and ferguson _ between professors woolhouse and ferguson and with jeremy farrar, between professorsople the united kingdom and many other countries where it may be infectedm _ many other countries where it may be infectedm "— many other countries where it may be infected... —— published by the who. you were _ infected... —— published by the who. you were not— infected... —— published by the who. you were not party to those e—mails. but professor ferguson, in one of those _ but professor ferguson, in one of those e—mails, says, fully agree, jeremy— those e—mails, says, fully agree, jeremy and — those e—mails, says, fully agree, jeremy and i were saying the same to patrick— jeremy and i were saying the same to patrick vallance and chris whitty last night. so, roughly an evening of the _ last night. so, roughly an evening of the 23rd — last night. so, roughly an evening of the 23rd of the 24th ofjanuary. so, of the 23rd of the 24th ofjanuary. so. along — of the 23rd of the 24th ofjanuary. so, along with the clear evidence of a sustained — so, along with the clear evidence of a sustaine

and i recommend your your your viewers to look up mr woolhouse w o l h o to look up mr woolhouse w oe's a professor of epidemiology in scotland, in edinburgh, and he's actually very sensible. but you're dead right. i mean, this case. i've forgotten his name. who? who's doing all the cross questioning is strong on theatre and completely absence on forensic analysis. i mean, he deals with witnesses really from a very polar point of view. he was very nice to the deputy deputy cabinet secretary. he was ferocious in his questioning . if ferocious in his questioning. if it was really questioning of cummings now, look, i am absolutely the least the last person in the world to be a fan of dominic cummings. but i don't think it was an intelligent cross questioning at all. all it was about was swearing. was about was his swearing. well, frankly, what does that matter? i mean, know. all matter? i mean, you know. all right. it makes great, great tv. and fun to watch . but and it it's fun to watch. but actually, this inquiry is about stopping us making the same mistakes next time . yes. you mista

whether it's the great barrington declaration kind of model, or the model proposed by professor woolhouse a situation where something which was so transmissible from people who were at least presymptomatic and asymptomatic, as we subsequently became confident, would not eventually catch it anyway because of the idea you could somehow provide this barrier struck me as wholly impracticalfor provide this barrier struck me as wholly impractical for those reasons as well. so i thought the various attempts on this were theoretically, you could debate them, but they were clearly not going to work and clearly not going to work and clearly going to lead to significant loss of life in my view. that's why i was extremely cautious of them. is there another issue in relation to there another issue in relation to the notion. — there another issue in relation to the notion, orthe assumption, that those _ the notion, orthe assumption, that those people who threw population immunity— those people who threw population immunity become infected, through this herd _ immunity become infected, through this herd

it was an e—mail sent injanuary, january 25 by professor woolhouse, who the inquiry has heard from.at he had a bad early stage, but covid, and asking himself the question, how bad is it going to get? and referring to what he describes as two key numbers which he had seen the who statement. that is our, the reproduction number and the case fatality rate of 4%. he also refers to a generation time which he said he could make a guess at and then he says perhaps if we drop down to paragraphs, he refers to some arithmetic which, as he puts it, his undergraduate class could work out with a pocket calculator in a few minutes. and then a paragraph above, what the arithmetic is, he says we take those numbers at face value, we quickly get double pack estimate of almost half the people in the uk getting this infection over a year or so. at least doubling the gross mortality rate, much more during the epidemic peak, and are completely overwhelmed health system. now, there is, of course, his ballpark calculations. but is that the type of rough calculation that the type of rough calculation that y

even professor mark woolhouse, a senior epidemic allergist who advised the government during the coronavirusemic, told the coronavirus pandemic, told the covid inquiry that national shutdowns were a failure of pubuc shutdowns were a failure of public health policy. but more important, he sweden is the smoking gun. sweden did not lock down and it suffered 2365 covid deaths per million . meanwhile, deaths per million. meanwhile, we did lockdown and suffered 3416 covid deaths per million . 3416 covid deaths per million. and it's clear that boris believes in liberty and was reluctant , rightly reluctant to reluctant, rightly reluctant to lock us down. the failure was one of a blob, not of a leader who asks sensible questions . it who asks sensible questions. it is time for his critics to litigate it in shame. don't forget to let me know your thoughts via email at gbnews.com. and i'm joined now by the journalist, author, historian of a new book, boris johnson the rise and fall of a troublemaker at number 10. andrew johnson. andrew, you're the great expert on british prime ministers because you've