COVID Inquiry findings

Teddy Eagle said:
Including this scientist?

unherd.com

Did the Covid inquiry just admit lockdown was a mistake?

The Covid inquiry has this afternoon published a full report on its first module, assessing the resilience and preparedness of the UK’s pandemic response. It has so far been met with apparently predetermined headlines of how the UK Government failed its citizens by “preparing for the wrong...
unherd.com unherd.com
Click to expand...
Rather than reference a right wing website’s report on Module 1 of the report it would be better to read the report itself! Here it is:-

covid19.public-inquiry.uk

Module 1 report: The resilience and preparedness of the United Kingdom - UK Covid-19 Inquiry

The independent public inquiry to examine the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK
covid19.public-inquiry.uk covid19.public-inquiry.uk

Module 1 looks only at the UK’s “resilience and preparedness” for the pandemic and nothing else. It therefore makes no comment on what we actually did. Only on whether we were prepared. It makes many criticisms and suggestions.

The assertions made in the UnHerd report do not appear in the actual report. There is no criticism of lockdowns. How could there be, this module doesn’t deal with them. The lockdowns were dealt with in Module 2:-


The UnHerd “report” is pure politics. It’s to wind up those convinced that what was done was unnecessary and that the report confirms that. It doesn’t! It says we didn’t do enough and need to learn those lessons.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Rather than reference a right wing website’s report on Module 1 of the report it would be better to read the report itself! Here it is:-

covid19.public-inquiry.uk

Module 1 report: The resilience and preparedness of the United Kingdom - UK Covid-19 Inquiry

The independent public inquiry to examine the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK
covid19.public-inquiry.uk covid19.public-inquiry.uk

Module 1 looks only at the UK’s “resilience and preparedness” for the pandemic and nothing else. It therefore makes no comment on what we actually did. Only on whether we were prepared. It makes many criticisms and suggestions.

The assertions made in the UnHerd report do not appear in the actual report. There is no criticism of lockdowns. How could there be, this module doesn’t deal with them. The lockdowns were dealt with in Module 2:-


The UnHerd “report” is pure politics. It’s to wind up those convinced that what was done was unnecessary and that the report confirms that. It doesn’t! It says we didn’t do enough and need to learn those lessons.
Click to expand...
It quotes a Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology who's been awarded an OBE for his work in the field but never mind him just attack the source.
 
Teddy Eagle said:
It quotes a Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology who's been awarded an OBE for his work in the field but never mind him just attack the source.
Click to expand...
The report itself quotes a very large number of high level scientists.

This report on the report quotes just one. One that isn’t actually in the report itself, but in an addendum. A witness statement that took a very long time to find. It must have taken UnHerd a lot of effort to dig this up, and then misquote it. Remember too this is only in the context of our preparedness. That’s all Module I is addressing.

The actual quote is very much longer than the words that UnHerd used. You can find them in Paragraph 10, but need to read the whole statement to understand what he is actually saying. Which isn’t what UnHerd want you to think he is:-


When the source is trying to deceive it is necessary to attack it!
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
The report itself quotes a very large number of high level scientists.

This report on the report quotes just one. One that isn’t actually in the report itself, but in an addendum. A witness statement that took a very long time to find. It must have taken UnHerd a lot of effort to dig this up, and then misquote it. Remember too this is only in the context of our preparedness. That’s all Module I is addressing.

The actual quote is very much longer than the words that UnHerd used. You can find them in Paragraph 10, but need to read the whole statement to understand what he is actually saying. Which isn’t what UnHerd want you to think he is:-


When the source is trying to deceive it is necessary to attack it!
Click to expand...
Not like the BBC to try to deceive anyone.

www.bbc.com

Scottish officials 'froze' at start of Covid pandemic - academic

Warnings about Covid-19 were not listened to in early 2020, an expert has told the UK inquiry.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Not like the BBC to try to deceive anyone.

www.bbc.com

Scottish officials 'froze' at start of Covid pandemic - academic

Warnings about Covid-19 were not listened to in early 2020, an expert has told the UK inquiry.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
That was a different statement in answer to a different question at another point in the enquiry. Woolhouse is quoted many times throughout the reports. This one was addressing the situation in Scotland. If you read it all he seems to be saying that “stay at home” orders could have been avoided with better preparedness and more decisive early action.

Something that it now seems is going to be the key recommendation from the enquiry.

The quote you referenced in UnHerd was about something else and incomplete.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
That was a different statement in answer to a different question at another point in the enquiry. Woolhouse is quoted many times throughout the reports. This one was addressing the situation in Scotland. If you read it all he seems to be saying that “stay at home” orders could have been avoided with better preparedness and more decisive early action.

Something that it now seems is going to be the key recommendation from the enquiry.

The quote you referenced in UnHerd was about something else and incomplete.
Click to expand...
His position is consistent.
Apparently incomplete quotes are only acceptable when the BBC is responsible.
 
cryrst said:
I will play devil’s advocate and ask how many kids died from Covid. Without jabs I mean.
I only ask because the sums might make the risk of having the jab a better option.
Click to expand...
I think you're right Cryst. I think the issue for me (and those negatively impacted by the jabs), is the Government were at pains to state that vaccine testing was conducted as thoroughly as any other drug, before going to the public. This was blatantly a lie.
Therefore, although the stats said you were better off with the vaccine, the odds were nowhere nears as favourable as the Government said, with regards to harmful side effects.
And coupled with that, I thought HMG had given some kind of immunity from prosecution to the drugs companies, in return for a hurried roll-out.
 
cryrst said:
I will play devil’s advocate and ask how many kids died from Covid. Without jabs I mean.
I only ask because the sums might make the risk of having the jab a better option.
Click to expand...
Ill be fair and say it would be good to know this.

As Covid mainly affected those 80+ in age I would doubt that many children unless they had other things wrong died from Covid.

(I think we have already spoken about percentages of dieing from Covid earlier in the thread and the age)
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
I think you're right Cryst. I think the issue for me (and those negatively impacted by the jabs), is the Government were at pains to state that vaccine testing was conducted as thoroughly as any other drug, before going to the public. This was blatantly a lie.
Therefore, although the stats said you were better off with the vaccine, the odds were nowhere nears as favourable as the Government said, with regards to harmful side effects.
And coupled with that, I thought HMG had given some kind of immunity from prosecution to the drugs companies, in return for a hurried roll-out.
Click to expand...
They didn’t say that though. What they said was because the mRNA technique had been tested and known to be safe the actual vaccine being made was irrelevant to any enhanced risk, so that the years of testing that traditional vaccines have to go through was unnecessary. Which the urgency of finding a way to bring the pandemic under control made doubly important. The ability to develop them quickly is the major benefit of mRNA vaccines.
 
eaglesdare said:
Ill be fair and say it would be good to know this.

As Covid mainly affected those 80+ in age I would doubt that many children unless they had other things wrong died from Covid.

(I think we have already spoken about percentages of dieing from Covid earlier in the thread and the age)
Click to expand...
Well I would estimate that maybe there are 100 million under 18s in America.
I would bet more than 10 died of Covid.
Just a guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top