Yes that is my view. But do know what? after the last 3 years of s*** from covid zealots I will gladly laugh at them and look down on them now and give them a taste of thier own ridiculous medicine.

This is, of course, true, and it's them that deserve the greatest support and protection from the idiots who could, but refuse.

You routinely talk the most appalling bs! So much so it's not really worth bothering with you, as you are a lost cause.

You touch no nerves at all. You just disappoint with your constant nonsense. You look at scientific evidence, extract the pieces you think support your views, and ignore the rest, along with simple common sense. You reference the Cochrane report, but draw completely the wrong conclusions from it.

There were, and are, no appreciable negatives from the vaccines that outweigh the benefits. That's the overwhelming consensus of medical opinion. Anyone refusing to join in society's efforts to deal with the crisis is selfish in my opinion. We are all in this together, and we all need to fight it together. In war conscientious objectors still have to do their bit. This is a war and you aren't doing yours.

That the slimeball Johnson and his fellows acted as they did doesn't change that in any way. It would be a neck and neck contest between them and you who behaved worse.

Yes, I am fully vaccinated. Had Covid twice and the vaccines made sure the effect was mild. I don't wear masks now, unless it's demanded, but their use in the past, together with hand hygiene and social distancing enabled social contact to resume much earlier than it might. Not just by any actual protection benefit, but also by the reassurance they provided.

Of course, none of that concerned you. You were too busy ignoring other people's feelings.

A surgeon who is infection free operating on an infection free patient will decide for themselves which is the safest way to proceed. There is no correlation with the steps taken to try to limit the spread of Covid.

I have read the Cochrane report. It will doubtless, along with many others, inform on best practice when making assessments on how to respond if another pandemic occurs. When responding to the Covid pandemic, with a nervous population expecting actions to reassure them, and evidence of mask wearing in Asia in particular as a response to other viruses, mandating their use, alongside social distancing and lockdowns made, and continues to make, perfect sense. It might not again, as the public are now more aware.

I wonder if you have read their report! Or whether you have only read the words you want to hear! This is the author's conclusion:-

"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."

In other words the jury is still out, especially on the impact in our own country. What is not in doubt was the need to use every potential tool in the box in a crisis. Not allowing despondency to set in is an important issue in health management.

The time for reflection and lesson learning comes later. Which is precisely why we are holding an enquiry and not rushing to judgement whenever something emerges which happens to confirm a deep-seated bias.