Taking the piss.

[TWGL1]

And your point is? You said there would have been risk assessments carried out, you're only guessing that and, frankly, with this Government under this Prime Minister, I would not be the least bit surprised if there wasn't. Even if there was, it was still a flagrant breaking of the rules which cannot be fobbed off this time as a work meeting - you need to cast your mind back to what it was like in May 2020, bring a bottle parties were not allowed if I remember rightly.

Sage, at this time, were predicting a reasonable worst-case planning scenario, of 250,000 deaths which was why the public didn’t require to have a risk assessment.

Those who attended the gathering must have had a risk assessment, based on the modelling. If they didn’t I personally couldn’t see how the party would have been authorised. But that is my take on it, unless they thought the SAGE modelling was questionable?

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-29-march-2020

[cyril evans awaydays]

Sage, at this time, were predicting a reasonable worst-case planning scenario, of 250,000 deaths which was why the public didn’t require to have a risk assessment.

Those who attended the gathering must have had a risk assessment, based on the modelling. If they didn’t I personally couldn’t see how the party would have been authorised. But that is my take on it, unless they thought the SAGE modelling was questionable?

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-29-march-2020

I have read your first sentence a number of times and still don't have a scooby what it means. That's notwithstanding the fact that the document you attached says nothing whatsoever about 250k deaths, which I presume you got from Imperial College's initial analysis of what would happen if no restrictions were imposed.

Witter on about risk analysis all you like. This is about the people who made the rules living by a completely different set. Pure and simple!

[TWGL1]

I have read your first sentence a number of times and still don't have a scooby what it means. That's notwithstanding the fact that the document you attached says nothing whatsoever about 250k deaths, which I presume you got from Imperial College's initial analysis of what would happen if no restrictions were imposed.

Witter on about risk analysis all you like. This is about the people who made the rules living by a completely different set. Pure and simple!

Sage predicted 250,000 deaths at the time apologies if it’s the incorrect documentation, perhaps you could post the reasons for the initial lockdown and figures quoted ( I’m sure you are acutely aware of what I was trying to say )

A risk assessment would have been undertaken, ( even something like have you had a cold in the last 28 days, are any family members displaying symptoms or high risk etc ).


Up to 100 people were at the party, not withstanding bar staff, security, and they would have been in contact with many taxi drivers taking them to and from the venue.

The people who attended would then have gone home to parents , children, grandparents etc.

The party held is not my concern ( as I wasn’t there ) but it appears that they were less concerned about the dangers to Covid compared to what they told the public to be at the time. I wonder why ?

[the other bob wilson]

Sage predicted 250,000 deaths at the time apologies if it’s the incorrect documentation, perhaps you could post the reasons for the initial lockdown and figures quoted ( I’m sure you are acutely aware of what I was trying to say )

A risk assessment would have been undertaken, ( even something like have you had a cold in the last 28 days, are any family members displaying symptoms or high risk etc ).


Up to 100 people were at the party, not withstanding bar staff, security, and they would have been in contact with many taxi drivers taking them to and from the venue.

The people who attended would then have gone home to parents , children, grandparents etc.

The party held is not my concern ( as I wasn’t there ) but it appears that they were less concerned about the dangers to Covid compared to what they told the public to be at the time. I wonder why ?

From memory, Neil Ferguson’s modelling back in 2020 predicted 250,000 deaths as a worst case scenario in the event of no restrictions being in force and I think it’s fair to say that it was reported as the biggest single factor in convincing both Government and their scientists from going on with their early decision to look towards Herd Immunity as the way of conquering Covid.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Sage predicted 250,000 deaths at the time apologies if it’s the incorrect documentation, perhaps you could post the reasons for the initial lockdown and figures quoted ( I’m sure you are acutely aware of what I was trying to say )

A risk assessment would have been undertaken, ( even something like have you had a cold in the last 28 days, are any family members displaying symptoms or high risk etc ).


Up to 100 people were at the party, not withstanding bar staff, security, and they would have been in contact with many taxi drivers taking them to and from the venue.

The people who attended would then have gone home to parents , children, grandparents etc.

The party held is not my concern ( as I wasn’t there ) but it appears that they were less concerned about the dangers to Covid compared to what they told the public to be at the time. I wonder why ?

As I said it was Neil Ferguson's Imperial College Advisory Group that came up with the 250k figure and was their estimate of what would happen if no restrictions were applied. Obviously they were hence the Sage documentation estimating 50k in the the 1st wave (if people paid poor regard to the restrictions). A factor reduction as a consequence of restrictions in plain to most but not it seems all.

I just don't understand the risk assessment point. These were people who made the rules and were in daily briefings and warnings to the general populace about their infringement. A number would have already had covid including Boris Johnson. These were people who thought themselves above the law.

I presume that your final point is a projection of the it's nothing more than a cold narrative on the day that we reach 175,000 deaths with Covid.