New Massive Report On COVID Lockdowns Shows Nobody Will Ever Admit They Were Wrong

It's now been six full years since the Chinese Communist Party alerted the world to the "discovery" of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. A discovery that was very likely the result of gain-of-function research conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. That very fact was one of the first examples of governments, "experts" and their media partners gaslighting and misleading the world about COVID policy and outcomes.

They never stopped. And as this week demonstrated, they never will.

In a sane world, politicians and outside authorities would be engaged in a years-long effort to understand what went wrong. To accept that mask mandates didn't work, that their vaccine mandates often backfired, that school closures and lockdowns were historic disasters that helped little and harmed millions.

But that would require intellectual honesty, humility, willingness to engage with different ideas and viewpoints, and most importantly, intelligence. None of which most in government and the protected class of Anthony Fauci led politicians possess. One of the best opportunities for the authors of COVID extremism to admit their mistakes was a massive new document meant to explain what happened and correct failures. 

It did the opposite.

Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Photo: Josh Morgan-USA TODAY

UK Government Inquiry Into COVID Lockdowns Is An International Embarrassment

The government of the United Kingdom convened an inquiry meant to examine what happened with the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on identifying mistakes and areas for improvement. 

This inquiry cost UK taxpayers nearly £300 million. It's been ongoing for years. And this week, the inquiry leader released a lengthy document containing their conclusions about the government's initial response to the pandemic. Expectations were low, considering the desire to protect those responsible for lockdowns and mandates, and somehow, the conclusions are far, far worse than anyone could have ever imagined. 

Here's how they summarized the UK's initial COVID policy.

1. "The initial response to the pandemic was marked by a lack of information and a lack of urgency.
2. Despite clear signs that the virus was spreading globally, all four nations failed to take sufficiently timely and effective action.
3. Limited testing capacity and a lack of adequate surveillance mechanisms meant that decision makers did not appreciate the extent to which the virus was spreading undetected in the UK and they failed to recognise the level of threat posed. This was compounded by misleading assurances from the Department of Health and Social Care and the widely held view that the UK was well prepared for a pandemic."

This is always how it was going to go. The issue isn't that the UK threw itself into lockdown, a historically unproven policy that was based on a nonsensical viewpoint. It's that they didn't throw themselves into that nonsensical policy fast enough. Lockdowns were based on a categorically false idea: that human beings could control a highly infectious airborne respiratory virus. They were based on a farcical notion of the economy, of human behavior, of the possibility of "zero COVID." And the UK government's one criticism is that they didn't do this ridiculous policy fast enough. 

"The UK government’s initial approach was to slow the spread of the virus. By 13 March 2020 it was clear the true number of cases was several times higher than previously estimated and that this approach would risk healthcare systems being overwhelmed. 

"The UK government introduced advisory restrictions on 16 March 2020, including self-isolation, household quarantine and social distancing. Had restrictions been introduced sooner - when the number of cases was lower - the mandatory lockdown from 23 March might have been shorter or not necessary at all."

This is so monstrously stupid it beggars belief. Every single country on earth that tried lockdowns saw gigantic, massive explosions in case rates later on, because lockdowns did not work. There is peer-reviewed research confirming lockdowns didn't work. The UK government's top scientific advisors admitted immediately that it was not possible to prevent everyone getting COVID.

It's also been established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the peak of UK coronavirus transmission happened before their lockdown. Cases had already started dropping before the government imposed horrific restrictions on everyday life. Imposing those restrictions earlier would have no difference. 

Lockdown was irrelevant. And the UK taxpayer just paid an absolute fortune to be told that it was necessary earlier.

That's not the worst and most inaccurate claim this report makes. That's reserved for the absurd claim that an earlier lockdown would have resulted in 23,000 fewer COVID deaths nationwide.

"This lack of urgency and the huge rise in infections made a mandatory lockdown inevitable. It should have been introduced one week earlier. Modelling shows that in England alone there would have been approximately 23,000 fewer deaths in the first wave up until 1 July 2020."

This is ludicrous. It's nonsense. And frankly, given the failures of modeling during the pandemic, it's offensive that they'd even suggest it. First, models are unreliable, because of the nature of how they're created. They're based on assumptions from the people that create them. The most influential pandemic model was created by Imperial College in London, and it wildly overestimated the efficacy of lockdowns, mandates, and other restrictions, because the people that created it are incompetent. And hypocritical.

Neil Ferguson, the leader of the Imperial College model, was so confident in his conclusions that he broke lockdown to visit his mistress. These are not serious people. Yet the writer of this report references these same models as evidence that earlier lockdowns would have saved 23,000 lives. It's nonsense.

Even more nonsensical is the fact that the author completely ignores that we have an example of what happens when countries didn't go into lockdown: Sweden.

Sweden, remember, recommended voluntary measures, never mandated masks or closed schools for most children. Models projected that it would be an unmitigated disaster of uncontrolled COVID spread. Including Ferguson's Imperial College model. Yet Sweden wildly outperformed the United Kingdom by most important metrics. Before diving into how much better Sweden's approach was by the end of the pandemic, we can also use Sweden to debunk this report's conclusions quickly and simply. 

Were early lockdowns a necessary policy that would have "saved lives," Sweden's results in the early part of COVID should have wildly underperformed the UK. Except a report from the World Health Organization found that in 2020-2021, Sweden had significantly lower excess mortality than the UK.

Again, this is in the exact time period that the UK's report suggests lockdowns were necessary. Yet Sweden, with no lockdown, had some of the best results in Europe. This is completely ignored, because it's inconvenient.

By the end of the pandemic, Sweden had the lowest excess mortality rate in Europe. Not one of the lowest, the literal lowest. You'd think that would be relevant for a report dedicated to discussing the best approach to pandemics. Yet again, it's completely ignored because it would disprove the predetermined conclusions.

As if there were any doubt that this report was heavily biased and designed to protect those in charge, here's how it describes the UK's group of advisors and how they handled the pandemic.

"SAGE (the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) provided high-quality scientific advice at extreme pace, but the effectiveness of SAGE’s advice was constrained by various factors including a lack of clearly stated objectives by the UK government."

The word that comes to mind is "unbelievable," yet it's entirely believable because they aren't even pretending to care about accountability and honesty. One of the top government advisors during the pandemic was then-health secretary Matt Hancock. Here's how Hancock discussed Sweden in leaked text messages, by calling it the "f***ing Sweden argument," then asked compatriots to give him "three or four bullet [points] of why Sweden is wrong."

Sounds eerily similar to Francis Collins and Fauci demanding a "quick, brutal takedown" of the Great Barrington Declaration, doesn't it? Amazing how consistent this attitude is among "experts," even across oceans.

Then there's the other hidden issue with this report: it completely ignores any possible negative ramifications of lockdowns. What it did to children. To poverty. The rampant inflation it created with panicked money printing. The loss of societal cohesion, the increase in crime and decrease in quality of life. The restrictions on freedom and liberty, which concerningly never seem to matter to those in charge. The businesses forced to close, many of which never returned. The increase in substance abuse and domestic abuse. None of this is even hinted at, because it would undermine the argument these extremists hope to make.

The report also repeatedly makes claims without supporting evidence, simply stating things as assumed fact without actually showing that they are factual. But that's been a consistent feature of government COVID policy: assuming they're right, because they're in charge. No matter what reality shows. 

Again, in a sane world, we'd be looking at what went wrong with clear-eyed truth, data, evidence, and factually-driven research. But we don't live in a sane world, and this report is a great example of just how far away we are from returning to one.