The former No10 adviser claimed today that behavioural scientists had diverted away from lockdown by warning people in the UK wouldn t obey it for long, but they said his claim was untrue.
Isn’t hindsight a marvellous thing? In an extraordinary performance, Dominic Cummings got out his colouring pencils on Wednesday and completely redrew the history of the pandemic. Adopting the role of the ‘judge-penitent’ – confessing his own sins to allow him to condemn others – Cummings painted a picture of hapless incompetence in government, in which his own brilliance and advice was often ignored. However, there are some glaring problems with his evidence:
Checking facts vs Cummings s claims reveals major flaws in his evidence telegraph.co.uk - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from telegraph.co.uk Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Since the pandemic crisis began in early 2020, government and public health officials have been adamant that any difficult measures taken were all being done in order to ‘control the spread of the virus’ or ‘stop the disease.’ Thus, a litany of so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions, and also pharmaceutical interventions – were deemed by the consensus to be essential measures in fighting the spread of what was being characterized as an
asymptomatic disease.
Over a year later, a few industrious ‘public health’ mavens have summoned the courage to actually test this fundamental assumption. Recently in the UK, officials have staged and monitored nine large-scale events, including an FA Cup final football match, and the Brit Awards – both of which were exempt from the usual COVID rules. The results of this test should be hailed as good news, but for those heavily invested in the narrative, it’s nothing short of a meltdown: little to no coronavirus “cases” turn