@JuliaHB1 @MichaelYeadon3 You might ask every single member of SAGE should be asking them why they are not ringing the alarm bell about the likely huge exaggeration of ‘cases’.

SAGE members seek collective protection under the cloak of zoom committees, ... 1/8

....publishing unattributed “consensus statements” and by significant disclaimers throughout all reports. Timid ref to uncertainty about confidence in test results and false positives is unacceptable when they know those test results are used to justify govt policy...2/8

It is abrogation of personal responsibility by each and every member of SAGE. They must find the courage to answer their conscience and do so now. If they do not, they should not be surprised to learn they may need to answer to the public in civil... 3/8

.. and criminal cases, real legal cases, brought against them individually whether by private or public prosecution. Liability in such cases may arise equally by act but also by omission. Proving intention to harm need not be necessary. Recklessness may be sufficient.... 5/8

Apart from misconduct in public office, there is also an offence of causing Public Nuisance. It may sound trivial but it is not.

It may arise, for example, if someone recklessly causes risk of harm to others by shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, but having... 6/8

...no reasonable basis to believe there is a fire.
It may arise if someone disables the theatre’s fire alarm.
This is not a call to rush to Court without evidence. However, if evidence comes out, herd immunity may not protect individuals in the herd... 7/8

.. And when the faces in govt change, and someone is looking for a fall guy, how confident are SAGE members that the govt will protect them, or be able to protect them if the Courts apply centuries old common law against them? 8/8