UK Govt Coronavirus Response: Sceptics Thread

[sancho panza]

I can honestly say that I never slept at work as much as I did during the first wave of covid.Whether it was noone ringing for fear of covid or covid or the 'ring of steel' Matt Hancock threw around care homes....we'll never know.

But someone I respect once said that all these tiktok video's made him uneasy at the time and showed how much time staff had on their hands.Haven't had the time in 2021/22 as we were busy chasing our tails and picking up the pieces.

Genuinely,I think these video's will age badly and will possibly end up being the undoing of the NHS.

Here's the dancing video and a chart of UK all cause mortality for context

https://rumble.com/v27en5i-covid-theater-2020.html

Edited January 31, 2023 by sancho panza

[Van Lady]

36 minutes ago, sancho panza said:

I can honestly say that I never slept at work as much as I did during the first wave of covid.Whether it was noone ringing for fear of covid or covid or the 'ring of steel' Matt Hancock threw around care homes....we'll never know.

But someone I respect once said that all these tiktok video's made him uneasy at the time and showed how much time staff had on their hands.Haven't had the time in 2021/22 as we were busy chasing our tails and picking up the pieces.

Genuinely,I think these video's will age badly and will possibly end up being the undoing of the NHS.

Here's the dancing video and a chart of UK all cause mortality for context

https://rumble.com/v27en5i-covid-theater-2020.html

Anyone who watched all the nhs rehearsed dances and didn’t clock that something was seriously wrong is unknowingly deluded, stupid or uncaring etc.

Many folk would have been waiting for an appointment that got cancelled or worried about something but couldn’t see a gp.

If there was a serious life threatening “pandemic” there would have been no time for that shite!

The dancing nhs videos still enrage me to this day when I see any.

[sancho panza]

2 hours ago, Van Lady said:

Anyone who watched all the nhs rehearsed dances and didn’t clock that something was seriously wrong is unknowingly deluded, stupid or uncaring etc.

Many folk would have been waiting for an appointment that got cancelled or worried about something but couldn’t see a gp.

If there was a serious life threatening “pandemic” there would have been no time for that shite!

The dancing nhs videos still enrage me to this day when I see any.

Even more damning to me,is the lack of social distancing in the videos.

Not because it mattered or would have made much difference overall, but because the Jackboot Jacindas running the UKgovt/shutting churches/stopping kids going to school/banning social meetings etc kept banging on about how importnant it was.....until it came to NHS staff doing dances.Then it was ok.

Vdieo below of the Met shutting down a church service during Easter.A day of shame for us as a country.

 

Edited January 31, 2023 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

hattip @dnb24 .seen mentioned on twitter but here's a paper to assessing the success of NPI's....takes us back to page 1 or 2 of this thread when the Swedish epedemiologist stated that the only NPIs known to work were hand washing and scoial distancing.

ANd I still see people walking around with cloth masks on....

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses

• Tom Jefferson
• Liz Dooley
• Eliana Ferroni
• Lubna A Al-Ansary
• Mieke L van Driel
• Ghada A Bawazeer
• Mark A Jones
• Tammy C Hoffmann
• Justin Clark
• Elaine M Beller
• Paul P Glasziou
• John M Conly

Authors' declarations of interest

Version published: 30 January 2023 Version history

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6

Collapse all Expand all

Abstract

available in

• English
• Español

Background

Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID‐19 pandemic.

Objectives

To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses.

Search methods

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies.

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster‐RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. 

Data collection and analysis

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

Main results

We included 11 new RCTs and cluster‐RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID‐19 pandemic.

Many studies were conducted during non‐epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID‐19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high‐income countries; crowded inner city settings in low‐income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high‐income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies.

The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster‐RCTs was mostly high or unclear.

Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks

We included 12 trials (10 cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI)/COVID‐19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza/SARS‐CoV‐2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low‐certainty evidence).

N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks

We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low‐certainty evidence). 

One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non‐inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID‐19 patients. 

Hand hygiene compared to control

Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta‐analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low‐certainty evidence), and laboratory‐confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low‐certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low‐certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low‐certainty evidence).

We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports.

Authors' conclusions

The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children.

There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory‐confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated.

There is a need for large, well‐designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. 

[sancho panza]

Great 5 minute clip as Twitter execs testify before congresswoman Luna yesterday

https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/6320001502112#sp=show-clips

 

 

[sancho panza]

[sancho panza]

[sancho panza]

[sancho panza]

Amazing that in some countries,excess deaths are near the covid peaks and yet on the MSM.......nothing.........

this being a lowlight.What have they done?

 

also at 12 minutes talks about how the ONS has stopped uploading deaths by vaxx status for the last 8 motnhs after having published them every motnh or two before hand.........

 

things that make you go Mmmmmm!

Edited February 15, 2023 by sancho panza

[Heart's Ease]

Bit of an update @sancho panzaon the ONS data.  Andrew Bridgen MP got a response from the Statistical Agency. All eyes on 21 Feb.

Responses to AB tweet are a mixture of trolls, 77th, in-denial, in support, and a good chunk who recognise it's going to have taken time for Statistical Agency to cook the books just enough to 'fix' the data.

 

[BurntBread]

59 minutes ago, Heart's Ease said:

Bit of an update @sancho panzaon the ONS data.  Andrew Bridgen MP got a response from the Statistical Agency. All eyes on 21 Feb.

Responses to AB tweet are a mixture of trolls, 77th, in-denial, in support, and a good chunk who recognise it's going to have taken time for Statistical Agency to cook the books just enough to 'fix' the data.

 

There used to be a saying about political shenanigans: "It's not the crime that gets them, it's the cover-up." I suspect Bridgen has the intelligence, perseverance and motivation to sink that ship of cooked data if they try to float it. Even if they blatantly lie, there will be some inconsistencies buried in the stats.

[Heart's Ease]

Just now, BurntBread said:

There used to be a saying about political shenanigans: "It's not the crime that gets them, it's the cover-up." I suspect Bridgen has the intelligence, perseverance and motivation to sink that ship of cooked data if they try to float it. Even if they blatantly lie, there will be some inconsistencies buried in the stats.

Yup. Prof Norman Fenton was very supportive of AB over the antisemitism allegations. His/Ivor Cummings number crunching will be v interesting. 

AB has been retweeting Dr John's latest broadcasts. They'll all be having a good go at it.

[sancho panza]

Data coming out of Florida on adverse events and I've linked to the vid but also taken a screenshot of the vaccine adverse event data

Rise of 4400% in life threatening conditions

hattip @dnb24

 

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by sancho panza

[dnb24]

mRNA  vaccine in 9.6% of subjects over 28 days post vaccination.

 

CDC/Pfizer/moderna advised that it should be broken down in the body within hours- now it looks like it lasts at least a month.

Risk being that the spike is being produced over at least 28 days instead of hours.

Edited February 20, 2023 by dnb24

[Bill Car]

On 15/02/2023 at 20:37, sancho panza said:

Amazing that in some countries,excess deaths are near the covid peaks and yet on the MSM.......nothing.........

this being a lowlight.What have they done?

 

also at 12 minutes talks about how the ONS has stopped uploading deaths by vaxx status for the last 8 motnhs after having published them every motnh or two before hand.........

 

things that make you go Mmmmmm!

And I would add that if you look at data from numerous countries around the world there was seemingly no excess mortality in 2020. Korea and Japan are obvious examples and were right next door to China. Excess mortality was only really seen in those countries as you entered 2021. The data from countries like Germany is frankly horrific. 

[dnb24]

Florida state issue health alert with direct reference to the mRNA jabs

https://www.floridahealth.gov/newsroom/2023/02/20230215-updated-health-alert.pr.html

[sancho panza]

On 30/03/2020 at 20:42, sancho panza said:

As someone who has been sceptical about the UK Govts response to Covid 19,I have found I am in good company......

Whilst no one is in any doubt that an excess number of people are currently dying, mainly from Pneumonia resulting from Covid 19, the general MSM induced hysteria hasn't really allowed for any genuine reflections on what the UK has done right and what it has done wrong. It's also created an atmosphere whereby any criticism of the UK Govt or the NHS is conflated with not wishing to save lives rather taking a more holistic view of the damage that the CV and the Govt's response to it is doing.

My reflections thus far the regarding the UK response are that the lack of testing compared to South Korea and Singapore has meant that we have been using guesswork where we needn't have been, that we've possibly been exposing vulnerable patients to staff who may have carrying the infection and that the cure-economic lock down- may cause more damage,both to the health of the population and to society more widely through unemployment, schooling disruption and financial distress.

It's also worth reflecting on the way the govt has implemented the lock down in terms of both under testing (ie quarantining perfectly healthy people) and overpolicing it whereby Police are dyeing pools at beauty spots,droning dog walkers and conducting car checkpoints to ascertain people's intended movements.

Personally, I am left to reflect on what the Govt's motives really are given there were other countries who have handsomely outperformed us in terms of testing and containing the outbreak. It says a lot that the countries that currently have flatlining mortality rates are the ones who tested and quarantined rather than quarantining then testing. Both South Korea and Singapore have also not locked down their populations and kept their economies running.

It's also worth reflecting on the gaping holes the virus has caused in UK health provision,particularly the lack of ventilators and critical care capacity.

1) The first item worth watching is a Sky news report that discusses the potential consequences in terms of shutting down the economy, not just on mental health and suicides but also the effect of unemployment on the population's health with comparison's to 2008.It also raises the issue of the daily mortality rate in the UK which is circa 1600.(anything above that being considered excess)

27 March 2020

https://news.sky.com/video/share-11964813

2) This is a 25 minute interview with Professor John Nicholls,Clinical Professor in Pathology at Hong Kong University,an expert on SARS and Avian influenza.

March 10 2020-A wonderful interview that really gets to grips with some of the details of this corona virus and explodes some of the myths.

https://jermdraws.com/blog/a-professor-of-pathology-who-knows-a-lot-about-the-coronavirus

'Here is the takeaway:

• There’s nothing about which to be hysterical or irrational.

• It’s sort of like a severe form of the flu which appears to affect old people and those with weaker immune systems.

• Stay away from crowds if you’re worried.

• You don’t really need a mask. Or extra toilet paper. But do practise good hygiene.

• The virus is transmitted mostly via physical contact.

• You’ll probably be fine.

• The virus isn’t racist. It doesn’t have a preference for skin colour.'

3) John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine,Epidemiology & Population Health at Stanford University,queries the lack of decent data.

17 March 2020

A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

The data collected so far on how many people are infected and how the epidemic is evolving are utterly unreliable. Given the limited testing to date, some deaths and probably the vast majority of infections due to SARS-CoV-2 are being missed.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.

Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%.

Projecting the Diamond Princess mortality rate onto the age structure of the U.S. population, the death rate among people infected with Covid-19 would be 0.125%. But since this estimate is based on extremely thin data — there were just seven deaths among the 700 infected passengers and crew — the real death rate could stretch from five times lower (0.025%) to five times higher (0.625%).

If we assume that case fatality rate among individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2 is 0.3% in the general population — a mid-range guess from my Diamond Princess analysis — and that 1% of the U.S. population gets infected (about 3.3 million people), this would translate to about 10,000 deaths. This sounds like a huge number, but it is buried within the noise of the estimate of deaths from “influenza-like illness.” If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average. 

In the absence of data, prepare-for-the-worst reasoning leads to extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns. Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work. School closures, for example, may reduce transmission rates. But they may also backfire if children socialize anyhow, if school closure leads children to spend more time with susceptible elderly family members, if children at home disrupt their parents ability to work, and more. School closures may also diminish the chances of developing herd immunity in an age group that is spared serious disease.

One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health.'

4) An article that explains how South Korea had it's first victim of Covid on Jan 20th and by Mid Feb had the capacity to test any individuals who wanted testing either at Medical venue or road side.Worth noting that NHS workers only as of yesterday could drive to a facility for testing,so the UK hasn't even got a country wide testing facility for staff treating patients.Also,that both South Korea and Singapore haven't locked down their economies and Singapore has even left schools open.

26 March 2020

'How South Korea Reined In The Outbreak Without Shutting Everything Down'

https://choice.npr.org/index.html?origin=https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/26/821688981/how-south-korea-reigned-in-the-outbreak-without-shutting-everything-down

On a similar vein

http://theconversation.com/why-singapores-coronavirus-response-worked-and-what-we-can-all-learn-134024

 

5) FT article that delves into what went wrong with the UK's testing from the start despite the fact that places like South Korea and Singapore were ready to pass on lessons.

27 March 2020

 

6) Dr John Lee writing in the Spectator,former Professor of Pathology/NHS Consultant Pathologist

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/The-evidence-on-Covid-19-is-not-as-clear-as-we-think

In announcing the most far-reaching restrictions on personal freedom in the history of our nation, Boris Johnson resolutely followed the scientific advice that he had been given. The advisers to the government seem calm and collected, with a solid consensus among them. In the face of a new viral threat, with numbers of cases surging daily, I’m not sure that any prime minister would have acted very differently.

But I’d like to raise some perspectives that have hardly been aired in the past weeks, and which point to an interpretation of the figures rather different from that which the government is acting on.

The simplest way to judge whether we have an exceptionally lethal disease is to look at the death rates. Are more people dying than we would expect to die anyway in a given week or month? Statistically, we would expect about 51,000 to die in Britain this month. At the time of writing, 422 deaths are linked to Covid-19 — so 0.8 per cent of that expected total. On a global basis, we’d expect 14 million to die over the first three months of the year. The world’s 18,944 coronavirus deaths represent 0.14 per cent of that total. These figures might shoot up but they are, right now, lower than other infectious diseases that we live with (such as flu). Not figures that would, in and of themselves, cause drastic global reactions.

Most of the UK testing has been in hospitals, where there is a high concentration of patients susceptible to the effects of any infection. As anyone who has worked with sick people will know, any testing regime that is based only in hospitals will over-estimate the virulence of an infection

That’s why, when Britain had 590 diagnosed cases, Sir Patrick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, suggested that the real figure was probably between 5,000 and 10,000 cases, ten to 20 times higher. If he’s right, the headline death rate due to this virus is likely to be ten to 20 times lower, say 0.25 per cent to 0.5 per cent. That puts the Covid-19 mortality rate in the range associated with infections like flu.

But there’s another, potentially even more serious problem: the way that deaths are recorded. If someone dies of a respiratory infection in the UK, the specific cause of the infection is not usually recorded, unless the illness is a rare ‘notifiable disease’. So the vast majority of respiratory deaths in the UK are recorded as bronchopneumonia, pneumonia, old age or a similar designation. We don’t really test for flu, or other seasonal infections. If the patient has, say, cancer, motor neurone disease or another serious disease, this will be recorded as the cause of death, even if the final illness was a respiratory infection. This means UK certifications normally under-record deaths due to respiratory infections.

Now look at what has happened since the emergence of Covid-19. The list of notifiable diseases has been updated. This list — as well as containing smallpox (which has been extinct for many years) and conditions such as anthrax, brucellosis, plague and rabies (which most UK doctors will never see in their entire careers) — has now been amended to include Covid-19. But not flu. That means every positive test for Covid-19 must be notified, in a way that it just would not be for flu or most other infections.

 

If we take drastic measures to reduce the incidence of Covid-19, it follows that the deaths will also go down. We risk being convinced that we have averted something that was never really going to be as severe as we feared. This unusual way of reporting Covid-19 deaths explains the clear finding that most of its victims have underlying conditions — and would normally be susceptible to other seasonal viruses, which are virtually never recorded as a specific cause of death.

Let us also consider the Covid-19 graphs, showing an exponential rise in cases — and deaths. They can look alarming. But if we tracked flu or other seasonal viruses in the same way, we would also see an exponential increase. We would also see some countries behind others, and striking fatality rates. The United States Centers for Disease Control, for example, publishes weekly estimates of flu cases. The latest figures show that since September, flu has infected 38 million Americans, hospitalised 390,000 and killed 23,000. This does not cause public alarm because flu is familiar.

The data on Covid-19 differs wildly from country to country. Look at the figures for Italy and Germany. At the time of writing, Italy has 69,176 recorded cases and 6,820 deaths, a rate of 9.9 per cent. Germany has 32,986 cases and 157 deaths, a rate of 0.5 per cent. Do we think that the strain of virus is so different in these nearby countries as to virtually represent different diseases? Or that the populations are so different in their susceptibility to the virus that the death rate can vary more than twentyfold? If not, we ought to suspect systematic error, that the Covid-19 data we are seeing from different countries is not directly comparable.

Look at other rates: Spain 7.1 per cent, US 1.3 per cent, Switzerland 1.3 per cent, France 4.3 per cent, South Korea 1.3 per cent, Iran 7.8 per cent. We may very well be comparing apples with oranges. Recording cases where there was a positive test for the virus is a very different thing to recording the virus as the main cause of death.

Early evidence from Iceland, a country with a very strong organisation for wide testing within the population, suggests that as many as 50 per cent of infections are almost completely asymptomatic. Most of the rest are relatively minor. In fact, Iceland’s figures, 648 cases and two attributed deaths, give a death rate of 0.3 per cent. As population testing becomes more widespread elsewhere in the world, we will find a greater and greater proportion of cases where infections have already occurred and caused only mild effects. In fact, as time goes on, this will become generally truer too, because most infections tend to decrease in virulence as an epidemic progresses.

One pretty clear indicator is death. If a new infection is causing many extra people to die (as opposed to an infection present in people who would have died anyway) then it will cause an increase in the overall death rate. But we have yet to see any statistical evidence for excess deaths, in any part of the world.

Covid-19 can clearly cause serious respiratory tract compromise in some patients, especially those with chest issues, and in smokers. The elderly are probably more at risk, as they are for infections of any kind. The average age of those dying in Italy is 78.5 years, with almost nine in ten fatalities among the over-70s. The life expectancy in Italy — that is, the number of years you can expect to live to from birth, all things being equal — is 82.5 years. But all things are not equal when a new seasonal virus goes around.

It certainly seems reasonable, now, that a degree of social distancing should be maintained for a while, especially for the elderly and the immune-suppressed. But when drastic measures are introduced, they should be based on clear evidence. In the case of Covid-19, the evidence is not clear. The UK’s lockdown has been informed by modelling of what might happen. More needs to be known about these models. Do they correct for age, pre-existing conditions, changing virulence, the effects of death certification and other factors? Tweak any of these assumptions and the outcome (and predicted death toll) can change radically.

Much of the response to Covid-19 seems explained by the fact that we are watching this virus in a way that no virus has been watched before. The scenes from the Italian hospitals have been shocking, and make for grim television. But television is not science.

Clearly, the various lockdowns will slow the spread of Covid-19 so there will be fewer cases. When we relax the measures, there will be more cases again. But this need not be a reason to keep the lockdown: the spread of cases is only something to fear if we are dealing with an unusually lethal virus. That’s why the way we record data will be hugely important. Unless we tighten criteria for recording death due only to the virus (as opposed to it being present in those who died from other conditions), the official figures may show a lot more deaths apparently caused by the virus than is actually the case. What then? How do we measure the health consequences of taking people’s lives, jobs, leisure and purpose away from them to protect them from an anticipated threat? Which causes least harm?

The moral debate is not lives vs money. It is lives vs lives. It will take months, perhaps years, if ever, before we can assess the wider implications of what we are doing. The damage to children’s education, the excess suicides, the increase in mental health problems, the taking away of resources from other health problems that we were dealing with effectively. Those who need medical help now but won’t seek it, or might not be offered it. And what about the effects on food production and global commerce, that will have unquantifiable consequences for people of all ages, perhaps especially in developing economies?

Governments everywhere say they are responding to the science. The policies in the UK are not the government’s fault. They are trying to act responsibly based on the scientific advice given. But governments must remember that rushed science is almost always bad science. We have decided on policies of extraordinary magnitude without concrete evidence of excess harm already occurring, and without proper scrutiny of the science used to justify them.

In the next few days and weeks, we must continue to look critically and dispassionately at the Covid-19 evidence as it comes in. Above all else, we must keep an open mind — and look for what is, not for what we fear might be.'

 

 

In light of the hancock files droping truth bombs I jsut reread the lead post from this thread March 30 2020...................it has aged relatively well I think,especially given the hysteria at the time.

On reflection,the one major issue for me is that I took for a given the fact the govt could test for the virus.I should have shown a little more caution.

Latest round of Hancock is to be frankly honest breath taking.

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/03/05/matt-hancocks-plan-to-frighten-the-pants-off-everyone-about-covid/

 

 

It is a toss up between Hancock and Case for the title of the Lockdown Files’ Greatest Villain. I was considering awarding it to the wretched Case until this latest round of files dropped, and Hancock went full Dr. Evil with his question: “When do we deploy the new variant” [sic].

 

Of course we shouldn’t let the unintentional comedy of Hancock’s messages (one has him text shouting “SOMEONE INSTALLED A CAMERA IN MY OFFICE WITHOUT TELLING ME!”) distract from how appalling his actions were.

How far Boris should be excused is another question. Throughout the Lockdown Files he shows his instinct for freedom, but lacks the courage to convert that into policy. This latest episode is no different, as the Telegraph reveals:

Boris Johnson, then the Prime Minister, had promised that families would be reunited at Christmas – the first since the pandemic struck in early 2020. He said foregoing long-awaited reunions “would be inhuman and against the instincts of many people in this country”.

But behind the scenes, his ministers and officials were increasingly aware that vast swathes of the public faced a grave disappointment and that the Johnson administration would take the blame for their frustration. 

The solution in December was “to frighten the pants off everyone” with a declaration of a new strain of COVID-19, known as the Alpha or Kent variant.

In a conversation between Mr Hancock and Mr Poole on Dec 13th, the pair discussed how to survive the coming backlash and storm. On the day, there were 18,409 cases of Covid recorded and 410 deaths. Five days later, on Dec 18th, Mr. Johnson would scrap his planned five-day Christmas amnesty in an about turn. 

Every time I think I have hit peak anger with this ongoing saga, the messages reveal a new low.

The bizarre power given to chancers “Slackie and Lee” to dictate policy (James Slack and Lee Cain in the Downing St comms team); Simon Case’s nauseating glee at imposing petty restrictions, and his characterisation of worrying about the impact of Covid restrictions on the economy as “pure Conservative ideology”; Boris’s claim that another lockdown would be the “height of absurdity”, before immediately implementing it while knowing the data it was based on was out of date – I could go on.

But Hancock’s brazen fear tactics, apparently divorced from any kind of scientific evidence, deployed, to use his word, with borderline psychopathic disregard for the impact they would have on people, is the worst finding yet in this already incredibly sordid tale.

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by sancho panza

[sancho panza]

Brand in teh USA delivering some well put home truths.8.4 million views

[Chewing Grass]

Neil Furgusons calculator and numerically illiterate politicians come full circle.

 

[Chewing Grass]

On 15/02/2023 at 13:21, Heart's Ease said:

Bit of an update @sancho panzaon the ONS data.  Andrew Bridgen MP got a response from the Statistical Agency. All eyes on 21 Feb.

Responses to AB tweet are a mixture of trolls, 77th, in-denial, in support, and a good chunk who recognise it's going to have taken time for Statistical Agency to cook the books just enough to 'fix' the data.

 

Have we missed this, they have had plenty time to present it.

Presented in a form where you have to go down hundreds of lines and then start working the data out yourself by the confident manipulation of spreadsheets.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland

[Heart's Ease]

12 hours ago, Chewing Grass said:

Have we missed this, they have had plenty time to present it.

Presented in a form where you have to go down hundreds of lines and then start working the data out yourself by the confident manipulation of spreadsheets.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland

It was the data release where Prof Norman Fenton and Claire Craig put the legwork in on it when it was published. It was a bit of a mess. Norman Fenton did the interview with Dr John pulling it apart but have not watched it yet. 

https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/claims-the-unvaccinated-were-at-higher

Latest substack tweeted by Andrew Bridgen about deceptive data being used by various actors.

 

[sancho panza]

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/03/29/covid-19-not-responsible-for-explosion-in-heart-deaths-major-autopsy-study-shows-must-be-the-vaccine-says-top-heart-doctor/

COVID-19 Not Responsible for “Explosion” in Heart Deaths, Major Autopsy Study Shows. “Must Be the Vaccine,” Says Top Heart Doctor

 

Since the early days of the pandemic there has been a concern that SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans could cause heart inflammation and thus cardiac injury and death. A number of observational studies have appeared to show increased heart problems following infection, though the observational nature of these studies has led to criticism they are confounded and unreliable. Other studies have not found an increase in heart problems following Covid infection and have established that myocarditis was not above baseline in 2020.

Now the lack of relationship between COVID-19 and heart inflammation has been confirmed in a systematic review of 50 autopsy studies covering 548 hearts of patients who died of or with COVID-19. While around two thirds of the hearts had SARS-CoV-2 found in the tissue, none had extensive myocarditis as the cause of death. Top heart doctor Peter McCullough comments on the study – which was published last year – that it “should be the nail in the coffin in ruling out COVID-19 illness as a cause of fatal myocarditis”.

“Despite the virus being found in heart tissue, it was not causing significant inflammation,” he said.

This means that the “explosion of fatal myocarditis” as inferred from the reports and autopsies of unexplained cardiac arrest, “must have another explanation than SARS-CoV-2 infection,” he added.

“The only new proven cause of heart damage in human populations is COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccines used in America (Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen, Novavax) have been demonstrated to cause myocarditis as published in the peer-reviewed literature.”

Autopsies of vaccinated patients have found clear evidence of strong expression of spike protein in heart muscle that, according to Dr. Michael Palmer and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, “correlates with significant inflammation and tissue destruction”.

[sancho panza]

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/03/28/in-defence-of-andrew-bridgens-speech-to-parliament-on-the-risks-vs-benefits-of-covid-vaccination/

 

On March 17th 2023, Member of Parliament (MP) Andrew Bridgen made an important speech in the U.K. Parliament asking ministers to critically consider the risks as well as the benefits for the Covid vaccines. Bridgen is one of the only MPs to highlight vaccine safety concerns and has been suspended from the Conservative Party on supposedly unconnected but obviously spurious grounds.

Unfortunately, there was almost nobody in the chamber to listen to his speech and it seems the Conservative Party or the Government ensured that not only the vast majority of Conservative but also Labour, Liberal, SNP and other MPs deserted the chamber as soon as he took the floor. Following protocol, the Government minister responsible for drug regulation, Will Quince MP, was present to respond; in this he stated (without challenging any of Bridgen’s detailed claims) the standard mantra that the vaccine was effective and safe and had saved “tens of thousands of lives” in the U.K. 

Inevitably, instead of focusing on the details of the speech – most of which was based on either official data from U.K. Government agencies or from 2020 vaccine clinical trial data – the on-narrative media universally criticised Bridgen as a “conspiracy theorist” (see here, here and here) or spreading “dangerous misinformation” (see here, here and here). YouTube even removed the video of the speech that Bridgen had put up on his channel (although it did eventually reinstate it, perhaps after realising that censoring a speech that had been made in Parliament and could be read on Hansard was pretty futile).

You can see excerpts of and commentary on Mr. Bridgen’s speech (here) and what appears to be collusion between opposing party members in the U.K. Parliament to ‘empty the house’ on Dr. John Campbell’s YouTube channel.

The attacks against Bridgen continued and on March 23rd the BBC dedicated an entire one-hour radio show AntiSocial hosted by Adam Fleming on Radio 4 to attacking his speech. His guests were: 

• David Grimes – who had already declared that Bridgen was “spreading fiction“.
• Marianna Spring (the BBC’s “Disinformation and Social Media Correspondent”) who has spent the last three years self-promoting her adopted role as a ‘debunker’ of information from Covid sceptics, much of which was subsequently proven to be true, while simultaneously proclaiming her victimhood at the hands of what she calls ‘conspiracy theorists’.
• Brendan O’Neill, present as the token free speech advocate and not there to defend what Bridgen said but rather his right to say it. Indeed, O’Neill said (without any attempt to be specific) that some of what Mr. Bridgen said was “strongly misinformation”. 
• Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter, who has been a fierce defender of the ‘official’ Covid narrative and criticised the claims made by Bridgen; this formed the majority of the substantial content of the BBC radio show.

Appalling that @ABridgen spreads these fictions in the houses of parliament – COVID vaccines saved about 14.4 millions lives worldwide between 2020 and 2021 alone, and are safe and effective. Maybe have a public enquiry to try and locate Bridgen's sense of shame instead.. pic.twitter.com/DkmgZZJjl5

— Dr David Robert Grimes (@drg1985) March 19, 2023

You can listen the AntiSocial radio show here.

The one person who should have been present to defend himself, but was curiously denied the opportunity, was Andrew Bridgen himself, who tweeted: “I was contacted by BBC Radio 4’s AntiSocial for a programme going out right now. They declined my offer to come on, even though, or perhaps because, they were talking about me. I sent them this statement instead.”

Given most of the AntiSocial radio show focused on Prof. Spiegelhalter’s criticisms of Bridgen’s data, these deserve close analysis and rebuttal, for the simple reason that on hearing Spiegelhalter’s one-sided commentary members of the public may be left with the impression that the attacks on Bridgen were wholly warranted, when they were not. 

First of all, although Spiegelhalter half-praised Bridgen for highlighting the need to look at the overall risk-benefit of the vaccines, he did not comment at all on any of the Government data (including the enormous economic costs of the vaccines) that Bridgen quoted in his speech. Similarly, and right from the start, the BBC and Spiegelhalter demonstrated bias by totally ignoring these and other important indisputable facts presented in Bridgen’s speech. Not only did the entire episode completely avoid any discussion of the Government’s own data, the existence of which appears to have been deliberately overlooked or censored across the entire mainstream media in spite of being of obvious interest to the public. 

Despite a long monologue, Spiegelhalter presented very little explicit criticism of Bridgen’s data and with regard to the comments he did make, it is a simple matter to show that it is Spiegelhalter, not Bridgen, who was actually misleading the public. 

One specific piece of data formed the thrust of Spiegelhalter’s challenge. This was Bridgen’s claim that there was one serious adverse event (SAE) for every 800 people vaccinated. Spiegelhalter said this figure was from a paper “that had been the subject of a lot of criticism” suggesting to the audience that the paper was flawed, without really stating what the flaws were.

In academia, every major paper is (quite properly) subject to criticism. That’s what peer review is for. However, Bridgen was quoting the 1 in 800 figure from Fraiman et al., a peer-reviewed paper whose senior author is BMJ Senior Editor Dr. Peter Doshi and was published in the prestigious journal Vaccine (which we can only surmise probably knows something about vaccines). The paper showed that the vaccinated participants reported more SAEs than the placebo participants – on average 12.5 SAEs more per 10,000 participants, equating to the 1 in 800 figure. , the figure wasn’t dreamt up by some fly-by-night author or ‘dodgy’ journal spreading disinformation. And the data used in the paper were those from the Pfizer and Moderna placebo-controlled, Phase 3 randomised clinical trials.

We strongly suspect the ‘criticisms’ that Spiegelhalter refers to stem largely from one unreliable source, rather than the many separate sources suggested by his use of the phrase “lot of criticism”. This source is Dr. Susan Oliver, whose supposed take-down of Fraiman et al. we have previously refuted in detail here.

Spiegelhalter’s criticism of the 1 in 800 claim is extremely weak. He said the figure was misleading because it counted “the total number of events rather than the number of people experiencing at least one event”, with some people reporting multiple events. His criticism is unfounded because the authors had already accounted for this in the paper, wherein they describe (bold added):

Third, without individual participant data, we could only compare the number of individuals hospitalised for COVID-19 against the number of serious AESI events, not the number of participants experiencing any serious AESI. Some individuals experienced multiple SAEs whereas hospitalised COVID-19 participants were likely only hospitalised once, biassing the analysis towards exhibiting net harm. To gauge the extent of this bias, we considered that there were 20% (Pfizer) and 34% (Moderna) more SAEs than participants experiencing any SAE.

As we can see, Fraiman et al. had already factored in the possibility of some people reporting multiple events by assuming, for the Pfizer vaccine, that there were 20% more SAEs reported than people reporting, and they assumed 34% more for Moderna. , Spiegelhalter’s first criticism doesn’t hold water.

There are other reasons to contest Spiegelhalter’s claim that the 1 in 800 figure is exaggerated. The Fraiman paper only examined data which covered the primary two doses of each vaccine. If there is a 1 in 800 chance that a person with two doses will suffer at least one SAE, then it is reasonable to conclude that there is approximately a 1 in 400 chance that a person who has had four doses will suffer at least one SAE. The risk increases with each additional dose. In fact, the Government’s own data show that the adverse event rates worsen with the boosters, making the situation potentially worse than simply multiplying by the number of doses. Bridgen’s speech was about the risk of additional boosters; many of the people targeted for these will have had four doses already. Spiegelhalter failed to consider this in his claim that the 1 in 800 figure was exaggerated.

It is also important to note that the data in the Fraiman paper is from the 2020 Pfizer and Moderna clinical trials which were conducted on a young and generally healthy population, not those actually at significant risk of severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 (the aged and infirm, having been judged ineligible to participate). It is generally accepted that the frequency and range of adverse drug events is always greater in the elderly and frail. , given these high rates of SAE in the young and healthy then it is reasonable to infer that the SAE rate in the older and more infirm, who are eligible for boosters, will be significantly higher. , again, this points to an even greater current risk than 1 in 800.

Spiegelhalter also sought to dismiss the number of reported SAEs in the vaccine arm of the Pfizer study as not being significantly different to the number reported in the placebo arm. This is because the total number of SAEs in the trial was quite small meaning that some of the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) had lower bounds less than one, as the authors clearly reported:

In the Pfizer trial, 52 serious AESI (27.7 per 10,000) were reported in the vaccine group and 33 (17.6 per 10,000) in the placebo group. This difference corresponds to a 57 % higher risk of serious AESI (RR 1.57 95% CI 0.98 to 2.54) and a risk difference of 10.1 serious AESI per 10,000 vaccinated participants (95% CI −0.4 to 20.6). In the Moderna trial, 87 serious AESI (57.3 per 10,000) were reported in the vaccine group and 64 (42.2 per 10,000) in the placebo group. This difference corresponds to a 36% higher risk of serious AESI (RR 1.36 95% CI 0.93 to 1.99) and a risk difference of 15.1 serious AESI per 10,000 vaccinated participants (95% CI −3.6 to 33.8). Combining the trials, there was a 43% higher risk of serious AESI (RR 1.43; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.92) and a risk difference of 12.5 serious AESI per 10,000 vaccinated participants (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9).

In our own (Bayesian) analysis of these data we showed that there was a 96% probability that the SAE rate for the combined Covid vaccines was higher than the SAE rate for those with the placebo and a 99.7% chance that serious adverse events of special interest were higher in the combined covid vaccines. There is a 90% probability the difference is greater than 1 in 2,500.

In summary, and contrary to what Spiegelhalter claims, the figure of 1 in 800 for the risk of serious adverse reaction to those people being targetted for the booster is, if anything, more than likely an underestimate. 

Spiegelhalter’s concern about the 1 in 800 figure was also the basis for his criticism of the claim Bridgen made about the number needed to vaccinate (NNV). However, the NNV figures quoted by Bridgen were based entirely on the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) presentation to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) on October 25th 2022, published January 25th 2023. For example, Bridgen stated:

The Government’s own data show that, in healthy adults aged 50 to 59, it was necessary to give 256,400 booster jabs to prevent just one severe hospitalisation… For healthy 40 to 49-year-olds, that number increases to 932,500 who needed to be boosted to keep one Covid patient out of an intensive therapy unit… And for healthy 30 to 39-year-olds, no one knows the answer to the number needed to be boosted to prevent a serious hospitalisation because the Government’s own data say that there has never been such a case of this age group being put into intensive care due to the current variant of COVID-19.

The host of the radio show, Adam Fleming, suggested to Spiegelhalter that Bridgen’s use of the NNV numbers was “a crime against statistics” without explaining the basis for this comment. Ignoring the Government NNV figures that Bridgen correctly stated, Spiegelhalter instead implied that this figure was flawed because Bridgen had also used the 1 in 800 SAE estimate from the Fraiman paper to compare the number of people who would be hospitalised from the vaccine to the number saved from hospitalisation by the vaccine. This is indeed what Bridgen did, but this was an appropriate, not flawed, approach. For example, he said (bold added):

The Government’s own data show that, in healthy adults aged 50 to 59, it was necessary to give 256,400 booster jabs to prevent just one severe hospitalisation, putting 321 people into hospital with a serious side-effect from the booster, which includes, obviously, risk of death.

The 256,400 is the Government’s own figure for the number of ‘not at risk’ 50-59 year-olds who would need to be vaccinated to prevent one severe hospitalisation. To obtain the figure of 321 all Bridgen has done is divide 256,400 by 800 (the severe adverse event rate)! An entirely rational calculation, since it is reasonable to equate a serious adverse reaction with a hospitalisation.

Given that we have already established the 1 in 800 figure was reasonable (or even an underestimate), Spiegelhalter’s criticism here is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention away from the Government’s own alarming NNV figure. It should also be noted that the figure 321 is so large that even if the severe adverse event rate was overstated 100-fold the risks would still far outweigh the purported benefits in this age group (and bear in mind we are ignoring unknown longer-term effects in this analysis).

It seems that Spiegelhalter was aware he was on shaky grounds here because he followed up with a different (but extremely weak) attempt to downplay the NNV figure. He claimed that they were only high because they were based on a time when Covid was no longer prevalent – implying that the reason for this is because the vaccines had already done their job. Hence the data were then simply confirming that the vaccines were no longer needed for those age groups. But if that is the case, it merely supports the view that boosters are simply unnecessary and more likely to be net harmful.

The only other substantive criticism Spiegelhalter made was of Bridgen’s claim that the 63,000 excess deaths could have been caused by the vaccine. Spiegelhalter simply said that this was “dangerous misinformation” and that “there was absolutely no evidence of any link to the vaccines”. But the only ‘evidence’ Spiegelhalter provided that the excess was not due to the vaccines was to state the (incorrect) mantra that: “we know that ‘all cause mortality’ when age-adjusted is ‘lower in the vaccinated’”.

This claim is based on the flawed ONS data that has been thoroughly exposed here.

Indeed, as was noted in our article, the Statistics Regulator agreed with us that the ONS data cannot be used to make comparisons between the mortality rate of the vaccinated against the unvaccinated. What makes it especially curious is that Spiegelhalter made this error, and spread misinformation, despite the fact that since 2020 he has been on the Board of the Statistics Authority!

His logic is difficult to understand. If the vaccines have done their job then that implies they have vastly reduced Covid mortality. But he also claims that all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated thus giving an immortality benefit.  But given the very high vaccination rates in the elderly, who contribute nearly all deaths, how can this statement be true whilst all-cause mortality is in excess? Basically, nothing adds up.

Despite the presence of Brendan O’Neill, whose written views especially with respect of lockdowns would appear to be directly at odds to those of Prof. Sir David Spiegelhalter, at no point did any member of the panel present a dissenting view to the position that Mr. Bridgen’s speech was misinformation. The entire episode of AntiSocial was essentially the empanelment of a single mind or opinion.

During the show it was laughably notable that in response to a comment about a tweet by Greta Thunberg the host, Adam Fleming, cut off the conversation by saying it is inappropriate to opine about her tweets because she wasn’t present to explain her comments. It is therefore extremely ironic that Fleming set aside his entire one-hour program to proceed with one-sided dissection and discussion of the speech made by a sitting MP Andrew Bridgen whilst denying him the opportunity to be present to defend himself.

The absence of impartiality in Fleming’s radio show is obviously a clear breach of the BBC charter. Perhaps BBC licence-fee-payers will be so appalled at this that they might consider complaining against this latest abuse of their licence fee.

Stop Press: Some not unrelated eye-opening details of Prof Spiegelhalter’s background are presented in the Law, Health and Technology newsletter, which is worth a read.

Until he retired in January, Norman Fenton was Professor in Risk Information Management at Queen Mary University of London. Dr. Clare Craig is a diagnostic pathologist and Co-Chair of the HART group with Dr. Jonathan Engler. Martin Neil is Professor in Computer Science and Statistics at Queen Mary University of London. Mr. Law is a pseudonym for the author of the Law, Health and Technology Newsletter. This article first appeared on Where Are the Numbers?

[sancho panza]

Oncology Prof...what would he know?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/24/lockdowns-cancer-bomb-may-soon-be-worse-than-covid-itself/

Lockdown’s cancer bomb may soon be worse than Covid itself

Over my 40 years in the NHS I can honestly say I have never seen it in this bad a state

Karol Sikora

Turning the NHS into a Covid service during the pandemic was always going to end in catastrophe. Dealing with a stage one cancer is infinitely easier and consumes far fewer resources than a tumour which has migrated beyond its initial location to stage 3 or 4. The entire system is now clogged up with more advanced conditions, not just cancer, missed over the pandemic, leading to more delays and more suffering. This fuels more pressure and even longer waits for everybody. 

Frankly, British cancer services should be put into special measures. Waits of months and even years for diagnosis and treatment would not have looked out of place in a third world country when I was the World Health Organization’s cancer director. Many vulnerable patients are being hung out to dry by a system which is failing the very people it’s supposed to protect. 

The hands of NHS cancer staff – who are among the best in the world – are being tied behind their backs and criticism is not encouraged. NHS management should be hauled in front of Parliament tomorrow to explain themselves. For when I read statements from various politicians and NHS England sources, I’m appalled by the spin and sheer refusal to accept how dire the situation is. Meaningless word salad, created by highly paid PR managers, is spouted out at the taxpayer’s expense simply to protect reputations rather than benefit patients. 

Politicians cannot say that they were not warned. It’s all a desperately predictable outcome to a pandemic response guided by opinion polling and incompetent modelling. The big unspoken truth in British politics is that an almost two-year long lockdown experiment was the greatest policy mistake in my lifetime. Any questionable benefits in terms of “protecting” the elderly have surely been outweighed by the immeasurable damage to the younger generations. Indeed, the explosion in serious cancers may have a more serious long-term effect than the virus itself. 

Anyone who doubts the impact on cancer patients should look at my lockdown inbox. Disrupting the cancer screening of young, otherwise healthy, people was scandalous. But will that ever be accepted by an establishment which threw its incomparable weight behind the measures? Not a chance, nor will the discussion even take place. Instead, cancer patients will be used as a political football by all parties to further their own ambitions. 

I have spent over 40 years in the NHS, mostly in cancer. I can honestly say that the situation is more depressing than it has ever been. In diagnostics, in treatment, even in research – and it is all compounded by lockdown delays and a depressing Westminster surrender. We need a national assembly with oncologists, politicians and logisticians to debate and deliver the fundamental reform which cancer patients desperately need. No press releases, just action. 

The swathes of NHS spin doctors can stay at home and leave it to those with a background in medicine or strategy. Let’s get those best qualified to debate and devise future options. Make it a broad church, with experienced voices from inside and outside the public sector. I just don’t see another way. 

Without a national acknowledgement that there is a fundamental problem with how cancer care is delivered, it will limp on incapable of providing the service required. Any reform will involve funding, certainly in the short term, to change how the system operates. However, if some form of consensus can be reached, efficiency savings over the coming decades would save billions. Ditching the NHS bureaucracy and the time and money spent on ridiculous political correctness would release resources for more direct patient care. 

It’s all a pipe dream of course. With Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer’s slanging match gathering pace ahead of an expected 2024 election, chances of genuine compromise and debate look slim at best. 

Cancer has been my life, ever since my father died from lung cancer when I was 16. We have done so much in tackling the disease and turning it from a death sentence into a controllable condition for many. To see so much of that progress thrown away because of delays and systemic incompetence fills me with anger and sadness. Countries of similar wealth deliver far more efficient and effective cancer services than we do. Should we not be learning and evolving? Or just carry on delivering the same sub-standard care which is sadly leading to unnecessary deaths?

Remember – the NHS is not free. We all pay an increasing amount of tax to fund it, with little evidence that the money is being well spent. 

[Herby]

10 hours ago, sancho panza said:

Oncology Prof...what would he know?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/24/lockdowns-cancer-bomb-may-soon-be-worse-than-covid-itself/

Lockdown’s cancer bomb may soon be worse than Covid itself

Over my 40 years in the NHS I can honestly say I have never seen it in this bad a state

Karol Sikora

Turning the NHS into a Covid service during the pandemic was always going to end in catastrophe. Dealing with a stage one cancer is infinitely easier and consumes far fewer resources than a tumour which has migrated beyond its initial location to stage 3 or 4. The entire system is now clogged up with more advanced conditions, not just cancer, missed over the pandemic, leading to more delays and more suffering. This fuels more pressure and even longer waits for everybody. 

Frankly, British cancer services should be put into special measures. Waits of months and even years for diagnosis and treatment would not have looked out of place in a third world country when I was the World Health Organization’s cancer director. Many vulnerable patients are being hung out to dry by a system which is failing the very people it’s supposed to protect. 

The hands of NHS cancer staff – who are among the best in the world – are being tied behind their backs and criticism is not encouraged. NHS management should be hauled in front of Parliament tomorrow to explain themselves. For when I read statements from various politicians and NHS England sources, I’m appalled by the spin and sheer refusal to accept how dire the situation is. Meaningless word salad, created by highly paid PR managers, is spouted out at the taxpayer’s expense simply to protect reputations rather than benefit patients. 

Politicians cannot say that they were not warned. It’s all a desperately predictable outcome to a pandemic response guided by opinion polling and incompetent modelling. The big unspoken truth in British politics is that an almost two-year long lockdown experiment was the greatest policy mistake in my lifetime. Any questionable benefits in terms of “protecting” the elderly have surely been outweighed by the immeasurable damage to the younger generations. Indeed, the explosion in serious cancers may have a more serious long-term effect than the virus itself. 

Anyone who doubts the impact on cancer patients should look at my lockdown inbox. Disrupting the cancer screening of young, otherwise healthy, people was scandalous. But will that ever be accepted by an establishment which threw its incomparable weight behind the measures? Not a chance, nor will the discussion even take place. Instead, cancer patients will be used as a political football by all parties to further their own ambitions. 

I have spent over 40 years in the NHS, mostly in cancer. I can honestly say that the situation is more depressing than it has ever been. In diagnostics, in treatment, even in research – and it is all compounded by lockdown delays and a depressing Westminster surrender. We need a national assembly with oncologists, politicians and logisticians to debate and deliver the fundamental reform which cancer patients desperately need. No press releases, just action. 

The swathes of NHS spin doctors can stay at home and leave it to those with a background in medicine or strategy. Let’s get those best qualified to debate and devise future options. Make it a broad church, with experienced voices from inside and outside the public sector. I just don’t see another way. 

Without a national acknowledgement that there is a fundamental problem with how cancer care is delivered, it will limp on incapable of providing the service required. Any reform will involve funding, certainly in the short term, to change how the system operates. However, if some form of consensus can be reached, efficiency savings over the coming decades would save billions. Ditching the NHS bureaucracy and the time and money spent on ridiculous political correctness would release resources for more direct patient care. 

It’s all a pipe dream of course. With Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer’s slanging match gathering pace ahead of an expected 2024 election, chances of genuine compromise and debate look slim at best. 

Cancer has been my life, ever since my father died from lung cancer when I was 16. We have done so much in tackling the disease and turning it from a death sentence into a controllable condition for many. To see so much of that progress thrown away because of delays and systemic incompetence fills me with anger and sadness. Countries of similar wealth deliver far more efficient and effective cancer services than we do. Should we not be learning and evolving? Or just carry on delivering the same sub-standard care which is sadly leading to unnecessary deaths?

Remember – the NHS is not free. We all pay an increasing amount of tax to fund it, with little evidence that the money is being well spent. 

Is it worth signing this? I have.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/628165

Launch a Public Inquiry into the approval process for covid-19 vaccines

We want the Government to launch a Public Inquiry to investigate the MHRA's process for approving covid-19 vaccines.

This should consider all aspects of the approval process, including how approval was expedited and the drivers for expedition, and any potential conflicts of interests.