stewartb
Ths is from an earlier Covid Inquiry public hearing on Module 2 in London (16 October 2023). The Inquiry’s lawyer puts this to Professor Woolhouse: ‘Then if we can go to a passage towards the end of YOUR STATEMENT, please, you return to this theme …..:
“… SAGE and its subgroups PUT TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON CONSENSUS AND TOO LITTLE ON MINORITY VIEWS. The most likely outcome — intended or otherwise — of only expressing a single view is that it presents policy makers with an overly limited set of options and so will channel policy decisions along a particular route.”
The lawyer then asked pointedly: ‘May we take it, Professor, that you felt that IT WAS OFTEN YOUR MINORITY VIEW THAT WASN’T BEING HEARD BY POLICYMAKERS?’ (my emphasis)
Woolhouse replied: ‘That’s where I’m most sensitive to this issue, that’s true, yes.’
And from the transcript of the same London hearing, on Professor Woolhouse’s view on school closures (apologies for the length of the extract but it takes time to reveal the particular characteristics of this academic’s positions):
The Inquiry’s lawyer to Woolhouse: ‘I want to ask you just about two final broad areas. One is the question of transmission in children. Can we go, first of all, please, to your statement at page 34, paragraph 187. Thank you.
‘Now, at this part of your statement, you refer quite expressly to the period in sort of early-ish or mid-2020. First of all you refer to March 2020 and then later in the paragraph you refer to June 2020, and WHAT YOU SAY BY REFERENCE TO THOSE DATES IS THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SCHOOL-AGED CHILDREN WERE AT SIGNIFICANT RISK FROM COVID-19, as you say, for the good reason that they were not. And then you talk about teachers being exposed. (my emphasis)
‘Do you agree that whatever the position in early 2020, later on in 2020 there did become evidence — THERE WAS EVIDENCE AVAILABLE THAT CHILDREN WERE IN FACT AT RISK AND WERE CATCHING COVID-19?
Woolhouse: ‘So THERE WAS DEFINITELY A CLINICAL RISK TO SOME CHILDREN, particularly those with a variety of comorbidities, but healthy children, the risk remained extremely low throughout the pandemic, and if it hadn’t, of course, we wouldn’t have re-opened schools when we did, as almost every other country in the world did. So that was generally agreed. So the clinical risk to children was not that great.
‘So what I think you’re talking about is THE RISK OF INFECTION IN CHILDREN, WHICH, YOU’RE QUITE RIGHT, EVIDENCE DID ACCUMULATE THAT CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY OLDER TEENAGED CHILDREN –…. — in the later years were getting infected, yes.’
The lawyer goes on: ‘…. let’s just look, if we may, at INQ000207121, this is a report from Professor Edmunds and Angela McLean, which I know you’re familiar with. It’s dated 17 October, so later in the year. It’s based on or it reports or records two
strands of evidence: one, serological data from Public Health England, and the other sort of ONS swab testing.
‘As we can see, we may not need to go beyond the first paragraph, but what this report tells us, or reports, is that both of those strands of data recently suggest that older children — sorry, that CHILDREN, PARTICULARLY OLDER CHILDREN, MAY PLAY A MORE SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN TRANSMISSION THAN WAS PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.
‘You, I know, became aware of that report no doubt around the time it came out. DID THAT LEAD YOU TO ADJUST YOUR VIEWS FROM THOSE THAT YOU REFER TO IN THAT PARAGRAPH OF YOUR STATEMENT THAT WE LOOKED AT?’
Woolhouse: ‘Yes, I’m not sure I saw the report in this form but the data were discussed and available outright(?), and it did cause me to wonder about my views, and particularly my views about school, because this was important new evidence.
The lawyer: ‘Yes. SO YOU’VE GOT NO REASON TO DOUBT THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS THERE AT THE TIME THAT CHILDREN WERE BEING INFECTED WITH COVID, PERHAPS MUCH MORE THAN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN UNDERSTOOD. And I know that there is a separate matter which you remained concerned about, which is the question of whether allowing for the new data which suggested that children were being more widely infected than had previously been understood, it followed from that that children should be seen as driving transmission of the disease in the community, and what were your views on that?
Woolhouse: ‘ So even more specific than that is whether transmission
going on in schools was driving the pandemic, and this — THAT VIEW, WHICH WAS HELD, DEFINITELY, BY SOME PEOPLE IN SPI-M, I’M SURE THEY’LL TELL YOU THEMSELVES, BUT I THINK JOHN AND ANGELA (expert members of SPI-M) BOTH HELD IT, WAS, OF COURSE, A POWERFUL ARGUMENT FOR CLOSING SCHOOLS AND KEEPING THEM CLOSED. IF they were driving the pandemic.
‘Despite this evidence, which as you say I do accept, it doesn’t say directly: are schools driving the pandemic? And it also, when it was published, flew in the face of studies from around the world that said: no, schools are not driving the pandemic, they’re playing — they’re making a contribution to transmission, and there was a lot of argument about how big that contribution was, but they’re not driving it. So it’s that aspect that I continue to challenge.’
‘But I have to say, this caused me a lot of concern, could it be true, but I came to the view that it actually wasn’t true, that schools were not driving the pandemic.
Lawyer: ‘Sorry, let’s try and unpick that double negative at the end there.’
– and on the exchange goes, with the lawyer gently but explicitly teasing out Woolhouse’s divergent opinion on school closures. I wonder if the lawyer at the Edinburgh hearing was so (appropriately) forensic? It will be interesting in the Inquiry’s reports to observe the status accorded to Woolhouse’s evidence on the UK’s Covid response and on Scotland’s response.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
In 15 Sep 2020, he had an article published in The Telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/19/uk-needs-follow-swedish-model-learn-live-covid/
“Lockdown failed. We must follow the Swedish model and learn to live with Covid”
I didn’t watch his contribution to the UK Covid Inquiry today, but wonder if he was questioned about the views he held in his article.
LikeLiked by 7 people
Sorry I was not logged in!.
‘Anonymous’ is me..
LikeLiked by 3 people
Here he is being super-sensitive on Ch4 news under KGM’s questions such that he ended the interview.
LikeLiked by 4 people
As commented on the earlier piece, Prof Woolhouse is entitled to his opinion, and the Inquiry has a duty to examine it.
It is the media reporting on it we should be more critical of as it has been wholly misleading from the beginning.
LikeLiked by 5 people
“It is the media reporting on it we should be more critical of as it has been wholly misleading from the beginning.”
Especially when GMS reports MW thoughts (Stephen Reicher and the police committee woman unmentioned) and calls in guess who to defend them – none other than Lindsay Paterson!
brobb
LikeLike
🤪
LikeLike
His opinion that it was OK for people to meet in groups outdoors appears to ignore the thrust of the mandate which was designed to modify human behaviour.
People would think that if it was OK to meet in groups outdoors,they would transfer that activity indoors which he does agree would have been a bad idea.
Keeping the message clear,consistent and simple was far more effective in modifying transmissible behaviour.
LikeLiked by 3 people
To be expected of course the BBC/STV chose to televise his testimony on the news channels over others to ensure the most damning evidence was widely broadcast.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Even if children were less at risk they could spread it to other people. Especially those breaking the rules and recommendations. Teenagers were having house parties then spreading the virus to their families. It was the elderly who were more affected and could be endangered by contact.
On-line schooling reduced the virus threat to the elderly. The families are grateful for that. Everybody recognises that fact, preferring schools to close than to spread the virus to the elderly. Everyone was relieved to save the elderly. No matter what sacrifice had to be made.
LikeLike
People cannot wait for the Tories to be gone. Total disgusting hypocrisy.
LikeLike
It’s funny how Michael Gove once stated that “the people of this country have had enough of experts” yet some of those “experts” are very much doing their best to shore up support for his, Gove’s, UK (and his party too) and are also doing their very best to try and constantly discredit the actions of the Scottish government…..perhaps it is only some experts that Gove sees as having a negative and unwanted input while other ‘experts’ who choose to side with him, Gove, and his party and too their UK as a continued (right….. in more ways than one) state are somehow to be seen as more credible and whose input is thus welcomed by the likes of Michael Gove and his party…….BBC Scotland has the kind of ‘expert’ that Gove likes on speed dial……as do the rogue new alternate TV channels GB News and TalkTV…….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Via the reactivated MSM Monitor twitter a/c which tweeted this today re the Scottish Covid Inquiry.
MSM Monitor includes a screenshot of a piece from BBC political correspondent Kirsten Campbell on the BBC’s news website where she states in her analysis piece
“Was there politicisation of the virus”?
And then she includes this question from the chair of the inquiry…. “Baroness Hallett asked whether the Scottish Cabinet was seeking to capitalise on the pandemic to advance the cause of Independence”.
Then Campbell adds “It’s a common criticism from pro-Union parties”.
She, Campbell, then adds the following onto her analysis piece:
“When the pandemic hit, work on independence was stopped and civil servants redeployed. The cabinet minutes from July 2020 that the inquiry has focused on, suggest that consideration should be given to restarting work on a second independence referendum, with arguments reflecting the experience of the coronavirus crisis and developments on EU Exit”.
MSM Monitor tweeted in response to Campbell’s analysis “This must be the most ironic comment ever. Doesn’t Kirstin Campbell know that Unionists demanded BBC Scotland cease broadcasting the FM’s daily briefings and that the broadcaster initially complied? Yes, there was politicisation. BBC Scotland spearheaded it”.
Indeed it is ironic and also not forgetting the many times that the BBC politicise everything on behalf of “pro-Union parties” against the Scottish government where the opposition parties opinions and accusations against the Scottish government and indeed the SNP as a party form the basis of many an article on their website and indeed reports via the BBC Reporting Scotland ‘news’ programme…. minus any fact checking or verification done by the BBC here to uphold these opinions and accusations as being true and accurate that are made by the opposition or indeed a comparative study by the BBC here upon the performances of other governments within the UK both central and devolved ones in comparison to the Scottish government.
LikeLiked by 1 person