The British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has announced that a public inquiry into the government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic will begin in spring 2022.
I suspect that certain areas will be off-limits to the Inquiry. I’m not optimistic the inquiry will investigate the following:
1) whether the benefits of lockdowns in terms of lives saved outweighed the negative effects in terms of the economy; increased levels of depression and anxiety; increased suicides; lost jobs; family businesses wiped out; the impact of lost education on an entire generation; toddlers with poor cognitive skills; escalating alcoholism; families who were not allowed to visit dying relatives in hospital; families who were not allowed to visit relatives in care homes etc. Studies show that lockdowns have a negligible impact on lives saved. I would expect the Inquiry to utilise those studies in determining how many lives were saved by lockdowns and assess the associated cost of those lives saved in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALY). QALY is a standard metric in the NHS, used to determine whether or not a certain procedure is cost-effective. Since the average age of Covid deaths was the same as the UK life expectancy, it’s hard to assert that lockdowns saved lives. It’s much easier to assert that the Government’s restrictive policies cost a fortune and provided miniscule benefits. An independent assessment is called for.
2) whether reliance on PCR testing was misleading. The PCR test, in particular, has been thoroughly de-bunked in the alternative media as a reliable test (in short because it cannot differentiate between active and inactive viral RNA; it cannot differentiate between flu or the Common Cold or C19; also, it cannot determine how large the active viral load is so it cannot qualify whether someone is infectious). In part, because the usefulness of the PCR test depends to a large degree on how many cycles of amplification it was run at, I would expect a credible Inquiry to confirm how many cycles were used in the UK and to what extent that number would have generated false positive test results.
3) whether mass testing served any purpose. I would expect the Inquiry to look at the reliability of the tests and determine the rate of ‘false positives’. I would then expect the Inquiry to quantify the cost of the mass-testing programme in terms of a) the productivity lost from people isolating after a ‘positive’ test (taking into account the ‘false positive’ rate) and b) the procurement costs incurred by providing unlimited tests, free of charge. Many epidemiologists have stated that mass-testing serves no purpose. As such, I would expect the Inquiry to delve into this issue thoroughly.
4) whether ‘Test and Trace’ had any positive impact on suppressing the spread. This ties back in to the cost of lost productivity associated with mass testing based on ‘pings’ from the T&T app. I would expect the Inquiry to assess the value for money provided by the app. The cost of the app should include the cost of lost productivity caused by people receiving T&T notifications to isolate based on false positive test results.
5) whether Govt propaganda programme was justified. Never before has a so-called ‘Liberal Democracy’ waged a campaign of fear on its population. Laura Dodsworth explores this in great detail in her book, ‘State Of Fear’. I would expect the Inquiry to study the rates of excess deaths caused by C19 and also investigate the studies that estimate the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). This information should inform the inquiry that the C19 was not a highly fatal disease and that the propaganda war was completely disproportionate.
6) whether the Inquiry will determine an accurate figure for the number of deaths ‘from’ Covid19 , rather than ‘with’ Covid19. I’ve seen various figures that suggest that the true number of Covid19 deaths is possibly not much more than 10% of the reported figure. However, since the rules for death certification were changed and twisted to encourage death by association with Covid19, we have lots of deaths where doctors took a subjective approach to certification. The UK mortality rates for 2020 confirm that the year was unexceptional in terms of mortality. This information will contribute to the cost/benefit debate in relation to the Government’s restrictions.
7) whether the legacy media maintained a level of impartiality, or did they simply become a government mouthpiece? I saw no questioning of the Government’s unprecedented lockdown strategy. In fact, the media appeared to be the biggest champions of lockdowns. There was something of the WW2 strapline that ‘Careless talk costs lives’ to the media coverage in that anyone who did express any mild criticism was quickly accused of putting lives at risk through ‘misinformation’. We all saw that expert voices that dissented from the government’s narrative on Covid19 were not given exposure in the legacy media. Or, when they were, there was an agenda to expose them as dangerous nutjobs. ‘Follow the science’ used to mean follow it no matter where it takes you. In 2020, it became ‘Obey what your government and a handful of modellers and behavioural scientists say is the science’. I wonder if the huge amount of government advertising underpinning the C19 propaganda war had any influence on the editorial lines taken by various legacy media outlets?
8) whether the Inquiry will investigate how many lives would have been saved via adoption of early-treatment pharmaceuticals. We’ve all heard of anti-viral medications such as Ivor McTin (name changed). India kept its death rate low by embracing such anti-virals. We, in the West, are not allowed to know that. However, it’s the truth and it should be investigated by any truly independent inquiry.
9) whether there was an over-reliance on the mRNA gene therapy treatments as the only way to defeat C19. From an early stage of the outbreak we were being told to sit tight – in our homes! – and wait for the vaccines. Vaccines were our only hope. All other solutions were suppressed. This indicates the power of Big Pharma. Does Big Pharma have undue influence on the British government? I believe the Inquiry should investigate whether we erred when we put all our eggs in the vaccine basket and, if so, how that came about.
10) whether asymptomatic transmission is a thing. Fauci said in early 2020 that asymptomatic transmission ‘has never been a driver of disease’. Dr. Mike Yeadon has said the same. His simple explanation is that to be capable of transmitting a virus, you need a high viral load. If you have a high viral load, you will have symptoms because your body will fight the virus. Yet Government messaging was adamant that up to one third of us could be transmitting C19 asymptomatically. I hope an independent Inquiry will get to the bottom of this matter, once and for all.
11) whether it was correct to rely so heavily on the predictions of computer models rather than the advice of epidemiologists. When the ‘pandemic’ broke, there were no epidemiologists or virologists or immunologists among the members of SAGE. SAGE was instead comprised of computer modellers and behavioural scientists. As such, we can’t be entirely surprised that government’s C19 strategy was determined by scary data from dodgy models backed up by a ‘nudge’ campaign designed to ensure high compliance. Think how different the response could have been if suitable experts had been part of SAGE. Or, perhaps, that wasn’t accidental? I think the Inquiry should point out this level of unsuitability. Yet, I suspect it won’t.
12) whether any of the UK health regulators are fit for purpose. The regulators include the MHRA and the HSE (formerly Public Health England). There are additional regulators that are specific to each country in the Union, such as the Care Quality Commission in England and Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS). Then there are many professional bodies that regulate the standards of healthcare professionals, such as the General Medical Council (GMC) which regulates doctors. I would expect any Covid19 Inquiry to apportion responsibility for the decision to return patients from the hospitals to their care homes thereby, sparking an explosion of Covid19 deaths in care homes caused by infectious people from hospitals being placed among them. None of our Regulators resisted that decision. I would like to know why not? Isn’t it the job of a Regulator to resist government decisions that jeopardise health amongst the most vulnerable? Or are our Health Regulators run by people who are on the Civil Service gravy train to Peerages and cushy positions in the House of Lords as honours bestowed by a grateful nation to those who selflessly guided us through the darkest days of the pandemic? And that’s before we even talk about the role of Regulators in waving through the mRNA vaccines. That’s another investigation for another Inquiry at another time.
13) whether the UK should ensure there are no conflicts of interest amongst those people providing pandemic advice. People like Bill Gates used the C19 outbreak as an opportunity to further his agenda for digital identies and global vaccinations. He wanted lockdowns in place so that people would be more inclined to take the experimental vaccines that were being prepared. The WEF used the outbreak to push their agenda for a ‘global reset’ to capitalism. Climate change activists called for more lockdowns because they liked the fact people were not travelling as much. As such, many influential groups had an interest in promoting lockdowns that had nothing to do with suppressing C19. Was the Government influenced by these groups? Then there’s the fact that Patrick Vallance and many members of SAGE had close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The same industry that was busy telling everyone that the vaccines they were expediting were the only way out of lockdowns.
https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2020/11/sage-conflicts-of-interest/
14) whether any of it was legal. The UK has a Constitution. Were lockdowns Constitutional? Or can the Constitution be interpreted in any way that suits the needs of The Establishment?
15) whether any of it was ethical. Was it ethical to subject the British population to a propaganda campaign intended to achieve compliance by making us fearful? Should the same strategy be used in the next pandemic? Is the UK still a democracy where the government represents the people? Or are we a technochcracy where the government rules the people?
My guess is the Inquiry will conclude the lockdowns should have been sooner and harder but, apart from that, everyone did a great job. Promotions and Peerages all round. We shall see.
Atticus Fox 