Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[kez19]

I wish Sky News UK was as good as Sky News Australia! They are not frightened to question things!!

I know it’s a bit unrelated but I remember the time when we seen riots happening in London the likes of Sky and BBC (live) were first on the scene these days they seem scared to even cover it? I could be wrong here!

 

[brad465]

The problem is many don't seem to realise how powerful the media is in this country, and those that do don't take it seriously. Unless there are mass riots/blockades outside printing presses/news studios, nothing will change anytime soon.

 

[MikeWM]

I see John Campbell is the latest in a very long line of people who have been censored by big tech - a video he made a few days ago that tried to explore the question of whether some of the excess deaths we're currently seeing are due to the covid vaccines, has been removed (ie. censored) by YouTube.

I'm sure I recall something called 'scientific debate'. I think we were rather the better for it.

 

[Busaholic]

It is no surprise to me that yet again the BBC are showing a pro lockdown bias.

It's much more a pro-government bias than a specifically pro-lockdown bias imo.The government has the BBC in a vice-like grip with a tame Tory appointee at the top who even interfered in the Chief Political Correspondent appointment recently to ensure Chris Mason was appointed, someone who's never going to rock the boat. Standards at the BBC are not just slipping, they're being jettisoned, as their funding squeeze causes the pips to squeak.

 

[kez19]

The problem is many don't seem to realise how powerful the media is in this country, and those that do don't take it seriously. Unless there are mass riots/blockades outside printing presses/news studios, nothing will change anytime soon.

For me that’s how I clicked onto how big the media think they are, ie press conferences asking for restrictions (or not enough of it), this is the other side of this saga that will eventually come out, but if the media are partying because Boris is leaving, I think the media are short sighted here that’s for sure but I think trust in media (well UK based) has gone (personally), but the biggest irony from this too is the UK media got RT cancelled (regardless of views), it raises more questions in one way and under the same breath how the UK media can tell lies and not be slapped yet a foreign one can?

As I mentioned elsewhere RT caught out ITVs GMB (Good Morning Britain) poll that was deleted (I doubt they aired what the public said)

TV show deletes poll after 89% oppose mandatory vaccination

www.google.com

Above link no longer works but that was the original page/source..

We can say the media in the UK has far too much say in our lives so surely the public must get a say in how media should run?

 

[greyman42]

I wish Sky News UK was as good as Sky News Australia! They are not frightened to question things!!

Try GB News if you want a news channel that is not afraid to ask questions.

 

[duncanp]

I wish Sky News UK was as good as Sky News Australia! They are not frightened to question things!!

Speaking of not questioning things there was a rather nauseating interview on the BBC news channel just before 6pm with a member of "..Independent.." SAGE.

The Fake SAGE mouthpiece said that whilst he appreciated that "lockdowns have a downside" (is there an award for understatement of the year?) he thought that the "..lockdown had a net benefit.."

Really? What exactly did the lockdown achieve that justified the massive costs that we will all be paying for many years to come?

The Fake SAGE mouthpiece also whinged that "..the government have not learnt the lessons of lockdown..". Which translates into plain English as "...Wah!! Boo-hoo!! The government have finally realised that we were talking a load of ******** last time, and are going to tell us to **** off next time there is a pandemic or public health threat"

But nowhere in the interview did the BBC presenter challenge the Fake SAGE mouthpiece on his assertions. He (the presenter) did not ask him to justify his claim that the government have not learnt the lessons of lockdown.

And at the end of the interview, the presenter said that the Fake SAGE mouthpiece was from "..Independent SAGE, a group of independent scientific advisers not linked to the government.." This was phased to make the viewer think that Fake SAGE are genuinely indpendent and provide unbiased and good quality scientific advice to the government, which as we are now beginning to realise is a load of rubbish.

 

[Eyersey468]

It's much more a pro-government bias than a specifically pro-lockdown bias imo.The government has the BBC in a vice-like grip with a tame Tory appointee at the top who even interfered in the Chief Political Correspondent appointment recently to ensure Chris Mason was appointed, someone who's never going to rock the boat. Standards at the BBC are not just slipping, they're being jettisoned, as their funding squeeze causes the pips to squeak.

Either way I consider the article to be a load of cobblers.

 

[duncanp]

It's much more a pro-government bias than a specifically pro-lockdown bias imo.The government has the BBC in a vice-like grip with a tame Tory appointee at the top who even interfered in the Chief Political Correspondent appointment recently to ensure Chris Mason was appointed, someone who's never going to rock the boat. Standards at the BBC are not just slipping, they're being jettisoned, as their funding squeeze causes the pips to squeak.

The BBC has a pro government bias?

You could have fooled me.

The only pro government bias the BBC has is that towards the Scottish government.

 

[Hans]

The BBC has nil pro government bias, it only did the governments bidding on the covid narrative in order to keep the licence fee.

 

[Eyersey468]

Speaking of not questioning things there was a rather nauseating interview on the BBC news channel just before 6pm with a member of "..Independent.." SAGE.

The Fake SAGE mouthpiece said that whilst he appreciated that "lockdowns have a downside" (is there an award for understatement of the year?) he thought that the "..lockdown had a net benefit.."

Really? What exactly did the lockdown achieve that justified the massive costs that we will all be paying for many years to come?

The Fake SAGE mouthpiece also whinged that "..the government have not learnt the lessons of lockdown..". Which translates into plain English as "...Wah!! Boo-hoo!! The government have finally realised that we were talking a load of ******** last time, and are going to tell us to **** off next time there is a pandemic or public health threat"

But nowhere in the interview did the BBC presenter challenge the Fake SAGE mouthpiece on his assertions. He (the presenter) did not ask him to justify his claim that the government have not learnt the lessons of lockdown.

And at the end of the interview, the presenter said that the Fake SAGE mouthpiece was from "..Independent SAGE, a group of independent scientific advisers not linked to the government.." This was phased to make the viewer think that Fake SAGE are genuinely indpendent and provide unbiased and good quality scientific advice to the government, which as we are now beginning to realise is a load of rubbish.

I asked in response to a tweet by fake SAGE if one of them could explain to me why they think lockdown had a net benefit. I don't expect a response from them.

 

[kez19]

Speaking of not questioning things there was a rather nauseating interview on the BBC news channel just before 6pm with a member of "..Independent.." SAGE.

The Fake SAGE mouthpiece said that whilst he appreciated that "lockdowns have a downside" (is there an award for understatement of the year?) he thought that the "..lockdown had a net benefit.."

Really? What exactly did the lockdown achieve that justified the massive costs that we will all be paying for many years to come?

The Fake SAGE mouthpiece also whinged that "..the government have not learnt the lessons of lockdown..". Which translates into plain English as "...Wah!! Boo-hoo!! The government have finally realised that we were talking a load of ******** last time, and are going to tell us to **** off next time there is a pandemic or public health threat"

But nowhere in the interview did the BBC presenter challenge the Fake SAGE mouthpiece on his assertions. He (the presenter) did not ask him to justify his claim that the government have not learnt the lessons of lockdown.

And at the end of the interview, the presenter said that the Fake SAGE mouthpiece was from "..Independent SAGE, a group of independent scientific advisers not linked to the government.." This was phased to make the viewer think that Fake SAGE are genuinely indpendent and provide unbiased and good quality scientific advice to the government, which as we are now beginning to realise is a load of rubbish.

Yet people like myself no wonder question why the media don’t question things properly and what’s said is facts without challenge, you would think there was an agenda going on… oh hang on..

The BBC has nil pro government bias, it only did the governments bidding on the covid narrative in order to keep the licence fee.

You could argue the toss most of the media have benefited out of this including the commercial channels not just the BBC.

It's much more a pro-government bias than a specifically pro-lockdown bias imo.The government has the BBC in a vice-like grip with a tame Tory appointee at the top who even interfered in the Chief Political Correspondent appointment recently to ensure Chris Mason was appointed, someone who's never going to rock the boat. Standards at the BBC are not just slipping, they're being jettisoned, as their funding squeeze causes the pips to squeak.

You could throw that up here in Scotland both BBC Scotland and STV scream all blame at the Tories/UK Government but yet Scotland did things differently (questionable), but yet the same media don’t blame anything on the Scottish Government (strange that?)

 

[Hans]

All the MSM benefitted from covid, the government paid them millions in advertising, the BBC, I believe, had more to lose as prior to March 2020 it had been announced there would be the biggest shake up to the BBC licence fee there had ever been.

 

[Busaholic]

The BBC has nil pro government bias, it only did the governments bidding on the covid narrative in order to keep the licence fee.

The licence fee is on very shaky ground, so Tim Davie et al will be doing their level best not to stoke up the Tory government and their Daily Mail/Express fanboys. Jon Sopel left the BBC after many years because he was prevented as American Correspondent from saying anything too truthful about the tyrant Trump in case JRM and his like complained of 'lefty bias'

 

[kez19]

All the MSM benefitted from covid, the government paid them millions in advertising, the BBC, I believe, had more to lose as prior to March 2020 it had been announced there would be the biggest shake up to the BBC licence fee there had ever been.

For me, this speaks volumes and under the same breath it should raise questions as to why the have played the one side of debate? Let’s also remember the media themselves were causing more divisions regardless of how our views were/are.

I rarely watch any MSM, papers is rare (local level and at times that’s drivel too), social media but it’s only certain hashtags but even news on social media has been one sided too and now the fact checkers are everywhere!

 

[DustyBin]

The BBC are now reporting on the Sunak story, and their coverage of it is disgusting. Within 3 lines they are attempting to discredit the story, and are quoting Cummings - a hypocritical rule breaker, who isn't an elected politician or even a career civil servant. At no point do they mention the key element of Sunak's comments - that SAGE minutes were doctored to remove dissenting voices. The level of pro-lockdown bias from the BBC here is quite breaktaking. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62664537

The comments are rather disappointing. Seemingly many still think that we should unquestioningly “follow the science” and that to question the “experts” is heresy……

 

[kez19]

The comments are rather disappointing. Seemingly many still think that we should unquestioningly “follow the science” and that to question the “experts” is heresy……

I found this comment however.... own up media!

his government were forced into a corner by the scientists, supported by the media companies -

LastSurvivingCentrist​

Oh there are a few bright sparks out there that see whats going on... but are sadly shouted down..

 

[Hans]

For me, this speaks volumes and under the same breath it should raise questions as to why the have played the one side of debate? Let’s also remember the media themselves were causing more divisions regardless of how our views were/are.

I rarely watch any MSM, papers is rare (local level and at times that’s drivel too), social media but it’s only certain hashtags but even news on social media has been one sided too and now the fact checkers are everywhere!

Same with us as to watching or listening to news, we do not read the papers either. It is still easy to get more unbiased reporting of events from other sources. Everything now is pure over reaction and soundbites. There are "agreed" views people must subscribe to and if you dare to question, or even have the tenacity of critical thinking to seek alternative opinions, the insults fly. Covid was the classic example of this.

 

[kez19]

Same with us as to watching or listening to news, we do not read the papers either. It is still easy to get more unbiased reporting of events from other sources. Everything now is pure over reaction and soundbites. There are "agreed" views people must subscribe to and if you dare to question, or even have the tenacity of critical thinking to seek alternative opinions, the insults fly. Covid was the classic example of this.

Agree with all this, but even today the media are still pushing fear (I’m at the stage I don’t care), it’s an example my mum spoke about the energy prices of a figure of £36,000 by January(?), I then said now is this just media speculating or is it facts? As we have learnt of the use of heatwave recently of thousands of deaths once again was that speculation or facts? The media are getting away with fear (yet under the same breath this lot complained about RT and misinformation), so when do we start categorising our own media with misinformation? (or even if they had balls any info they had been told was a lie and be corrected), media are more about speculation than finding facts first, facts come later but again let’s sweep it under.

Edit: in short media in the UK are getting away with speculation (or their own views more), than check with sources and facts but the likes of BBC/Sky and ITV are dying out, so this is a gamble to keep it going and I’ll bet we will hear of job losses from them next (it’s bound to happen if the BBC is making cuts). The media fairytale will becoming to an end in the near future.

 

[DustyBin]

Same with us as to watching or listening to news, we do not read the papers either. It is still easy to get more unbiased reporting of events from other sources. Everything now is pure over reaction and soundbites. There are "agreed" views people must subscribe to and if you dare to question, or even have the tenacity of critical thinking to seek alternative opinions, the insults fly. Covid was the classic example of this.

It’s top work by the government really. Anybody who dares to criticise or even asks questions is deemed to be be a conspiracy theorist or general loon. They’ve managed to turn a significant portion of the population into useful idiots.

 

[Eyersey468]

It’s top work by the government really. Anybody who dares to criticise or even asks questions is deemed to be be a conspiracy theorist or general loon. They’ve managed to turn a significant portion of the population into useful idiots.

Agreed

 

[duncanp]

Bit by bit, the truth is coming out now.

Perhaps it is as well from Boris Johnson's point of view that he is leaving office now, because once the COVID brown stuff starts to hit the fan he will have nowhere to hide.


TWO articles from the Telegraph today.

This paragraph from the second article is particularly scandalous. Someone's <bleeping> head should roll for this.

One major example was models used by the Government to justify a second national lockdown in Nov 2020, with graphs suggesting England could see 4,000 daily deaths the following month. It later emerged that the models were out of date and that the death projections may have been four times too high, but by that time the lockdown had already been announced.

Rishi Sunak is just the start. The great lockdown scandal is about to unravel

The pseudo-scientific sheen is finally being stripped off the decision to shut down Britain

www.telegraph.co.uk

Rishi Sunak is just the start. The great lockdown scandal is about to unravel​

The pseudo-scientific sheen is finally being stripped off the decision to shut down Britain

For some time, I’ve been trying to persuade Rishi Sunak to go on the record about what really happened in lockdown. Only a handful of people really know what took place then, because most ministers – including members of the Cabinet – were kept in the dark. Government was often reduced to a “quad” of ministers deciding on Britain’s future and the then chancellor of the exchequer was one of them. I’d heard rumours that Sunak was horrified at much of what he saw, but was keeping quiet. In which case, lessons would never be learnt.

His speaking out now confirms much of what many suspected. That the culture of fear, seen in the Orwellian advertising campaign that sought to terrify the country, applied inside Government. Questioning lockdown, even in ministerial meetings, was seen as an attack on the Prime Minister’s authority. To ask even basic questions – about how many extra cancer deaths there might be, for example – was to risk being portrayed as one the crackpots, the “Cov-idiots”, people who wanted to “let the virus rip”. Hysteria had taken hold in the heart of Whitehall.

Lockdown, Sunak says, was always a political decision but No 10 wanted to dress it up as “following the science”. This meant elevating the sprawling Sage committee to the status of a mini-government: don’t blame us, ministers wanted to say, we’re just following the best scientific advice. For that reason, there never was an economic or a social version of Sage: a see-no-evil policy applied. Which worked, until the aftershock of lockdown began – with the evil there for everyone to see.

This matters because it’s not about the Tory leadership. Sunak now stands almost no chance: the race is nearly over with most votes cast. Polls show Liz Truss ahead on a two-to-one ratio. Nor is it about score-settling: Sunak spoke to me on the condition that this was not about naming “the guilty men”. He agreed to speak about the process (or lack thereof) because he thinks that candour will help correct mistakes for next time.

Importantly, I suspect Sunak will be the first of many to speak out. As one Cabinet minister told me yesterday: “It wasn’t just Rishi. I needed my own network of spies to find out what was happening in lockdown, because we were never told.” If this is what was going on, if there was no proper Cabinet scrutiny, if it’s true that no overall cost-benefit analysis of lockdown was ever seriously attempted, it points to a collapse in basic standards of government. At a time when high standards and rigorous analysis was most needed.

Perhaps my anonymous Cabinet member will go on the record because the mood has cooled. Once, lockdown dissidents were attacked – not just on social media, but by the Government and its proxies in a way reminiscent of Orbán’s Hungary. At one stage Neil O’Brien, a Tory MP, set up a web page to attack scientists critical of the government. Nowadays, it’s hard to find anyone defending lockdown – given what we know about the trade-offs.

Gavin Williamson, for example, is blamed for cancelling England’s exams – with calamitous results. But what’s his story? Was this really his personal decision, or was he bounced into it? Was he presented with a Sage-style “people will die” document which, if properly explored, would turn out to be more junk from what had become the fear factory? What did the scientists advise about the now-infamous March 2020 Cheltenham races: were ministers told to cancel? Or did scientists say: Covid schmovid, go ahead?

This matters because this point shows how “the science” was, in fact, no such thing. Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance began by advising ministers not to lock down, saying public events were fine, and that face masks were pointless. They were talking about herd immunity as the way out. Then they flipped entirely. But this reveals something crucial: lockdown never was backed by science. It was about models and suppositions, educated guesswork. It was driven by moods, emotion, fear – and, worst of all, politics masquerading as science.

This is part of Sunak’s point. He doesn’t say locking down was wrong. Just that it somehow went from being a daft idea, rubbished by scientists, to a national imperative whose necessity was unquestionable scientific truth. So we need to ask: was the fear messaging really necessary? Why were No 10 outriders sent out to savage dissenting scientists? Why was Sunak made to feel, as he told me, that he was being seen – even inside government – as a callous money-grabber when he raised even basic concerns?

The disclosures should start a great unravelling of the lockdown myth, its pseudo-scientific sheen stripped away and the shocking political malfeasance left to stand exposed. Were Sage minutes manipulated, with dissent airbrushed out? If Sage “scenarios” were cooked up on fundamentally wrong assumptions we need to know, because that will mean lockdowns were imposed or extended upon a false premise. A premise that could have been exposed as false, had there been basic transparency or proper scrutiny.

This isn’t just about a virus. An autocratic streak took hold of the Government and overpowered a weak Prime Minister – and did so because our democratic safeguards failed. It should have been impossible for policies of such huge consequence to be passed without the most rigorous scrutiny. So many lives were at risk that every single lockdown assumption should have been pulled apart to see if it was correct. It should have been impossible for government to suspend such scrutiny for more than a few weeks.

I suspect that this authoritarian reflex lies embedded in our system, ready to twitch again. Life, after all, is easier without opposition so if tools exist to suspend it, we can expect them to be grabbed. If a flu virus comes over from Australia, or a new Covid variant emerges, there will be calls to close the country down. But in the next crisis, we need to protect transparency, debate, Cabinet government and red-team (ie, oppositional) analysis of whatever science is presented to the government.

Sunak doesn’t speak like a man expecting to end up in No 10. He said earlier this week that he would rather lose having been honest with people than win by telling half-truths. Opening up on lockdown may not save, or even help, his campaign. But his candour has offered important insights into one of the most important stories of our times – and one that is only beginning to be told.

and

How Sir Patrick Vallance ‘rolled his eyes’ to crush dissent at controversial Covid rules

Sage group scientists advising politicians on lockdown became a ‘powerful clique’ who presented lockdown as an ‘inevitability’

www.telegraph.co.uk

How Sir Patrick Vallance ‘rolled his eyes’ to crush dissent at controversial Covid rules​

Sage group scientists advising politicians on lockdown became a ‘powerful clique’ who presented lockdown as an ‘inevitability’

Prof Robert Dingwall had been pushing for a study to find out if children really needed to wear face masks in school. It was the late summer of 2020, schools were due to reopen after the coronavirus lockdown and the professor wanted to know what the evidence was for such a draconian measure.

At the Government scientific meeting, held remotely on Zoom, the eminent sociologist called for a pilot study to examine the need for masks. Out of the corner of his eye, he said, he could see Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s chief scientific adviser, seemingly rolling his eyes in apparent disapproval. Prof Dingwall got the message and cut his imploring speech short.

“I was persona non grata from early on,” recalled Prof Dingwall. He was concerned about the effects of lockdown and other stringent measures - such as the two-metre social distancing rules - and had expressed his dissent. “The problem was the social and economic voices were not considered,” he told The Telegraph.

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) was the senior body tasked with providing - and the clue is in the name - scientific advice to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet on tackling the Covid-19 pandemic. It was co-chaired by Sir Patrick and Sir Chris Whitty, the Government’s chief medical adviser.

Rishi Sunak, the chancellor at the time, has now, in the closing days of the Conservative leadership contest, come out swinging. Boris Johnson’s administration “empowered scientists” to such a degree, he said, that he claims he was banned from discussing the “trade-offs” of plunging the country into lockdown against the harm caused by shutting schools or mounting NHS backlogs.

'Powerful clique'​

Prof Dingwall was a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Group (Nervtag), one of a number of scientific bodies that fed its reports back to Sage. Sir Patrick would attend the Nervtag meetings too, with the scientists dialling in to virtual discussions.
“Sage is better understood as a network with a powerful clique at the centre of it,” said Prof Dingwall. “I characterised myself as a loyal opposition. I accepted the science but I didn’t accept the inevitability of the policy conclusions. On one occasion, I could see Sir Patrick in the corner of the screen rolling his eyes at me and thinking he ‘is banging on about this again’. That was at a Nervtag meeting in the late summer of 2020.”
Prof Dingwall was arguing for a randomised trial to examine if mask-wearing in school prevented the spread of Covid. He is adamant now that shutting down schools was a terrible error, evidence that a “biomedical bubble” of scientists was dictating policy to the Government.
Sir Patrick declined to comment on Thursday but his office made it clear that Sage advice is “limited to scientific matters” and that debate about the evidence “is actively encouraged in Sage meetings and a consensus view is reflected in the minutes”.
Dr Gavin Morgan, an educational psychologist at University College London, told The Telegraph how he also felt out on a limb on another of the committees feeding into Sage - this one called Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours, or Spi-B for short.
“During those early meetings of Spi-B, I often found myself a bit of a lone voice,” said Dr Morgan. “This was in early March 2020, when we were meeting several times a week. With the benefit of hindsight, there may have been a bit of groupthink going on in those early meetings. Things were a fait accompli, it had already been decided that school closures were a good thing.”
In an interview with The Spectator magazine, Mr Sunak said that the Johnson government “shouldn’t have empowered the scientists in the way we did”. The Prime Minister had repeatedly insisted his administration was “following the science”, effectively giving final say to Sage.

Mr Sunak also suggested that Sage minutes had been edited so that dissenting voices were not included in the final draft of minutes. A Treasury official - Mr Sunak called her a “lovely lady” - had listened in to Sage meetings and fed back disagreements in discussions not reflected in the final minutes.

There is no doubt that advice given by Sage at behind-the-scenes meetings was made policy by the Prime Minister, before Sage minutes were ever made public. In the early days, Sage’s membership was a closely-guarded secret and its minutes kept private, until public pressure led to that decision being changed.

The delayed publication of Sage documents meant that government policy was essentially settled days or even weeks before the public had any sight of the evidence on which it was based. The system meant there was often little effective public debate.

As the pandemic progressed, Number 10 took to releasing some key data as Downing Street press conferences, where new restrictions were announced, were about to take place.

One major example was models used by the Government to justify a second national lockdown in Nov 2020, with graphs suggesting England could see 4,000 daily deaths the following month.

It later emerged that the models were out of date and that the death projections may have been four times too high, but by that time the lockdown had already been announced.

The idea that Sage was somehow dictating policy and even suppressing dissent is not recognised by scientists who sat on the committee. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of how Sage worked, said Graham Medley, professor of infectious disease modelling at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Prof Medley also chaired another of the feeder groups, this one on mathematical modelling called Spi-M.

Prof Medley told The Telegraph that Mr Sunak “is operating in a completely different sphere to me”, adding: “I am dealing with the scientific evidence and he is dealing with the politics. It is the Government that has the power to do things, including who they listen to. If we the scientists were empowered - which is not how I remember it - then it was by the politicians. They are the ones in charge.”

He pointed out that Sage’s remit was only to look at the impact on the spread of Covid in schools, not to examine the effect on children’s learning or mental health of staying at home. That was only ever a policy decision for the Cabinet.

The minutes of Sage’s meetings do not reflect dissent as such, but only the consensus view balanced by any scientific “uncertainty”. He added: “When politicians have disagreements, it is about what the best thing to do is… That doesn’t happen in the scientific field, because we are not debating what we should do but how well we understand something.”

Mr Sunak’s “mole” in the Sage meetings was one of dozens of officials invited to attend by Zoom. The core members would debate the science, drawing, said Prof Medley, on the expertise of government officials where appropriate. On Spi-M, the body he chaired, the group had 20 members and about 40 officials across Whitehall also attending.

Officials in the Government Office for Science - which provides the secretariat for Sage - would write up the minutes, circulate them to members and then pass them on to Mr Johnson and the Cabinet for consideration.

Privately, scientists said that from “day one”, the Government’s proclamation that it would do “whatever the science tells us” was problematic.

One insider on Sage, who declined to be named, said: “For many of us working on Sage, Boris saying we will follow the science set alarm bells ringing. He was removing himself from responsibility and putting it on us. That shouldn’t have happened.”

 

[kez19]

Bit by bit, the truth is coming out now.

Perhaps it is as well from Boris Johnson's point of view that he is leaving office now, because once the COVID brown stuff starts to hit the fan he will have nowhere to hide.


TWO articles from the Telegraph today.

This paragraph from the second article is particularly scandalous. Someone's <bleeping> head should roll for this.

Rishi Sunak is just the start. The great lockdown scandal is about to unravel

The pseudo-scientific sheen is finally being stripped off the decision to shut down Britain

www.telegraph.co.uk

and

How Sir Patrick Vallance ‘rolled his eyes’ to crush dissent at controversial Covid rules

Sage group scientists advising politicians on lockdown became a ‘powerful clique’ who presented lockdown as an ‘inevitability’

www.telegraph.co.uk

Whilst I see this is aimed at Boris, maybe the very same needs questioned at Drakeford and Sturgeon? Sturgeon took longer for us getting out of these lockdowns but she followed everything similar to the UK but with added bolts.

As for printed media/media - they too were part of this clique, so I don’t get why they are writing this and blaming the likes of Boris and Whitty, they too share the blame as well (why don’t printed media have an apology on these articles to state what they written at the time was factual but lies?)

As for SAGE and the rest of those advising that’s a laugh!

said: “For many of us working on Sage, Boris saying we will follow the science set alarm bells ringing. He was removing himself from responsibility and putting it on us. That shouldn’t have happened.”

SAGE blames Boris: but wait you lot were giving not just him but all governments advice on what to do etc, you lot cried to the BBC/Sky/ITV that we should have stayed put, you lot also had Michie, Ferguson and even Devi (in Scotland) preaching to the media and blaming Boris (Devi in Scotland blamed the English and Westminster but misses the point that she was advising in Scotland but I see she hasn’t been touched by the media in wrongdoing…yet) but this will get interesting now, as I say the media in general will be next in all this and I’m sure they’ll sink with the rest of them.

 

[Eyersey468]

Bit by bit, the truth is coming out now.

Perhaps it is as well from Boris Johnson's point of view that he is leaving office now, because once the COVID brown stuff starts to hit the fan he will have nowhere to hide.


TWO articles from the Telegraph today.

This paragraph from the second article is particularly scandalous. Someone's <bleeping> head should roll for this.

Rishi Sunak is just the start. The great lockdown scandal is about to unravel

The pseudo-scientific sheen is finally being stripped off the decision to shut down Britain

www.telegraph.co.uk

and

How Sir Patrick Vallance ‘rolled his eyes’ to crush dissent at controversial Covid rules

Sage group scientists advising politicians on lockdown became a ‘powerful clique’ who presented lockdown as an ‘inevitability’

www.telegraph.co.uk

Well well well. There's a surprise. To be fair SAGE are quite right when they say the effects on mental health etc are not within their remit, it's just a shame that the government didn't consider any of the economic or social damage their policies would do, only Covid mattered to them

 

[DustyBin]

Well well well. There's a surprise. To be fair SAGE are quite right when they say the effects on mental health etc are not within their remit, it's just a shame that the government didn't consider any of the economic or social damage their policies would do, only Covid mattered to them

Yes it was clear from (pretty much) the outset that there was a game being played between the government and their scientific advisors. Both wanted to protect their own positions first and foremost, and we were collateral damage having been caught in the middle.

 

[BrokenSam]

Try GB News if you want a news channel that is not afraid to ask questions.

If you're looking for impartiality it certainly won't be found on GB News.

 

[kez19]

Well well well. There's a surprise. To be fair SAGE are quite right when they say the effects on mental health etc are not within their remit, it's just a shame that the government didn't consider any of the economic or social damage their policies would do, only Covid mattered to them

For SAGE to claim the higher ground in this has to be a laugh, if they really cared about our health mentally and physically they wouldn’t have advocated some of the things they did or as I say parroted to the media, they are just as guilty as the politicians and the media but because the truth is (hopefully) about to unravel the excuses are coming out, like I say I wonder what the likes of the BBC/Sky and ITV are going to say to cover their own backsides?

If you're looking for impartiality it certainly won't be found on GB News.

I’ll ask this as in general context but where do we go for impartial news then? (UK based preferably), I’m aware of Al Jazzera, I liked RT on some programmes (plus during COVID RT weren’t performing mental gymnastics like our media), but other than that what other news channels do we turn too? I don’t watch GB News either but like I say what are the alternatives as we (or I), no longer trust the likes of Sky BBC STV (ITV)?

 

[Eyersey468]

I am not saying SAGE are blameless, far from it as they were pushing for lockdowns and restrictions,all I am saying is the government should have stood up to them more and considered the wider implications not just Covid

 

[bramling]

I am not saying SAGE are blameless, far from it as they were pushing for lockdowns and restrictions,all I am saying is the government should have stood up to them more and considered the wider implications not just Covid

At the end of the day it is the government who took the decisions. Sage are an advisory body.

As a country we must stop seeking lame leaders, but the country hasn’t learned its lesson on this as we’re about to get another one. It’s another one of those things which seems to trace back to the Blair government.

 

[Eyersey468]

At the end of the day it is the government who took the decisions. Sage are an advisory body.

As a country we must stop seeking lame leaders, but the country hasn’t learned its lesson on this as we’re about to get another one. It’s another one of those things which seems to trace back to the Blair government.

Have we had any lame leaders pre Blair?