Tag Archives: pandemic

My current thinking on Covid-19 – and other important issues

[Warning, this blog is long]

I have been silent for some time… I know, I know. I started looking at Covid-19 and ended up in some very strange places indeed. ‘Here be dragons.’ I ended up wandering about, making absolutely no progress. Eventually, I ground to a halt.

My insurmountable barrier was highlighted in an article entitled ‘Was the Surgisphere case a one-off? Or does it highlight the bigger systemic problem of research fraud?’:

‘If you search for scientific research articles with COVID-19 in the title, you’ll see more than 17,000 articles published since the start of 2020, but this vital research is being undermined by weak or even fraudulent research practices. Perhaps the highest profile example so far is the Surgisphere case which saw a small US company seemingly fabricate a database, the data for which was purportedly from the medical records of nearly 100,000 COVID-19 patients treated in 167 hospitals.

This database was then analysed and published in two of the world’s most influential medical journals. Both papers have since been redacted by the journals, but what damage has already been done? And is this a one-off incident or a reflection of the fraud that plagues academic research?

…whilst this isn’t reason enough to begin accusing all medical journals or academics of research fraud, it still is a phenomenon which has yet to be taken as seriously as it should be. Nearly 1 in 50 scientists report having falsified or fabricated their data, with up to 1/3 utilising questionable research practices. This goes up to around 7 in 50 and nearly ¾ respectively when researchers were asked about the research practices of their colleagues.’ ¹

Surely peer-review should have picked up the Surgisphere fraud? You think? The same article quoted Richard Horton, editor in chief of the Lancet, where the Surgisphere papers were published. He had this to say in his defence:

‘… the peer review process is not designed to capture research misconduct.’

To be honest I don’t feel this is the most robust defence I have ever encountered. If peer-review cannot pick up fraud then, what, exactly, is the point of it. Or, extending that thought one step further, if medical journals contain a great deal of made-up research, what is the point of them?

In addition to the uselessness of peer-review, Richard Horton has previously stated the following about scientific research:

‘Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.’

Marcia Angell was the editor the New England Journal of Medicine for many years. It was, and remains, the number one medical journal with regard to its ‘impact factor.’ She had this to say:

‘It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.’

So, who, or what, does capture research misconduct and fraud? Who shall guard the guardians? It appears it is everyone’s job, and yet no-one’s. Let’s just hide the problem under the carpet and hope no-one notices.

Richard Smith was editor of the British Medical Journal for many years. His view:

The poor quality of medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problems and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.’

He noticed, I noticed a long time ago. It would be nice if the rest of the world woke up and took notice too.

If as many as three-quarters (75%) of researchers may be using questionable research practices. And fourteen per cent of may simply fabricate their data then what does it mean? What it means is that we are in a very dark place indeed. Can we believe anything at all. And I mean at all.

With regard to Covid-19, I spent many months trying to work out what happened. Searching for the actions that were beneficial, and the most harmful. What could I learn? Unfortunately, I found there is almost no firm ground to stand on. I kept sliding down into quicksand as facts splintered in front of my eyes.

If we really want to do better next time a pandemic strikes – and I think there most certainly will be a next time – then we have to know what really went on. So many questions to be answered. Such as, and these are in no particular order:

How did it start/where did it come from (can we stop that happening again?)
How accurate was the modelling that drove lockdowns
How many people were infected
How many people died
What was the infection fatality rate (IFR)
What treatments worked best, and why
Did the testing regimes work well, could they be improved – or were they a waste of time
Did lockdowns have beneficial effects
Did lockdown have damaging effects
Were the new mRNA vaccines beneficial, or not
How much money was spent and/or wasted – and the impact on our economy

I think these are key. You may have your own. But will any of them be looked at? I fear not. As for the official UK inquiry itself. It seems a complete and utter waste of time, effort and money.

At the end of this blog, I have copied the terms of reference of the inquiry. Some people still cling to the forlorn hope that when it is complete we will finally know what happened. Ah … no, not a chance. The terms of reference only serve to highlight the fact that they are carefully dancing around every major issue. Below is an example of its scope:

i) preparedness and resilience;
- ii) how decisions were made, communicated, recorded, and implemented
- iii) decision-making between the governments of the UK;
- iv) the roles of, and collaboration between, central government, devolved administrations, regional and local authorities, and the voluntary and community sector;

Wow. This is a bureaucrat’s dream. Let us study a plan of how the deck chairs were arranged, whilst the Titanic was slipping beneath the waves.

Will the inquiry look at whether lockdowns actually did any good? Anything about the accuracy of the forecasting models? Or the Covid-19 tests? Um … no. Silence is the stern reply.

In such a way does the dead hand of bureaucracy enfold and suck all oxygen from the debate. It is clear there will be no meaningful scrutiny of the big issue. No blame apportioned. Nothing learned.

The inquiry is all about process, not results. You could say it is a giant whitewash. I couldn’t possibly comment. Yet, despite avoiding all of the big issues, by Feb 2025 the inquiry had cost £200m ($268M) – and counting.² Jeez.

But what of the important questions, starting with what, or perhaps who, caused the pandemic? I have read articles confirming that Covid-19 absolutely, definitely, emerged from wet markets in Wuhan. Here is one from 2024.

COVID pandemic started in Wuhan market animals after all, suggests latest study ‘The finding comes from a reanalysis of genomic data.’³

This quotes a study from the highly respected Journal Nature.

Here is an alternative view.

Parliamentary questions in the European Commission in 2024’ ‘In 2020, Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service reportedly assessed that there was an 80–90 % likelihood of an accidental lab leak.’ ⁴

Which of these contradictory ‘facts’ is true? Because both cannot be.

Would you like to dig deeper? Well, good luck with that. You can join me in my hopeless wanderings. Trying to find answers to this runs straight up against forces such as … the Chinese Government. Who have done all in their power to ensure no-one can blame them for, well anything. ‘Oh you mean we shouldn’t have cleared out the lab, so no-one can find anything … sorry.’

Then we have Anthony Fauci and the NIH throwing shade ‘What, you mean we set up a gain of function laboratory in Wuhan to look at making coronaviruses more infective and deadly by adding a furin cleavage to the spike protein …’ [Maybe they didn’t do this exactly. I think they did, and they know it.]

But there are no certain answers to be found here. Everything is, and will remain, circumstantial. What of the next question. How many people died of Covid-19? This, perhaps the most important question of all, slips through your fingers like mercury.

There are several reasons for this. I do not intend to look at them all, only a few. The first difficulty I ran into is that when the pandemic hit there were no Sars-Cov2 tests available. It took several months to ramp the system up.

So, how could anyone write Covid-19 on a death certificate, if they didn’t know the patient was infected with Sars-Cov2? Answer, they couldn’t. But they did … Indeed, I did. A few of my ‘total guesswork figures’ are buried in there, somewhere.

Working as a doctor in the NHS, the one thing I know for certain is that there was enormous pressure exerted from above to write Covid-19 on as many death certificates as possible. Which clearly inflated the number of deaths. By how much? Who knows.

Then, when testing did finally arrive en masse, people dying ‘with’ Covid-19, were then added to those who died ‘of’ Covid-19. To explain in a little more detail why this was ridiculous …

Someone could arrive in hospital with a condition that had nothing to do with Covid. However, if they had a positive test on admission, and then died within twenty-eight days – from the condition that had nothing to do with Covid – they would be added to the Covid-19 death statistics.

And the dread Covid-19 counter, which they kept showing on the news, night after night,l clicked over by one. Another ‘scary’ Covid-19 death …that had nothing to do with the virus.

Died of or died with? These are very different and distinct things when it comes to recording what someone actually dies …of. The proximate cause of death. Mixing them together resulted in a significant misclassification of deaths. Almost entirely in one direction. Overestimation. By how much … who knows. Here from the UK Health Security Agency:

How do we count COVID-19 deaths?

We have counted deaths following COVID-19 infection since the start of the pandemic. Monitoring how many people die following infection with a recently emerged virus tells us how severe it is. It can also help us understand where the disease is spreading and who is worst affected by it.

We explained previously how COVID-19 deaths are recorded in the United Kingdom. There are two main reports:

Deaths within 28 days of a reported COVID-19 infection (deaths with COVID)
Death where COVID-19 is mentioned on the death registration (deaths from COVID)

We started counting deaths with COVID-19 for rapid pandemic monitoring when there was a need to publish figures on a daily basis to inform decisions about our pandemic response. ⁵

Moving further down the line. How accurate were the tests themselves? Or, to be more specific. How many false positives were there. This represents a massive elephant in the room that was barely mentioned at the time. Most people are blissfully unaware there even was a problem.

However, this could well have been the biggest issue of all. If false positive tests stood at, say 2%, and you did ten million tests, you will have ended-up diagnosing two hundred thousand people with Covid-19 … who did not have Covid-19. [My 2% figure may be an underestimate].

The impact of false positive COVID-19 results in an area of low prevalence

The UK’s COVID-19 testing programme uses real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests to detect viral RNA. Public Health England reports that RT-PCR assays show a specificity of over 95%, meaning that up to 5% of cases are false positives.’ ⁶

In the month of January 2022 alone, ninety-one million tests were done in the UK. If false positives were running at 2% (it could well have been more), then we will have resulted in nearly two million Covid-19 diagnoses. In people who did not have the disease.

If this went on a for a year, you would end up with close to twenty-five million false positive tests.

Think upon that. Twenty-five million ‘cases’ in one year made up entirely by false positive tests. If the true figure was 5%, this number rises to very nearly seventy-five million. Yes, seventy-five million wrong Covid-19 diagnoses. Which is very close to the entire population of the United Kingdom.

I don’t think this figure can possibly be correct, although the maths tell us that it could be. One possible conclusion from this is that no-one actually contracted Covid-19 at all. Every single diagnosis was a false positive. Here be dragons indeed.

Creating a test that misses the diagnosis (poor sensitivity) is bad. But creating a test with a high false positive rate (poor specificity) can be worse. Especially if, like me, you are trying to work out who did, and who did not, die of Covid-19.

You can run this thought experiment in another direction. Around fifty thousand people die in the UK every month. Most people die in hospital, and everyone admitted to hospital had a Covid-19 test on admission. Ergo, during the Covid-19 pandemic, many of them will have died within twenty-eight days of a false positive test.

So, how many ‘false positive’ Covid-19 deaths were there? Frankly, your guess is as good as mine. But just to give an extreme example of how ridiculous this could have been. A man is hit by a bus, he then dies three weeks later from his injuries. He had a positive Covid-19 test on admission

This man will have been recorded as a Covid-19 death. What, even if the test was a false positive? I don’t know if that exact scenario ever took place. What I do know is that there have to have been many ‘false positive deaths.’ Thousands, tens of thousands? Again, who knows.

A final example on topic of Covid-19 deaths comes from the resource Worldometer. ⁷ This website faithfully recorded information about Coronavirus: number of cases, deaths, ‘those who recovered’, amongst a few other things. Worldometer states that there were, in total:

704,753,890 cases
7,010,681 deaths
675,619,811 recovered

[It stopped counting and shut down the Coronavirus section in April 2024]

So, there you have it. There were seven million deaths worldwide, over four years. Do you believe this figure? Personally, I treat it as nothing more than a work of fiction. Reverse engineered to result in a one per cent Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). Seven hundred million cases, seven million deaths. One in a hundred died …ho hum.

Can anyone really believe that less than one in ten people were ever infected with Sars-Cov2, over a four period? Nah. That figure is simply unbelievable.

One of the graphs looked at daily deaths.

You will notice deaths fell off the edge of a cliff at the end of April 2022. Was this due to vaccination? This seems unlikely, as mass vaccination started in January 2021. Some fifteen months earlier. Clearly, something else happened …if so, what?

As with almost everything Covid related, you can spend a lot of time looking at a graph like this and wondering.

Is it accurate?
If it is accurate, what caused the drop?

But if it is not accurate, all bets are off. At this point you are perhaps getting some idea of why I ground to a halt. The only thing I was left with were the ‘facts’ I wished to believe. Unfortunately, this is not science. Science is dispassionate and objective, and although I try to be, I am not.

As for the vaccines.

Here you must carefully guard what you say, or you will be cancelled, crushed and denounced.

The mRNA vaccines were fully tested for safety and efficacy before they were launched. There were no short-cuts in their development, or the -70⁰C distribution system – despite the speed at which it all took place. They are highly effective at preventing morbidity and mortality from Covid-19. They are saving around fifteen million deaths a year. They have virtually no adverse effects. Beep, message ends.

[But, but, according to Worldometer, only seven million people died of Covid-19 over four years. So, how can you be saving fifteen million deaths a year?]

As Richard Horton reminds us:

‘Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.’

Or, to quote John Ioannidis, from his seminal paper in 2005:

‘Why most published research findings are false.’

‘There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.’ ⁸

Of course, researchers have since claimed that Ioannidis’s research is false. ‘Researchers prove that researchers claims of false research are, themselves, false.’ Shocker.

So … so what? What can we learn? Well, what can you learn?

What I learned, or perhaps simply reinforced in my mind, is that we are in great danger of entering a new ‘post-enlightenment’ scientific era. Maybe we have already entered it. Particularly with regard to medical scientific research.

Forget facts. Or, if you like facts, we can make them up to suit whatever narrative you prefer. Believe whatever you like, believe whomsoever you like? I have never written the word ‘whomsoever’ before. I rather like it.

Sadly. Although I should perhaps say, terrifyingly, the scientific method first outlined by Francis Bacon around four hundred years ago, suffered a potentially mortal blow with Covid-19.

I have tried, and tried, to work out what actually took place. Mainly so that I could help people understand what we should do next time around. If there is to be a next time around.

Now? Now, I do not believe this is possible. Nor that it would be welcomed anyway. The moment I put down anything controversial, someone from the likes of BBC ‘Verify’ – some twenty-one-year-old with a degree in fine arts from Oxford – would come down on me like a ton of bricks. Quoting fact after fact, from reliable sources, and ‘experts’ to prove that I am wrong. After all, their facts are so much factier than mine. Yes, I just made up that word – and that’s a fact.

You may be wondering what point I am trying to make here. The point I am trying to make is that the only certain lesson we can learn from Covid-19 is that science, especially medical science, snapped and broke. Humpty Dumpty most certainly had a great fall. Can all the King’s horses and all the King’s men put him together again?

Certainly not if the King himself points down at the wreckage and declares that ‘this egg is not broken, this is exactly how an egg is supposed to look. In future all eggs shall be as this one.’

I am now waiting to lead an army of people waving pitchforks and burning torches, to descend on the Houses of Parliament and demand that medical research is fixed – or else. I am not quite sure what the ‘or else’ might’ be. Something that will make the World shake, no doubt.

No, I should not make light of this. It is far too important. Medical research has become terribly distorted, nay corrupted. I have known about this, and lectured about this, for many years. Covid-19 simply brought many issues to the surface – for those with eyes that wish to see.

Do I think all researchers are corrupt, and that all research is corrupt? No, of course not. However, if three quarters of medical researchers are using ‘questionable research practices’ then the vast majority of research is, at best, untrustworthy. At worst, crumple, throw, bin.

In addition, if major medical journals, and their peer-reviewers, are unable pick-up research fraud. Then what, exactly, is the point of them. To quote Richard Horton again (sic) half of what is in them is may simply be untrue … ‘Which half, please. Oh, you don’t know.’

If another pandemic hits we must ensure that objective scientific research is brought to bear on the matter. No fraudulent research, no made-up figures, no silencing those who have different ideas. There can certainly be no … ‘The Science’. No committees to decide on approved statements, and scare the public into mute acceptance.

We can also have no statements such as that from Jacinda Adern, Prime Minister of New Zealand at the time. You may remember this.

“We will continue to be your single source of truth,” and that, “Unless you hear it from us, it is not the truth.” The Truth’.If that statement didn’t scare you, you were probably already dead.

‘You mean, I can eat in a restaurant without wearing a mask, but when I stand up to go to the toilet, I have to put it back on again…’ sounds good to me. Yes, for this is The Truth.

Alice (laughing): “It’s no use trying… one can’t believe impossible things”

The White Queen: “I daresay you haven’t had much practice. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!”

There can also be no accepted narratives. Tales told purely to support idiotic political decisions and a rampant pharmaceutical industry bent on making vast profits from new treatments. Alongside those manufacturing useless PPE, and suchlike, then selling it for ridiculous sums of money. Before it all got thrown away, for being useless.

We also cannot hold open the door open, ever again, for those actors who most certainly do not have your best interests at heart. Those who crave power, above all. Many of them joined the game during Covid and threw their money and influence into the ring, and pushed, and pushed, with great enthusiasm. Happy to use fear to gain power, and also make more money. A game as old as time.

These actors, I fear, would like nothing better than another pandemic to expand their power even further. Will they find a way to manufacture another horribly scary pandemic? It does seem there are those eyeing up that very possibility. Disease X waits in the wings.

Maybe I am just being paranoid, but for some reason, I am reminded of War of the Worlds:

‘No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.

With infinite complacency men went to and fro over this globe about their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire over matter…

… across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.’

Klaus Schwab anyone?

You think not.

I hope not. But I can certainly picture him stroking a white cat in an underground cave. He looks the type. ‘… no, Mr Bond, I expect you to die.’

So, what next? Now that I have given up on Covid-19?

I am writing another book. I feel driven to do so. My provisional title is ‘The Decline and Fall of the Medical Empire.’ I will attempt to make it objective, but I sense it may end up as a controlled howl of anguish. Railing against the decline and fall of medical science.

It may turn into a call to arms. My attempt to mirror Martin Luther, who nailed his famous ‘95 Theses’ to the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. The starting gun in his attempt to reform the corrupt Catholic Church which was making vast sums of money from selling indulgences, which represented a get out of purgatory free card, if you like. Another big, out of control, corrupt organisation from history.

Do those working in mainstream medical research believe the system is, effectively broken? Of course not. They will happily accept there are a few bad players here and there. As for the need to tear the entire structure apart and start again … little chance of support there.

But I have come to the conclusion that drastic action needs to be taken. And if that is ever going to happen the public must become aware of what is happening under their very noses, and become suitably outraged. This might then put sufficient pressure on politicians to actually do something. Did I really write that about politicians?

There are of course great barriers to be overcome. Complacency and inertia represent the twin giants that bar the way to all change. If they can be shifted to one side, those powerful players who profit from the current situation will raise themselves to reassure everyone that all is well. Anyone who believes otherwise is a conspiracy theorist and … blah, blah, blah. Nothing to see here, please move along.

Can things be made better? I damned well hope so. I certainly aim to tilt at those windmills. As for Covid-19 …

My conclusions on Covid-19

A virus that had been created in a lab in Wuhan escaped. It was covered up, then got out of control. Which allowed it to spread widely before anyone knew about it. Virologists and epidemiologists were certain this truly was the ‘big one’ they have been warning about for years. They ran around like Chicken-little shouting that the sky is falling, the sky is falling. And the politicians took heed.

China locked-down, because they can, and the rest of the world decided to follow suit. In order to justify such drastic actions, the fatality rate of the virus was vastly overestimated, especially in the young. In large part to terrify the population into doing exactly what they were told.

Having created a frightening narrative, with a deadly untreatable virus at its core, the only ‘acceptable’ escape route was through vaccination. Normally it takes years to develop, and safety test, a new vaccine, which would take far too long. The world could not cope with ten years of lock-down. There would be no world economy left.

So, the mRNA vaccines were rushed through with little true oversight. They were launched, then virtually forced on the public. Were they truly effective and safe? Who knows, who cares. The pandemic ended, all is well. Hoorah.

Was this all a conspiracy? No, I don’t think so. It was a gigantic earth-shaking cock-up. The conspiracy was, as they usually are, an unspoken conspiracy to cover everything up. The end.

Next time? Next time, the playbook will be exactly the same, with added scariness, a greater clampdown on freedoms, and far more censorship. Alternative views, and those espousing them, will be hunted down and silenced. There will only be, the narrative.

But … always bear in mind the boy who cried wolf.

UK Covid-19 Inquiry Terms of Reference

The Inquiry will examine, consider and report on preparations and the response to the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, up to and including the Inquiry’s formal setting-up date, 28 June 2022.

In carrying out its work, the Inquiry will consider reserved and devolved matters across the United Kingdom, as necessary, but will seek to minimise duplication of investigation, evidence gathering and reporting with any other public inquiry established by the devolved governments. To achieve this, the Inquiry will set out publicly how it intends to minimise duplication, and will liaise with any such inquiry before it investigates any matter which is also within that inquiry’s scope.

In meeting its aims, the Inquiry will:

a) consider any disparities evident in the impact of the pandemic on different categories of people, including, but not limited to, those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and equality categories under the Northern Ireland Act 1998;
b) listen to and consider carefully the experiences of bereaved families and others who have suffered hardship or loss as a result of the pandemic. Although the Inquiry will not consider in detail individual cases of harm or death, listening to these accounts will inform its understanding of the impact of the pandemic and the response, and of the lessons to be learned;
c) highlight where lessons identified from preparedness and the response to the pandemic may be applicable to other civil emergencies;
d) have reasonable regard to relevant international comparisons; and
e) produce its reports (including interim reports) and any recommendations in a timely manner.

The aims of the Inquiry are to:

1. Examine the COVID-19 response and the impact of the pandemic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and produce a factual narrative account, including:
- a) The public health response across the whole of the UK, including
  - i) preparedness and resilience;
  - ii) how decisions were made, communicated, recorded, and implemented;
  - iii) decision-making between the governments of the UK;
  - iv) the roles of, and collaboration between, central government, devolved administrations, regional and local authorities, and the voluntary and community sector;
  - v) the availability and use of data, research and expert evidence;
  - vi) legislative and regulatory control and enforcement;
  - vii) shielding and the protection of the clinically vulnerable;
  - viii) the use of lockdowns and other ‘non-pharmaceutical’ interventions such as social distancing and the use of face coverings;
  - ix) testing and contact tracing, and isolation;
  - x) the impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the population, including but not limited to those who were harmed significantly by the pandemic;
  - xi) the impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the bereaved, including post-bereavement support;
  - xii) the impact on health and care sector workers and other key workers;
  - xiii) the impact on children and young people, including health, wellbeing and social care;
  - xiv) education and early years provision;
  - xv) the closure and reopening of the hospitality, retail, sport and leisure, and travel and tourism sectors, places of worship, and cultural institutions;
  - xvi) housing and homelessness;
  - xvii) safeguarding and support for victims of domestic abuse;
  - xviii) prisons and other places of detention;
  - xix) the justice system;
  - xx) immigration and asylum;
  - xxi) travel and borders; and
  - xxii) the safeguarding of public funds and management of financial risk.
- b) The response of the health and care sector across the UK, including:
  - i) preparedness, initial capacity and the ability to increase capacity, and resilience;
  - ii) initial contact with official healthcare advice services such as 111 and 999;
  - iii) the role of primary care settings such as General Practice;
  - iv) the management of the pandemic in hospitals, including infection prevention and control, triage, critical care capacity, the discharge of patients, the use of ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) decisions, the approach to palliative care, workforce testing, changes to inspections, and the impact on staff and staffing levels
  - v) the management of the pandemic in care homes and other care settings, including infection prevention and control, the transfer of residents to or from homes, treatment and care of residents, restrictions on visiting, workforce testing and changes to inspections;
  - vi) care in the home, including by unpaid carers;
  - vii) antenatal and postnatal care;
  - viii) the procurement and distribution of key equipment and supplies, including PPE and ventilators;
  - ix) the development, delivery and impact of therapeutics and vaccines;
  - x) the consequences of the pandemic on provision for non-COVID related conditions and needs; and
  - xi) provision for those experiencing long-COVID.
- c) The economic response to the pandemic and its impact, including governmental interventions by way of:
  - i) support for businesses, jobs and the self-employed, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme, loans schemes, business rates relief and grants;
  - ii) additional funding for relevant public services;
  - iii) additional funding for the voluntary and community sector; and
  - iv) benefits and sick pay, and support for vulnerable people.
2. Identify the lessons to be learned from the above, to inform preparations for future pandemics across the UK.

References:

1: https://ti-health.org/content/surgisphere-covid-19-coronavirus-research-fraud-issue-lancet-nejm/

2: https://ifs.org.uk/articles/spending-ps200m-covid-inquiry-symbolic-britains-failure

3: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03026-9

4: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-001403_EN.html

5: https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2023/01/27/changes-to-the-way-we-report-on-covid-19-deaths/

6: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7850182/

7: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ 8: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1182327/#:~:text=Simulations%20show%20that%20for%20most,problem%20and%20some%20corollaries%20thereof

THE KENDRICK COVID ENQUIRY (As I humbly call it)

89 Replies

Part One (a): Are the facts, facts?

‘The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate and contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.’ John F. Kennedy.

I do not think that anyone can write about Covid without first recognising that the facts, may not actually be ‘the facts.’

My trust in medical research has been gradually draining away for the past forty years or so. I am uncertain how much remains. I do not have a handy ACME ‘trustometer’ to slap on my forehead, but I sense my levels are certainly below fifty per cent – and falling. I shall let you know when they reach zero.

There was certainly a rapid drop during Covid. Accelerated by the emergence of ‘fact checkers.’ If a group of people could be more ironically named, then I would love to hear of them. The idea that someone can be an officially verified ‘checker of the facts’ is so inimical to science that they should have been laughed out of existence the moment they appeared. Sadly not. Soviet Union anyone?

Richard Feynman believed that the very definition of science is the process of questioning, and that scientists must be sceptical. Or, as he once said. ‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.’ I have regularly been ‘accused’ of being a professional sceptic. My reply is usually ‘thanks, I consider that a great compliment. You, on the other hand …’

As I delved into medical research papers over the years, one painful reality emerged. Which is that you need to be wary of the findings contained therein. I came to learn that, at least in certain cases, I only needed to look at which institution the research came from and who the authors were, to know which ‘camp’ they were in. At which point I could tell you everything the paper was going to say – to paraphrase. ‘We have found that everything we previously said was absolutely correct.’ No need to read it.

Of course, this only works for areas I have been studying for many years, where the terrain is very familiar. Give me a paper on quantum physics and I would have to read the whole damned thing. Then accept that I have not the slightest idea what they are talking about.

In the world of Covid research, two camps emerged very rapidly. There was ‘establishment’ camp, or the ‘accepted narrative’ camp and the ‘alternative’ camp’. Or, as I initially thought of them, the roundheads and the cavaliers [English civil war analogy – for my overseas readers]. As far I could tell, fact checkers were fully paid-up supporters of the roundheads.

Which meant that you could write an article wildly overestimating the infection fatality rate, and nothing would be said. The fact checkers would rouse themselves momentarily, then airily wave it through. However, dare to suggest the Infection fatality rate was lower than the mainstream view, and all hell would break loose. Or, at the beginning of the Covid sage, dare to suggest that the Sars-Cov-2 emerged from a biolab in Wuhan. ‘Off with his head’.

It didn’t take too long before I decided to rename the two camps the ‘Faucistas’, and the ‘Partisans.’ Although I know there should not be two sides in a scientific discussion. We are not at war. Those who question, and probe, have a vital role to play in science.

They, we, are trying to ensure that the accepted ideas are as robust as possible. If the mainstream facts are correct, they will resist all assaults. If they cannot resist, they should wither and die, to be replaced by something far stronger. Or at least that is how I hope it works.

This is a slightly long-winded way of saying that, when it comes to Covid the first thing you have to do with any ‘fact’ is to ask where it came from. A Faucista, or a partisan. Then apply the ‘Kendrick bias constant’ to determine its validity. A figure that only exists in my head, and even I am not sure what size it is, which way round it goes, or how to use it.

You also need to accept that research is often far from clear cut, and the findings may simply be … wrong. Twenty years ago, John Ioannidis published his seminal paper called: ‘Why most published research findings are false.’ It is one of the most widely read medical research papers, ever.¹

‘There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false … Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.’

The prevailing bias. I like that term. Perfectly polite yet still damning.

Was he correct, are most research findings false? Well, he has his own biases, as we all do. I still like to believe that the majority research can be relied on, at least to some extent. Boring, but reliable – yet still boring. However, there are areas where he is right about the influence of prevailing bias. Places where findings are more likely to be false than true.

I believe that Covid became one such area very quickly. Within a matter of weeks, you were a Faucista – the group which certainly had the support of the vast majority. Or you were a partisan. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.

I believe the polarisation in this area was so rapid and intense in large part because of the huge amount of money that was getting burned, and the need to justify that cost. The UK spent around four hundred billion pounds (~$500Bn) on Covid measures. Maybe even more – I think it was more. Enough to fund the NHS, in its entirely, for three years. The figure from the US was ‘officially’ four point six trillion. Four …point …six …trillion … gasp, thud.²

In addition to the money, there was the unprecedented disruption of everyday life. Far greater than anything seen outside a full-scale war. There was also the damage to children’s education and everyone’s mental health. The other diseases left undiagnosed and untreated, the massive debt and residual damage to public services, the clampdown on human freedoms … The list is long. More harm than good? That is the question.

A huge amount was at stake. So many reputations, both scientific and political, became bound to the ‘accepted narrative’ camp. If the narrative went down, so did they, with all hands-on deck. Thus, all the measures taken had to be found worthwhile, or at the very at least, excusable. ‘It was all very difficult, no-one knew what was going on. We had to do something … A big boy made me do it.’

Very rapidly, the Faucistas built themselves a mighty citadel, bristling with armaments, and fact checkers. Everyone within that citadel became hair trigger sensitive to the slightest perceived ‘enemy’ touch. Ready to react with ruthless bombardment. Along with personal attacks on whoever stated them.

The Great Barrington Declaration for instance, which proposed focussing protection on the elderly, and allowing the virus to take its course in younger populations. Where the risk of death was exceedingly low. This was universally condemned. Along with its authors. Here is one press release, out of many, many…

20 public health organizations condemn herd immunity scheme for controlling spread of COVID-19.

‘If followed, the recommendations in the Great Barrington Declaration would haphazardly and unnecessarily sacrifice lives. The declaration is not a strategy, it is a political statement… What we do not need is wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science.’³

‘Unnecessarily sacrifice lives…Wrong-headed proposals masquerading as science …’ Who dares pop their head over the parapet after such attacks? Only the brave, or foolhardy. As for debate … you must be joking. I was invited to talk at an anti-lockdown rally in September 2020, in Edinburgh. I gave a talk. The organiser was threatened with five years in jail. Luckily that has all gone very quiet.

Sweden, alone amongst European countries, decided not to lockdown, or perhaps you could call what they did lockdown ‘lite’. Schools, restaurants and bars remained open. People travelled on public transport. This approach, too, was universally condemned. It was stated that Dr Tegnell (chief epidemiologist) and Stefan Löfven (the prime minister), were…

‘…playing Russian roulette with the Swedish population,” Carlsson said. “At least if we’re going to do this as a people … lay the facts on the table so that we understand the reasons. The way I am feeling now is that we are being herded like a flock of sheep towards disaster…

… Leading experts last week were fiercely critical of the Swedish public health authority in an email thread seen by state broadcaster SVT, accusing it of incompetence and lack of medical expertise.’⁴

But the Swedes held out. Which took some nerve, whilst their own medical experts were screaming blue bloody murder in the background. Things changed. Now the accepted wisdom is that the Swedish people effectively locked themselves down, without being told to. Being such a great public-spirited people. ‘Oh yes, I think that fully explains their figures … ahem, don’t you?’

Why this change in outlook? From outrage to a widely accepted explanation, and a collective shrug. I suspect it may be that, in comparison to other European countries, Sweden ended up with a death rate below that of:

Bulgaria
Hungary
Bosnia Herzegovina
North Macedonia
Croatia
Montenegro
Georgia
Czechia
Slovakia
San Marino
Lithuania
Greece
Latvia
Romania
Slovenia
UK
Italy
Poland
Belgium
Portugal
Russia

They were within touching distance of Spain, Ukraine and France and – just to mention another Nordic country – Finland. Certainly, a long way below the US.

If lockdowns needed to be so harsh, or even instituted at all, why was Sweden not at the very top of this, and every other list? Answer, whisper it …. Because lockdowns were ineffective? ‘Off with his head.’

No, don’t be silly, it is because the Swedes locked themselves down. And here is the evidence … [insert non-existent evidence here]. Memo to self. Just saying a thing does not make it true.

‘Overall, there’s no evidence that Sweden had a “voluntary lockdown”. Mobility changed far less there than in most other Western countries.’ ⁵

But what was it that drove the lockdowns around the world?

The Covid Infection Fatality Rate?

The accepted narrative around Covid developed very rapidly. It is a highly contagious and deadly disease with an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of close to three per cent – you may have forgotten that figure. Perhaps you were unaware it ever existed.

The WHO provided an early estimate that eleven million Americans may die, discussed as part of a masterful essay by Jay Bhattacharya. One of the authors of the Great Barrington declaration, and now director of the National Institutes of Health. Oh, the irony. ⁶

The worldwide population is approximately eight billion. Using the initial WHO figures we would have seen two hundred and fifty million deaths. Equivalent to the Spanish flu – which is where I suspect the 3% figure was initially plucked from. Hospitals around the world would be overwhelmed. Millions would die if we did not act fast and hard. Something had to be done.

That ‘something’ was lockdowns. It included the widespread use of masks, restriction on travel, closed borders, closed schools, closed entertainment venues and restaurants, workplace closures, social distancing, test and trace, the rush to bring out vaccines, and so on. These actions became unquestionable and inseparable. All of them had to be equally defended.

Trying to get a handle on the Infection fatality rate

The three per cent IFR figure was downgraded rapidly and ended up hovering at around one per cent – or thereabouts. An IFR of one per cent means that, if one hundred people become infected with the SarsCov2 virus, then one will die. Is this … was this, does this remain a fact? At the start of Covid I became obsessed with trying to work out what the Infection Fatality Rate might be. Does it really matter?

I believe it drove everything. The 1% IFR is, to quote from Lord of the Rings: the one ring that finds them, and in the darkness binds them. If the IFR was 1%, then I think everyone can just about manage to assure themselves that all their actions were justifiable.

An IFR of 1% would have meant nearly three million deaths in the US, and well over half a million in the UK. Yes, it might not have been the Spanish flu, but ‘things’ obviously had to be done?

What about half a per cent? At this level the argument begins to look pretty damned shaky. An IFR of half a per cent, or below, would be the iceberg that sank the great lockdown ship Titanic. This, the IFR, is probably the most important fact that we need to establish.

Can we ever know the infection fatality rate of Sars-Cov2?

I know that most people would love a concrete fact here. Confirmation that the IFR of Covid was 0.213, or 0.934, or whatever. But I don’t think that is possible. Concrete facts here are very difficult to find. Or at least, facts that you can rely on. Read journal A you get one figure. Read journal B, and you get another. I can give you a thousand figures.

It also does very much depend on the age you are looking at. In the age group, nought to nineteen, the IFR was 0.00003% – in the first scientific paper that comes up on a Google search. That is three per million.

In the UK there are approximately twelve million in that age group. Which means that Covid may have resulted in thirty-six deaths. If, that is, everyone of that age ended up infected.⁷ Almost the same number who drown yearly – in that age group.

Moving back to the overall fatality figure rate, Imperial College London (ICL) in late 2022 concluded that it was 1.15%. But we already know which camp Neil Fergusion and the ICL was in. They were the original Faucistas. In this study they found that everything they said previously was absolutely correct. By the authority of … them.⁸

A well-known, and reasonably reliable worldwide resource is Worldometer, which kept a running count of Covid cases and deaths from every country. It stopped counting in April 2024. The grand totals on Worldometer, now frozen in time, were that there had been seven hundred million coronavirus cases worldwide, with almost exactly seven million deaths. Which represents an IFR of precisely one per cent.⁹

My goodness, independent verification that Neil Ferguson and Imperial College were bang on with their modelling. Well, Ferguson did predict an IFR of 0.9% but what’s 0.1% between friends. And if we look at China on Worldometer, it tells us we had almost exactly five hundred thousand cases, with five thousand deaths. Again, an IFR of one per cent, bang on.

Case closed? Hang on, you might wish to probe a little deeper into, for instance, the Chinese figures. According to Worldometer, the population of China is around one point four billion and there were five hundred thousand reported cases of Covid. Which means that one in three hundred people caught Covid [precise figure 0.36%].

In comparison, sixty per cent of the population in Greece caught Covid. Which is two hundred times greater. This seems a remarkably large difference. The sort of difference you may struggle to believe.

What of the death rates? China ended up with four deaths per million of the population. A figure very similar to DPRK (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea), which had three deaths per million. Strange that.

In Greece, on the other hand, they had four thousand deaths per million. One thousand times higher than China.

As for total deaths.

Greece: with a population of ten million had 37,869 deaths.
China: with a population of one point four billion had 5,272 deaths.

Personally, I find one of these figures to be more believable than the other.

Turning back to the overall figures from Worldometer. There were just over seven hundred million reported cases of Covid in total. Which means that around 9% of the world’s population became infected. Seven hundred million out of eight billion.

This is a very long way off the ninety per cent figure that Neil Ferguson predicted in his model. He predicted 90%, Worldometer says 9%. Once again, a bit of an echoing gap.

If Worldometer is right, and only 9% of the population did become infected, and the IFR was 0.9%, the UK would never have seen five hundred thousand deaths – as predicted by Neil Fergusion in his hugely influential model.

His model was, essentially.

IFR 0.9%, percentage infected 90%. Population of the UK 69m:

69,000,000 x 0.9% x .9 = 558,900

However, if only 9% become infected, this figure falls by a factor of ten:

69,000,000 x 0.9% x .09 = 55,890

This is not a great deal more than a bad flu year.

Returning to the age group nought to nineteen, if only 9% of them became infected we would have seen four deaths instead of a possible thirty-six. Which would have made school closures and the social isolation of children virtually indefensible. Sorry, leave out the word virtually.

As you can gather, the overall rate of infection, and the IFR, are intimately linked when it comes to the overall impact of an infective disease. An issue little discussed. But do you think it might be important? Answer…yes.

Which facts are facts?

At this point I suppose I need to ask. Do you believe that the coronavirus figures collated by Worldometer are ‘facts?’ Or do you believe some of them are, and others are not. In which case, which ones would you like to believe. To quote the late, great, singer songwriter John Martyn. ‘Half the lies you tell me are not true.’

Wherever you look, there is uncertainly, and disagreement. Completely different facts and figures can be found everywhere. When it comes to IFR, John Ioannidis came up with an IFR figure of 0.23% for higher income countries.¹⁰

Nature published a figure ranging between 0.79 – 1.82% (for higher income countries). The average between 0.79 and 1.82 is 1.3%.¹¹ As you have worked out for yourself, 1.3% is nearly six times more than 0.23%.

Which IFR is correct? Which is a fact? And why did the Nature study only look at higher income countries? Surely lower income countries should have fared worse – in that they could not afford to lockdown, and did not, and the standard of medical care would have been significantly lower, so more should have died?

I suspect lower income countries were ignored because, on paper, they all had very low death rates. Or very low reported death rates anyway. Just to choose a lower income African country at random … Chad. They reported one hundred and ninety-four covid deaths out of a population of seventeen million. Which is eleven deaths per million. In fact, according to Worldometer, Covid passed Africa by.

How could this be? In most higher income countries people of African origin were significantly more likely to die than the surrounding population. In the UK, Black British had a mortality rate of 273 per 100,000. Whereas those identifying as White, had a rate of 126. Less than half.¹² [Figures from the office of national statistics, and as you may have noticed these figures demonstrate and IFR of 0.273% for Black British, and 0.126% for White British].

Given this, it is difficult to argue that Black Africans, in Africa, were genetically protected, in some way. Although, it has to be added that the average age in African countries is significantly lower than in, say, the UK – and that would have had an impact on Covid related deaths – although nothing that could remotely explain the reported figures.

I also lean towards Ioannidis because I believe him to be a well-established objective seeker of the truth. He has long been a thorn in the side of what I shall call, politely, ‘official narratives.’ Other researchers, and journals, have a strong tendency towards those twin curses of human thought. Confirmation bias and groupthink. As for the fact checkers, which figures do you think they prefer? The higher, the better.

Which leads us inevitably to the question who, or what facts, do you choose to believe … or not believe. In later articles I will tell you what I believe to be the most probable IFR for Covid. And I will tell you why this figure is reasonably accurate.

Before we reach that point, I want to highlight some more of the many issues that make it difficult to be certain about anything. There are so many of them. Just to list a few important ones:

PCR testing – how accurate is it/was it?
False positive, false negatives. Did they raise, or lower, the IFR?
How do you determine if someone died of Covid – or simply died with Covid?
How many times were people infected – and how much would this affect the IFR?
Could you be exposed to Covid, and brush it aside, without becoming ‘infected’ or raising detectable antibodies?
The impact of continuing to count Covid deaths for more than three years – over the lifespan of many different variants – did this create an artificially high IFR?
What protection did vaccination provide?
Financial benefits of diagnosing Covid, did this lead to overdiagnosis?
Could aggressive treatment have been damaging, and possibly fatal?
How many people reported they had Covid, when they did not?
Which countries may have been economical with the truth about their Covid statistics?
Does the Sarv-Cov2 virus exist?

Each of these issues represents a minefield, with conflicting ‘facts’ stretching to the far horizon. Each of them capable of shifting the IFR significantly – downwards.

Does this mean we can never really know what happened with Covid? Even to answer such a superficially straightforward a question as how many died is tricky. Indeed, most facts about Covid tend to crumble when you apply a little pressure. But I think we can navigate a course, or sorts.

Next. Starting with an easy one. Does the Sars-Cov-2 virus exist? Easy …?

1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1182327/

2: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106647

3: https://www.bigcitieshealth.org/newsroom-great-barrington-declaration/

4: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/swedish-pm-warned-russian-roulette-covid-19-strategy-herd-immunity

5: https://unherd.com/newsroom/the-myth-of-swedens-voluntary-lockdown/

6: https://www.jospi.org/article/88046-dr-jay-bhattacharya-reveals-stanford-university-s-attempts-to-derail-covid-studies?ref=truth11.com

7: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+0.00003%25+per+million&oq=what+is+0.00003%25+per+million&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQBhhA0gEJMTUxNTlqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

8: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/207273/covid-19-deaths-infection-fatality-ratio-about/

9: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

10: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7947934.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

11: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00106-7

12: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-reported-sars-cov-2-deaths-in-england/covid-19-confirmed-deaths-in-england-to-31-december-2020-report

What went on during Covid?

146 Replies

Brevity? [Not my strong point]

Today, it is almost as if it never happened. The time of COVID-19 (which I shall simply call Covid from here on). It came, it went, it is now ancient history. Hardly anyone wants to talk about it anymore. Why not? I suppose you could say, what’s the point? You can’t do anything about it. What is done, is done.

True, but maybe you can help to prevent most damaging things from happening again. Which, I think, remains mission critical, because there are strong signs that those who drove the Covid nonsense are itching to do it all, once more. If given half a chance. Monkeypox anyone? Or Disease X.

In the UK we have massive Covid enquiry going on. It consists of ten ‘modules’, one of which has been finally completed, the other nine grind on. The chair hopes to conclude public hearings by the summer of 2026. Yes, 2026… Four years after it the enquiry started. [I would place a small wager that this deadline will be missed].

After this, a majestic report shalt be written. Which will take several more years, no doubt? By which time we will all have lost interest or died of old age. Last time I looked, the enquiry had cost well over one hundred million pounds (~$125m). I guess it will end up costing close to quarter of a billion by the time it is finished. All taking longer to complete than WWII.

Sweden wrapped up their enquiry by February 2022, in well under two years. Done and dusted, before ours even got started. There is a summary of it entitled: ‘How Sweden approached the COVID-19 pandemic: Summary and commentary on the National Commission Inquiry’ ¹

The whole enquiry probably cost them a couple of million, at most. One thing that did amuse me can be found in the commentary paper written by Jones Ludvigsson, a professor of paediatrics. He mentioned that:

‘I think the Swedish COVID-19 commission inquiry is a well-written summary and critique of how Sweden approached the pandemic. The pandemic disrupted society and drawing lessons from the report is crucial for our future pandemic preparedness. Despite the importance of the inquiry, I have so far not met any colleague who has actually read the 1700 pages.’

What is the point of these enquires and their enormous reports if no-one ever reads the damned things. Not even the medical professionals who are most likely to be called up to deal with a pandemic in the future.

Or perhaps the unreadable length is the point. Create thousands of pages of dead, passive-voice writing. This will draw a veil over the events because no-one can raise the energy to find out who was responsible for anything.

No one can possibly doubt that the UK report will be far, far, longer than the Swedish one. It will also contain hundreds of recommendations. Probably thousands. When it is finally published there will a great, yet momentary, fanfare. For a whole day journalists will wave bits of the report in the air and announce its recommendations Without ever reading the whole damned thing, who could. After which it be filed, recommendations forgotten. The end.

In the meantime, any politician involved in the Covid shitshow can deflect all questions and criticism. ‘I cannot possibly comment until the Covid enquiry has concluded. And I do not wish to prejudice it in any way.’ Which is the perfect political defence.

As has been said by others over the years. If you want to ensure that no-one is blamed for anything, and nothing is done, then commission an enquiry. It kicks the problem so far down the road that everyone loses interest. ‘Oh yes that, I remember that… sort of.’

Or, to quote the fictional Sir Humphrey Appleby in the UK comedy classic Yes Minster.

‘Minister, two basic rules of government: Never look into anything you don’t have to. And never set up an enquiry unless you know in advance what its findings will be.’

However, I do think enquiries can be helpful, so long as they are done quickly. That the report is short, and no politician is allowed within a million miles of it. In my view we should all pay attention to what Winston Churchill had to say on writing reports.

With Covid there will be no short, crisp report. It will be a Leviathan, crushing every last vestige of interest beneath a million tons of dullness. Sentences will stretch far beyond the horizon. Subjunctive clause sir? Why certainly, I would like a hundred, in so long as it can be heretofore suggested that it may, or may not be appreciated that the wishes of the majority can be associated with the conditions subjected to the possibility that….thud.

It will most certainly lay the dead hand of bureaucratic language upon us. To use Churchill’s phrase, utilising ‘the flat surface of officialise jargon.’ With terms such as ‘considerations should be given to the possibility of carrying into effect…’

Despite my concerns about reports, I still think that an attempt to understand what went on during Covid remains highly important. We still need to try and understand how we ended up in, what I consider, a bloody mess.

We also need to understand what drove Governments around the world to thrash about in panic, using heavy handed authoritarian weapons to control the public, and silence dissent. With no discernible benefit to anyone. Only massive costs and long-term harms.

But official enquiries are going to tell you nothing of this. If you can summon the energy to read the Terms and Conditions of the UK report it does sound superficially reasonable. The sort of deadly dull thing that no-one can really disagree with.

Here are the stated aims²:

In meeting its aims, the Inquiry will:

a) consider any disparities evident in the impact of the pandemic on different categories of people, including, but not limited to, those relating to protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and equality categories under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

b) listen to and consider carefully the experiences of bereaved families and others who have suffered hardship or loss as a result of the pandemic. Although the Inquiry will not consider in detail individual cases of harm or death, listening to these accounts will inform its understanding of the impact of the pandemic and the response, and of the lessons to be learned;

c) highlight where lessons identified from preparedness and the response to the pandemic may be applicable to other civil emergencies;

d) have reasonable regard to relevant international comparisons; and

e) produce its reports (including interim reports) and any recommendations in a timely manner. [A timely manner…ho, ho]

What’s missing from these aims?

Just about every question you would wish answered. Plucking a few from the air:

What is the evidence that lockdowns did any good
What is the evidence that lockdowns were harmful
What is the evidence that wearing masks provided any protection
Were the models created by epidemiologists inaccurate, if so why, and why did we listen to them – and should we do so in the future
Should we have had a behavioural unit within SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) which used messages of fear to control the public response
Were the vaccines rushed through without sufficient consideration to safety
Were experts who disagreed with the official narrative attacked and silenced when it would have been more effective to listen to them

Yes, these sort of questions. The sort that you probably would like to have answered. Questions that the UK enquiry will go out of its way to avoid. Instead, it will be almost entirely concerned about process. Which departments should have spoken to each other. Should there have been a different oversight committee. Not, God forbid, any analysis of outcomes.

I do not need to be Nostradamus to confidently predict that the only aspect of the response that will be criticised will be the one that allows everyone to be let off the hook. Namely, the astonishing ‘finding’ that we should have locked down sooner, and harder.

But, of course, it will be pointed out that this was no-one’s fault. At the time, it was not clear what actions should be taken, due to the rapidly changing situation that we all had to deal with. The end. Nothing to see here, move along.

One thing for certain is that there will be absolutely no attempt answer what is perhaps the key question. Did lockdowns do more harm than good? Or should we ever attempt them again?

Given the fact that you are not going to get any answers from the official channel, I am going to try and tell you, in plain language, what I think went wrong, and why, and how to stop them happening again. My report will be far from all inclusive, but I hope that it will be readable. And it will not cost quarter of a billion pounds. Unless someone is offering?

Next. Part one.

1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36065136/

2: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-covid-19-inquiry-terms-of-reference/uk-covid-19-inquiry-terms-of-reference