Chris Whitty: I worry we overstated danger of Covid at start of pandemic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

The government had access to the data from the Diamond Princess, the US aircraft carrier, and the Italian village of Po, long before it became an issue here.

Whitty knew that it was an irrelevance, it didn't affect large number of people, and of those it did affect, few if any were seriously harmed, unless you had 4 or more co-morbidities.

---

You make it sound like it was part of a bigger plan!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Maybe they just went off to live their best life, while also avoiding the 65% who are susceptible to totalitarian propaganda campaigns? BTW, I hoped they lived to tell their tale after openly flirting with their own self-extinction.

---

Course you did. Trouble is, many on here can still remember how you and Organ Morgan were all over the place trying to find something, anything, to justify your ploughing on with your critical thinking/conspiracy crap - there was no empathy for those who were suffering, just desperate searching for proof that fitted your oh so predictable position on the pandemic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

The government had access to the data from the Diamond Princess, the US aircraft carrier, and the Italian village of Po, long before it became an issue here.

Whitty knew that it was an irrelevance, it didn't affect large number of people, and of those it did affect, few if any were seriously harmed, unless you had 4 or more co-morbidities.

---

There have 7 million plus COVID induced deaths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

We tended to hear more about the US and China but I think most people would have got the gist of my post whatever.

---

And I did insert an e.g.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

There have 7 million plus COVID induced deaths.

---

Explain what you mean by “covid induced”, and then when you do , we can chat about it .

Have you got the figures for “influenza or pneumonia induced “

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Course you did. Trouble is, many on here can still remember how you and Organ Morgan were all over the place trying to find something, anything, to justify your ploughing on with your critical thinking/conspiracy crap - there was no empathy for those who were suffering, just desperate searching for proof that fitted your oh so predictable position on the pandemic.

---

I behaved much better than Boris & Co, and my health has never been better. Sadly, I can't say the same for many of those around me who are always ill with something or other, and quite a few are no longer with us. It appears to be on ongoing scenario too, which is quite worrying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Explain what you mean by “covid induced”, and then when you do , we can chat about it .

Have you got the figures for “influenza or pneumonia induced “

---

No, because I’m not interested in them.

It’s in the second paragraph here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_deaths

And there is a mention of more than five times that figure a little further down.

I’m not interested in debating those figures because I’m happy to accept them - I’ve no desire to be thought of as a “critical thinker” as defined by the likes of Gluey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

I behaved much better than Boris & Co, and my health has never been better. Sadly, I can't say the same for many of those around me who are always ill with something or other, and quite a few are no longer with us. It appears to be on ongoing scenario too, which is quite worrying.

---

Except I never get the impression that, if what you say is true, you worry about it - on the contrary, you, as you have earlier in this thread, take it as an opportunity to say I told you so. I’ve always thought the term I told you so says so much about a person who uses it, because many of the people who are in the habit of being right about things most of the time are not in the habit of using it - they don’t feel the need to. I didn’t comment or reply to you a week or so ago when you said you like telling people I told you so in another thread on here, but it didn’t surprise me in the slightest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

No, because I’m not interested in them.

It’s in the second paragraph here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_deaths

And there is a mention of more than five times that figure a little further down.

I’m not interested in debating those figures because I’m happy to accept them - I’ve no desire to be thought of as a “critical thinker” as defined by the likes of Gluey.

---

7 million deaths based on financial incentives, inaccurate testing ,people with four or more underlying illnesses, and even with this amount the average Covid death was STILL higher than the usual average death. You’re not thinking clearly , and never will.

If it was as dangerous as you think it was , why would the government break the rules as frequently as they did. They knew they were in no danger that’s why.

FWIW the elderly and infirm are just as much at risk as they are with the usual influenza virus groups.

Got the figures of deaths with just Covid as a cause of death as I don’t have any to hand ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

7 million deaths based on financial incentives, inaccurate testing ,people with four or more underlying illnesses, and even with this amount the average Covid death was STILL higher than the usual average death. You’re not thinking clearly , and never will.

If it was as dangerous as you think it was , why would the government break the rules as frequently as they did. They knew they were in no danger that’s why.

FWIW the elderly and infirm are just as much at risk as they are with the usual influenza virus groups.

Got the figures of deaths with just Covid as a cause of death as I don’t have any to hand ?

---

You ask for figures, I produce them and you come out with gobbledygook to suit your agenda, ‘‘twas ever thus.

Entirely predictable that those applying the "I told you so" retrospective did so on a cherry picked quote from hours of Whitty's testimony.

During that time, following harrowing testimony from Professor Fong on the impact of Covid on ICUs, he stated the following:

I think the scale of the second wave was actually under appreciated in the general public. I think people who had relatives, obviously people who were sick fully understood that this was in fact a larger wave, in terms of total numbers of people who were severely ill and indeed who sadly died. And the first two waves were the ones which had the extraordinary mortality in the very large numbers in ICU.

I think the key thing to remember, and I think people forget this, is that this was an exponentially rising – in the technical sense of the term, an exponentially rising thing, where you have – epidemic, with a doubling rate of three to four days at the point we were talking about. Four doubling times more would have led us to an absolutely catastrophic situation.

But for the UK, not for the world, but for the UK, this is a one in 100 years event because the last time there was something this big was back in 1919 – 18-19.

So I’m not certain that loading an additional risk on would in itself be useful. However, I think that the thing which this absolutely blows an absolute hole in, if it need any further, is the arguments for things like the Great Barrington Declaration, that all you need to do is isolate a few people and everywhere else can just carry on with their lives because they are at limited risk. That is obviously not true in this case and those kinds of arguments are not strong ones to advance in any future pandemic unless you can demonstrate it.

https://ukcovid19inquiry.dracos.co.u...sor-sir-whitty

So Whitty spent time emphasising the scale of the epidemic and rubbishing the central tenet of the The Great Barrington Declaration that has been parotted here as the alternative, none of which appeared in The Telegraph Summary.

Even the Headline of this Post is a distortion. What Whitty actually said was,

I still worry actually, in retrospect, about did we get the level of concern right? Were we either overpitching it, so that people were incredibly afraid of something when in fact their actuarial risk was low, or were we not pitching it enough and therefore people didn’t realise the risk they were walking into.

I think that balance is really hard and arguably some people would say, if anything, we overdid it rather than underdid it at the beginning. I’m just saying that there – certainly there is a range of opinions on that.

It used to be that the critical thinkers parotted that they only used "Source Documents" to explore their flights of fancy..........how standards have slipped!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I’ve no desire to be thought of as a “critical thinker” as defined by the likes of Gluey.

---

You can't just be one, you have to be born one! :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I didn’t comment or reply to you a week or so ago when you said you like telling people I told you so in another thread on here, but it didn’t surprise me in the slightest.

---

It's a bit of banter, just like when you call people critical thinkers and conspiracy theorists. BTW, have you got something against people being being right? Does it mess with your belief system or something?

:fishing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Entirely predictable that those applying the "I told you so" retrospective did so on a cherry picked quote from hours of Whitty's testimony.

During that time, following harrowing testimony from Professor Fong on the impact of Covid on ICUs, he stated the following:

I think the scale of the second wave was actually under appreciated in the general public. I think people who had relatives, obviously people who were sick fully understood that this was in fact a larger wave, in terms of total numbers of people who were severely ill and indeed who sadly died. And the first two waves were the ones which had the extraordinary mortality in the very large numbers in ICU.

I think the key thing to remember, and I think people forget this, is that this was an exponentially rising – in the technical sense of the term, an exponentially rising thing, where you have – epidemic, with a doubling rate of three to four days at the point we were talking about. Four doubling times more would have led us to an absolutely catastrophic situation.

But for the UK, not for the world, but for the UK, this is a one in 100 years event because the last time there was something this big was back in 1919 – 18-19.

So I’m not certain that loading an additional risk on would in itself be useful. However, I think that the thing which this absolutely blows an absolute hole in, if it need any further, is the arguments for things like the Great Barrington Declaration, that all you need to do is isolate a few people and everywhere else can just carry on with their lives because they are at limited risk. That is obviously not true in this case and those kinds of arguments are not strong ones to advance in any future pandemic unless you can demonstrate it.

https://ukcovid19inquiry.dracos.co.u...sor-sir-whitty

So Whitty spent time emphasising the scale of the epidemic and rubbishing the central tenet of the The Great Barrington Declaration that has been parotted here as the alternative, none of which appeared in The Telegraph Summary.

Even the Headline of this Post is a distortion. What Whitty actually said was,

I still worry actually, in retrospect, about did we get the level of concern right? Were we either overpitching it, so that people were incredibly afraid of something when in fact their actuarial risk was low, or were we not pitching it enough and therefore people didn’t realise the risk they were walking into.

I think that balance is really hard and arguably some people would say, if anything, we overdid it rather than underdid it at the beginning. I’m just saying that there – certainly there is a range of opinions on that.

It used to be that the critical thinkers parotted that they only used "Source Documents" to explore their flights of fancy..........how standards have slipped!

---

Witty's evidence becomes misleading and disingenuous "Sir Chris said it was classified as a high consequence infectious disease. This meant staff could treat patients in “environments which are relatively highly protective, with highly trained skilled staff who are used to dealing with high levels of PPE and therefore at a much lower probability of coming to harm themselves”. However it was later declassified to just an infectious disease."


Leaked What’s app messages from the Health secretary Matt Hancock stated that Covid was a
“Mild disease”

Daily death reports and waiting for reveal the R number. It was a shameful period of over-governance that we must ensure never happens again. Scotch eggs? Sing happy birthday twice while washing your hands? Closing golf courses? Unbelievable power grab which many lapped up without thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Witty's evidence becomes misleading and disingenuous "Sir Chris said it was classified as a high consequence infectious disease. This meant staff could treat patients in “environments which are relatively highly protective, with highly trained skilled staff who are used to dealing with high levels of PPE and therefore at a much lower probability of coming to harm themselves”. However it was later declassified to just an infectious disease."


Leaked What’s app messages from the Health secretary Matt Hancock stated that Covid was a
“Mild disease”

Daily death reports and waiting for reveal the R number. It was a shameful period of over-governance that we must ensure never happens again. Scotch eggs? Sing happy birthday twice while washing your hands? Closing golf courses? Unbelievable power grab which many lapped up without thought.

---

Why do you and Wales-Bales keep mis-spelling his surname, is it a groupspeak thing?

I see that rather than go to the "source document" you pull another Telegraph distillation as justification. In the transcript I attached it deals with the rationale for declassifying Covid as an HCID at length, you should give it a read, you might learn something!

Whenever you resurrect this topic we end up in the same endless loop. Covid risk overegaggerated, lockdowns too widespread and uneccesary, ppe, testing and social distancing a sham and vaccines a greater risk to life than a benefit.

It's an opinion of course but thankfully there are less impressionable people who hopefully will draw the right lessons from that horrible time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TWGL1

Leaked What’s app messages from the Health secretary Matt Hancock stated that Covid was a
“Mild disease”

---

I'm sorry, where's this from? Can't seem to find any mention of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Why do you and Wales-Bales keep mis-spelling his surname, is it a groupspeak thing?

I see that rather than go to the "source document" you pull another Telegraph distillation as justification. In the transcript I attached it deals with the rationale for declassifying Covid as an HCID at length, you should give it a read, you might learn something!

Whenever you resurrect this topic we end up in the same endless loop. Covid risk overegaggerated, lockdowns too widespread and uneccesary, ppe, testing and social distancing a sham and vaccines a greater risk to life than a benefit.

It's an opinion of course but thankfully there are less impressionable people who hopefully will draw the right lessons from that horrible time!

---

Why do you need source documents? :hehe:

Why worry about a typo ?

Just accept you like to be controlled.

If feel I wish to resurrect a post , by you simply replying fuels the endless cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

I'm sorry, where's this from? Can't seem to find any mention of it

---

As if anything Matt Hancock published could be believed! If he did indeed publish that the disease was "mild" then I am of the opinion the disease was cataclysmic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays

Entirely predictable that those applying the "I told you so" retrospective did so on a cherry picked quote from hours of Whitty's testimony.

During that time, following harrowing testimony from Professor Fong on the impact of Covid on ICUs, he stated the following:

I think the scale of the second wave was actually under appreciated in the general public. I think people who had relatives, obviously people who were sick fully understood that this was in fact a larger wave, in terms of total numbers of people who were severely ill and indeed who sadly died. And the first two waves were the ones which had the extraordinary mortality in the very large numbers in ICU.

I think the key thing to remember, and I think people forget this, is that this was an exponentially rising – in the technical sense of the term, an exponentially rising thing, where you have – epidemic, with a doubling rate of three to four days at the point we were talking about. Four doubling times more would have led us to an absolutely catastrophic situation.

But for the UK, not for the world, but for the UK, this is a one in 100 years event because the last time there was something this big was back in 1919 – 18-19.

So I’m not certain that loading an additional risk on would in itself be useful. However, I think that the thing which this absolutely blows an absolute hole in, if it need any further, is the arguments for things like the Great Barrington Declaration, that all you need to do is isolate a few people and everywhere else can just carry on with their lives because they are at limited risk. That is obviously not true in this case and those kinds of arguments are not strong ones to advance in any future pandemic unless you can demonstrate it.

https://ukcovid19inquiry.dracos.co.u...sor-sir-whitty

So Whitty spent time emphasising the scale of the epidemic and rubbishing the central tenet of the The Great Barrington Declaration that has been parotted here as the alternative, none of which appeared in The Telegraph Summary.

Even the Headline of this Post is a distortion. What Whitty actually said was,

I still worry actually, in retrospect, about did we get the level of concern right? Were we either overpitching it, so that people were incredibly afraid of something when in fact their actuarial risk was low, or were we not pitching it enough and therefore people didn’t realise the risk they were walking into.

I think that balance is really hard and arguably some people would say, if anything, we overdid it rather than underdid it at the beginning. I’m just saying that there – certainly there is a range of opinions on that.

It used to be that the critical thinkers parotted that they only used "Source Documents" to explore their flights of fancy..........how standards have slipped!

---

Thanks Cyril for bringing us all back down to Earth. This should now put a lid on the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

Thanks Cyril for bringing us all back down to Earth. This should now put a lid on the topic.

---

Why should we put a lid on the topic , when it’s clear from the start it was exaggerated. The discussion makers like many on this board stated that is was exaggerated for years.

The ones who voiced this opinion were trolled beyond belief and it’s great that the same people were probably correct more often than not on the pressing issues like masks,lockdowns, closing schools , clapping for the NHS ( propaganda) , isolation protocols etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

Thanks Cyril for bringing us all back down to Earth. This should now put a lid on the topic.

---

It should, but it won’t.

Mistakes were made, some judgements were wrong, but in the first two waves the NHS almost went under.

Still the re-writing of history continues.

Amazingly the selfish twats who didn’t give a toss for the vulnerable (and the younger and non vulnerable who also died in great distress), medical staff and other key workers (often low paid and BAME) now use the arrogance and contempt of entitled selfish twats in government to justify themselves!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

It should, but it won’t.

Mistakes were made, some judgements were wrong, but in the first two waves the NHS almost went under.

Still the re-writing of history continues.

Amazingly the selfish twats who didn’t give a toss for the vulnerable (and the younger and non vulnerable who also died in great distress), medical staff and other key workers (often low paid and BAME) now use the arrogance and contempt of entitled selfish twats in government to justify themselves!

---

Sadly you're right of course, not while people have personal crosses to bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

As if anything Matt Hancock published could be believed! If he did indeed publish that the disease was "mild" then I am of the opinion the disease was cataclysmic.

---

Doesn't seem to be any evidence he actually said that as far as I can tell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

Doesn't seem to be any evidence he actually said that as far as I can tell

---

Sorry it was the PM

'Dying from Covid is as big as your risk of falling down stairs'
Boris Johnson had misgivings about the government's shielding advice in discussions with the chief medical officer Prof Sir Chris Whitty. In August 2020 the then-prime minister suggested that if renewed lockdown restrictions were needed over-65s be offered a choice on shielding.
Mr Johnson, addressing Sir Chris in a WhatsApp group on 9 August, said: "If you are over 65 your risk of dying from Covid is probably as big as your risk of falling down stairs. And we don't stop older people from using stairs. What do you think?"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64823096

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmbox

Doesn't seem to be any evidence he actually said that as far as I can tell

---

It might have been Tony Hancock