You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘2020’ tag.

Over the past several months, interview sessions that the House of Commons select committees have conducted generally concern an aspect of coronavirus.

Their interviews and subsequent reports will feed into a wider inquiry on the pandemic to be held in 2022.

On Wednesday, May 26, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s former special adviser Dominic Cummings appeared before the Science and Technology Select Committee for an inquiry that lasted over seven hours.

Cummings’s testimony included allegations that Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, should be fired and that he was a liar.

He agreed to provide evidence by June 4 to the select committee to substantiate those serious allegations, but he never did. Pictured on the right is Jeremy Hunt MP, co-chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee:

TimesRadio interviewed Jeremy Hunt on June 6:

Guido Fawkes has the key quote. Hunt said of the upcoming session with Matt Hancock:

Dominic Cummings made some very serious allegations against [Matt Hancock] in particular, saying that he lied repeatedly. So we will put those allegations to him [Hancock], but you know we haven’t received the written evidence to back those claims up that we were expecting. But we’ll be putting [..] all those allegations to him to give him his rightful chance to respond.

Guido commented (emphasis in the original):

Guido spent about 7 hours watching Cummings insist that the government is an incompetent cabal led by donkeys, and now the same man appears to have forgotten to hand in his homework. Maybe the Select Committee should check if Cummings has decided to upload the evidence to Twitter instead…

I checked Cummings’s Twitter feed today but couldn’t find anything.

Today, June 10, 2021, Matt Hancock appeared before the Health and Social Care Select Committee, co-chaired by Hunt and Greg Clark MP. Other MPs on the committee also asked questions. The co-chairs and the MPs are the same as those on the Science and Technology Select Committee.

The session lasted four and a half hours and is available for replay. Skip over the first four minutes which are in private, then fast forward 15 minutes when they take a break at around 90 minutes in:

Channel 4 also broadcast it:

Guido Fawkes has video clips of and principal points from Hancock’s testimony.

The session also trended on Twitter.

I haven’t listened to all of it yet, so cannot comment. What follows are tweets and excerpts from Guido’s post:

09.35: Greg Clark points out Cummings has missed all deadlines to submit evidence to substantiate his claims made against Hancock during his committee appearance. Cummings has not explained the absence of his submission.

Greg Clark asked Hancock about Cummings’s animosity towards him:

09.36: Hancock denies ever saying something to the PM that he knew to be untrue

09.37: Hancock denies blaming Treasury for blocking purchasing of PPE. Says it is “Not a fair recollection” of the truth.

09.49: Clark: “Did you know that [Cummings] wanted the PM to fire you?”; Hancock: “Yes because he briefed the newspapers at the time”

Questions turned to testing:

10.10: Hancock defends the 100,000 target says it was needed to galvanise the Whitehall machine.

10.12: Hancock claims countries that experienced SARS & MERS were better prepared, though Covid-19 was very different on account of asymptomatic transmission.

Hancock talked about the (duff) modelling numbers:

Hancock’s department had no list of care homes:

I find this next line surprising:

10.29: Hancock stresses that only 1.6% of cases from care homes came from hospitals.

This, too, was surprising:

Contrary to what Cummings said, Hancock said there was a plan early on:

He discussed China:

10:49: Insists that closing the borders last year would have made little difference: “The only way the world could have stopped this virus getting out of China is if China itself had stopped people leaving China.”

11:28: Hancock claims he first heard about asymptomatic spread in January 2020: “I arranged a call with the World Health Organisation. I was told on that call with respect to China this was ‘likely a mistranslation’ […] I bitterly regret that I didn’t overrule that scientific advice.”

Hancock talked about lockdowns.

We should not have been so compliant, because they’ll lock us down again:

With regard to our present situation:

13:31: The Delta/Indian variant now makes up 90% of cases in the UK.

He agreed with Greg Clark on these preliminary conclusions:

One would think that Dominic Cummings watched Matt Hancock’s testimony.

Hancock has agreed to supply the select committee with copies of documentation and data from the early days of the pandemic.

Cummings is now in a position to critique what Hancock said. Many of us await further developments with interest.

Sunday, June 6, 2021, was the 77th anniversary of D-Day, the Longest Day:

https://image.vuukle.com/22960bff-3d6b-4a49-a432-932c3bcb0216-0b634bbf-66d0-4fa6-87f7-d50f45ed7cf5

This map shows the landings in Normandy:

https://image.vuukle.com/42c85f62-4bbb-4aff-b15a-100d5034d7aa-ef9ba589-c623-406a-8fba-3ce6e0827859

While preparing Sunday dinner, I listened to C-SPAN’s Sunday morning show, broadcast on BBC Parliament. Sarah Rose, the author of D-Day Girls, was the guest. Her book is a novel, but she did a lot of historical research showing the intelligence work that women did behind the scenes as part of a carefully-managed international network.

The phone-in included many sons and daughters of Second World War veterans. Nearly all said that those veterans were, understandably, highly reluctant to talk about their war experiences. However, some said that their fathers or grandfathers opened up in their later years. One caller said that she has several hours of memories that she has recorded for posterity, particularly for younger family members.

With more and more of those veterans passing from this mortal coil, now is the time for children and grandchildren to record and catalogue those memories, if they can. One person who has done so is the author of Pacific Paratrooper, remembering Everett A Smith, their father. It’s an excellent website, which also documents much history about the battles and conditions in the Pacific theatre. I am delighted to have the author as one of my regular readers.

We will always remember those heroic men and women:

Incidentally, the Houses of Parliament were bombed in 1941 and had to be reconstructed authentically in the 19th century manner. Both were faithfully restored. The next tweet shows the House of Commons:

Seventy-seven years later, we are still in the grip of the coronavirus crisis and a loss of freedom the troops involved in D-Day would have found unthinkable.

In Britain, former Prime Minister Tony Blair (Labour) appeared on The Andrew Marr Show to say that Britons who have had two vaccinations should be allowed greater freedoms, thereby creating a two-tier society:

If a Conservative had said that, Marr would have heaped criticism all over him or her.

It is mystifying that Tony Blair even gets airtime on this topic. He isn’t in government, nor is his party.

It appears I am not alone, judging from the replies to this tweet:

On the topic of vaccines, Tony Blair has never said if his son Leo, born when he was in No. 10, had the MMR vaccine, which was highly controversial at the time. So, it was okay for him to refuse to give his son a vaccine that every other child born in Britain had/has to have. It is very difficult to get separate children’s vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. One imagines that Blair managed to get them for his son.

Tony Blair also wanted national ID cards. The debate raged for a few years in Parliament. Fortunately, nothing happened.

On Monday, Guido Fawkes’s cartoonist Rich, recalling the ID card debate from the Blair years, posted this:

On the topic of vaccines, the Government is talking about giving them to children. Highly dangerous, one would have thought. The Telegraph‘s Bob Moran was moved to create this cartoon a week ago:

ITV’s Good Morning Britain stoked the flames by asking whether the vaccinated should refuse to associate with the unvaccinated:

Fortunately, most Britons disagree with Good Morning Britain:

June 21 is supposed to be Freedom Day, according to the Government, with the caveat that full reopening of Britain will be based on data rather than dates.

It should come as no surprise that the Government could now backtrack on that date:

On June 1, we had no coronavirus deaths, but that did not make the news:

TalkRADIO host Julia Hartley-Brewer is fed up with the delays. In fact, as the chart below from Peston shows, the UK’s actual coronavirus stats are much better than SAGE’s models:

On June 3, Portugal, the only European country on the UK’s green list for travel, was moved to the amber list, yet these charts tell a different story:

One suspects that it was only ever on the green list for the Champions League final in Porto:

Oddly, we had more freedom a year ago — with no masks and no vaccines — than we do now:

In Wales, First Minister Mark Drakeford (Labour) says that social distancing will not be disappearing any time soon:

Data for the UK should be available on June 14, at which point the Government will announce their decision regarding June 21:

The Government have paid for coronavirus advertising and COVID marshals, extending to 2022. Former London Assembly member David Kurten tweeted a reminder:

I, too, want my country back.

In Germany, scientists from Munich University say that lockdown had no effect on the virus spread:

Something is very wrong when, in a five-minute speech on television, a prime minister or a president can remove everyone’s civil liberties at a stroke.

Monday, March 23, 2020, will be etched on my memory forever. That was the date of the UK’s first lockdown.

D-Day. Freedom Day. What has happened to us — and for a ‘pandemic’ with fatality rates no worse than influenza? We are in a very bad way, not only in the UK, but also elsewhere in the West.

Following on from my post of last week, below is a continued timeline about herd immunity and the coronavirus crisis in Britain.

Old news, perhaps, but it will be interesting to see how much of this, if any, is mentioned at the Government’s hearing, scheduled for 2022.

May 2020

On May 17, 2020, journalist Robert Peston tweeted about a conference in Edinburgh that could have been a super-spreader event:

One of Peston’s readers said that he was partly to blame, because, in March, he wrote an article for The Spectator‘”Herd immunity” will be vital to stopping coronavirus’.

It begins with this (emphases mine):

The key phrase we all need to understand is ‘herd immunity’ – which is what happens to a group of people or animals when they develop sufficient antibodies to be resistant to a disease.

The strategy of the British government in minimising the impact of Covid-19 is to allow the virus to pass through the entire population so that we acquire herd immunity, but at a much delayed speed so that those who suffer the most acute symptoms are able to receive the medical support they need, and such that the health service is not overwhelmed and crushed by the sheer number of cases it has to treat at any one time.

Infection figures were starting to recede in May. This could partly be explained by a month of glorious weather, apart from two days. It was one of the warmest and sunniest on record. I fantasised that I was in Cannes.

On May 18, Freddie Sayers of UnHerd interviewed Prof Karl Sikora, the Founding Dean and Professor of Medicine at the University of Buckingham Medical School and an ex-director of the WHO Cancer Programme:

Prof Sikora said:

The serology results around the world (and forthcoming in Britain) don’t necessarily reveal the percentage of people who have had the disease.

He estimates 25-30% of the UK population has had Covid-19, and higher in the group that is most susceptible.

Pockets of herd immunity help *already* explain the downturn.

Sweden’s end result will not be different to ours – lockdown versus no lockdown.

On May 10, Nic Lewis wrote a post about the UK and Sweden for Climate Etc.: ‘Why herd immunity to COVID-19 is reached much earlier than thought’.

It says, in part:

A study published in March by the COVID-19 Response Team from Imperial College (Ferguson20[1]) appears to have been largely responsible for driving government actions in the UK and, to a fair extent, in the US and some other countries. Until that report came out, the strategy of the UK government, at least, seems to have been to rely on the build up of ‘herd immunity’ to slow the growth of the epidemic and eventually cause it to peter out.

The ‘herd immunity threshold’ (HIT) can be estimated from the basic reproduction rate of the epidemic, R0 – a measure of how many people, on average, each infected individual infects. Standard simple compartmental models of epidemic growth imply that the HIT equals {1 – 1/R0}. Once the HIT is passed, the rate of new infections starts to decline, which should ensure that health systems will not thereafter be overwhelmed and makes it more practicable to take steps to eliminate the disease.

However, the Ferguson20 report estimated that relying on herd immunity would result in 81% of the UK and US populations becoming infected during the epidemic, mainly over a two-month period, based on an R0 estimate of 2.4. These figures imply that the HIT is between 50% and 60%.[2] Their report implied that health systems would be overwhelmed, resulting in far more deaths. It claimed that only draconian government interventions could prevent this occurring. Such interventions were rapidly implemented in the UK, in most states of the US, and in various other countries, via highly disruptive and restrictive enforced ‘lockdowns’.

A notable exception was Sweden, which has continued to pursue a herd immunity-based strategy, relying on relatively modest social distancing policies. The Imperial College team estimated that, after those policies were introduced in mid-March, R0 in Sweden was 2.5, with only a 2.5% probability that it was under 1.5.[3] The rapid spread of COVID-19 in the country in the second half of March suggests that R0 is unlikely to have been significantly under 2.0.[4]

Very sensibly, the Swedish public health authority has surveyed the prevalence of infections by the SARS-COV-2 virus in Stockholm County, the earliest in Sweden hit by COVID-19. They thereby estimated that 17% of the population would have been infected by 11 April, rising to 25% by 1 May 2020.[5] Yet recorded new cases had stopped increasing by 11 April (Figure 1), as had net hospital admissions,[6] and both measures have fallen significantly since. That pattern indicates that the HIT had been reached by 11 April, at which point only 17% of the population appear to have been infected.

How can it be true that the HIT has been reached in Stockholm County with only about 17% of the population having been infected, while an R0 of 2.0 is normally taken to imply a HIT of 50%?

A recent paper (Gomes et al.[7]) provides the answer. It shows that variation between individuals in their susceptibility to infection and their propensity to infect others can cause the HIT to be much lower than it is in a homogeneous population. Standard simple compartmental epidemic models take no account of such variability. And the model used in the Ferguson20 study, while much more complex, appears only to take into account inhomogeneity arising from a very limited set of factors – notably geographic separation from other individuals and household size – with only a modest resulting impact on the growth of the epidemic.[8] Using a compartmental model modified to take such variability into account, with co-variability between susceptibility and infectivity arguably handled in a more realistic way than by Gomes et al., I confirm their finding that the HIT is indeed reached at a much lower level than when the population is homogeneous. That would explain why the HIT appears to have been passed in Stockholm by mid April. The same seems likely to be the case in other major cities and regions that have been badly affected by COVID-19.

On that topic, Prof Sunetra Gupta, one of the signatories to The Barrington Declaration which came out that summer, entered the picture. Prof Gupta is the Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford. Freddie Sayers of UnHerd interviewed her on May 21:

The accompanying article says:

Her group at Oxford produced a rival model to Ferguson’s back in March which speculated that as much as 50% of the population may already have been infected and the true Infection Fatality Rate may be as low as 0.1%.

Since then, we have seen various antibody studies around the world indicating a disappointingly small percentage of seroprevalence — the percentage of the population has the anti-Covid-19 antibody. It was starting to seem like Ferguson’s view was the one closer to the truth.

But, in her first major interview since the Oxford study was published in March, Professor Gupta is only more convinced that her original opinion was correct.

As she sees it, the antibody studies, although useful, do not indicate the true level of exposure or level of immunity. First, many of the antibody tests are “extremely unreliable” and rely on hard-to-achieve representative groups. But more important, many people who have been exposed to the virus will have other kinds of immunity that don’t show up on antibody tests — either for genetic reasons or the result of pre-existing immunities to related coronaviruses such as the common cold.

The implications of this are profound – it means that when we hear results from antibody tests (such as a forthcoming official UK Government study) the percentage who test positive for antibodies is not necessarily equal to the percentage who have immunity or resistance to the virus. The true number could be much higher.

Observing the very similar patterns of the epidemic across countries around the world has convinced Professor Gupta that it is this hidden immunity, more than lockdowns or government interventions, that offers the best explanation of the Covid-19 progression:

“In almost every context we’ve seen the epidemic grow, turn around and die away — almost like clockwork. Different countries have had different lockdown policies, and yet what we’ve observed is almost a uniform pattern of behaviour which is highly consistent with the SIR model. To me that suggests that much of the driving force here was due to the build-up of immunity. I think that’s a more parsimonious explanation than one which requires in every country for lockdown (or various degrees of lockdown, including no lockdown) to have had the same effect.”

June 2020

On June 4, Freddie Sayers interviewed Prof Karl Friston, a computer modelling expert, world-renowned for his contributions to neuroscience. He had been applying his ‘dynamic causal modelling’ approach to the Covid-19 pandemic:

The accompanying article says that his Bayesian models were showing that up to 80% of the population might be naturally immune to coronavirus:

His models suggest that the stark difference between outcomes in the UK and Germany, for example, is not primarily an effect of different government actions (such as better testing and earlier lockdowns) but is better explained by intrinsic differences between the populations that make the “susceptible population” in Germany — the group that is vulnerable to Covid-19 — much smaller than in the UK.

As he told me in our interview, even within the UK, the numbers point to the same thing: that the “effective susceptible population” was never 100%, and was at most 50% and probably more like only 20% of the population. He emphasises that the analysis is not yet complete, but “I suspect, once this has been done, it will look like the effective non-susceptible portion of the population will be about 80%. I think that’s what’s going to happen.”

Theories abound as to which factors best explain the huge disparities between countries in the portion of the population that seems resistant or immune — everything from levels of vitamin D to ethnic-genetic and social and geographical differences may come into play — but Professor Friston makes clear that it does not primarily seem to be a function of government coronavirus policy. “Solving that — understanding that source of variation in terms of this non-susceptibility — is going to be the key to understanding the enormous variation between countries,” he said …

His explanation for the remarkably similar mortality outcomes in Sweden (no lockdown) and the UK (lockdown) is that “they weren’t actually any different. Because at the end of the day the actual processes that get into the epidemiological dynamics — the actual behaviours, the distancing, was evolutionarily specified by the way we behave when we have an infection.”

Most significantly, it would mean that the principal underlying assumption behind the global shutdowns, typified by the famous Imperial College forecasts — namely, that left unchecked this disease would rapidly pass through the entire population of every country and kill around 1% of those infected, leading to untold millions of deaths worldwide without draconian action — was wrong, out by a large factor. The largest co-ordinated government action in history, forcibly closing down most of the world’s societies with consequences that may last for generations, would have been based on faulty science.

When I put this to Professor Friston, he was the model of collegiate discretion. He said that the presumptions of Neil Ferguson’s models were all correct, “under the qualification that the population they were talking about is much smaller than you might imagine”. In other words, Ferguson was right that around 80% of susceptible people would rapidly become infected, and was right that of those between 0.5% and 1% would die — he just missed the fact that the relevant “susceptible population” was only ever a small portion of people in the UK, and an even smaller portion in countries like Germany and elsewhere. Which rather changes everything.

With such elegant formulations are scientific reputations saved. Practically, it makes not much difference whether, as per Sunetra Gupta, the 40,000 officially-counted coronavirus deaths in the UK are 0.1% of 40 million people infected, or, as per Karl Friston’s theory implies, they are more like 0.5% of 8 million people infected with the remaining 32 million shielded from infection by mysterious “immunological dark material”. If you are exposed to the virus and it is destroyed in your body by mucosal antibodies or T-cells or clever genes so that you never become fully infected and don’t even notice it, should that count as an infection? The effect is the same: 40,000 deaths, not 400,000.

However, on Sunday, June 7, SAGE member Prof John Edmunds was still backtracking on his earlier claims about herd immunity from March. He was all about lockdown and told the BBC’s Andrew Marr that the UK should have locked down sooner to prevent deaths:

Speaking of lockdown, Britons were increasingly angry about being told not to leave the house, especially when people were protesting with no social distancing:

June in the UK — Part 1: the angry, yet law abiding, silent majority (June 3)

June in the UK — Part 2: angry silent majority questions lockdown (June 5; masks; no arrests for destructive protestors, two for eccentric Piers Corbyn)

June in the UK — Part 3: the angry silent majority on lockdown (June 5)

June in the UK — Part 4: coronavirus and the public’s anger about health during lockdown (June 5)

June in the UK — Part 5: the hypocrisy surrounding coronavirus and social distancing (June 6, protests)

—————————————————————-

Writing a year later, I do wonder whether getting vaccinated is really worth it for most of us.

Unfortunately, we have to do it to have any semblance of normality.

I’m a big believer in natural herd immunity, less so the artificially engineered type.

More to follow on herd immunity next week.

The Telegraph had two interesting articles on coronavirus at the weekend.

The first is ‘Exclusive: UK vaccine passport plans to be scrapped’. I hope this is true.

Excerpts follow, emphases mine.

For months we have read that the Government is considering then dropping plans for a vaccine passport to be used for attending large events.

The Telegraph‘s article says:

Officials working on the review into Covid-19 status certification believe there is no chance the law will be changed to mandate their use within the UK.

“It’s not a case of ‘it’s finely balanced’. It’s not going to happen,” said one well-placed government source close to the review. “Everyone says it’s dead.”

Israel’s experience appears to have been a factor:

Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister overseeing the review, is yet to submit his recommendations to Mr Johnson. But sources close to both figures say they are instinctively reluctant to adopt the plans.

Furthermore, Israel, the country whose adoption of Covid-19 passports became the template studied closely by the UK (including a trip there from Mr Gove) will drop its “green pass” soon, because so many of its citizens are now vaccinatedThat decision has been carefully noted by ministers.

However, it is still possible that the pass could become a consideration later in the year:

Government ministers may also choose to look again at Covid-19 passports for the autumn and winter, arguing that a sudden deterioration in the Covid situation could see the idea return.

It is also possible that companies might be able to mandate them, particularly for international travel:

A government update on the review in April said there was nothing stopping companies asking for proof of Covid-19 status before granting entry, providing they do not breach equalities laws.

Work on the NHS app, which is being converted to be able to show proof of a jab, negative test or antibodies, is likely to continue, given that it is being used for international travel.

The second Telegraph article is an editorial, ‘How the state used behavioural science to scare a nation into submission’. The author, Laura Dodsworth, wrote a book, A State of Fear, a copy of which was sent to every MP:

donated by a group of concerned people and the Recovery campaign. In a letter to MPs, they described the book as ‘essential reading’ and questioned, as I do, the ethics of fear messaging and behavioural psychology.

Dodsworth rightly takes issue with Boris Johnson’s former special adviser Dominic Cummings’s view that the British people need to be controlled by Government:

Last week we learnt that Dominic Cummings believed the Covid-19 emergency would have benefitted from the “kingly authority” of data scientist, Marc Warner. This is exactly the style of authoritarian, top-down ‘state knows best’ style of government we need to move away from. It does not befit one of the cradles of democracy and the British people deserve better

Back in 2019, Mr Cummings predicted “The future will be about experimental psychology, and data science.” Well, the future is now. And the use of ‘nudge’ to encourage compliance with the rules has changed our lives and our relationships with each other, and irreversibly shifted the social contract between individuals and government.

However, this was already a topic over a decade ago, when Conservatives regained power in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who are anything but liberal or democrats:

All of this was predicted in the report MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy, a Cabinet Office discussion paper from 2010. It warned: 

“People have a strong instinct for reciprocity that informs their relationship with government – they pay taxes and the government provides services in return. This transactional model remains intact if government legislates and provides advice to inform behaviour. But if government is seen as using powerful, pre-conscious effects to subtly change behaviour, people may feel the relationship has changed: now the state is affecting ‘them’ – their very personality.”

The nudge concept came, as most bad ideas do, from the United States, specifically the Obama administration.

Nonetheless, Prime Minister David Cameron instituted a ‘nudge’ unit at the heart of Government, known as SPI-B, which is part of SAGE. The ‘B’ stands for ‘behaviour’. It has been working throughout the coronavirus crisis:

You could argue that frightening people to make them follow the rules during an emergency was in our best interests. But what about the opposing arguments that it affected our personalities, our mental health and our agency?

The insufficiently fearful were deliberately alarmedHorror film styled advertising, laws to manage the minutiae of our daily lives, the most punitive fines since the Dark Ages, encouraging social conformity and the alarmist use of statistics were just some of the government’s tactics during the pandemic, signalling their lack of trust in the public’s ability to understand risk and behave sensibly.

Even children were not exempt from such blame. Indeed, they were explicitly targeted with messaging warning “Don’t kill granny.” This shocking slogan looks even more abhorrent given the allegations that the elderly were not tested before being transferred from hospital to care homes – who killed granny, exactly?

The next ‘nudge’ will probably involve climate change:

If you concede that behavioural science and the weaponisation of fear are acceptable tools for one crisis, will you accept them for the next? One recent report from a team at the University of Bath already shows how behavioural psychologists hope to segue from Covid to climate behaviour change while “habits are weakest and most malleable to change”. ‘Nudge’ is likely to play a bigger part in future government attempts to transform us into model citizens.

One wonders how successful that will be, given that climate change is far from the greatest worry on Britons’ minds at the moment.

It would be helpful to know exactly how much of our taxes go to maintaining the ‘nudge’ unit and the political persuasions of those working in it.

Early in March 2020, my far better half and I were optimistic that Prime Minister Boris Johnson, his government and his advisers would not be too proscriptive about coronavirus restrictions.

In the end, they were, but the following timeline shows how quickly their thinking on herd immunity changed.

In light of Dominic Cummings’s testimony to the Science and Technology Select Committee on Wednesday, May 26, and his lengthy Twitter thread prepared beforehand (continuing afterwards), I offer a short and a long version of what happened.

Short version

The Government denies that natural herd immunity — catching the virus — was ever government policy.

Yet, here is Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK’s chief scientific adviser, at a coronavirus briefing on Thursday, March 12, 2020:

It seems that Cummings might have advised the government to backtrack and deny it was policy, however briefly:

As Cummings said on Wednesday, once he received numbers from an NHS specialist/mathematician who extrapolated scenarios on what could happen, the Government changed tack:

Long version

I haven’t missed a single coronavirus briefing since they started in March 2020. As regular readers will know, I have been deep-diving into the pandemic since then.

February 2020

Lessons From The Crisis has an excellent article on how the herd immunity plan unfolded and changed. ‘It’s bizarre that this needs saying, but *of course* the UK had a Herd Immunity plan’ is well worth reading.

It includes a capture of SAGE minutes from February 4, 2020, advocating that policies for influenza be followed. The article summarises this as follows (emphases in the original):

On the 4th of February, at the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’s fourth Covid meeting, influenza planning, with its assertions that spread was “inevitable”and halting the virus “a waste of resources” was adopted as the official recommendation- tragically this was about ten days before Chinese covid cases peaked, never return to their early 2020 levels …

The scientific consensus presented to ministers was: mass infection of the population was inevitable, a vaccine would not be available in time, so the only choices were about how to manage the mass infection of the population until the country had accumulated enough cases to get to herd immunity

The alternative being attempted by governments elsewhere, trying to stop the disease from infecting the population, was regarded as folly; the UK government’s scientific advisors were certain that countries attempting suppression would fail …

March 2020

In his testimony on Wednesday, Cummings claimed he broke rank with the Government on Wednesday, March 11:

Publicly, however, he was still on board with the Government plan:

Vallance gave his aforementioned briefing on herd immunity on March 12. This is what appeared afterwards:

This is a summary of an interview Vallance gave to Sky News the next day (full video here):

The Independent quoted a BBC interview with him on March 13:

Sir Patrick told the BBC that the advice the government is following for tackling coronavirus is not looking to “suppress” the disease entirely but to help create a “herd immunity in the UK” while protecting the most vulnerable from it.

Asked if there is a fear that clamping down too hard on its spread could see it return, Sir Patrick said: “That is exactly the risk you would expect from previous epidemics.

“If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time.

“Our aim is to try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it.

“Those are the key things we need to do.”

That same day, SAGE’s Professor John Edmunds also advocated natural herd immunity in this Channel 4 interview:

Nigel Farage was outraged by the policy:

The Lessons From The Crisis article says that the turning point happened almost immediately:

Partly in response to this outrage, the government changed course; Boris Johnson swapped strategies and began locking down the country just 3 days after the herd immunity plan became public, with new priorities built around suppressing the virus with blunt instruments such as lockdowns to buy time for building countermeasures- testing and tracing capacity, vaccines, treatments.

That is not to give Nigel Farage single-handed credit. The media also helped a lot, especially with frequent footage of what was happening in northern Italy at the time.

On Monday, March 16, Prof Neil Ferguson released his (spurious) numbers from Imperial College London, which changed the Government’s policy. 

UnHerd reported on it the following day — ‘Why the Government changed tack on Covid-19’:

The Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, and the government’s science adviser Dr David Halpern indicated that the government’s strategy was to allow the virus to pass through the population, to allow individuals to “acquire herd immunity” at a delayed speed, while vulnerable groups were “cocooned.” This strategy, however, was subsequently contradicted by health secretary Matt Hancock, who insisted that “herd immunity is not our goal or policy”.

The quick reversals did not end there, as a ban was announced on mass gatherings just a day after the government’s initial claims that it was not the right time for such measures. On Saturday, the government briefed select journalists on “wartime measures” to quarantine the elderly at home or in care homes, away from any contact with the rest of the population; earlier than such measures were expected to be announced.

Finally, it was revealed yesterday afternoon that the Prime Minister had decided to dramatically step up countermeasures, and switch entirely to a strategy of containment as a result of advice from an expert response team at Imperial College London, which concluded that the strategy of delay would likely cause “hundreds of thousands” of avoidable deaths.

The initial plans — to establish herd immunity based on research on social fatigue and assumptions that effective vaccines would not be developed — contradicted the guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO), and the wealth of evidence in the fields of epidemiology, behavioural science and immunology, so it is unsurprising that countless experts have already questioned and criticised the strategy, including epidemiologists, immunologists, and behavioural scientists.

On Saturday, March 21, Alex Wickham from Buzzfeed summarised a tense and confused week inside No. 10, and the road to lockdown (emphases mine):

While the scientific debate was raging last week between experts, officials, and ministers in face-to-face meetings and over emails and text messages, Johnson’s government was publicly insisting that the scientific advice showed the UK did not yet have to bring in more stringent measures to fight the virus.

Political aides tacitly criticised other countries who had taken more dramatic steps, claiming Britain was being “guided by the science” rather than politics.

Towards the end of last week, some ministers and political aides at the top of the government were still arguing that the original strategy of home isolation of suspect cases — but no real restrictions on wider society — was correct, despite almost every other European country taking a much tougher approach, and increasing alarm among SAGE experts.

The thought of months or even a year of social distancing was simply not feasible, some in Johnson’s team still thought at that point. They continued to privately defend the controversial “herd immunity” approach outlined to the media by Vallance, even as other aides scrambled to claim the UK had never considered it to be policy.

And there was fury behind the scenes among members of Johnson’s team at the likes of Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt, who had been publicly saying the government had got it wrong.

But data from Italy — presented to the government before it was published by experts at Imperial College on Monday — changed all that. Their report confirmed the earlier fears of the epidemiologists who had been calling for more drastic action.

On Monday, March 23 — the day Prime Minister Boris Johnson took away every Briton’s civil liberties in five minutes by announcing the first lockdown — Byline Times posted a must-read article, ‘COVID-19 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Part Three — Behavioural Scientists told Government to use “Herd Immunity” to Justify Business-As-Usual’.

SPI-B is our behavioural, or ‘nudge’, unit and is part of SAGE. Dr David Halpern, a SAGE member, runs the unit. This was allegedly their role in the herd immunity discussions:

A SPI-B document dated 4 March, which rejected the need for school closures, went on to refer to the medical concept of immunity. In a discussion about how the public might be confused about the disparity between the Government’s approach of “not applying widescale social isolation at the same time as recommending isolation to at-risk groups”, the document acknowledges disagreement within the SPI-B.

The document explains: “One view is that explaining that members of the community are building some immunity will make this acceptable. Another view is that recommending isolation to only one section of society risks causing discontent.”

The idea of immunity does not come up elsewhere in the SAGE corpus. But, Professor Chris Whitty, the Government’s Chief Medical Advisor, claimed that 20% of the population of Wuhan, China, had contracted the Coronavirus and acquired herd immunity. He believed that this explained why new cases had begun to fall in China

This flatly contradicted data from China showing that, by end of January, after the crisis had peaked, just under 95% of the Wuhan population remained uninfected by the virus. This was, therefore, nothing to do with herd immunity, but a result of China’s emergency containment response. 

The UK Government, it seemed, had made a gamble: one that Dr Brian Ferguson, Director of Immunology at Cambridge University, described as “not scientifically based and irresponsible” because typically “Coronaviruses don’t make long-lasting antibody responses”.

Whether or not it was a specific goal of the Government, its network of behavioural science advisors had fielded herd immunity as a way of justifying to the public why the Government was not taking early action – despite having no scientific evidence behind the idea

Social media discussions on herd immunity began to appear:

On Tuesday, March 24, Byline Times posted another must-read article, ‘The Coronavirus Crisis: Oxford Model Touting “Herd Immunity” was Promoted by PR Agency Tied to Ministry of Defence and Nudge Unit’.

Excerpts follow:

On 24 March, the Financial Times claimed that as much as half of the British population may have already been infected by the novel Coronavirus, according to a new model by Oxford University’s Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease group

The conclusion, according to the FT’s science editor Clive Cookson, suggested that the country “had already acquired substantial herd immunity through the unrecognised spread of COVID-19 over more than two months”. If true, this would vindicate the Government’s “unofficial herd immunity strategy – allowing controlled spread of infection,” he stated.

Although numerous epidemiologists and scientists had questioned the validity of the Oxford model – which had not been peer-reviewed – it was promoted to the press by a PR agency with ties to the Government, raising questions about how and why this model was published and disseminated at this time.

The draft paper, which was originally posted to Dropbox, included a disclaimer noting that its content was “not final” and could be “updated any time”. The disclaimer also contained a contact point for journalists: “Contact for press enquiries: Cairbre Sugrue, cairbre@sugruecomms.com.”

Dr Lewis Mackenzie, a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Discovery Fellow, commented: “Why on earth has this been sent to the media via a third party PR company instead of the Oxford University press team? Seems very irresponsible to encourage reporting on this topic before the scientific community had a chance to comment and peer-review it.”

When asked why its own press team did not release the study, Oxford University said: “All Oxford academics have freedom of expression regarding their areas of specialism, including communication through the media. It is therefore not uncommon for academics to make their own arrangements for contacting the press. The university cannot comment on individual arrangements that it is not party to.”

Caibre Sugrue is the founding director of Sugrue Communications, a technology PR agency. He is also a non-executive advisory board member of 100%Open, an innovation consultancy – which has worked for several British Government agencies, including the UK Ministry of Defence’s Defence, Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) and a leading charity which co-owns the Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) or ‘nudge unit’.

This seems to be the first appearance of Prof Sunetra Gupta, later of The Barrington Declaration (a libertarian approach to coronavirus self-isolation), who works at Oxford University:

The original FT piece had claimed that, if substantial herd immunity had been achieved, restrictions could be removed sooner than expected. The article added: “Although some experts have shed doubt on the strength and length of the human immune response to the virus, Prof Gupta said the emerging evidence made her confident that humanity would build up herd immunity against COVID-19.

I contacted Professor Sun[e]tra Gupta, one of the co-authors of the study, to find out what this emerging evidence is. She did not respond to a request for comment. However, the model was reported worldwide and some commentators in both the US and UK used it to suggest that strong social distancing measures may be unnecessary

Scientists are divided on the prospects for achieving herd immunity, but most agree that, while achieving it may be possible at some point, it is not clear how long it would last. In any case, whether or not it is achievable, the immediate focus should be on minimising fatalities.

By the end of the month, confusion among journalists reigned:

April 2020

In April, it appeared that dealing with coronavirus was becoming highly complex. Author Ian Leslie tweeted a considered an explanation from a Financial Times reader:

May 2020

Two months later, Sir Patrick Vallance denied that natural herd immunity was ever a plan:

Prof John Edmunds gave Channel 4 another interview, wherein he appeared to backtrack on his previous claims about herd immunity. The first video is from his March interview and the second from May:

I’ll have more on the UK’s approach to herd immunity next week.

On Wednesday, May 26, 2021, Dominic Cummings, former special adviser to Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared before the Science and Technology Select Committee for an inquiry that lasted over seven hours.

The full session is on Parliamentlive.tv.

As one might expect from someone the media portrayed as the power behind the throne between July 2019 and November 2020, this was a highly gripping interview conducted by a number of MPs.

Cummings discussed Boris, Health Secretary Matt Hancock and the coronavirus situation. With regard to the pandemic, he said that the Government, including himself, let the nation down at a time when Britons needed them the most. He apologised for not having insisted on urgent action sooner early in 2020.

Highlights follow.

Boris

Cummings’s opinion of Boris is not the highest at the moment. Cummings wondered whether to tender his resignation several times but decided to stay on to implement the reforms he thought would make No. 10 work better.

One of their big bones of contention was the way No. 10 — especially Boris — liaised with the media, especially during the coronavirus crisis.

According to Cummings, Boris wanted to please the media only to end up contradicting coronavirus policy.

At one point, Boris opposed parts of Cummings’s plan to reform the way No. 10 worked, admitting that he preferred the ‘chaos’ (his word) to giving Cummings the power to resolve said chaos and make it run more efficiently.

Cummings said that he does not think that Boris Johnson is a good Prime Minister.

The media

The media outlets, Cummings said, gave him a hard time because he wanted to manage — and perfect — the way that No. 10 interacted with them.

Cummings’s reforms would have distanced the media contact with the Prime Minister, something that they clearly do not want.

Cummings’s trip to Barnard Castle

Last Spring, Cummings and his family went to Barnard Castle (a town and a castle) in County Durham. It was a huge deal. Boris even made him hold a press conference to explain his actions around a year ago at this time.

Naturally, MPs wanted to find out why Cummings went so far from London when people were told to stay at home.

Cummings confessed that there was something he did not mention during last year’s press conference. He said that staying in his home in north London had become untenable for him, his wife Mary Wakefield (a Spectator journalist) and their little boy. People were outside their home threatening Cummings’s life.

He said that he had spoken to Boris about decamping to Barnard Castle, where his father lives. Boris said that he could either go there or to a Government-owned property in London. Boris then went into hospital with coronavirus and Cummings himself also had the illness.

Cummings and his wife spent a few weeks deciding what to do. Then a newspaper article alleged that Cummings said something about coronavirus deaths that was patently false. Once again, people appeared outside his home.

The couple decided to go to Barnard Castle by car. Cummings wanted to get back to work, even though he had not recovered from the virus. Cummings’s wife did not want him to go back alone, so the family left Barnard Castle to return to London.

The story ran and ran in the news, agitating an already distressed general public cooped up at home. Cummings said that, once Boris returned to Downing Street, he said, ‘This cannot stand’ and told his adviser to hold a press conference, which one MP at the inquiry described as a ‘witch hunt’.

Carrie Symonds

Cummings was also frustrated with Boris’s fiancée, Carrie Symonds, who, on one occasion when coronavirus was critical, wanted Boris to have someone complain to a newspaper about a story involving the couple’s dog.

He also said that Symonds had too much say in hiring No. 10 staff.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock

On more than one occasion during the session, Cummings called Health Secretary Matt Hancock a liar for his lack of coronavirus plan.

Cummings said that Hancock should have been fired early last year for claiming that patients leaving hospital for care homes last year would be tested before discharge and for saying that a ‘protective’ (Hancock’s word) ring was placed around care homes.

Cummings said that neither claim was true. The Select Committee have asked Cummings to provide them with specific evidence for such serious allegations.

Barbara Keeley (Labour) was one of the MPs asking Cummings about the care home debacle:

The Science and Technology Select Committee will be interviewing Matt Hancock in a fortnight.

Afterwards, they will file their report from their many sessions on coronavirus. This can be used as evidence in a general inquiry into the Government’s handling of coronavirus, scheduled to begin sometime in 2022.

Coronavirus

Cummings answered a lot of questions about the 2020 coronavirus policy.

He said that a plan for lockdown should have been developed in January 2020. The general consensus in No. 10 was that it was a new type of SARS and that everything would blow over soon.

Cummings thought that air travel should be stopped, but that No. 10 and a number of Conservative MPs thought that would be seen as a ‘racist’ policy, therefore, nothing happened.

The idea of doing nothing was mooted and let people have ‘chicken pox parties’ so that there would be a natural herd immunity by September 2020.

By February, Cummings became increasingly concerned and wanted a southeast Asian style lockdown. In early March, he began consulting academics who had strong quantitative (number-crunching algorithmic) skills to project what would actually occur if there were no lockdown. Cummings referred to this as Plan B:

A specialist in the NHS who was also good with numbers advised Cummings that ‘chicken pox parties’ were out of the question. Coronavirus was too deadly.

Cummings said that he was reluctant to press for a lockdown at the end of January or in February because he was worried that his assumptions might have been wrong.

In any event, the scenario given to him in March helped him persuade No. 10 that a lockdown was necessary. Yet, even then, he said that SAGE members disagreed among themselves as to whether lockdown was a good idea.

After the first lockdown, he said, Boris had deep regrets as to whether it was the right thing to have done. He was worried about the economic impact on people’s lives at the same time he regretted the loss of so many Britons to the disease.

When autumn rolled around, Sir Patrick Vallance and Prof Chris Whitty alerted Cummings that a second lockdown was needed. Boris disagreed, because he did not want any more distress inflicted on the public or the economy. In the end, we had a very lengthy lockdown from Christmas 2020 through to April 2021.

Conclusion

Cummings said that many things need to change in No. 10 and Whitehall (civil servants).

Too few people want emergency processes that would streamline procurement, for example. Cummings managed to get some reforms in that area in times of crisis. He also managed to get a special situation room set up at No. 10, which he said that Downing Street officials like because electronic equipment can be taken in for meetings. The COBR room does not allow that option.

Cummings is also frustrated that civil servants cannot be fired easily. Some, he said, clearly need to go.

He also says that our political system needs a rethink. He said that the 2019 choice between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn was not good.

Although I do not agree — even now — about Cummings’s views on lockdown and masks, I am sorry that he will not be able to implement his changes in Downing Street and Whitehall.

Those interested can read detailed live coverage from The Guardian.

It’s been quite apparent that the BBC were anxious to attack the Conservative government at every turn prior to May’s elections.

Other media outlets also promoted the same stories.

Some accounts were reported inaccurately. They weren’t exactly fake news, but either details were omitted or added, with any corrections placed on less visited web pages.

The Sir James Dyson story from the BBC is a case in point.

In early 2020, when coronavirus had every Western country in a tailspin, the Government were negotiating with British vacuum machine and hand dryer company owner/founder Sir James Dyson on the manufacture of ventilators. Dyson said that his company could develop the technology and do the job. Dyson is based in Singapore, so he wanted to make sure that, if his employees had to come to the UK, their wages would not incur tax in Britain.

By April 24, 2020, new ventilators were no longer needed. The Government no doubt thanked Dyson for his kind offer, and that was the end of the story.

However, the media resurrected the story one year later. This is how it was seen by a Twitter user in April 2021. Dyson is pictured with one of his amazing hand dryers, which really work:

On April 21, Guido Fawkes reported on the handling of the story and recalled that MPs — including Labour, especially Sir Keir Starmer — agreed that taxation of foreign companies’ employees who manufactured critical clinical equipment, such as ventilators, would be waived during the first few months of the pandemic:

Guido’s post says (emphases in the original):

This morning the BBC reveal texts between the PM and James Dyson, in which Boris promised to “fix” a tax issue to prevent Dyson’s employees having to pay extra if they came here to make Covid ventilators during what was a national emergency. The Treasury changed the rules to mean any days worked by foreign employees towards the national Covid effort wouldn’t be counted by HMRC between March and June 2020. Only an hysterical partisan would take issue with this, here’s Labour’s line this morning:

These are jaw-dropping revelations. Boris Johnson is now front and centre of the biggest lobbying scandal in a generation, and Tory sleaze has reached the heart of Downing Street.”

A gigantic volte-face given Labour repeatedly praised the ventilator response – a response the tax changes aimed to bolster. The changes were openly put to parliament and applied to non-tax-resident doctors and engineers who would otherwise have had negative tax implications for helping in the fight against Covid. VAT and customs duties on vital medical equipment were also waived. In April 2020, Rachel Reeves said the government needed to “strain every sinew and utilise untapped resources in UK manufacturing, to deliver essential equipment to frontline workers”. A week later, Starmer praised everyone involved in the effort to get ventilators:

Even Tony Blair (Labour) thought that this year’s furore was a load of cobblers:

Last year, Dyson and Prime Minister Boris Johnson had exchanged text messages about the taxation issue. Boris defended the texts. On April 23, this was Guido’s Quote of the Day. Boris said:

If you think that there’s anything remotely dodgy, or rum, or weird, or sleazy about trying to secure more ventilators at a time of a national pandemic, and doing everything in your power to do that…then I think that you’re out of your mind.

On April 26, the BBC had to issue a retraction. They had added fake news to the story (emphases in purple mine):

Various outlets, Wednesday 21 April 2021

In our coverage of texts he had sent to the Prime Minister we referred in various outlets to Sir James Dyson as a prominent Conservative supporter or said he backed the Conservatives.

Sir James says this is factually incorrect.

We are happy to set the record straight.

26/04/2021

However, for some, the story did not end there. It is unclear whether the BBC reported the next item or where it originated. On Tuesday, May 4, two days before the UK’s local and regional elections, some Scots were angry to find out that Boris’s brother is a company director for Dyson Technical Training Limited. Perhaps it was a coincidence, perhaps not. In any event, plenty of people on the Left have their high-status connections, too.

Jo Johnson was appointed to that post on February 18, 2020:

But I digress.

Returning to the BBC, on Wednesday, May 12, the broadcaster was forced to make a further retraction of its Dyson coverage:

Guido has the full story.

The BBC stated (emphases mine):

We accept that Sir James Dyson is not a prominent Conservative supporter as was stated in some of our coverage of his text messages with the Prime Minister. The James Dyson Foundation made a charitable gift to support the Wiltshire Engineering Festival for school children. We accept that this does not signal affiliation to any political party and we would like to put the record straight. Sir James also raised concerns about the accuracy of other aspects of our reporting. We wish to make clear that Sir James contacted Number 10 in response to the Prime Minister’s direct request to him for assistance in relation to the urgent need for ventilators and incurred costs of £20 million which his company voluntarily absorbed in trying to assist in the national emergency. His text messages to the Prime Minister were also later sent to officials. We are sorry that these facts were not always reflected in our coverage, and we apologise for not doing so.

Dyson responded:

The BBC now acknowledges that it was wrong and has issued an apology – which I accept. To justify its claim that I am a “prominent Conservative supporter” the BBC shamefully twisted our charitable gift to school children to suit their political narrative. The Prime Minister asked Dyson to help at a time of crisis, in the national interest, and we did just that. We dropped everything and focused on the national effort. Far from any gain, the project cost us £20 million – a sum we voluntarily bore. I am proud of the efforts of every Dyson person who contributed and we would do precisely the same again. It was deeply disappointing, for me and for the hundreds of Dyson people who gave it their all, to have our efforts developing an emergency ventilator mischaracterised and used for political mudslinging.

To think that everyone in Britain with a television set is forced to pay annually for the BBC’s fake news or be fined — perhaps even sentenced to jail, as has happened in the past — is shameful.

I have several more examples of the Beeb’s ‘stories’ to explore in future posts.

As I wrote last week, the fawning media coverage of Prince Philip’s death, especially by the BBC, was appalling in its hypocrisy.

They were rarely nice and respectful to him during his long life. It was disgusting to see BBC reporters suddenly in black, notionally fighting back tears. For decades, they and other media outlets treated this man terribly, so much so that, for many years, I wondered why the Queen had married the Prince. No one I knew could explain why. Eventually, I had to do my own research to learn more about him.

Re media knavery, here’s a case in point. In 2019, the BBC’s veteran radio presenter and, more recently, host of Mastermind, John Humphreys told of his slanging match with Prince Philip in 1975 during a Royal visit to Mexico. There was a mix-up over what vehicle each was to have been travelling in. That’s what he remembered about Prince Philip.

Humphreys then proceeded to voice his regret about not having an exclusive interview with the Queen. The Sun (link above) reported (emphases mine):

John, who left Radio 4’s Today last month, was speaking to BBC colleague Justin Webb at an event organised by Intelligence Squared.

The retired newshound, famous for his tough grillings, also admitted he twice begged the Queen, 93, to do an interview — but said she replied: “Nope.”

She also told him that if she was ever to do such a chat, it would “certainly not be with you”.

John said: “I have wanted to sit there and say, ‘With me this morning is Her Majesty The Queen.’

“She has probably met more powerful people than anyone else. And there’s the gossip, you know what I mean?”

Good for the Queen for seeing through John Humphreys. Such an interview would have been all about him.

Last week, MPs and Peers in Westminster spent time remembering Prince Philip. So did representatives in the devolved assemblies in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

One young MLA from Northern Ireland said that she ‘never really appreciated’ Prince Philip until he died, at which point she discovered all sorts of interesting details about his life that she had never heard before.

Well, yes, the media hid all that from the British public.

The only time Prince Philip was in the news was when he made one of his famous ‘gaffes’ on a trip. News presenters would ask the royal reporters if said gaffes would cause a diplomatic incident or harm trade relations with the country in question.

The satirical magazine Private Eye referred to the Prince as Phil the Greek. One would expect that from a satirical magazine. However, the news media were no better.

Even on May 4, 2017, when the 95-year-old Prince announced he would be standing down from public life, coverage was lukewarm, including in The Telegraph.

These are the principal facts from the article, mixed in with the usual negatives:

The Duke of Edinburgh is Patron, President or a member of over 780 organisations, with which he will continue to be associated, although he will no longer play an active role by attending engagements …

The Duke of Edinburgh has spent 25 days so far this year carrying out public engagements – more than the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Queen.

Philip’s appearances out and about with the monarch in the public eye since the start of 2017 have ranged from feeding an elephant at ZSL Whipsnade Zoo to attending the unveiling of a national memorial on Horse Guards Parade.

Solo engagements by the 95-year-old also included opening the new Warner Stand at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London on Wednesday and meeting actor Tom Cruise at a Buckingham Palace dinner to mark the 75th anniversary of the Outward Bound Trust in March.

The article also had a section called ‘The Prince in numbers’:

Here are some facts about Prince Philip:

Total number of solo engagements – 22,191

Total number of solo overseas visits – 637 (Commonwealth countries – 229 visits to 67 countries / other countries 408 visits to 76 countries)

Total number of speeches given – 5,493

Total number of patronages – 785 organisations

Presentation of colours – 54

Number of service appointments – 32

Number of books authored – 14

Oddly, the best tribute that day came from Jeremy Corbyn MP, who led the Labour Party at that time. Corbyn is hardly known for his royalist sentiments, but he recognised the Prince’s service over so many decades:

I would like to pay tribute to Prince Philip following his decision to retire from public service.

He has dedicated his life to supporting the Queen and our country with a clear sense of public duty.

His Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme has inspired young people for more than 60 years in over 140 nations.

We thank Prince Philip for his service to the country and wish him all the best in his well-earned retirement.

On July 8, 2020, CheatSheet listed the Prince’s most famous ‘gaffes’ and pointed the finger at him for his globalist perspectives regarding overpopulation, complete with a video:

Back in 1988, the duke brought up overpopulation when speaking to the German news agency Deutsche Press Agentur about reincarnation.

“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation,” The Telegraph quoted Philip saying at the time.

A few different versions of the quote have circulated during the coronavirus outbreak. Another published version claims the queen’s husband said: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

Prince Philip has never shied away from his feelings about overpopulation. In 2008, he said he believed it was one of the biggest challenges in conservation before offering his thoughts on what should be done about it.

And prior to that, the Duke of Edinburgh told People Magazine: “Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We’re in for a major disaster if it isn’t curbed–not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they’ll do…If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation, and war.”

It was left to ordinary people — not journalists — to tell the world about the Prince and his life. Did you know, for example, that Prince Philip held the Queen’s hand while she gave birth to Prince Edward in 1964? Very, very few fathers did that in the 1960s.

This is an excellent Twitter thread about his life on the occasion of his 99th birthday last June:

Last Monday, a number of MPs said that they had participated in the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme when they were young. A few of them said that the programme — comprised of arduous Bronze, Silver and Gold levels — gave them the confidence to run for public office. It also encouraged physical activity and spurred Lady (Tanni) Grey-Thomas to become an award-winning Paralympian — now a crossbench life peer in the House of Lords. She explains the programme in more detail in this short video:

The residents of the South Pacific island of Tanna must have been sad to know that the man whom they viewed as their messiah had departed this mortal coil. They believed that he would settle among them:

What we did not know was that Prince Philip, once he found out he was so revered, kept in touch with the islanders, sent them gifts and also met privately with a delegation of them at Windsor Castle.

On Sunday, April 18, The Telegraph reported on this unusual story, excerpted below:

In the Sixties, when Vanuatu was an Anglo-French colony known as the New Hebrides, it is believed that tribesmen would have set eyes on a portrait of Prince Philip alongside the Queen (whom he had married in 1947) hanging in various official buildings – and decided that this handsome young man in the Naval uniform was the very same ancestor of their god.

This belief that the Duke was a prodigal son of the island was reinforced when coincidentally he and the Queen made an official visit to the New Hebrides in 1974. A warrior named Chief Jack Naiva, who died in 2009, was one of the paddlers of a war canoe that greeted the Royal Yacht Britannia.

“I saw him standing on the deck in his white uniform,” Chief Jack is on record as saying. “I knew then that he was the true messiah.”

Ever since, villagers have prayed to the British monarch daily. They ask for his blessing on the banana and yam crops they grow in the fertile volcanic soil and have held on to the fervent belief that one day he will return to the island and unite the nations of England and Tanna

Largely cut off from the world with limited electronic communications, the islanders were only made aware of the Duke of Edinburgh’s death last Friday when a worker from a nearby spa resort made a journey on Saturday afternoon to break the news to them. It was reported that one tribeswoman immediately burst into tears, while the men fell silent as they tried to comfort their children.

When the Duke retired from public duties in May 2017, villagers only found out several days later after a visit by a Reuters journalist. The village chief Jack Malia said then that the islanders were still holding on to the hope that the Duke would visit.

“If he comes one day, the people will not be poor, there will be no sickness, no debt and the garden will be growing very well,” he said through an interpreter at the local Nakamal – a traditional meeting place where the tribesman gather at night to swap stories and drink highly intoxicating kava.

The same drink was cracked open to celebrate the 89th birthday of the Duke of Edinburgh on June 10, 2010 – the date he was initially prophesied to return to the island and live alongside villagers in a straw hut, hunting the wild pigs that are abundant on the island and adopting the local traditional dress which, for males, is nothing but a large grass sheath …

Discovered in 1774 by Captain James Cook, in 1906 the islands became the New Hebrides, jointly administered by Britain and France until independence in 1980. Even after his visit in 1974, the Prince was not aware of the legend surrounding him until John Champion, the British Resident Commissioner in the New Hebrides, told him a few years later.

Ever since, he has always taken the esteem with which he is held by the people of Tanna extremely seriously. Over the years he has exchanged various gifts with the islanders. Tanna elders once sent Prince Philip a “nal nal” wooden hunting club. He in turn sent them back a photograph of himself holding the club – which has become a cherished religious icon on the island alongside other photographs of the Duke.

In 2007, a delegation of five islanders visited Britain in the hope of an audience with Prince Philip as part of a Channel 4 documentary called Meet the Natives. The filmmakers took the men to stay with Prince Philip’s friend Sir Humphrey Wakefield at Chillingham castle in Northumberland. Sir Humphrey, whose daughter Mary Wakefield is married to Boris Johnson’s former chief advisor Dominic Cummings, took the Tanna tribesmen on a hunting trip and invited them to various black tie dinners.

At one of the dinners where another friend of the Duke, Lord Haddington, was in attendance, he assured the visitors: “If he had a moment, he would love to meet you, I’m sure.”

The Duke was good to his word and eventually hosted the men for a private reception at Windsor Castle, which the film crew was not invited to attend. Once they had returned to Tanna, the delegation relayed the somewhat cryptic message they said they had been given by the Duke of Edinburgh to their chief – “When it is warm, I will send a message. At the moment, it is cold in England.”

In 2018, the Prince of Wales followed in his father’s footsteps and visited Vanuatu where he was made an honorary high chief. During the ceremony, he was presented with local gifts and garlands of flowers and took a sip of specially brewed Royal Kava, which had last been consumed when Prince Philip visited in 1974.

In the tradition of the Malvatumauri Council of Chiefs, the heir to the throne took part in a series of rituals before being given the high chief name of Mal Menaringmanu.

In closing, on April 18, the leader of Sinn Féin apologised for the IRA’s assassination of Prince Philip’s uncle, Lord Mountbatten, in 1979. He is shown on the left in this photo, standing next to his nephew:

The Independent reported that party leader Mary Lou McDonald told Times Radio:

My job, and I think that Prince Charles and others would absolutely appreciate this, my job is to lead from the front, now, in these times.

I believe it is all our jobs to ensure that no other child, no other family, no matter who they are, suffers the same trauma and heartbreak that was all too common on all sides of this island and beyond.

I have an absolute responsibility to make sure that no family faces that again and I am happy to reiterate that on the weekend that your Queen buried her beloved husband.

Better late than never, but not surprising in timing.

One does wonder if this apology — take it for what it is — would have been made sooner had media coverage of the Prince been more positive while he was alive.

Nonetheless, even left-leaning nationalists in the Stormont assembly in Northern Ireland praised the Queen and Prince Philip for their visits and for helping to reconcile both sides of the political aisle to bring peace to what is still a troubled nation.

Tomorrow’s post, all being well, will cover the highlights of the Prince’s funeral.

Many of President Trump’s supporters wonder why more wasn’t done to investigate the 2020 presidential election.

A number of people in the Trump administration could have been responsible, singly or collectively.

Some were in denial. Some placed career before ethics.

One person who was a great disappointment to many Americans was former Attorney General Bill Barr.

Below is what happened month by month after the election.

November

Not everyone was as hopeful that Barr would address the election results as the woman who sent this tweet last November 6 (more here on the Nevada story):

Our hopes were raised on November 9, when Barr went to meet with then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. He did not speak to reporters. We remembered that, on September 2, Barr told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that universal mail-in ballots were a recipe for disaster:

This is playing with fire… very open to fraud and coercion.

On November 11, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson — a former Democrat and currently independent voter — wrote an excellent article for Gateway Pundit: ‘What Is Bill Barr Going to Do?’

Excerpts follow. Everything made sense, especially at that time. Furthermore, Larry Johnson is rarely wrong (emphases mine):

I have a dear friend who knows Barr very well. Rarely does he show this kind of visceral anger. I find it difficult to believe that in the ensuing two months, Barr has decided to curl up into a fetal position and allow the Republic to be eviscerated.

Now look at the actions on Monday. Barr, following DOJ protocol, sent a letter authorizing federal prosecutors across the U.S. to pursue “substantial allegations” of voting irregularities. That same day, the DOJ official in charge of voter fraud investigations, Richard Pilger, resigned.

Pilger is a compromised deep stater. I believe his resignation was, at a minimum, encouraged by Barr.

In tandem with the DOJ moves, President Trump fired Secretary of Defense Esper. The reason, I believe is simple–Trump wanted to ensure he had someone running the DOD who was not going to meddle in domestic politics. Trump followed up by installing Kash Patel, a National Security Council official and former congressional aide as chief of staff to new acting Defense Secretary.

Trump and Barr are not rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. They are making sure that loyal people are in place who will ensure that the orders of the President are enforced.

To understand what Barr is preparing to confront you must understand the following. I will put it simply–there was an organized conspiracy to interfere in the Presidential election and thwart the will of the voters.

He concludes:

I do not know what the Attorney General is going to do. But, he is not going to ignore evidence. Based on his emotional defense of the voting system when interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, I do not believe he is going to let this slide. Stay hopeful.

I’ve been reading Larry Johnson since 2008. This is the first time that he has been wrong.

RedState had an equally encouraging article, ‘Pay No Attention to the Drama Queen at DOJ Who Resigned after AG Barr Authorised Fraud Investigations’.

It discussed Pilger’s resignation and concluded:

If you are an election official or poll worker, you cannot purposely procure or tabulate fraudulent votes. It’s a crime. It is a crime by the specific individuals involved. The investigation may or may not impact the vote totals in the election, but that is not a consideration for whether or not to investigate and determine if criminal activity took place.

But, missing from much of the coverage of what Barr did today is the most significant point — what his statement did was authorize the use of federal grand juries to gather evidence.

FBI agents will often conduct interviews and gather evidence without the benefit of grand jury assistance. But federal prosecutors don’t go forward with new cases without opening up a grand jury matter.

THIS is what the left-wing pundit class is so alarmed about over AG Barr’s announcement.

An article by Thomas Lifson for American Thinker cited RedState’s article heavily and ended with this note of optimism:

We don’t know what evidence will be uncovered with grand jury subpoenas in hand, but with these tools available, the fraud that is self-evident when poll-watchers are excluded, when the counting of votes mysteriously is shut down at 2 A.M. in Democrat strongholds of Philadelphia, Detroit, and Milwaukee and Trump majorities promptly disappear in their key states, the odds look pretty good for President Trump.

Yet, Newsmax‘s Emerald Robinson, was already suspicious of Barr, as early as November 12. I will come back below to the first response she received about Biden’s transition team as well as to the one about ‘brilliant slow-walkers’:

December

Interestingly, and much to the disappointment of Trump voters, on Tuesday, December 1, Bill Barr said that there had been no evidence of voter fraud.

Breitbart reported:

Attorney General William Barr said Tuesday the Justice Department has not uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to an interview he gave to the Associated Press.

Barr reportedly told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up on specific complaints and information they’ve received, but they have uncovered no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.

“To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election,” he said.

Last month, Barr issued a memo authorizing U.S. attorneys to pursue substantial allegations of voting irregularities before the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Barr said there was no evidence yet to substantiate systemic machine fraud.

“There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that,” he said

President Trump’s legal team for his campaign issued this statement in response (click to see the full statement):

Lin Wood, a respected lawyer who was working with that team tweeted:

“Fair questions for AG Bill Barr: 1. Did you investigate voting fraud? 2. What did you do? 3. What did you find? 4. How much time did you spend? 5. Were experts involved? 6. How many Dominion machines analyzed? 7. How many poll watchers interviewed? We foot bill. We need answers.” / Twitter

Another Newsmax presenter, Greg Kelly tweeted:

Meanwhile, Bill Barr’s presence had been requested at the White House:

On Saturday, December 12, President Trump tweeted about Barr:

“A big disappointment!” / Twitter

Between then and Monday, December 14, Barr resigned.

Lin Wood still had hope:

Bill Barr is a Patriot. His letter to @realDonaldTrump was excellent. I believe Barr will announce major moves before 12/23 but does not want to stay to prosecute. He has done his job & served country well. New AG & assistants will prosecute the massive number of cases coming.” / Twitter

On December 14, Trump tweeted:

Just had a very nice meeting with Attorney General Bill Barr at the White House. Our relationship has been a very good one, he has done an outstanding job! As per letter, Bill will be leaving just before Christmas to spend the holidays with his family…” / Twitter

However, not everyone was convinced of Barr’s ‘outstanding job’.

The next day, December 15, Herschel Smith from The Captain’s Journal posted ‘William Barr Is A Deep State Hack And Coverup Artist’. Much of it concerns Barr’s involvement in Ruby Ridge in 1992. Barr was in charge of the Department of Justice at the time.

Herschel Smith’s article says:

It appears that Trump has finally let Barr goToo bad he ever hired him in the first placeI said back when Barr was hired that he was deep state and couldn’t be trusted except to do everything in his power to undermine the administration

George Webb notes his time studying these things, and if you’ll advance to the 12:45 mark of this video, you hear that Barr recommended that Clinton run for president, and managed to cover up the Clinton drug dealing from Arkansas, as well as Enron and many other scandalsHe was (and is) a cover-up artist.

Trump has little to no discernment, and surrounded himself with awful people for the complete four years of his administrationThis is why he will no longer be president I repeat myself, but a mechanic working at the FN Herstal plant in Columbia, S.C., could have done a better job at fighting the deep state – but certainly not at ensuring its survival, like William Barr did.

Two days later, on Thursday, December 17, Jeff Carlson, a contributor to the Epoch Times, posted a Twitter thread on Barr. The first few go some way to explain why Trump supporters trusted Barr — I never did, although I briefly had hope last November. Then Barr displayed his true intentions by refusing to look into Hunter Biden and last year’s election:

On Monday, December 21, Barr confirmed he would neither investigate 2020 election fraud nor Hunter Biden. Breitbart reported:

Attorney General William Barr, who is stepping down, stated during his final press conference Monday that he sees “no reason” to appoint a special counsel to investigate alleged fraud in the 2020 presidential election or the ongoing investigation into the taxes of President-elect Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

“I have not seen a reason to appoint a special counsel, and I have no plan to do so before I leave,” Barr said.

He said the investigation into Hunter Biden’s financial dealings are “being handled responsibly and professionally.”

CBS News posted a video clip:

Dr Steve Pieczenik, who has had a long career in intelligence and is a best-selling author, reminded us of Barr’s father’s background. Donald Barr was the headmaster of Dalton School in Manhattan. In the early 1970s, he hired a young teacher by the name of Jeffrey Epstein. Yes, the same one who might be dead or alive right now.

Donald Barr also wrote a rather strange science fiction book, about which Pieczenik tweeted:

He thinks there might be some connection between Barr’s father hiring Epstein and Barr’s reticence to pursue justice:

Barr’s last day in the Trump administration was Christmas Eve.

On New Year’s Eve, someone tweeted a link to a 2019 article from Forbes about Bill Barr’s lucrative career, built when he was working in the private sector.

He was working at the former telephone giant, GTE Corporation, in the 1990s, after having been part of Bush I’s administration:

When GTE merged with Bell Atlantic to form Verizon in 2000, Barr stayed onboard as executive vice president and general counsel. From 2001 to 2007, he raked in an average of $1.7 million in annual salary and bonuses, according to documents filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission. Barr also received valuable stock options, some of which he traded while at the company, collecting an estimated $3 million after taxes from 2003 to 2007.

The Verizon job came with other benefits. Barr got a $31,000 flexible spending allowance, $10,000 or so for financial planning, plus use of the company jet for personal purposes. The biggest benefit, however, came upon retirement. Barr stepped down from the company at the end of 2008, receiving a $17.1 million distribution from Verizon’s income deferral plan, according to an SEC filing. On top of that, company documents also detail an additional $10.4 million separation payment for Barr.

Barr only retired from the 9-to-5 routine. In 2009, he joined the boards of two publicly traded companies, Dominion Resources (now Dominion Energy) — an American power and energy company (nothing to do with voting machines!) founded in Virginia, the Dominion State — and Time Warner:

From 2009 to 2018, Dominion paid Barr $1.2 million in cash and granted him another $1.1 million in stock awards, according to SEC filings.

Time Warner paid him $970,000 in cash and $1 million in equity awards for serving on its board from 2009 to 2016, when the company agreed to combine with AT&T. That deal was lucrative for Barr—he disclosed $1.7 million of income related to it on his financial disclosure report. But the merger was troubling to Trump, whose Justice Department tried to block it. During his confirmation hearing, Barr promised to recuse himself from the case as attorney general.

Before joining the Trump administration, Barr worked for the well-known American law firm, Kirkland & Ellis.

January

Anyone who read Barr’s Wikipedia entry when Trump hired him would have found Barr’s deep connection with Bush I. That was the detail that caused me not to trust him. However, a lot of people, especially Trump supporters, refuse to ever look at it. As such, they fell for Barr: ‘President Trump never would have hired him if he were no good’. Really? I do wish they weren’t so naive.

On New Year’s Day, Ethan Huff posted an article on Natural News which gives Barr’s full background: ‘Bill Barr has been an American traitor since at least 1992’. It’s well worth reading and worth noting this:

Conservatives must be suffering from some kind of amnesia because it is common knowledge that Barr worked back in the early ’90s as attorney general under George H.W. Bush, one of the most corrupt swamp creatures in our nation’s history. Like Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Barr has been a staple in establishment politics for decades, having spearheaded some of the earliest known instances of warrantless surveillance against innocent Americans, as one prominent example.

“The Justice Department under Attorney General William Barr launched a vast surveillance program that gathered records of innocent Americans’ international phone calls without first conducting a review of whether it was legal,” reports explain. “It happened in 1992, the last time Barr served as attorney general.”

Long before George W. Bush, “papa” Bush’s son, took occupation of the White House and subjected us all to the “Patriot Act,” Barr was illegally surveilling Americans without a warrant. This would explain why Barr, during his more recent tenure, declared that the Obama administration had not committed any crimes when they illegally surveilled the incoming Trump administration.

Barr also knew current Chief Justice John Roberts and others who were less than friendly towards President Trump:

Another individual who has been complicit in illegal spying is Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversees the secret court where the FBI filed its phony FISA warrants signed by James Comey, fueling the “Russian collusion” conspiracy theory that resulted in President Donald Trump being impeached.

Justice Roberts signed off on all of these phony warrants, demonstrating where his true loyalties lie. This means that Barr and Roberts are two peas in a pod who worked in tandem during Trump’s time in office to undermine all efforts to hold Obama et al. responsible for committing treason – which makes Barr and Roberts complicit in treason as well.

The article concludes:

Giving Trump a free pass for all of this by claiming that he was “tricked” or “fooled” by people he thought he could trust simply does not pass muster anymore. If Trump is really an outsider like many conservatives continue to claim he is, then he could have, and really should have, rooted out Barr, and before him Jeff Sessions, much more quickly – or better yet, never hired them in the first place.

I disagree with the last sentence. Trump’s hands were tied. He was told whom to appoint and whom he could not fire. That proves he was an outsider.

On January 18, National File posted ‘SUBVERSION: Bill Barr Told Trump Election Fraud Claims Were ‘Bulls**t’, Protected BLM Rioters From Insurrection Act, And Blocked Snowden Pardon’ with the following sub-title, although I think they meant ‘every turn’ rather than ‘every term’:

Bagpipe enthusiast Bill Barr’s final months were devoted to subverting the shattered remains of President Trump’s America First’s agenda at every term

An excerpt follows; all details are within the article:

A new report from left-wing outlet Axios details multiple instances of former Attorney General Bill Barr actively working to ensure that President Trump’s political agenda failed on multiple fronts, including suppression of violent left-wing riots and protecting election integrity. National File has previously reported on Barr’s questionable background and behavior during his tenure in the Trump administration.

Though the Axios piece vigorously portrays Trump in a negative light while glorifying Barr, the anecdotes contained within are nonetheless damning for the former AG.

There’s also this about the Jeffrey Epstein case:

National File has previously reported on Barr’s family ties to the late pedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, which included the hiring of Epstein to a teaching position at Dalton prep school by Barr’s father, and Barr’s recusal from the Epstein case after admitting that “one of the law firms that represented Epstein long ago was a firm I subsequently joined for a period of time.”

On January 19, Barr seemed to accuse President Trump of fomenting violence at the Capitol because he spoke about election fraud:

Wolf Moon, a firm Trump supporter, posted ‘Barr Lied, Justice Died’ on January 23. He believes that the drive among Washington’s key players extended from 2016 all the way to his exit on January 20, 2021. He thinks they:

decided that Trump needed to fed into an “exit program” that would eliminate him at the NEXT election – November 3, 2020. They lengthened their plotline to make sure it would WORK.

And how did they do that?

By “saving” Trump from their 2016 trap, while COVERING IT UP, but PREPARING for their 2020 trap.

It was SUCH a beautiful idea. SUCH a beautiful idea. Few plots in human history were ever as ingenious as the Barr plot. “RESCUE” Trump to give Barr credibility. Then use that credibility to IGNORE and then DENY the 2020 stolen election plot.

Barr is not STUPID. He knew exactly what he was doing.

And it is my PRIVILEGE as a simple honest human being to unmask him.

THERE WILL BE JUSTICE.

I hope there will be justice one day.

February

One of the replies to Emerald Robinson’s tweets at the top of this post talked about ‘slow-walkers’ in the Trump administration, loosely referring to Bill Barr.

On Sunday, February 7, Trump’s former trade advisor Peter Navarro was on Maria Bartiromo’s Fox News programme, Sunday Morning Futures. He was livid.

He said that he had many drafted Executive Orders that required approval from Bill Barr on which he (Navarro) was waiting. There was no action from Barr. Barr was slow-walking them.

Navarro alleges that, instead of approving the text and content for EOs that Trump would sign, Barr was too busy approving Joe Biden’s incoming EOs!

This is a must watch. It’s only five-and-a-half minutes long:

Conclusion

Bill Barr is just one more reason why Trump is quiet these days.

Either here or elsewhere, I dubbed him ‘Bad News’ Barr from the get go. I believed that 99% of the time, except briefly last November.

However, Bill Barr was not the only person involved in the end of Trump’s presidential story.

There will be other characters and scenarios to follow. Stay tuned.

On March 28, 2021 an hour-long interview with General Thomas McInerney appeared online.

I do not know of the interviewer Nino, but the two seemed to get on well. Both support President Trump and both are sceptical of coronavirus vaccines.

General McInerney, 84, began his career in the Army then joined the Air Force. He completed his initial pilot training in 1960. In 1962, he flew escort missions in the West Berlin Air Corridor during the Berlin Crisis and escort reconnaissance missions over Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In April 1963, he was one of the first forward air controllers assigned to South Vietnam with a Vietnamese army division. He was sent to South East Asia on three additional deployments.

After the Vietnam War, he completed studies at the Armed Forces Staff College and graduated from the National War College.

In 1974, he was stationed in London as the air attaché to the U.S. Embassy. Between November 1976 and October 1977, he was assigned to the Royal Air Force Station in Upper Heyford, England, where he was vice commander of the 20th Tactical Fighter Wing.

In 1979, he was stationed in Asia, first in the Philippines, where he commanded the 3rd Tactical Fighter Wing at Clark Air Base, then in 1981, in Japan, where he commanded the 313th Air Division at Kadena Air Base.

In 1983, he was transferred to Hawaii, where he served as deputy chief of staff for operations and intelligence, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces at Hickam Air Force Base.

In 1985, he returned to Europe. He became commander of 3rd Air Force, Royal Air Force Station in Mildenhall, England. The following year, he became vice commander in chief, Headquarters US Air Forces in Europe, Ramstein Air Base, West Germany.

In 1988, he was reassigned to the United States, serving as commander of Alaskan Air Command,  Alaskan NORAD Region, and Joint Task Force Alaska. In July 1989, when Alaskan Command was activated, he became its commander. In 1990, he commanded the 11th Air Force, the redesignation of Alaskan Air Command.

His last active duty assignment was as assistant vice chief of staff, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, DC. He retired from the Air Force in 1994, with the rank of Lieutenant General. Afterwards, he served on the boards of directors for several military contractors.

General McInerney endorsed Donald Trump both in 2016 and 2020. After the 2020 election, he supported the use of the Insurrection Act and all additional powers available. He was quoted as saying that he wanted President Trump:

to declare a national emergency, use the Insurrection Act, declare martial law, suspend habeas corpus, set up military tribunals, and suspend the electoral college [vote for president and vice-president] on December 14 and the presidential inauguration on January 20.

A summary of the General’s interview with Nino follows. As one would expect in a conversation, the subjects ran together, so I have separated them below.

2020 election

At the 13-minute point, he said that Trump had 79 million votes to Biden’s 68 million. At the 15-minute mark, he mentioned the recount in Maricopa County and two more recounts in two other states. He believes that the Supreme Court did not want to hear any cases about the election because Chief Justice John Roberts is ‘compromised’ in some way.

He also thinks that coronavirus was engineered to steal the election and that someone cut a deal with the C C P.

The General said that President Trump should have appointed Sidney Powell as special legal counsel in December.

He said that, as nothing has been done:

Americans have got to take control over their country.

As to why Cyber Command did not report election irregularities on the night to the President, he said

I believe we have a Deep State.

He would like to know the reasons why Trump did not contest the election and made this assertion: 

Trump had a lot of the Deep State around him.

He repeated later in the interview that Trump was surrounded by:

Deep Staters.

When asked about his former Vice President, Mike Pence, he said:

I think he is Deep State. He is part of the problem.

He was disappointed that the military did not do anything with regard to the election. He believes that Germany intercepted Dominion votes but took no action:

I think the military’s asleep at the switch.

He said that the United States needs:

a transparent audit that we’re all comfortable with.

He asserted:

Biden did not win.

He explained that votes exceeded voter rolls in all suspect states, a situation that, on a national level, was previously:

unheard of … a stolen election. 

He said that Biden did not win through properly cast votes and that one would have to throw out mail-in votes as well as:

get the right people to look at them.

He thinks the focus needs to be on clean elections for 2022:

We’ve got to just keep banging away at it …

and if done fairly, Trump gets in for 2024.

As for the Q movement, he said:

I don’t know anything about the Q movement.

Coronavirus

With regard to coronavirus, at the 17:30 mark, the General said:

Do not take the vaccine.

He revealed that has already had one shot.

He explained that the vaccine is a prophylactic mRNA and that there will be no built-in immunity to COVID-20 and COVID-21.

Whether all the military have had it is still unconfirmed, he said.

He was and is clearly against lockdown. He added that a proper hydroxychloroquine protocol would have been sufficient and also suggested ivermectin. He believes that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) lied to President Trump.

He mentioned a Dr Northrop, whom he described as a well renowned physician, who says that Americans should stop taking the vaccine.

The General has strong feelings on this subject:

This is our Normandy, this is our Iwo Jima.

He believes that Dr Fauci:

has been part of this cabal.

He mentioned New York’s Governor Cuomo and deplored the nursing home deaths in that state. 

On the other hand, he added, COVID-19 has a 99.2% survival rate and said of the American response:

We over-reacted.

Potentially, he said, Americans could go to ‘camps’ for refusing vaccines. 

Conclusion

General McInerney said that Americans need to be realistic and resolute:

Hope is not a strategy.

He also foresees difficulties later in 2021, with serious problems starting:

this winter.

My readers wonder why President Trump is not doing more to oppose the Biden administration’s agenda. I am not sure that he can do much, if anything, at this point.

I will have more on the concluding days of the Trump administration next week which might help explain his current circumstances. I haven’t written about those final weeks. They have been too painful to consider.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,525 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

June 2021
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,651,536 hits