.
He’s been fully on board with all this so far, just being the good cop to Bozo/Poppycock’s bad cops. I wouldn’t get your hopes up.
Exactly, and then there’s this (posted by ‘leggy’ and others just before today’s page came up): This is another lovely bit of legislation going through at the moment. Short story, we’ll have to abide by criminal law, but agents of the state won’t. I love this bit: …it places no specific limitations on the type of criminal activity that may be authorised. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9012/ “It would introduce a power in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to authorise conduct by officials and agents of the security and intelligence services, law enforcement, and certain other public authorities, which would otherwise constitute criminality.” This short Bill raises “one of the most profound issues which can face a democratic society governed by the rule of law”, in the words of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. It would introduce a power in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to authorise conduct by officials and agents of the security and intelligence services, law enforcement, and certain other public authorities, which would otherwise constitute criminality. That it places no specific limitations on the type of criminal activity that may be authorised By contrast with recent legislation governing the use of other investigatory powers, authorisations are given internally,… Read more »
My own thought is that this is might be how they intend to get round the ‘Crimes against Humanity’ court case…????
We maybe need to make sure their lawyers are aware of this so they look out for other countries rewriting law in their favour?
I wrote on yesterday’s page that they could abolish courts, but I’m not sure they plan to do that just yet (too obvious) but by merely exempting themselves from any laws, they can just continue with their plans, knowing there are zero consequences for themselves..
The irony was huge of brokenshire introducing the 2nd reading directly after the ghoul hancock had just been answering questions from the same dispatch box. There had been a three minute break to disinfect the dispatch box after hancock – not a joke actual.
It’s nothing new. Peter Wright wrote about this in his book “Spycatcher” way back in 1987. For some reason it is a quote that has stayed with me all this time. The only thing the Act does is regularise the behaviour.
“For five years we bugged and burgled our way across London at the State’s behest, while pompous bowler-hatted Civil Servants in Whitehall pretended to look the other way”
2nd reading today. No info: https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2019-21/coverthumanintelligencesourcescriminalconduct.html
100% agree however this is politics – he could turn on a sixpence and most wouldn’t notice.
To be fair, he has threatened to resign multiple times when the govt proposed another lockdown. He may be the reason why we don’t have a second full lockdown yet.
Build. Britain. Better.
Hope it’s better than this…
2022 Johnson reviews his Build Back Better programme and rejoices that a house has been built.
well he’s doing a good job of “Buggering. Britain. Bigtime.”
Supermarket prompt
Are you on commission for Weight Watchers?
Oh, thank you for making me laugh out loud.
This is wrong. His estimate for deaths over 80 years from vCJD was between 50 (that’s fifty, not fifty thousand) and 150,000 as a 95% confidence interval, and to quote the paper
It turned out to be 177 over 20 years, which is, obviously, consistent with both the wider and the narrower estimate. Of course the media reported the more exciting “up to” figure rather than “as low as 50”. I agree that an estimate covering some four orders of magnitude would in general be better expressed as “we don’t know”.
From Nature, 10 January 2002
Is there any meaningful difference between saying “between 50 and 150,000” and saying “search me, guv. Blowed if I know.”?
Not what was said. He said that was his 95% confidence limit. His central estimates were 100-1000.
OK, so more tightly defined, not much more meaningful, (in that the top of the range is still 100x the bottom of the range).
Last week I submitted my budgets for the parts of the business I run for 2021. They contain contributions from our operations in over 20 countries. Every one of those countries is currently experiencing highly volatile economic conditions (I wonder why) and every one of the clients in my portfolio are themselves trading in very difficult conditions and have very little ability to confidently predict how 2021 will go.
If I submitted a range where the top estimate was 100x the lower estimate, I would be fired. If I did get away with doing that and next year, I performed near the bottom end of that estimate, I would be fired, if I claimed that there was a possibility that I might actually do 1,500 x as well as I though I might, then I had better be pretty bloody confident of that number, because if I didn’t come close to it, I would be fired.
Er, 100-1000 is a factor of 10. A factor of 10 over 80 years is a cumulative error of about 3% a year. Even a factor of 100 over 80 years is 6% a year. Would you be fired if you predicted your budget next year with 3% variation, and if after 20 years you came in within those limits?
I see the report publication is dated 2002. I haven’t got time to check in detail, but I’m guessing he could have extrapolated from existing case figures, adjusted his assumptions accordingly, run some thousands of lines of code, and come up with answers that fit the extrapolated case numbers.
I misread. But given that my budgets are annual and you’re still talking about a 10x difference, then yes, I would be fired. At the very least, if it became apparent that my expectations were significantly out of line with reality, I would be expected to recalculate them, not to seize rate them.
You missed out the bit about a 10x spread over 80 years being 3% spread a year?
There’s a massive difference. By citing 150k he knew he would grab attention, and hence it was an attempt to gain influence. He’s made a career out of that sort of stuff.
But of course, he had no idea what the deaths would be.
Discussed on here yesterday: of course, RP is strictly correct to point out that Ferguson should be judged on what he actually said. OK. But let us look in detail at what he actually said, judge his motivations, and judge the man accordingly. When looked at in this light, I believe the case against him become immeasurably more damning.
… and by not citing his confidence limits he would have been criticised for. missing out on an important part of his results, not to mention being pilloried by the media for concealing it.
As I said, his central estimates were 100-1000 over 80 years, and it’s 178 over 20 years. Not too bad really.
Fair point. I haven’t seen the actual report or (perhaps more pertinently his assumptions), so can’t comment directly.
By criticising him for headline figures the attacks on him can seem shallow and personal, which to mind mind risk missing the mark.
His actions over the last few months will now be the subject of minute scrutiny. He will have no hiding place now.
I believe he is a deeply manipulative individual who has every interest in personal advancement and very little in science. Subjective at this point I know, but he will find it hard to avoid the truth now (e.g. witness Sue Denim’s assessment of his model on this site).
Were I him (thank God I’m not), I am sure I’d prefer the ridicule over a few headline figures to what – I assume – is coming his way.
The BSE report is here
Just read the abstract. Quote:
Well grounded mathematical and statistical models are therefore essential to integrate the limited and disparate data, to explore uncertainty, and to define data-collection priorities.
Well that is about the absolute diametric opposite to what has happened with covid.
So the case against him re covid thereby gets worse. As I say, in the end the truth will be all the more damining.
Saying that models are essential for one thing does not preclude them being useful for another.
I’m not saying that models aren’t useful – essential even. I couldn’t do the disease spread calculations in my head, simple as they are even for me to do on a spreadsheet.
The crux here is:
integrate the limited and disparate data, to explore uncertainty, and to define data-collection priorities.
As far as I can tell, this has not been done in the covid analysis – witness Hancock’s ludicrous statement in the Commons last week that letting the virus rip, as they term it, would cause hundreds of thousands of deaths.
One of my main criticisms of Hancock et al. is that they appear to have learnt nothing since last March – they are still stuck in the narrative of the 16 March Imperial Paper.
Even if Hancock doesn’t know any better, Ferguson should (and I believe does, but that’s another story).
Couldn’t agree more.
I think it goes to the heart of what’s gone wrong, and it’s being largely ignored.
When Neil Ferguson suggested that in a worst case scenario 500,000 people might die of covid19, did he really mean they might die over the next twenty years? I wish he’d said so.
No, that wasn’t the question on the table. In fact, the question was essentially “could the NHS cope in a do-nothing scenario” and the answer was “No”. The 500,000 figure was in some sense icing on the cake. However, for what it’s worth, his model gave the bulk of the deaths happening over a period of 6 weeks, hence the collapse of the NHS. (And to be fair, mine disagrees with that, giving around 12 weeks)
Ferguson has received major funding from major pro-vaccine organisations. Should he really be given such a key role in the decision making process? But then Whitty and Vallance are also compromised.
The maths is one thing but how you present it is another. A few weeks ago he was out and about with “grim warnings” about another 80,000 deaths (or some such figure) from second wave Covid.
I agree. There’s a pattern here. You could call it “sexing up the dossier” if you like. You could call it accentuating the negative. You could call it attention-seeking. That the gatekeepers, Whitty and Vallance, have allowed him to grandstand in this way is indefensible. But ultimately the government has revealed its shallowness by swallowing the whole thing hook, line and sinker.
Yep, in my view this goes to the heart of what has gone wrong. Certainly it is an area the inquiry should pay much attention to.
Yes and predict that the weather on Christmas day 2020 will be between -30 and +40C with 0 – 300mm of rain and 0 – 2000mm snow
I’m right but it’s not useful is it
… and your central estimate?
But bear in mind that for the rest of your life, people will now assiduously repeat the canard that you predicted that the temperature on Christmas Day would be up to 40C: and lucky if the remember to say “up to”.
To be safe you need to allow for negative amounts of rain and snow, just in case something really weird happens.
so that is basically any value between “nothing” and “lots and lots” . I could come up with that.
Yawn
Best comment so far!
My take from this and your later comment on bird flu, is that Ferguson needs to be a lot more careful over what he says.
Ferguson is a university academic – he sits in an ivory tower, you could say. His models, though, have a huge impact on the real world, which he is largely immune to.
He should not just issue academic papers, he needs to be able to communicate them accurately to people who are not mathematically inclined. He needs to ensure that his work is accurately reported in the press etc. He cannot just proclaim his work from on high and take no responsibility to how it is then reported.
Totally right. And in his role he shouldn’t be receiving funds from organisations that have an interest in there being a global viral health crisis.
I don’t know the man and maybe I’m doing him an injustice, but I really don’t think Neil Ferguson can be said ever to have worked disinterestedly in the best interests of the people of Britain. He seems to like causing havoc.
Yes. Havoc, and putting himself at the centre of events.
The AAPS site has a superb and well presented summary of the evidence about masks:
https://aapsonline.org/mask-facts/
This is wrong.
From Nature, 08 September 2005 (my emphasis)
So if avian flu had become human transmissible, then … . But it didn’t and 200 million people didn’t die. Which is good,
So essentially, had this been written:..
In 2005, Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people could be killed by bird-flu or H5N1. By early 2006, the WHO had only linked 78 deaths to the virus, out of 147 reported cases.
It would be factually correct.
Have you got nothing better to do than try to defend Ferguson?
Factually correct, perhaps. Would you agree it gave a misleading impression?
Yes, thanks, correcting mis-statements on blogs like this is only a hobby.
Sometimes amidst your laudable analytical analysis,there can seem a smidgeon of condecension.. maybe ?
Maybe. This is a fairly robust forum, and I assume the people here are capable of taking as much as they dish out.
Are you denying his receipt of funds from interested parties has compromised him? Or do you have no problem with that.
Excellent post today Toby! A couple of comments.
I trust Amnesty International’s report into care home deaths is just the beginning of a slew of reports about to emerge about the “epidemic”. I’m glad that an influential group is calling for an enquiry with teeth, ie interviews under oath (even better under caution, but one step at a time).
Clare Foges may well believe that the time for Boris to go has “almost arrived”, but the time for him to go is now. The damage this appalling man has caused will take years to repair, especially the psychological damage to so many people and the economic damage done to the country as a whole.
When it comes to new restrictions, the time has come for ordinary people to refuse to follow them. Civil disobedience is now the only way forward.
And by the way, the next London protest is scheduled for Saturday, 17th October.
https://www.standupx.info
Click on events or scroll down.
I thought it was 24th Oct?
In 2009, Ferguson and his team at Imperial College advised the Government that swine flu or H1N1 would probably kill 65,000 people in the UK. In the end, swine flu claimed the lives of 457 people in the UK. This is wrong. This was explicitly a Reasonable Worst Case scenario, which, as I spent much of yesterday explaining, is explicitly not a prediction. It is the worst case that could reasonably be expected to happen, used as a planning tool to decide whether there are resources in place to deal with it. From the Commons Science and Technology Committee (NRA is National Risk Assessment) Reasonable worst case scenario 75. The second stage of the NRA process is assessing risks and their impacts. Risks are assessed using available historical, statistical and scientific data. Where possible, the assessment should take account of probable developments over the next five years.[75] Impacts are assessed against five main criteria: the numbers of fatalities that are likely to be directly attributable to the emergency; the extent of human illnesses or injury over a period following the onset of an emergency; social disruption; economic damage; and the potential for significant outrage and anxiety to be caused to communities.[76] 76.… Read more »
I agree with this comment. I’m a bit surprised that Toby Young – who is normally quite measured in his arguments – continues to repeat the nonsense about Ferguson’s ‘predictions’.
Someone somewhere is assiduously briefing against Ferguson, would be my guess.
Not necessary. He undermined his own arguments back in March!
I was referring rather to the way these misleading allegations are repeated, almost verbatim, time after time. Frankly, I think it’s poor journalism to simply repeat them when a few minutes online enabled me to find the original reports.
As a rule of thumb, when extreme claims like this are published.in this way, especially by those who are predisposed not to accept the results of the work, they are likely to turn out to be at best distorted and sometimes actually just false.
In what way?
Tell us what exactly he has got wrong.
The whole country is being stitched up, and you’re worried about one adulterous charlatan being subject to a little darning?
This is the problem with the “reasonable worst case scenario” It is perceived by the non-technical people, the policy makers, as a “likely” outcome. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the Modellers have to take responsibility for that, they can’t just hide behind the correctness of their maths. They also fail to highlight that the use of the term “reasonable” is a value judgement not an equation.
So far none of Fergusons forecasts have been remotely validated by factual outcomes so by what criteria can we judge whether he’s actually any good at it over anyone else?
Actually, Ferguson’s central estimates for vCJD have turned out quite well.
But your wider points are worth discussing. There is indeed a disconnect between policymakers and modellers. I don’t think we solve it by stopping modelling, but by getting better at getting both sides together.
Mathematical modellers certainly have professional responsibilities, about which I’m not going to comment off-the-cuff, since it’s in some sense my day job. But there comes a point where policy-makers have to take the responsibility for their policies and politicians have to take responsibility for their actions.
I think the problem as you point out is that if the action appears to be taken on the extreme end without looking at the more central case.
So if due weight had been put on the extreme end – as per the 2001 Foot and Mouth paper – that implementation would be worse than lives saved, then the central one could be used.
Because that’s the problem with politicians going after the extreme case – the cure is worse than the disease
It would also fit with the idea of building contingency rather than panicking.
The problem is Ferguson is not really good at selling the central case. He appears to at least be mentioning the extreme case without context.
But then maybe it’s just that fear sells
But there comes a point where policy-makers have to take the responsibility for their policies and politicians have to take responsibility for their actions.
That’s the crux of it. Ferguson (much as I dislike him) must not be a scapegoat for political failures.
Richard, I’m sorry but in the discussion yesterday, my main concern – that RWC must be informed by ‘evidence’ – was not countered with a convincing argument. I presented a specific example where I used evidence to undermine comprehensively a highly stylised econometric model used in real-life merger cases. I am neither a statistician nor a modeler but I do have extensive analytical experience in several settings. In terms of what you have linked to, I think later paragraphs are also important: 83. An independent review of the UK response to the 2009 influenza pandemic, chaired by Dame Deirdre Hine, noted that “there was some unease about how reasonable the ‘reasonable worst case’ scenarios were”. The review also stated that “there was general agreement that the term was unhelpful” because it implied that the scenario was likely to occur. 84. We asked the GCSA whether reasonable worst case scenarios were evidence-based and Sir John responded: To the extent it is partially evidence based, it is quite difficult to come in any particular scenario to what is a reasonable worst case because in fact the very word “reasonable” implies there is something that is going beyond what would be pure analytic… Read more »
No need to apologise. I don’t think I’ve ever suggested that there is no need for evidence in forming a RWC, or that RWCs should be immune from challenge by evidence. In this particular case, the evidence available was not complete and not consistent, and SAGE had to take a view. Whether that view was right, or at least, reasonable, at the time is something we have the luxury of discussing at length and in hindsight.
I quite agree, as you might expect, with the paragraphs you quote, but entirely dispute that anything that is not “analytic judgement” is a “guess”. In fact, I rather think the example from your own experience shows that.
No problem. I think the key point here is that no one individual has a monopoly on good ideas and no one methodology can address all questions posed. Yet, the whole response to the pandemic was and still is driven in its entirety by one team and one model.
This is one of the difficult issues at the intersection of science and politics. In political life, decisions have to be taken, often under time pressure, and they have to go one way or the other. (Oversimplifying of course). Science as an enterprise is in some sense always provisional (a lot of the things we “knew” in my O-level science lessons are now “wrong”) and scientists usually prefer to have time to consider the matter. So there’s always a tension, and when opinion on “the science” is 60-40, someone has to make a call. One the one hand there’s the Scylla of indecision and on the other the Charybdis of groupthink. If anyone has a magic bullet for that, please let us know! Following on from that, there’s a common confusion between giving scientific advice and doing science. “Doing science” in the current context would mean formulating a testable hypothesis, such as “The NHS can cope with mitigation and suppression but not with do-nothing” You might then propose to perform some sort of randomised control experiment, where you divide the country, and London, into three tightly demarcated zones, in each of which you try the three main policies: laissez-faire (a… Read more »
AND YET having seen that this reasonable worst case scenario was nowhere at all near the truth and having seen the resulting publicity the doom number received (as compared to his other scenarios) and the massive amounts of money then wasted by governments in buying vaccines for something that turned out to be barely a sniffle, he STILL actively sought publicity for his similarly massively-over low worst case scenario for SARS-CoV 2. To an extent, I agree with you that the obsession with Ferguson’s modelling is a distraction and an irrelevance, Because a 6-month old theoretical mathematical model has no relevance in the context of significant real world data. Except that this worst case scenario is still being used by the media and the government to overstate the danger posed and keep everyone scared, is still being used as a justification for having imposed the lockdown in terms of fictional lives saved, is still being used to justify the continuation of restrictive measures and lockdown-by-any-other-name and – almost as importantly – is still being pimped out to the media as realistic by none other than Ferguson himself. With respect, defending Ferguson on the basis that reasonable worst case scenarios are… Read more »
Good post. I think your second paragraph gets to the very heart of the problem of allowing style and process to over-ride evidence and substance.
Can’t edit anymore. Clearly I did not mean “over low”
That’s the key – it’s not that he and his team modelled a range including the more extreme. It’s that he doesn’t walk it back or directly caveat and say, the extreme case is just that – most likely an artefact of modelling.
Knowing the power he’s in, he really should be more careful. Of course if all this was just modelling, there would be enough procedures in place to never let the extreme dictate policy. But we don’t have these checks and balances.
Ferguson is just small part of this though. It appears that ICL will just model at whatever stage they can. It’s how these are relied upon appears to be the issue. And no lesson has been learned from Foot and Mouth.
The RWC was for a scenario (“do-nothing”) which was not implemented. What do you mean by “the truth” for a scenario that never happened? Do you, by any chance, mean some other number that you have derived from some other model? Or do you really claim to know what would actually have happened in that hypothetical scsnario, and if so, how?
You’re either failing to address my main point or deliberately avoiding it. Nonetheless, no, I don’t have an alternative model, obviously and nor am I interested in one if it exists. As it happens, Levitt proposed an alternative model, which turns out to have had an output far closer to reality, but he was ignored. This doesn’t matter so very much anymore though, because we don’t need a theoretical model to describe what has already happened. It can now be shown fairly conclusively that The IFR Ferguson used as an input was wrong. It is becoming established fact that the assumption that there was zero pre-existing immunity was wrong. It has been repeatedly shown that lockdown measures above and beyond basic “keep some distance,” “wash your hands,” “stay home if you’re sick” had little-to-no effect. The study of US states above the line today is not the first such study I’ve seen (though in some ways, it’s one of the most interesting because the territories being compared are the most directly culturally and demographically comparable”. So I cannot demonstrate that in a theoretical world where the response of the population was to change absolutely nothing, half a million people wouldn’t… Read more »
I don’t propose to judge his actions. As I’ve said before, I think he should be judged on the basis of what he has said and done, rather than on the basis of things he has demonstrably not said or done.
Ferguson knows how politicians and the media have treated his “reasonable worst case” in the past, so why isn’t he more careful in how he presents his data? Similarly Vallance and Witty endlessly caveated their “worst case” but they must have known how the media would react. They only showed one chart of projected cases in their press conference – they knew how the media would treat that one chart (no matter how many times they said it was not a prediction).
This thread is now past dead, but anyway… in that case I can’t understand your own motivation or your thrust (unless it’s to defend mathematics in principle). I do judge him on the basis of what he’s said and done and I don’t judge him on the basis of whether or not his model was credible in retrospect. As I’ve said, his fault was not in doing his job to the best of his ability (and you are a better judge of those abilities than I) but in overstepping his job and trying to become a public figure, terrifying the population and over influencing public policy in the process. I haven’t seen you disagree with me, so I can only assume that you agree with me.
Please don’t keep on giving the thumbs down to Richard’s posts. He is trying to present a balanced view and gauge the strength of our enemies’ arguments. If we just stick our fingers in our ears and shriek, we’re no better than our enemies are,
Yes, spot on. If we make outlandish, unfair and ill-judged accusations they will eventually miss their mark and our case will be weakened.
I suspect RP likes provoking discussions like this in part because they stimulate his own thought processes, a way of thinking through a problem as it were.
I’ve not seen anything he has written which merits a downvote (except for one of his comments on one of my own posts when he first appeared here, which I didn’t downvote …)
Spot on indeed! And thanks to everyone who has discussed things in a civil and helpful way.
Oh, so you agree that one of your early replies to one of my posts weeks ago was worthy of a downvote!
(Only joking you know.)
Agree.
From An independent review of the UK response to the 2009 influenza pandemic by Dame Deirdre Hine.
The use and release of planning assumptions has been brought to my attention. There was some unease about how reasonable the ‘reasonable worst-case’ scenarios were. Also, the public release of planning assumptions, although necessary for emergency planners and those in public health organisations, caused confusion as they were immediately taken to be predictions rather than planning figures. There is recognition from many interviewees that these should be dealt with differently in the future.
Sounds good to me.
In 2005, Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people would be killed by bird-flu or H5N1.
NO – he didn’t.
In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, better known as “mad cow disease”,
He presented a range of scenarios. One of which was a death toll of just 50.
Professor Gupta also presented a range of scenarios when she suggested that one plausible scenario was that over 50% of the UK population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus in March 2020. It was highly unlikely but possible.
Any chance this blog could stick to the facts?
Doesn’t matter about the detail – Ferguson is an arse
So how big does the range of the scenarios have to be before the modelling is next to useless?
the modelling suggests that anything can happen, and when it does the model was correct
As I explained above, the “central estimate” was 100-1000 over 80 years. So far, at 177 after 20 years, that’s not too bad.
OK, so what was Ferguson’s original “central estimate” for Covid?
I don’t know, because this was a Reasonable Worst Case, not a prediction.
Hang on, are you saying that he didn’t provide the same kind of response to Covid as he had previously done to CJD?
Why not? Because an upper estimate and a lower estimate are surely not enough on their own. You would also want to know what he thought was most likely to actually happen. That would presumably be what you are calling his “central estimate”.
Are you saying he didn’t provide one?
If you read the famous Report 9 you’ll see it provides lots of ranges for lots of scenarios. However, I’m confining myself to the Reasonable Worst Case, as adopted at SAGE 11 on 27 February. I presume it is based on the same model as Report 9, but that’s not relevant because almost any simple model provides similar figures. The RWC would be the largest reasonably likely figure.
Your defence of Ferguson’s stats on CJD is pretty reasonable, I would say. He provided a “central estimate” which was basically right.
You can’t just take his upper limit extreme estimate on its own. Fair enough.
So where is the equivalent for his stats on Covid? I have no intention of wading through “Report 9”!
No, there is no confidence interval for the “unmitigated” scenario in Report 9.
Thanks. Although in that case I can’t see how it could have been of much use.
I don’t particularly like the man, but if this is to be considered a serious blog it needs to deal in evidence not misinformed tittle tattle.
Fair enough, and the answer to my question?
Sorry – I responded to the wrong person.
Models inevitably need to use assumptions. Initially these assumptions may be very uncertain. However, as more data becomes available, the assumptions become more certain and the most likely scenarios begin to emerge.
Ferguson’s actual model is largely irrelevant. Most epidemiologists would come up with results similar to Ferguson’s if they used the same assumptions.
For the March model Ferguson assumed
100% Susceptible population
Large degree of homogeneity
0.9% Fatality rate.
There were not unreasonable assumptions at the time.
He made the same assumptions about Foot and Mouth – that it would spread equally amongst different animals – which it doesn’t and was known not to do.
The trouble however isn’t this. It’s that the models are used first as the basis of policy rather than used to supplement. So a risk-based approach using contingency and most importantly – accurate determination of what’s going on – followed by modelling as you go along.
Then you can tune your models.
The 0.9% fatality rate if considering total population just hasn’t been seen. You’ve pointed out the IFR has been up to 1% with SARS, but in terms of the whole system we just haven’t seen that level of deaths. Even with the Diamond Princess.
The real question then is why did no-one question this? Why were politicians focussed on models first even though this was the issue with Foot and Mouth.
And maybe the modellers are advised to not put these thoughts forward either? So it could be a philosophical issue going on here.
Why were politicians focussed on models …
Because models are a great way of abrogating responsibility.
A model full of uncertain assumptions will end up creating rubbish predictions, garbage in garbage out.
Yes, but after Sue Denim’s evaluation of the actual code it appears that perfectly good assumptions could have been inputted and the results would still have been garbage.
100% Susceptible population
Large degree of homogeneity
0.9% Fatality rate.
RP added yesterday the assumptions of R0 = 2.8 and infectious for 5 days. At those parameters the disease spreads fast, and given that each infected person is infectious before they know they have the disease, it is essentially uncontrollable (without an absolutely draconian lockdown, the likes of which we have not seen).
But by February the disease was out and about and couldn’t be contained. At R0 = 2.8, infectious for 5 days, 100% susceptible, 0.9% IFR, the bodies would have been piling high in China long before. But they weren’t. Time therefore to revisit the assumptions. R0 and 5 days had been observed; they were probably close to correct. That leaves IFR and susceptibility. It was clear early on that those assumptions could not be correct.
I agree.
This is exactly the problem – regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of the models, the variance in possible outcomes make them impossible to use for any effective policy decisions.
It’s all very well Ferguson saying that modelling comes up with a range of death totals based on various scenarios if the government, whether with his persuasion or not, follow the worst case scenario especially if this is the most unlikely scenario.
Which it seems it is.
And what is even worse. When it became apparent months ago that the chosen scenario and model was nothing like the empirical data indicated they didnt change the model. They changed the data to fit.
I don’t know what you mean by “follow the RWC scenario”. The question was whether in the do-nothing scenario the NHS could cope with the Reasonable Worst Case. The answer was No, it coudn’t, and that answer, I think, is probably correct even in hindsight. So, the decision was taken not to do-nothing, ie to do something. What that something might be was not dictated by the RWC.
If you’re interested in facts, I would suggest directing your ire against the government, its advisors and the mainstream media, who are misrepresenting facts on a daily basis.
Moreover these are misrepresentations that are causing non-Covid deaths and devastation on a daily basis, whereas anything relating to Ferguson merely further discredits a totally discredited man.
So he predicted a death toll from CJD of between 50 and 50,000?
How was that useful?
… with a central estimate of 100-1000 which turns out to be pretty well correct. The planning message is: yes the NHS can cope with vCJD as part of normal business, as indeed it has.
It seems to me that our government has succeeded in convincing vast swathes of the electorate that this is their War.
Here in Birmingham I routinely see children wandering alone outside with masks on. Countless people driving in their cars with masks on. Visible disdain for non-compliers as if we are somehow deserters.
It’s all extremely depressing.
Indeed. We might like to think the tide is turning but I’m not really seeing it.
Quite, realism is much better for us than false optimism. Things are STILL getting WORSE, not better.
No sign of the latter now, and the majority are either too brainwashed or lazy to care. The elites must be absolutely pissing themselves with laughter.
More people in London wearing masks. Some putting on masks to walk into cafe and sit at table 15ft from entrance, take it off when sitting and then go maskless up to counter to order. I truly despair.
I think people now think you need a mask just to enter a shop. Works like a magic key. Once inside, it;s unnecessary.
Given the recent tales about the Gestapo at supermarket doors, I can understand how they could come to this conclusion.
I see this every day — what are they thinking – That covid is on one side of the cafe but not the other —- I Sadly saw a family of 8 all walking along the street – all wearing masks – The children being approx 4, 6, 8 —. Quite heavy duty masks too..It was a sad sight … When they got their coffee they. Took their masks of and exposed themselves to all the maskless people on that side of the 12ft shop. Pathetic really. ………
Seems worse that disdain to me. It reminds me of how “the intruders” are regarded by a dreamer’s subconscious in the film Inception.
Feels more like The Matrix for me, with those sorts as Agents.
Until there are mass job losses and Christmas is hindered (Relaxing the rules for one day will make the govt lose all remaining control), no real measure of the population will resist.
Excellent replacement for my car rear window message
Watch ..Profitees of Fear 2009
Swine flu outbreak ..global pandemic 2009… FALSE ALARM !
https://vimeo.com/463800252
This is an english language subtitled version of the Germany documentary film ‘Profiteure der Angst’, produced by ARTE and originally broadcast on mainstream TV Nov 2009.
Just posted a follow-up FOI to the DHSC asking them how their previous answer justifies what is happening today: “I received a FOI request answer from yourselves Reference FOI-1240596 and it stated that a positive PCR test means nothing medically. The actual quote: “SARS-CoV-2 RNA means the RNA is present in that sample at that point in time. It does not mean that the patient has the novel coronavirus (COVID-19).” It also linked to a document that in conclusion stated that the PCR tests being used are unreliable, had high false positive rates, could not be verified against an actual confirmed case of covid-19 and had not been verified in a medical or hospital setting. So basically as admitted by the DHSC answer Reference FOI-1240596 you are using tests that are “unreliable” to say the least, have no reference standard to double check the accuracy against and that have results that means nothing medically. PCR tests are also, as admitted by there inventors, not a diagnostic tool nor test and should not be used as such in any circumstances. My questions are: 1 – based on the above statements how can a positive PCR tests be termed as a “case”… Read more »
Great! It will be interesting to see how they reply, or if they deem your question too controversial..
Glad you’re on our side, Awkward Git.
Lord yes! Imagine being at the receiving end of this irrepressible intransigent intelligence…
Have you thought of sending copies of that FOI to the media, AG?
I do not, of course, mean the MSM.
Simon Dolan has passed them to his lawyers plus to UK Column et al.
Good Man. 🙂
Could you parachute yourself into Westminster followed by Holyrood and Cardiff and Belfast for an AG led Q and A session?
‘Twould be a wonder to behold.
I want to emulate Guy Fawkes.
But depending on your religion (which is the bit most people have forgotten) he is either a hero or villain if you are Protestant or Catholic.
I’m a (non-practicing, non baptised) Catholic so he’s on ten hero side if I remember history correctly.
Many say GF is the last man to enter Parliament with honest intentions, whichever side of the divide we stand!
Or recently Tony Benn or Enoch Powell – don’t agree with much of their politics or beliefs but at least they were honest and stood by their beliefs (right or wrong) which in my book counts for nearly everything.
Amen to that!
AG, It also linked to a document that in conclusion stated that the PCR tests being used are unreliable, had high false positive rates, could not be verified against an actual confirmed case of covid-19 and had not been verified in a medical or hospital setting.
Can you post the link to that document please?
“Even hard core sceptics might have experienced a tremor of doubt yesterday on seeing the daily total of new cases: 22,961.”
Naaah. Not even a single whisker trembled. I have no interest in the number of cases.
I shook all over. With laughter.
According to the official tally, yesterday saw 1 (one) fatality across the UK
I have an interest in ‘cases’ in the proper use of the term.
I have no interest, or at best only a passing interest, in +ve PCR results.
I wish Toby would be a little more careful with his choice of words here.
Me too.
TOBY, THEY’RE NOT EFFIN’ CASES ! THEY ARE POSITIVE TESTS FROM A TESTING MECHANISM OF HIGHLY DUBIOUS ACCURACY !
Repeatedly referring to ‘cases’ does Handcock’s job for him.
Yet they are mixing with groups of their friends at school. So the virus can tell the difference between a school playground and standing outside someone’s front door.
Fantastic content today, you’ve made this mathematician very happy. Assumptions stated up front along with excellent visualisations and context. Prof Doom could learn a thing or two!
The shape of the pandemic curves seem to be further evidence that correlates with what the chap at Tel Aviv University modelled some months back. I’m particularly taken with the US data, clearly indicating lockdowns aren’t a significant factor in pandemic progression.
I’ve been giving some thought to approximating prevalence in the UK currently, I realise this isn’t testable and some gross estimates might have to suffice… but is anyone aware of any suitable methods? I can bad calculate from inferred herd immunity, but again it’s a gross estimate.
Anyway, great stuff once again and keep up the good fight everyone.
Classic mission creep in action in one of today’s Round Up articles:
“The Wall St Journal says home testing and Covid passports could contain any further outbreaks”
Unacceptable. But the reality is that our everyday lives have been so warped by the insanity that the vast majority will accept, and in most cases wholeheartedly embrace, anything. Selling this as the “new normal” worked. It is exactly that.
The brutal bottom line for me is that I am permanently excluded from society. So be it.
I think you’ll be fine, Richard.
Me too Richard! But luckily I’m in the winter of my middle age… so won’t be around to pick up the pieces….
Not from our society you’re not!
Another miracle, viruses can read passports!
Yes, that headline flashed up warning lights for me too.
It’s the only time of year I’ll be wearing a mask. I’ll be going round in one of those Covid masks. “Trick or Cough.” I’ll make a mint.
The report from AI is very important as it validates what many of us have been saying all along. There was NO EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVENT of historical proportions but there was MASSIVE ADMINISTRATIVE EUTHANASIA of the elderly that was created by policy directives and mismanagement. We can argue then as to who should be held responsible and what indictments should ensue but make no mistake this blows the lid off of the fabrication that this “novel virus” created a “global pandemic” which necessitated the closing down of society. Further, the well-documented (here and elsewhere) devastating impacts of these lockdowns should now (should have been anyways) be seen in the light of massive government mismanagement (at best) and negligence and multiple legal inquiries need to begin which will undoubtedly prove that there was extensive collusion and corruption from the WHO on down. There also needs to be investigations and indictments into the media’s role in amplifying this manufactured crisis. Imagine if from the start we were being told that the “Covid deaths” were mainly from 80+ elderly folks who were already in very poor health who were primarily residents of squalid nursing homes and that these most fragile people were victims of… Read more »
Not according to this piece of legislation currently sailing through Parliament:
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9012/
The Department of Health and Social Care is one of the state agencies covered that can conduct “authorised criminal activities“.
“Notwithstanding widespread acceptance of the operational necessity of authorising criminal conduct on the part of covert human intelligence sources, there are some controversial features of the regime that the Bill would provide for. These include:
Just posted this below – my worry is that this will be used to get round the Crimes against Humanity court case..
Basically there will be no one to sue because they will have exempted themselves from any form of punishment..
How far has it got in Parliament? Can we make sure the likes of Talk Radio, Hitchens and others pick it up?
Law cannot be applied retrospectively.
Good news if true..
Yes, all that could possibly come into force on the day the Act is passed. It does NOT cover crimes committed BEFORE the Act becomes Law. And the acts against humanity are most definitely not included under the heading of “criminal conduct on the part of covert human intelligence sources”. What the government and its agencies has done appears perfectly overt to me. Kind of the opposite from covert!
Furthermore, this does not authorise those working for the State to commit criminal acts, but rather those who are their contacts. Again, not quite the same thing as you suggest.
My worry is that the World Bank, WHO and WEF must surely have anticipated pushback and court cases, and thought about how to get round them????
They are not short of money and they also have Gates and his billions with which to fight any court cases that are brought..
Remember the MacDonalds trial?
They have their hubris against them.
I emailed my MP about this today.
His reply:
Dear XXX,
Thank you very much for your email on this Bill.
I have noted your points and concerns on this. I will bear these in mind when discussing this with colleagues.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Kind regards,
YYY
Oh well, I’ve done my bit!
The whole of the last 5 months have been about spinning this shit out as long as possible because the moment things go back to normal (or close to normal), the day of reckoning arrives. That is plain.
El Presidente Sturgeon at it again.
Do as I say etc.
It’s basically going to happen, no “could” about it.
Bint of a woman.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/nicola-sturgeon-warns-scots-further-22794581
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-football-chief-claims-country-22793484
A few are speaking out though;attempting to challenge the Sturgeon Hypnosis Syndrome.
The article says: “But despite a range of local lockdowns being imposed across the country in recent months, the number of new Covid cases continues to rise.”
Seems insane then to impose yet more of the same?
You bash your head against the mantelpiece.
You head hurts.
So you bash it again, harder.
Simples.
& the fear porn continues,
Long COVID this time.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/health-expert-warns-long-covid-160347154.html
Copied from one of the worst websites for fear porn, but I expect the BBC to follow closely behind.
They never called it ‘long pneumonia’ though did they?
It’s impossible to say exactly how quickly you’ll recover, but here’s an idea of what to expect:
Pneumonia can be a serious illness that takes weeks or months to recover from
1 weekyour fever should be gone
4 weeksyour chest will feel better and you’ll produce less mucus
6 weeksyou’ll cough less and find it easier to breathe
3 monthsmost of your symptoms should be gone, though you may still feel tired
6 monthsyou should feel back to normal
https://www.blf.org.uk/support-for-you/pneumonia/recovery
It takes 12 months to fully recover from being intubated/ventilated.
Most victims are middle-aged women. (How many of these were ventilated?)
Probably went back to work/mum duties after minimal convalescence.
“Long Covid” was found to be most common in those of working age, with a median age of 45 among those afflicted, and cases rare in those above the age of 65 and below the age of 18. Women were more likely than men to be affected.
Recovery times:
Influenza 4 weeks.
Glandular fever 12 months.
Shingles can take several months.
and to all those who suffered from ME but were told to ‘get a grip’ by doctors who did not believe them.
Happened to me, many years ago: dismissive consultant physician. Fortunately I had a sympathetic GP at the time.
Hippie flu…
Damn right it is! They should try 25+ years of periodic “post viral” symptoms. Anyone trying that one on me might just get the short shrift (k*cked out of them). Sorry, but it makes me blood boil. . . .
Yes. I’ve had ME since the 1980s pandemic.
Don’t mention Simon Weasely in my viscinity!
Daily Telegraph:
Prof Spector, Professor of Genetic Epidemiology at King’s College London, said their research had found that the effects of the virus lingered for a long time in significant numbers of people.
Researchers from King’s and health-science company ZOE tracked data from more than 4 million people.
They found that 1 in 10 sufferers had symptoms of “long Covid” for a month, with 1 in 50 still suffering at least three months later.
Spector yet again!!