COVID-19 inquiry: Top scientist never approved 'Eat Out to Help Out' scheme
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- The Government's former Chief Scientific Adviser has painted a bleak picture of Boris Johnson's handling of the pandemic.
Sir Patrick Vallance told the Covid inquiry the Former Prime Minister was "clearly bamboozled" by the science, and at times seemed broken.
Sir Patrick also gave a damning assessment of the Government's Eat Out to Help Out scheme, saying it was "highly likely" to have increased Covid deaths in the UK.
Read more: news.sky.com/t...
#covidinquiry #rishisunak #conservative
SUBSCRIBE to our UA-cam channel for more videos: / skynews
Follow us on Twitter: / skynews
Like us on Facebook: / skynews
Follow us on Instagram: / skynews
For more content go to news.sky.com and download our apps:
Apple: itunes.apple.c...
Android play.google.co...
Sky News Daily podcast is available for free here: podfollow.com/...
Sky News videos are now available in Spanish here/Los video de Sky News están disponibles en español aquí: / @skynewsespanol
Sky News videos are also available in German here/Hier können Sie außerdem Sky News-Videos auf Deutsch finden: / @skynewsaufdeutsch6058
To enquire about licensing Sky News content, you can find more information here: news.sky.com/i...
Never seen a country with so much talent and potential which could lead the world in so many areas, wasted by a crap Govt and lack of strategy. And continually voted in by the people; ably supported by a world class media who do know how to tell stories. Most of them are just that. It's a toxic mix that has to change.
Remember, that nation supports monarchy in the 21st century. They are living in their own world of nostalgia. It's no rocket science that they can't be the world leaders in anything.
And sending asylum seekers to Rwanda.
@@cezarmagicchess3665 Monarchy is probably the least important issue in the UK. It only exists for a ceremonial purpose with no actual power in ruling the country. The current monarchy in the UK and others worldwide is more or less an element of societal morals or a sense of belonging. The fundamental problem plaguing the country is all the politicians sitting in Westminster, both Tories and Labour. They are obsessed with populism, attempting to impress the general public for personal political gain in the next election. Which inevitably leads to a culture of short-sightedness within the government, constantly pumping out ridiculous policies like confetti.
Never forget, Never forgive.
I agree! Locking down literally EVERYONE young and healthy is a power no government should ever have!
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
It was surely a gross dereliction of duty for those 'top scientists' to continue to stand next to Johnson and give a false impression of competency to the political fools, rather than openly contradicting their lies and denouncing their policies.
Totally agree. Not one of them. Scientist, advisor, minister or Tory MP, at the time said anything about what they were saying and writing in public. Not a shred of integrity or morals amongst them all.
they are advisors, what are they supposed to do if the PM is too stupid to listen to them?
@@kanedNunable How about have some professional integrity and walk away. They don’t have to start spouting off in the media, but not one of them did, or said, anything to try to fix it.
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
So why didn’t he do anything at the time?
He was the chief scientist, if anybody was in the position to challenge Boris, it was him.
They are advisors they don’t make decisions
@@reeee4vhjkstop making excuses for murderers
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
Why that TOP former scientist did not say anything back then. Afraid of losing his post?
Top scientist who himself ignored the science!
That's because the 'pandemic' was made up.
No credible scientist to date has proven the infection fatality rate was a real concern outside of certain meeting rooms.
All these guys ruined the country.
We should have never locked down, that was the most unscientific decision ever.
Agreed. It was more about controlling the masses rather than controlling a virus. Several Scandinavian countries didn't do lockdowns and did well.
no it wasnt. japan did and they had 1000 deaths and are literally next to china.
Agreed.
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
Always thought "Eat Out To Help Out" was such a daft idea
True but so is 'Rwanda'. This is the civil service laughing at us. They think we're sheep to be despised and mocked. 'Stay in and have a party' would have been more help. They did!!
The 'daft idea' was overriding the civil liberties of millions of people in order to deal with a rather unpleasant but non-lethal virus that everyone ended up getting anyway.
@@StephenMerchant-up8sg its the tory party, not civil service. civil service disagreed with tory policy.
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
..." but he's doing his best!"
Remeber that??
ah yes the "eat out to help the virus out."
What virus? Oh yeah, the seasonal cold bug. What's really scary is how this fake pandemic fooled so many people who just sleepwalked into it.
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
Distancing and masks. Call this a scientist
It's my experience that Rishi Sunak is a liar and cannot be trusted about; "Government integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level", 25/10/22 outside number 10.
So the politician was confused by the 'scientists' who don't seem to have been able to advise him in a way that a layman could understand. Doesn't this clown see that what he just said actually reflects very badly on him, maybe if the quality of the scientists had been better the outcome would have been better.
Eat out to help out was odd but by then the cat was out of the bag and people were questioning exactly how virulent this virus was. It turns out not very. The contemptuous attitude displayed by Rishi & Boris doesn't surprise me at all. In fact that's an accusation that can be levelled against every MP in both parties & underlines their self serving nature
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
And yet he said nothing. Coward .
Given that Sweden has THE lowest mortality figures and didn’t lock down at all perhaps we should have implemented “Eat out to Help Out” even sooner.
Absolutely 💯
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
All avoidance tactics so that the real malevolence levels worldwide remain clouded. WE KNOW
The whole thing was bullshit
Top scientist is this the same wording as trust THE science instead of actual science????
I find sunak guilty of murder his eat out to help out was actually killing people
Nonesense.
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
are we surprised?
No
Shocked ? Yes
Bill Gates was a big influence
So why are they trying to capture patrons in there act when there suppose to maintain there status of regulation but play a diversion against a process they firgor to adhere ro
This makes no sense as what the enployees do
Help and support sent all avenues
Actioned immediately all areas
AFFA angels never die nffn HMS council
This is why politics don’t mix with science just like oil and water don’t mix. If there’s another pandemic (and there will be) leave the politicians out of the decision making
all the parties bar ukip and tories wanted to listen to scientists.
Leave the incompetent SAGE idiots out of it. An onion would have been better.
If, as Vallance says, the scheme increased transmission risk, we would see a rise in cases within a week of the scheme starting in England. The modelling told us that some 80 percent of the population was susceptible and had no seasonal effect. Yet, it’s a little hard to spot.
You’d expect a dramatic rise in cases in August 2020 once the scheme came into force. So, carl Henghan has focussed on the surrounding months to show it had little effect until schools returned.
Writing in the Spectator, Michael Simmons asks whether the Eat Out to Help Out was behind the second wave? He says, “For the vast majority of August (when the scheme ran)... Covid cases were shrinking. Serious growth then only restarts in September and October.” Simmond also points out that in the “ONS’s infection survey there’s no sign of a great increase in Covid cases until the months after the scheme finished”.
Vallance's assessment of the transmission risk also makes the same mistake the modellers make - it assumes we would have stayed home instead of going out. Yet what else would we have done in the absence of the scheme? Some of us would have still gone out to eat, some to the pub, and we would have inferred the same transmission risk.
We are at odds with the cost of The Eat Out to Help Out scheme - £849 million - and the level of fraud: The Public Accounts Committee estimated the scheme fraud losses at £71 million, almost 8.5 per cent - suggesting one in every twelve meals claimed never existed and were never eaten.
It is concerning that the Inquiry allows this evidence-free narrative to go unchallenged. It isn’t asking the critical questions about whether certain assumptions are grounded in evidence or just an advisor's hunch. The Inquiry’s continuing interest in political assassinations means it does not know what the evidence and the data show about the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme and, notably, how much it impacted the risk of infection.
This country needs balls to put it right never mind these stupid politicians who just think of themselves fighting and bickering like a children’s school playground I’m sure enough we of Britain can put it right or maybe not
just when we needed a competent gov, we got the most useless bunch of grifting tories.
What is the total death count from 2020 to 2022?
So fact prove Boris was right and he was surround by failures.
no, boris ignored all the scientists for months.
@@kanedNunable The scientists that told us covid was safe and we should not stop travel from China
@@kanedNunable Yes he did and was proven right to have done so. Most of the the scientists were wrong on covid and had no idea what they were talking about.
Covid? what is that?
Slava Russia
"bUt jErEmY cOrByn!"
Country wreckin gangsters
Matt Hancock was the Bravest person in all this and he found Love as well is the greatest story since the Bible
Matt is the closest thing we have seen to Jesus in the UK
I especially love the story of him "Feeding the virus to the 5000". He bravely sent infected patients into nursing homes. Only the Lord's chosen could've performed such a feat. Truly we are blessed to be alive in this genetationto witness his many works.
I fondly recall how he selflessly avoided directly answering speculation regarding awarding deserved pay rises to the NHS staff before bravely awarding them a plastic badge instead and a magnanimous 1% raise.
Play more like our party Boris boy
covid is.on holiday
Move on and stop blaming each other
We lost 2 years of our lives along with relatives we couldn't say goodbye to. All the while these f*cks were laughing in our faces.
It's not easy to just "move on" I'm afraid.
Apologise for getting it wrong and not going with the original plan as Sweden had the balls to do.
هل هذة القناة اسرائيله
Aiwa
Excellent bit of journalism from Sky News 👌
Bring back David Cameron please. We need a more competent leader for Prime Minister. 😅😮🙏
Wumao of course supports a CCP shill.
We will not find it in Cameron
so no tories then....
Boringgggggg
We have all moved on