Covid Inquiry Module 2 report published
The TTE Statement on the Inquiry’s report
CARL HENEGHAN, TOM JEFFERSON
The report is thorough, but its reasoning often takes premises at face value. It fails to question faulty assumptions and draws conclusions without adequately considering alternative explanations.
The report repeatedly claims that governments acted on scientific advice that later proved incorrect (for example, assumptions about asymptomatic transmission and “behavioural fatigue”). However, it does not explore why these assumptions were accepted uncritically, why the scientific advisers did not challenge them, or why the chair and her KCs chose not to challenge them.
The report dedicates significant sections to recounting events in a timeline format, but it lacks a strong analytical framework. Conclusions like “too little, too late” are stated without thorough justification. The emphasis on chronology rather than analysis results in insufficient evidence and reasoning to fully understand what transpired.
The report demonstrates a complete failure to consider existing knowledge of respiratory viruses, both past and present, in its study of transmission. Additionally, it lacks an analysis of the devastating consequences of the 200 measures that were implemented. It does not address the issue of healthcare-associated infections or explore what caused the high number of deaths. Furthermore, the amateurish approach to attributing deaths—using 14 different definitions—was completely overlooked.
The report goes on to cite modelling, reporting that a lockdown one week earlier might have saved 23,000 lives, but there is no interrogation of the inherent uncertainty in such modelling. It accepts the “reasonable worst-case scenario” without probing why alternative models were not stress-tested. There was blind faith in models, but no curiosity about whether their inputs were garbage, which they were.
The report repeatedly states governments were “too slow,” but does not critically compare UK decision-making with that of other countries, especially the strange Scandinavian country that it mentions in passing (see page 292). A critical thinker would ask: What did others know or infer that the UK did not?
Many statements (e.g., “too little, too late”, “inexcusable”) reflect the Inquiry Chair’s value judgments but are presented as factual conclusions without fully articulated chains of reasoning. The statement that Lockdowns could have been “avoided entirely” during the pandemic had ministers reacted more quickly is grounded in the chair’s opinion. The harder, faster approach is rooted in the ridiculous zero-COVID notion.
The report relies heavily on hypotheticals rather than demonstrated causation. Words like “could” and “might” are classic markers of speculation: “X could have reduced deaths” means we don’t actually know; we’re inferring.“Y might have been avoided” means we lack definitive data, but we’re guessing based on incomplete, faulty modelling.
Much of the report’s analysis, especially its analysis of lockdown timing, depends on mathematical models. Models are not evidence; they are predictions based on assumptions, often with enormous uncertainty – Even Sir Patrick Vallance told us this.
The use of “could” and “might” reveals this shortcoming (“could” appears 313 times in volume 1, “might” a mere 138 times), forcing the authors to soften their claims, as they cannot say “would,” only “might have.” Giving the illusion of objectivity while avoiding accountability.
These linguistic markers indicate uncertainty, speculation, and cautious bureaucratic thinking, underscoring the report’s lack of true evidence-based reasoning.
The UK was unprepared and remains so because of its reluctance to address the uncertainties about what works and what doesn’t: the report does nothing to correct this shortcoming.
However, for just shy of £200 million, what were you expecting?
The lockdowns were inevitable only because critical thinking was and is still absent.
This post was written by two old geezers who searched Baroness Hallett’s report and found 140 citations to “evidence”, but none to “systematic reviews”.
This article (Covid Inquiry Module 2 report published) was created and published by Trust the Evidence and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
The Covid Inquiry Report: An unscientific whitewash of a monumental scandal
ROGER WATSON
IT HAS finally arrived, all thousand-plus pages of it: the second UK Covid-19 Inquiry Report.
Years in the making, tens of millions of pounds in cost and delivering exactly what it was constructed to deliver.
Not truth, not accountability, not a sober assessment of what happened, but a carefully curated political document in which the conclusions were pre-determined from the moment the inquiry’s terms of reference were drafted.
There was never any danger that it would find lockdowns misguided, school closures catastrophic, or mass behavioural compliance a mistake.
Instead, its central claim is the oldest trick in the bureaucrat’s handbook: if only we had done more, sooner, harder.
But behind that familiar refrain lies a striking void: the inquiry’s evidential foundation is tissue thin.
Its most sensational finding, that acting earlier would have ‘halved’ deaths, is built almost entirely on modelling, not on empirical data, clinical evidence or retrospective cause-of-death analysis.
The main point, that locking down on March 16 instead of March 23 would have saved 23,000 lives, is presented as if it were a scientific fact rather than the speculative product of a mathematical model, the assumptions of which are neither universally accepted nor subjected to proper scrutiny.
And here lies the inquiry’s most glaring failure: it adopts wholesale the idea that the UK covid death toll can be treated as an undifferentiated block, despite the now well-established shortcomings of how those deaths were recorded.
The inquiry repeatedly reports ‘deaths involving Covid-19’, the Office for National Statistics’s broadest category which includes anyone who died with a positive test or a clinical suspicion, regardless of whether the virus caused, hastened, or was irrelevant to their death.
The inquiry knows this, acknowledges it in passing, and then proceeds to ignore it.
It does not attempt to disentangle deaths of covid from deaths with covid in spite of this distinction being central to any honest assessment of policy effectiveness.
How many of the older patients who died in 2020 succumbed to late-stage dementia, heart failure or frailty and merely happened to test positive? How many were hospital-acquired infections? How many were indirect casualties of policy? Delayed cancer treatment, missed heart attacks, isolation or the collapse of routine care? These questions are not answered. Some are not even asked.
Instead, the inquiry’s narrative proceeds on the assumption that the daily tallies were precise and directly comparable across time and place, an assumption which any serious analyst would treat with scepticism.
The inquiry fails to examine the consequences of the UK’s exceptionally broad death-certification guidance, under which covid was often recorded on certificates in the absence of objective evidence. The cumulative ‘Covid-19 deaths’ figure is not a measure of lethality but a measure of classification.
Yet from this shaky evidential base, the inquiry constructs an edifice of moral certainty: the Government acted ‘too late’, people died ‘needlessly’, and the ‘correct’ course was a faster, deeper curtailment of civil liberties.
In other words: more restrictions; earlier and harder. Not a word is spent considering the opposite possibility: that lockdown itself caused profound harm, that its benefits were marginal, or that the catastrophic health, economic and social consequences might outweigh its unproven lifesaving claims.
TCW readers will not be surprised. From the outset, this inquiry was built on the assumption that the only problem with Britain’s covid response was insufficient authoritarianism.
There was no remit to question lockdown. There was no remit to examine harms. There was no remit to interrogate the test-and-trace mania, the masking rituals, the vaccine passport fantasies, the policing of parks and beaches, the closure of churches and playgrounds or the grotesque cruelty inflicted on older people who were warehoused in residential and care homes to empty hospital beds that were never used. All of these were outside its pre-selected tunnel of concern.
We have, then, not a quest for truth but a bureaucratic exoneration exercise, one that quietly absolves the state for its unprecedented assault on civil liberties while blaming its failures on not acting more radically.
It is the perfect political shield: the Government can now point to a vast, expensive report that claims ‘earlier action’ would have saved lives, and critics can be told that any dissent is ‘anti-science’, ‘conspiracy theory’, or ‘revisionist’.
The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has not revealed what went wrong, it has revealed what the British state cannot admit, which is that it panicked. It cannot admit that it overreached. It cannot admit that it destroyed livelihoods, severed families and inflicted psychological wounds on a scale unseen in peacetime.
The inquiry has delivered exactly what it was designed to deliver. The rest of us should treat its conclusions with the scepticism they richly deserve.
This article (The Covid Inquiry Report: An unscientific whitewash of a monumental scandal) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Roger Watson
Featured image: The Telegraph
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply