UK related articles

All info related to the new biggest hoax of our time.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: UK related articles

Unread post by rachel »

https://collateralglobal.org/article/an ... d-inquiry/
An open letter to Baroness Hallett, Chair of the UK Covid Inquiry
By Kevin Bardosh, Sunetra Gupta
12 March 2024



The Inquiry must urgently address its apparent biases, assumptions, impartiality, & lack of evidence-based approach

We, the undersigned, are a group of UK public health scholars and academics in related disciplines, widely published in our fields, deeply concerned that the Covid Inquiry is not living up to its mission to evaluate the mistakes made during the pandemic, whether Covid measures were appropriate, and to prepare the country for the next pandemic.

First, the Inquiry gives the impression of being fundamentally biased. The Inquiry originated in legal petitions brought by bereaved family groups. Yet there has been little opportunity for petitions to be brought by those who have suffered from the negative effects of pandemic policy decisions. This is preventing a more holistic assessment of impacts on population health and wellbeing. This lack of neutrality appears to have led to biased reasoning and predetermined conclusions, for example, to lockdown faster next time.

Second, the Inquiry is taking key assumptions for granted instead of examining and critiquing them in light of the evidence. The consensus position in pre-2020 pandemic plans was that non-pharmaceutical interventions, including lockdown, had weak evidence of effectiveness, and were predicted to cause substantial harm to society, especially if used for prolonged periods. This informed the initial response to Covid in early 2020. Yet, the Inquiry assumes that these measures are effective and appropriate. As a result, it downplays the harms to society caused by two years of emergency infection control mandates.

Third, the Inquiry lacks impartiality in the selection and questioning of expert witnesses. It has given preferential treatment to scientific advisers on SAGE, who have a vested interest in maintaining the justification for their policy recommendations. Very few scientists with an alternative position have been asked to testify, and the Inquiry has been confrontational rather than inquisitorial in its questioning of these views. The Inquiry has not seriously questioned the hypotheses and assumptions offered to government, especially from government appointed modelers, which were used to justify Covid policies. Neither has it seriously examined the social and economic costs of lockdown. It has also stuck to an agenda of UK exceptionalism failing to recognize the experience elsewhere in the world.

Fourth, the format of the Inquiry is impeding investigation into the key scientific and policy questions. The Inquiry has adopted a legal format that prevents a systematic evaluation of the evidence by biomedical and social scientists on the harms of restrictions to the British public, the impact on Covid from policies such as mandatory NPIs, and the state of evidence for best practice. It is focused on who did or said what, rather than asking fundamental scientific questions. Yet investigating the interplay between harms, benefits, and best practice is critical to preparing for the next pandemic. The Inquiry, as currently functioning, appears unsuited to this task of national importance.

Fifth, the Inquiry risks reducing public trust in the impartiality and independence of government accountability and oversight. Its size and cost (by some estimates £300-500 million) will make it the largest public Inquiry ever undertaken to date, and yet its shortcomings, if not addressed, risk compromising the credibility of future public inquiries.

We believe the Inquiry has a significant and important mission and we would like to see it succeed. However, if it is to do so, these shortcomings need to be urgently addressed. The Inquiry must invite a much broader range of scientific experts with more critical viewpoints. It must also review the evidence on diverse topics so that it can be fully informed of relevant science and the economic and social cost of Covid policies to British society.

We, the undersigned, believe this is an urgent national priority and fundamental to ensuring that future pandemic response is evidence- based and maximizes the health and well-being of all.

Drafted by

Dr. Kevin Bardosh, Collateral Global; Division of Infection Medicine, University of Edinburgh.
Prof. Sunetra Gupta, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford.


Signatories, arranged alphabetically by surname:

Dr. Colin Alexander, Department of Journalism and Media, Nottingham Trent University.
Prof. David Betz, Department of War Studies, King’s College London.
Dr Carlton Brick, School of Education and Social Science, University of the West of Scotland.
Prof. Daniel Briggs, Department of Criminology and Sociology, Northumbria University.
Dr. Jennie Bristow, Department of Sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University.
Prof. Anthony J Brookes, Department of Genetics and Genome Biology, University of Leicester.
Prof. Garrett Wallace Brown, Chair in Global Health Policy, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Leeds.
Prof. David Campbell, Professor of Law, Lancaster University.
Prof. Karl Claxton, Department of Economics, University of York.
Dr. Robert Craig, School of Law, University of Bristol.
Prof. Charles Dennis, School of Business, Middlesex University.
Prof. Kevin Dowd, Durham University Business School.
Prof. Fionn Dunne, Department of Materials, Imperial College London.
Prof. Bill Durodie, Department of Politics, Languages and International Studies, University of Bath.
Dr. Ashley Frawley, Centre for Parenting Culture Studies, University of Kent.
Prof. Paul Frijters, Department of Social Policy, London School of Economics.
Dr. Alberto Giubilini, Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford.
Prof. Toby Green, Department of History, King’s College London.
Dr. Peter Grove, Former Chair UK Department of Health’s Senior Economic & Analytical Review Committee (IASRC).
Mr. Clive Hambler, Department of Biology, University of Oxford.
Prof. Philip Hammond, Department of Media & Communications, London South Bank University.
Dr Cheryl Hudson, History Department, University of Liverpool.
Prof Marilyn James, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham.
Prof. Lee Jones, School of Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London.
Dr Nicholas Joseph, College of Arts, Humanities and Education, University of Derby.
Prof. David Livermore, Department of Medical Microbiology, University of East Anglia.
Dr. David McGrogan, Department of Law, Northumbria University.
Prof. Paul McKeigue, The Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh.
Prof. David Miles, Department of Economics, Imperial College London.
Dr. Jose Lingna Nafafe, Department of Hispanic, Portuguese and Latin American Studies, University of Bristol.
Prof. Yossi Nehushtan, School of Law, Keele University.
Prof. George Ogola, Department of Cultural, Media and Visual Studies, University of Nottingham.
Dr Jason L. Oke, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford.
Prof. Paul Ormerod, Alliance Business School, University of Manchester.
Dr. Matthew Owens, Department of Psychology, University of Exeter.
Prof. David Paton, Nottingham University Business School.
Prof. Allyson Pollock, Population Health Sciences Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University.
Prof. Peter Ramsay, Law School, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Prof. Matthew Ratcliffe, Department of Philosophy, University of York.
Prof. Mario Recker, Centre for Ecology and Conservation, University of Exeter.
Dr. Andrew Shepherd, Chronic Poverty Advisory Network; Institute of Development Studies.
Prof. Karol Sikora, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Buckingham.
Sir Bernard Silverman, FRS, Emeritus Professor, Department of Statistics, University of Oxford.
Dr. Edward Skidelsky, Director, Committee for Academic Freedom; Department of Philosophy, University of Exeter.
Professor Michael Stewart, Department of Anthropology, University College London.
Dr Luke Telford, School of Business and Society, University of York.
Prof. James Tooley, Vice-Chancellor, The University of Buckingham.
Prof. Ellen Townsend, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham.
Prof. John Watkins, School of Medicine, Cardiff University.
Prof. Roger Watson, School of Nursing, University of Hull.
Dr. Stuart Waiton, Division of Sociology, Abertay University.
Dr. Meron Wondemaghen, School of Criminology, Sociology and Policing, University of Hull.
Prof. Simon Wood, School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh.
Dr. Paul Yowell, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford.
xileffilex
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:57 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 344 times

Re: UK related articles

Unread post by xileffilex »

"future pandemic" lol! Another bunch of virus huggers [no evidence for their existence, btw] propping up the virus hoax.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: UK related articles

Unread post by rachel »

John Campbell has got a new video out, decided to put it in this thread, because whatever you think about him, his is talking about the data coming out of government that everyone is ignoring in the media with;

"WHERE'S KATE?!"


Long term sickness, massive increase



I find this telling, and predictable. And guess what, in keeping with the ONS rewriting history, they are also stopping collecting data.

ScreenShot-VideoID-Hxoa8AYztNE-TimeS-360.png

So, from the last dataset...

Excess deaths in 0-24 age group
ScreenShot-VideoID-Hxoa8AYztNE-TimeS-448.png
Excess deaths in 25-49 age group
ScreenShot-VideoID-Hxoa8AYztNE-TimeS-459.png
Excess deaths in 50-64 age group
ScreenShot-VideoID-Hxoa8AYztNE-TimeS-467.png
Excess deaths in 65-74 age group
ScreenShot-VideoID-Hxoa8AYztNE-TimeS-500.png
xileffilex
Posts: 647
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 12:57 pm
Has thanked: 78 times
Been thanked: 344 times

Re: UK related articles

Unread post by xileffilex »

Comparing total deaths, week 10, over the past decade for England and Wales...


I don't see a very significant trend, although the new baseline since Feb 2024 is added. Again, it's difficult to disentangle the effects of migration/changing age structure over that period. And it doesn't show the various "total deaths" for each of the age ranges in Dr John Campbell's ONS graphics.

However, there is sharp questioner in the Northern Ireland assembly who isn't satisfied by the strange, sudden re-calculation of "excess deaths"...think CPI replacing RPI...
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: UK related articles

Unread post by rachel »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... %282021%29
16 June 2021 –
It is reported COVID vaccinations are to become compulsory for care home workers in England. This is subsequently confirmed by Health Secretary Matt Hancock.

That answers the following question. They needed the justification for forcing people to shoot themselves up with an experiment cocktail or face the sack. Therefore they couldn't have people coming and going in and out of care homes willy-nilly.


User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3770
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1612 times

Re: UK related articles

Unread post by rachel »

UK Government Use of Behavioural Science Strategies in Covid-Event Messaging
https://ahpb.org/index.php/gary-sidley-article/
A current manifestation of the paradigm, behavioural science, similarly relies upon a range of strategies – ‘nudges’ – to influence people’s behaviour by shaping a combination of the environmental triggers and the consequences of our actions. According to a Cabinet Office and Institute for Government ‘MINDSPACE’ report in 2010, nudges provide ‘Low cost, low pain ways of “nudging” citizens… into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act’ (Institute for Government, 2010). Exploiting the fact that human beings spend 99 per cent of their time on ‘automatic pilot’, making moment-by-moment decisions without conscious reflection, these techniques – often operating below the level of conscious awareness – can exert a powerful influence upon behaviour.

The most visible sources of behavioural-science guidance throughout the Covid event were the Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours (SPI-B) and the Behavioural Insight Team (BIT). The SPI-B was a sub-group of SAGE – the primary source of pandemic advice to the Government – and was mainly composed of experts in psychology, sociology, anthropology and behavioural science. Convened on the 13 February 2020, its remit was to advise on ‘Strategies for behaviour change, to support control of and recovery from the epidemic’ (GOV.UK, 2020a).

The BIT has a longer history. Since its advent in 2010 it has acted as an ongoing source of expert advice to government. Conceived in the Prime Minister’s Office of David Cameron, the team claims to be ‘The world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy’ (BIT website). According to the BIT website, their team rapidly expanded from a seven-person unit working with the UK Government to a ‘social purpose company’ operating in many countries around the world.


The Nudges of Concern
The armoury of behavioural science is furnished with a wide range of strategies for influencing the actions of others. The literature is peppered with various acronyms as aide-mémoires for the specific techniques, and discussion can sometimes be confusing because terms can over lap, and a message or image can be illustrative of more than one nudge. Arguably, the most influential framework is provided by the MINDSPACE (Institute for Government, 2010) report, detailing nine nudges, three of which have evoked significant ethical concerns. In the language of behavioural science, these more contentious nudges are described as ‘affect’, ‘ego’ and ‘norms’ (experienced by many as fear inflation, shaming and peer pressure, respectively). A brief explanation of each of these strategies, together with some illustrative examples of how each was used during the Covid event, is given below.

  • AFFECT: Our feelings will significantly influence how we think and act. Sadness will spawn self-criticism and behavioural inertia, anger will encourage negative evaluations of others and a propensity to act aggressively, and fear will focus our attention on to potential dangers in our environment, and make us inclined to avoid perceived threats. It was this latter element that was prominent during the Covid-19 communications campaign, presumably based on the premise that a frightened population is typically a compliant one. Examples of messaging during the pandemic that inflated fear included: non- contextualised death counts, displayed daily on the TV, purportedly keeping a running total of the number of people who had perished from Covid-19; recurrent images of acutely unwell patients in Intensive Care Units in Lombardy (Italy’s pandemic hot- spot); reports of bodies littering the streets in Ecuador (Mail Online, 2020); the shock- and-awe presentation of Professors Whitty and Vallance (Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Advisor, respectively) in 2020, with their speculative prediction of 50,000 new Covid cases per day (Triggle, 2020); and scary slogans such as, ‘IF YOU GO OUT YOU CAN SPREAD IT. PEOPLE WILL DIE.’

    EGO: Human beings strive to maintain a positive view of themselves and preserve a virtuous self-image. This inclination appears to have been exploited during the pandemic, as evidenced by our political leaders and public-health experts routinely implying that following the Covid restrictions was akin to being a good person. Examples included: slogans such as, ‘STAY HOME, PROTECT THE NHS, SAVE LIVES’ and ‘VACCINATIONS PROTECT US ALL’; the then Health Secretary Matt Hancock quipping, ‘Don’t kill your gran’ to university students returning home for the summer break; Professor Whitty stating, in a 2020 press conference, that anyone who increased their own risk of exposure ‘increases the risk of everyone’ (Triggle, 2020); and mask- promotion advertisements where actors said, ‘I wear a face covering to protect my mates’.

    NORMS: Awareness of social norms – the prevalent views and behaviour of our fellow citizens – can exert pressure on us to conform. We are strongly influenced by what others do; awareness of residing in a deviant minority is a source of discomfort. The UK Government has repeatedly used normative pressure throughout the Covid event to gain the public’s compliance with restrictions. The most straightforward example is how, during interviews with the media, government ministers often told us that the ‘vast majority have complied with the rules’ (GOV.UK, 2020b), or that 90 per cent of those eligible have already had the first dose of the Covid vaccine (Gye, 2021). However, normative pressure as exerted by these pronouncements is more effective in changing the behaviour of the deviant minority if there is a visible indicator of pro-social compliance rooted in communities. Mandatory masking admirably fulfilled this purpose by enabling people to instantly distinguish the rule breakers from the rule followers.


Specific Ethical Concerns
The Government’s deployment of behavioural-science infused messaging during the Covid-19 event was ethically problematic. Areas of concern can be understood in relation to four aspects.


1 The Methods Per Se
Is it morally acceptable for the government of a Western liberal democracy to strategically inflict emotional discomfort upon its citizens in order to lever compliance with its edicts? Civil servants harnessing fear, shame and scapegoating to change minds can be construed as an ethically questionable practice that in some respects resembles the tactics used by authoritarian regimes, where the state inflicts pain on a subset of its population in an attempt to eliminate beliefs and behaviours they perceive to be deviant.

Another ethical consideration associated with the methods arises from their unintended consequences. Elevated levels of fear may have discouraged people from attending hospital with non-Covid illnesses (Cusick, 2020), and is likely to have significantly contributed to the non-Covid excess deaths (ONS, 2021) witnessed during the Covid event. The loneliness of older people will have been exacerbated by the heightened levels of community anxiety (Spada, 2021), potentially leading to premature death (APA, 2017). And it is plausible that the state- sponsored shaming and scapegoating of those deviating from the directives of the dominant Covid narrative will have been primarily responsible for the vilification of the unvaccinated minority (Sidley, 2022b).


2 The Absence of Informed Consent
The second source of ethical concern derives from the lack of any attempt to acquire the informed consent of the British people prior to the mass implementation of these psychological methods of persuasion. Obtaining informed consent of the recipient before administering any medical or psychological intervention has always been a cornerstone of ethical clinical practice. Professor David Halpern (the BIT Chief Executive and member of SPI-B) explicitly recognised the significance of this issue. The previously mentioned MINDSPACE document – of which Professor Halpern is a co-author – states that ‘Policymakers wishing to use these tools… need the approval of the public to do so’ (Institute for Government, 2010, p. 74).

More recently, in Professor Halpern’s book Inside the Nudge Unit, he is even more emphatic about the importance of consent: ‘If Governments… wish to use behavioural insights, they must seek and maintain the permission of the public’ (Halpern, 2015, p. 375).


3 The Contentious Goals of the Messaging Campaign
The perceived legitimacy of using subconscious nudges to influence people may also depend upon the behavioural goals that are being pursued. The imposition of lockdowns, community masking, school closures and other restrictions was a major deviation from long-established pandemic-management measures. It is questionable whether the deployment of fear, shame and peer pressure to achieve compliance with unprecedented and non-evidenced public-health policies that infringe basic human rights and freedoms would have found favour with the British people.


4 The Lack of Transparency
As many of the nudges employed impact on their targets below their level of awareness, a further ethical question relates to the lack of transparency. This is in contrast to more democratically acceptable methods of government persuasion that rely mainly on information provision and rational argument. The covert mode of action of many
behavioural-science strategies lends weight to the accusation that they are manipulative.

That's the first section, it gets more maddening as it continues. No culpability. Here's the conclusion, and remember, we already know the UK Government were planning the COVID-19 in 2017...with the BBC4 Pandemic.

Image

Some of the other NHS COVID-19 NUDGE messaging.
In conclusion, the critical analysis set out in this paper has: (1) demonstrated the ubiquity of behavioural science that makes nudge expertise routinely available to multiple UK Government departments; (2) identified some key actors, and the sources of behavioural science advice, proximally responsible for the creation of the controversial LTITE public health communications; (3) provided documented evidence that both the SPI-B and the BIT promoted the use of ethically questionable behavioural-science strategies in the Government’s Covid-19 messaging campaign; (4) explicated the flawed reasoning evident in the Cabinet Office’s attempts to justify the emotionally disturbing LTITE campaign; and (5) confirmed that the process of creating the LTITE materials – and, by reasonable extrapolation, all the nudge infused Covid messaging – was devoid of any ethical oversight.

It is apparent that currently, the UK Government sees no reason to incorporate ethical values into their communication outputs during purported times of ‘crisis’, and is happy to covertly shape our behaviour in line with their (often dubious) goals, routinely deploying methods that rely on fear, shame and scapegoating. Meanwhile, the plentiful supply of behavioural scientists and ethicists within the government infrastructure seems incapable, or unwilling, to challenge this unacceptable state of affairs.

State-sponsored nudging, devoid of ethical oversight, is now impacting on all aspects of our lives. As things stand, we can expect the 17 same tone and content in government communications the next time our political leaders choose to declare a ‘global crisis’, whether it be in regards to health, climate, pollution or some other assumed world-wide threat. Drawing on the findings of the critical analysis in this paper, we must begin the process of instilling ethical values – and, perhaps, some red lines – into this everexpanding realm of government activity. The British people deserve no less.
napoleon
Posts: 3724
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2021 3:23 pm
Has thanked: 1664 times
Been thanked: 664 times

Re: UK related articles

Unread post by napoleon »

nickw wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 8:13 am
xileffilex wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 5:07 pm There are no paid shills © John le Bon [the world's greatest sceptic]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63097142

There was a post about a week ago about this article: I can't find it anywhere on his site, or YT, or here but maybe another remembers it ??

jlb stunned me as he said= Oh look at this here, that's proof to me ... what I thought! "Wow that's how you work your magic then"
[I've only been here a short time so I don't know longterm reps]

'A preliminary investigation found the September spike was not linked to Covid'
everyone who gets paid to tell the truth is full of shit nick ,absolutely everyone
Post Reply