Thanks for an excellent and logical presentation of just how wrong a criminal case barrister can be, if he puts his incisive but corrupt mind to it.
What really is "as plain as a pikestaff" is that Keith KC has been carefully briefed, even trained to spout tendentious bullshit in order to "bamboozle" unwary witnesses into implicating themselves in his blame game.
Sunak (who in my eyes is contemptible enough in other respects) seems not to have put his thumb fully under the hammer on this occasion. But I doubt that even he grasps how far from a genuine and usefull "Inquiry", this tawdry and mandacious charade has already turned out to be.
Sunak, if he had the wit and cojones, should cancel this farce immediately and get to the bottom of who is behind setting up this apologia for the guilty and attempt to demonise the merely inept.
I remember early on Jay Bhattacharya making the exact same point in that Public Health should not make the same mistake as was done in the Swine Flu era (early estimated IFR 4%).
So I started this petition asking for this inquiry to be stopped. It was rejected this morning as there is already a similar petition going....
A straightforward distillation of centuries of knowledge re infectious disease, particularly of the airborne type. Even I, more or less a layman in these matters, found it easy to understand and the logic behind it re interventions, inescapable.
There's no doubt whatsoever that your average immunologist/virologist/vaccinologist/Genetic engineer knows this very well (OK, I'll except the engineers from the list, but if only they knew just a little of the complexities of the immune system, maybe no mRNA jabs? - not that anyone knows enough on that one).
So, the question remains, why is all the madness of Clown World happening.
If only the Good Lady would turn her towering intellect answering that one.
You outline your opinion about the IFR and CFR data
When government advisors considered SARs-COV-2 they were not able to reliably estimate how many were infected, how many were cases and how many were covid fatalities.
Despite their assumptions each of these scenarios infact requires a seperate carefull clinical analysis.
It's hard for a "punter" like me to accept that government advisors are so clueless and incompetent that they tipped us into lockdown on the basis of such poor data. Was this some kind of bizarre conspiracy or just an almighty cockup?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if those who supported their recommendations were able to respond to these posts and explain why they believe Tom and Carl are mistaken.
I noticed a 1% Covid IFR (with 80% of people susceptible) was consistently quoted in several SAGE scientist's testimony for the Covid inquiry, to justify the decision-making behind the lockdown-vaccination suppression experiment. The 1% IFR (80% susceptible) stat was pretty much verbatim repeated by Edmunds, Riley, Horby, Ferguson, Medley and Woolhouse. (Indy sage's Costello said 1% CFR and 60% would be infected). I wondered if the focus on the IFR was to deflect from the fact such decisions were actually based on mad modelling and possibly even other secret stuff (which is why we could never make sense of the why of it).
Not one of the SAGE scientists were asked any even remotely probing questions about those numbers, such as the IFR/CFR age gradient, at what point they realised they had overestimatied risk for the majority of the working-age population, and how this might have altered subsequent decisions on lockdowns and school closures.
If we follow the direction the inquiry is taking us, all it will take in future is for the WHO to declare a pandemic of anything, estimate an IFR of 1%/CFR of 5%, Ferguson to plug the numbers into his big number worst case scenario generator and the public to be reminded of the sober lessons learned from the Covid inquiry (that we needed to lock down yesterday). We'll be on a lockdown rollercoaster - just as we're out of one we'll be into another. It doesn't bear thinking about - we'd have locked down for Swine Flu.
I agree with you that it's very possible the decisions about lockdown etc might have been based on data which was not made public. This whole situation makes no sense unless they believed the virus was highly virulent in working age people and children. Did they get the nod from the US or China or somewhere else!
Thanks for an excellent and logical presentation of just how wrong a criminal case barrister can be, if he puts his incisive but corrupt mind to it.
What really is "as plain as a pikestaff" is that Keith KC has been carefully briefed, even trained to spout tendentious bullshit in order to "bamboozle" unwary witnesses into implicating themselves in his blame game.
Sunak (who in my eyes is contemptible enough in other respects) seems not to have put his thumb fully under the hammer on this occasion. But I doubt that even he grasps how far from a genuine and usefull "Inquiry", this tawdry and mandacious charade has already turned out to be.
Sunak, if he had the wit and cojones, should cancel this farce immediately and get to the bottom of who is behind setting up this apologia for the guilty and attempt to demonise the merely inept.
I remember early on Jay Bhattacharya making the exact same point in that Public Health should not make the same mistake as was done in the Swine Flu era (early estimated IFR 4%).
So I started this petition asking for this inquiry to be stopped. It was rejected this morning as there is already a similar petition going....
https://t.co/lsxzVqrGYN
A straightforward distillation of centuries of knowledge re infectious disease, particularly of the airborne type. Even I, more or less a layman in these matters, found it easy to understand and the logic behind it re interventions, inescapable.
There's no doubt whatsoever that your average immunologist/virologist/vaccinologist/Genetic engineer knows this very well (OK, I'll except the engineers from the list, but if only they knew just a little of the complexities of the immune system, maybe no mRNA jabs? - not that anyone knows enough on that one).
So, the question remains, why is all the madness of Clown World happening.
If only the Good Lady would turn her towering intellect answering that one.
You outline your opinion about the IFR and CFR data
When government advisors considered SARs-COV-2 they were not able to reliably estimate how many were infected, how many were cases and how many were covid fatalities.
Despite their assumptions each of these scenarios infact requires a seperate carefull clinical analysis.
It's hard for a "punter" like me to accept that government advisors are so clueless and incompetent that they tipped us into lockdown on the basis of such poor data. Was this some kind of bizarre conspiracy or just an almighty cockup?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if those who supported their recommendations were able to respond to these posts and explain why they believe Tom and Carl are mistaken.
Hi Keith and Myra, thank you for your comments. This morning's post will deal with some of your points.
Best wishes, Tom
Excellent post - bookmarked.
I noticed a 1% Covid IFR (with 80% of people susceptible) was consistently quoted in several SAGE scientist's testimony for the Covid inquiry, to justify the decision-making behind the lockdown-vaccination suppression experiment. The 1% IFR (80% susceptible) stat was pretty much verbatim repeated by Edmunds, Riley, Horby, Ferguson, Medley and Woolhouse. (Indy sage's Costello said 1% CFR and 60% would be infected). I wondered if the focus on the IFR was to deflect from the fact such decisions were actually based on mad modelling and possibly even other secret stuff (which is why we could never make sense of the why of it).
Not one of the SAGE scientists were asked any even remotely probing questions about those numbers, such as the IFR/CFR age gradient, at what point they realised they had overestimatied risk for the majority of the working-age population, and how this might have altered subsequent decisions on lockdowns and school closures.
If we follow the direction the inquiry is taking us, all it will take in future is for the WHO to declare a pandemic of anything, estimate an IFR of 1%/CFR of 5%, Ferguson to plug the numbers into his big number worst case scenario generator and the public to be reminded of the sober lessons learned from the Covid inquiry (that we needed to lock down yesterday). We'll be on a lockdown rollercoaster - just as we're out of one we'll be into another. It doesn't bear thinking about - we'd have locked down for Swine Flu.
As you point out, though the CFR and IFR are slippery figures, they are at the root of all the extreme decisions, not least the 'stay home, protect the NHS' horror. So we do need to understand. In trying to get my head round what we did and why we did it, I wrote about the number theatre of Covid and your influential work ( https://thegreatcrapestryofcovid.substack.com/p/10-number-theatre?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2 and https://thegreatcrapestryofcovid.substack.com/p/8-truth-in-numbers?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2).
I thank you both again for all you have done and continue to do.
I agree with you that it's very possible the decisions about lockdown etc might have been based on data which was not made public. This whole situation makes no sense unless they believed the virus was highly virulent in working age people and children. Did they get the nod from the US or China or somewhere else!
Didn't Fauci confuse the ifr and cfr by attributing the cfr to the ifr which added to the panic?