I too expected a whitewash and was mildly surprised.
I believe that the UK did have a pandemic plan which was evaluated in 2019 and given high marks. I think it was roughly what Sweden actually carried out. The problem was that we didn't implement it.
A respiratory infection is transmitted the same way whether it's flu or a coronavirus so it's wrong to dismiss a plan simply because it applied to flu. Especially if it's the only plan we had. If our pandemic plan didn't consider the proportionality of response, etc. then the on-the-hoof approach that was taken certainly didn't either. Implementing the plan would have cost a lot less in blood and treasure.
I think that the report has ignored the effect of international pressure (or global groupthink) which seemed to drive the response.
"There was a damaging absence of focus on the measures, interventions and
infrastructure required in the event of a pandemic – in particular, a system that could
be scaled up to test, trace and isolate in the event of a pandemic."- The tacit assumption that more is always better is demonstrably foolish as the 28-odd billion fiasco of track and trace showed.
Given that it's quite possible that the pandemic was in large part iatrogenic - a result of the fear and panic spread and amplified by government and media, it seems likely that the enquiry will largely miss the point and the whole sorry affair will be repeated sometime in the future. (see Metatron's latest post at https://metatron.substack.com/p/breaking-largest-study-of-its-kind).
Hopefully "Core UK decision-making and political governance (Module 2)" will cast some light on how much influence 'global groupthink' had.
Personally I think the nightly 'broadcasts of doom' and its baying mini-mob of journalists calling for more, harder, earlier restrictions coz 'look at what country X is doing' had a hand in it all.
As for the track and trace fiasco, we shouldn't have to wait too long for
"Test, Trace and Isolate (Module 7)
Module 7 will look at, and make recommendations on, the approach to testing, tracing and isolation adopted during the pandemic."
I agree about (policies to achieve) net-zero thinking being infected by Groupthink, but so too, unfortunately, is anti-net zero thinking. Figuring out the least cost way to minimize the harm of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is not well serves by Groupthinks of either persuasion.
Again a few of my group of one think contributions:
I do read Roger; I even pay so I can comment! :)) Nothing I advocate depends on attributing every weather event to climate change. Each day's weather is just another data point in physical economic models that enable up to calculate the costs and benefits of alternative mitigation cum adaption policies to optimize intertemporal welfare.
While all my insights are priceless :) they all boil down to the failure to apply cost benefit analysis to every stage of the process: data acquisition, formulation of recommendations, execution of recommendations (which includes ignoring of incorrect recommendations).
I too expected a whitewash and was mildly surprised.
I believe that the UK did have a pandemic plan which was evaluated in 2019 and given high marks. I think it was roughly what Sweden actually carried out. The problem was that we didn't implement it.
A respiratory infection is transmitted the same way whether it's flu or a coronavirus so it's wrong to dismiss a plan simply because it applied to flu. Especially if it's the only plan we had. If our pandemic plan didn't consider the proportionality of response, etc. then the on-the-hoof approach that was taken certainly didn't either. Implementing the plan would have cost a lot less in blood and treasure.
I think that the report has ignored the effect of international pressure (or global groupthink) which seemed to drive the response.
"There was a damaging absence of focus on the measures, interventions and
infrastructure required in the event of a pandemic – in particular, a system that could
be scaled up to test, trace and isolate in the event of a pandemic."- The tacit assumption that more is always better is demonstrably foolish as the 28-odd billion fiasco of track and trace showed.
Given that it's quite possible that the pandemic was in large part iatrogenic - a result of the fear and panic spread and amplified by government and media, it seems likely that the enquiry will largely miss the point and the whole sorry affair will be repeated sometime in the future. (see Metatron's latest post at https://metatron.substack.com/p/breaking-largest-study-of-its-kind).
Thank you, Jim.
Hopefully "Core UK decision-making and political governance (Module 2)" will cast some light on how much influence 'global groupthink' had.
Personally I think the nightly 'broadcasts of doom' and its baying mini-mob of journalists calling for more, harder, earlier restrictions coz 'look at what country X is doing' had a hand in it all.
As for the track and trace fiasco, we shouldn't have to wait too long for
"Test, Trace and Isolate (Module 7)
Module 7 will look at, and make recommendations on, the approach to testing, tracing and isolation adopted during the pandemic."
https://covid19.public-inquiry.uk/modules/test-trace-and-isolate-module-7/
I agree about (policies to achieve) net-zero thinking being infected by Groupthink, but so too, unfortunately, is anti-net zero thinking. Figuring out the least cost way to minimize the harm of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is not well serves by Groupthinks of either persuasion.
Again a few of my group of one think contributions:
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/cop-28-and-counting
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/why-not-lng-exports
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/climate-risk-and-insurance
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/legal-remedies-for-climate-change 1
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/legal-remedies-for-climate-change 2
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/energy-policy
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/how-not-to-break-out-of-the-climate
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/did-climate-change-cause-hurricane
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/market-forces-are-not-enough-to-halt
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/dont-forget-adapting-to-climate-change
Hello Thomas,
My suggestion to you is, read some https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com
Especially on attribution of any and every natural disaster on 'climate change'.
But more generally also.
I do read Roger; I even pay so I can comment! :)) Nothing I advocate depends on attributing every weather event to climate change. Each day's weather is just another data point in physical economic models that enable up to calculate the costs and benefits of alternative mitigation cum adaption policies to optimize intertemporal welfare.
We should certainly have a COVID policy analysis for the US, but here is mine, free of charge.
https://thomaslhutcheson.substack.com/p/covid-policy-errors
While all my insights are priceless :) they all boil down to the failure to apply cost benefit analysis to every stage of the process: data acquisition, formulation of recommendations, execution of recommendations (which includes ignoring of incorrect recommendations).