It's sad to see that the level of dishonesty and spreading of misinformation present in this thread from the start remains unabated and untouched by the benefit of hindsight.

Nobody ever suggested that the virus could be controlled by the measures being taken. What happened was to find ways, in an unknown and fast-developing, situation, to reduce exposure and mitigate the impact until the more effective impact of vaccination was available. That other "theories" were promoted by sceptics was as inevitable as they are irrelevant. Our government, along with many others, decided not to adopt what looked like a high-risk strategy. They knew the cost would be high, but decided that the cost of not doing it was higher. That information campaigns encouraged cooperation and compliance was hardly surprising or unneeded. It's what a government does to make policy effective.

The alternatives were discussed in the MSM but were quickly dismissed for not being viable, in the circumstances prevailing in the UK. Of course that doesn't stop some still banging on about it now and claiming things would be better if only they had been listened to. We might have won the Champions League if I had been appointed manager 10 years ago. It seems as likely to me but as neither happened we will never know, hence it's irrelevant.

The enquiry is the place to review events and for the lessons to be learned. Cool heads there will deliver some useful guidance for any future similar situations.

I think many of us already know the conclusions they just copy and paste from every other government enquiry.

"Mistakes were made lessons have been learned" (somebody got rich) blah blah until the next time.

Edited by Badger11 (09 Aug 2023 3.16pm)

My previous reply applies equally to this.

I don’t see how!

Yours was directed at the government. Mine was at cynical posts here.

So it’s truly obscurantic.

There has been a lot of references to the videos produced by Dr John Campbell in this thread, often with links to them being provided.

One of the most frequent claims being made for him has been that he always uses official statistics and publications as the source for his analyses, thus making them authentic.

I, as will be realised, disagree. I think he started off in a well meaning way to use his teaching skills to inform others about the new danger we all were suddenly confronted with but then came to realise he had stumbled on a rich vein of potential wealth which he could mine by providing nuggets of misinformation to the sceptical. So he has, and in so doing has attracted a huge following which must have made him very rich.

Tonight I stumbled on the video I link below, when looking for something else. I urge everyone, even those who have previously regarded him as a paragon of virtue and bringer of truth, to watch this in full. It takes a while, but it ought to cause a re-evaluation by even the most previously devoted and convinced follower:-

[Link]

Whereas admirers of Neil Ferguson are completely sure of his omniscience.