Dominic C Covid evidence 2

[Newtonianmechanics]

New thread for if old fills up.

Thanks Newton

previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/in_the_news/4932236-dominic-cummings-covid-evidence?page=40&reply=130873468

Thank you.

I caught something on Twitter the other day about decisions around the booster which many otehr countries offer far more widely than we do.

It suggested that enough doses had been procured for everyone over 50 at least (which is still less than most developed countries) but that JCVI had decided on tiny margins of cost benefits to to go for that option. In heavily redacted documents it still clearly says that the extra doses are quite simply going to have to be binned. Extraordinary wastefulness.

It seems that baffling decisions are still being made.

Thanks for the new thread.

Thank you for the new thread.

Thank you to those who gave a live update yesterday. I couldnt watch it, but will catch up today.
Just wanted to pick up on a post from @DuncinToffee

Andrew O'Connor KC: People didn't find Matt Hancock a reliable, trustworthy colleague... what's your experience?

Sir Patrick Vallance; He had a habit of saying things which he didn't have a basis for..

AO: He said things that weren't true?

PV: Yes

I think, for me, this sums it all up.

But not just MH and not just Covid.
This is the entire premise of the Tory party and all policies, bexit, immigration, benefits, economy, Home Office, - baiscally everything.

Yes I agree the boosterist bollocks approach of the Johnson government was so unsuited to COVID - we needed much more 'we don't know yet'.

It was bad enough having this approach to ordinary policy like the economy, but in a genuine crisis it was .

Sir Chris Whitty has begun his evidence. Being questioned by Hugo Keith KC, counsel for the inquiry.

Taking him back to the beginning, Jan 2020.

Jim Reed's twitter thread on yesterday

https://x.com/jim_reed/status/1726861679039000739?s=20

Was so busy yesterday didn't have time to tweet on Vallance evidence. But tried to skim his 240 page witness statement last night. Didn't get through all but are some interesting bits in there. Here's a quick before kids wake up and have to get into work for Sir Chris Whitty.

Paragraph 124: Apparently MI5 implemented its pandemic emergency plan in EARLY FEBRUARY 2020 with Sir Andrew Parker, its director general, saying "I'm inclined to listen to scientists [and] have been told this is coming".

Whitty being asked about the nature of advice to ministers in Jan-March 2020. Whitty saying that ministers were made aware by SAGE of consequences to taking action. Advice was that action would be necessary should ministers wish to minimise loss of life, and that this would have downsides.

^AutumnCrow
God this is upsetting about the disabled / children and adults with Down Syndrome / extremely clinically vulnerable list creation.

I 'look forward to' (so to speak) all these questions also being asked of CMO and all the politicians.^

I missed this - please could you tell me what was said?

Whitty is another witness whose instinct is to defend himself it feels?

When he said (paraphrasing) 'another CMO might have done it differently' over the composition of SAGE, I did think maybe he could reflect just a little more, not bat things away.

https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1726931103728959512?s=20

Hugo Keith, "Why was an absence of a test trace and isolate system in the UK at the beginning of 2020?"

Chris Whitty, "South Korea invested in public health infrastructure. Germany used their industrial base. Absent of investment in the NHS you can't just switch it on and scale up

I can't really follow the Inquiry today but I get the impression that so far the evidence is very much focused on the scientific role of Sage, is that right?

Yes feels like that, who was on SAGE, how did SAGE advise, what did others do with the advice.

Moving on to discuss the PM/CO now.

Whitty says "following the science" mantra was "a millstone around our necks".

He says ministers allowed it to be "blur the demarcation between technical advice and political decision for which people are accountable at the ballot box and in parliament."

https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1726946106326790161?s=20

Professor Whitty: "Where [the debate] was not legitimate is for people essentially to change the facts to fit the political agenda that they came with, because they were inconvenient. That doesn't strike me as healthy in the context of a public health crisis."

'I don't see what I would have done diffferently'

'I don't think I can see anything that should have been done on 16th Jan that would have changed anything'

(may have typed slightly wrongly)

This is in relation to not calling COBR and not 'panicking'.

Q: How efficient was the administrative system around the PM?
Whitty says the civil servants did a good job in very difficult circumtances. The political system was more mixed, he says. It was “quite often chaotic”, he says. But he says he thinks it was probably chaotic in other governments.
He says civil servants should not say who their fantasy PM would be. They should operate with the person who is there.
Q: There is clear evidence that the PM had difficulty taking decisions. Did you see that?
Whitty says the way Johnson took decisions was “unique to him”.
Q: That’s a euphemism. What do you mean?
Whitty says he does not want to make a commentary on politcians.
Q: It must have been apparent to you that the government had trouble taking decisions and sticking to them. This “degree of oscillation and chaos is apparent”.
That’s correct, says Whitty.
But he says “it’s a matter of record that many other nations had similar problems”.

Would be nice to know which nations he is referring to

Would be nice to know which nations he is referring to Quite.

Sir Chris Whitty has been great

Talking about weighting harms and damage from isolation and closures, including schools / education and he was more aware than others over those harms tg

Also said many have got idea of precautionary principle wrong.

Happy with his initial position at start of pandemic to wait and collect data in order to make serious judgement

Very articulate (barrister is a bit annoying)

Have only watched him, very long, can only do a couple

Whitty says that from the beginning of the pandemic - "all the options were very bad, some were a bit worse"

He adds that "with the benefit of hindsight, we went a bit too late" during the first Covid wave in 2020

From the BBC

While the inquiry is taking a break for lunch, now is a good time to bring you an overview of what Sir Chris Whitty has said so far today:

• England's chief medical officer described all the options open to the government on Covid as "very bad, some a bit worse, some very, very bad"

• Whitty defended the speed of the expert response to the emerging pandemic, as well as the use of public health modelling to test policy options available to ministers

• Earlier this morning, he told the inquiry he thought "we went a bit too late" to lockdown in the first Covid wave

• Whitty said it had become clear by mid-March 2020 that the UK would be "in very deep trouble" if it did not take action

• He dismissed suggestions he had warned the government against "overreacting", and also denied that tensions emerged with fellow senior adviser Professor Sir Patrick Vallance in January 2020

• On Sage - the board that provides advice to support government decision makers during emergencies - Whitty said it was too small to begin with, before becoming "arguably" too large

Not having full data or full numbers, ie how far on path we were was main reason for timing.

Rather than a missing plan or document

Plus a fully worked up plan can slow things down in emergencies

Wow, remember how they kept telling us we had a plan for a flu pandemic

https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1726970753537413576?s=20

Chris Whitty, "The system was inadequate due toe the erosion of public health facilities, which was continuous over a long period of time, how the NHS has been whittled away by different administrations over a long period of time.. And we didn't have a plan that was going to be useful"

Hugo Keith, "Why wasn't the governments flu plan sufficient?"

Chris Whitty, "Had we had a flu pandemic with a virus with a mortality of 1-2%, the plan would be woefully deficient. The plan wasn't designed to meet this particular need at all"

Whitty goes on to say if one had been laid out already that "it would almost certainly have been the wrong plan".

He adds having a plan in place "could have even slowed us down because we would have spend ages arguing if this was the right plan and adapting the plan".

Whitty argues that sometimes it is easier to start planning from scratch - but he also acknowledges that it would have been helpful if the right "building blocks" had been available to experts.

You'd think they get get a better recording system

This slow down stuff is annoying. The guy is generally tbh