The chances of dying from the “deadly” Covid virus are very low, even for older people with existing conditions. Even a male over 80 with one or more underlying conditions (highest risk category) has an almost 80% of surviving.
During the current coronavirus lockdown, I’d pay good money to see just one public official be asked: “How many lives are you willing to sacrifice to prevent one coronavirus death?”
Where are the models projecting the deaths and suffering resulting from the lockdown itself? Why are our rulers so intent upon keeping those trade-offs from entering the public debate over the lockdown?
Lock-down of society is the wrong policy to fight what has turned out to be an insignificant viral infection in terms of severity. Statistically, Covid-19 is an insignificant viral infection.
This does not mean that for those who contracted the disease and suffered the symptoms or died it was insignificant, clearly that is not the case. Nor was it insignificant for those in the health service and care homes who had to treat the illness or see patients die, and in some cases succumb to the illness themselves.
On the 19th March 2020 the UK downgraded Covid-19 from the list of most dangerous infections list, and that is not opinion, that is posted on the gov.uk website. The first line of the post reads
“As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.”
The link is here
On March 23rd, four days after the disease was downgraded by the UK government, the UK entered lockdown measures.
Listening to the so-called and self-proclaimed experts has been a policy disaster. Conflicting expert advice existed, but someone decided to listen to one group of experts above another. Epidemiologists did not ALL agree on the most suitable course of action, many eminent in their field spoke out against lockdown policies, but they were ignored, why? Was it possibly because they did not have multi billionaires backing them, or they were not also supportive of the Green and Climate Agenda?
We should be able to trust the judgement and advice of a supra national organisation like the WHO, but is there a conflict of interest if the organisation and some of its employees are receiving private donations?
The two links below explain as a two part series who appears to be in charge of the UK response to the Coronavirus crisis (spoiler alert, it may not be Boris):
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/who-controls-british-government-response-covid-19-part-1
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/who-controls-british-government-response-covid-19-part-2
Up to 96% of those who have died “with” Coronovirus had at least one underlying medical condition (co-morbidity) and around 50% of those had three or more conditions. In addition, the vast majority of deaths have been in the over 70 age bracket, seen as particularly at risk of death from viral infection. Every death is clearly regrettable, but on average in the UK around 10,000 people die every week, many in old age and from respiratory illnesses. The actual figure of deaths due to Covid-19 only could be only 4% of the reported figure so currently as few as 5,200 deaths. If we assume a total of 10% have died prematurely with Covid-19 as a co-morbidity then maybe 13,000 have died as a result of contracting Covid-19.
The lying fake news media are trying to assign all additional deaths above normal, currently reported at 150,000 as somehow being from Covid-19. It is reasonable to assume a very large proportion of these deaths are due to the lockdown measures from stress related suicides, domestic abuse, missed treatments for other conditions, and from fear of attending hospitals and surgeries with life threatening conditions.
If you are tempted to be an early adopter of any vaccine that appears any time soon, just remember the effect drugs like thalidomide had on people.
As a guiding principle if Bill Gates and his entire extended family (parents, siblings, children, uncles, aunties, cousins, nephews nieces) take the vaccine intravenously, every member of WHO and other health organisations (CDC, NDA, GAVI etc) and their entire extended families, every MP and Civil Servant and their extended families take it, I may then after a safe period of time if it has proven effective and safe decide to take it if it can be further proven that the risk of dying from the virus vastly exceeds the risk of death from the vaccine.
Personally, as things stand I would rather take my chances with the virus.
The correct response to this pandemic would have been to aim for so-called herd immunity, similar to the policy adopted very successfully (to date) by Sweden and a few other countries. It makes no rational sense to isolate and quarantine the vast majority of perfectly healthy individuals. The most vulnerable in society, the elderly and the immune compromised should have been prioritised and protected, particularly the elderly in care homes.
The experience of Sweden, who practiced sensible social gathering measures and targeted protecting the most vulnerable, whilst keeping bars, restaurants and their economy open, is that their death rate to Covid-19 is no worse than countries who opted for lock-down. Deaths per million population in Sweden (around 160) is considerably lower than the same number in UK (around 240). The obvious conclusion if those figures continue is that lock-down made no difference to the number who died “with” the disease, but may have a huge impact on associated deaths from suicides, domestic abuse and missed treatments and identification of other fatal conditions. Those associated deaths will continue as social isolation and economic collapse destroy the jobs and livelihoods of millions.
Instead of implementing lock-down the UK government, possibly up to 3 weeks prior should have implemented flight and port restrictions, only UK nationals returning home should have been allowed, and even then screened and possibly quarantined. To suggest this policy was somehow racist is beyond absurd. Freight via ports could have still been allowed in, but only British nationals allowed off the boats.
At the same time care homes should have been locked down and supply of PPE prioritised for care workers, as well as health workers.
What needs to happen now (mid May 2020) is for lockdown and social distancing measures should be immediately abandoned and all laws created repealed.
Advice can remain that people who can Work From Home (WFH) should continue to do so at the discretion of their employers, avoid public transport if possible, people should avoid contact with vulnerable individuals and anyone who wishes to stay in lockdown, practice social distancing and/or wear a face mask is free to do so. Self isolation can be advised but not mandated.
Anyone who feels unwell should probably avoid contact with others and self-isolate, we just need to apply some common sense measures. This is NOT the Black Death.
Social distancing as being discussed in a Country of 66 million people is just not feasible or practical, we need to get back together in pubs, cafes, restaurants, schools, colleges and stadiums and anyone that prefers not to can act of their own free will.
The British government took the decision to lock-down based on the computer simulations created by the team at Imperial College headed by Professor Neil Ferguson who predicted 510,000 deaths in the UK, and 2.2 million in the US if their governments failed to adopt severe lock-down policies. Our government would have done well to investigate Professor Ferguson’s previous outlandish predictions. In 2005 he predicted, based on his computer modelling that up to 200 million would die worldwide from Avian Flu H5N1, total eventual deaths was actually just 440. He also predicted up to 50,000 could die from mad cow disease, less than 200 actually died. He also recommended the mass culling policy in the most recent foot and mouth disease outbreak, widely seen as unnecessary.
The governments response to the Covid-19 outbreak is understandable given the advice of so-called experts from Imperial, WHO and elsewhere and the constant barrage of propaganda from the BBC and ITV. The response however was wrong, and serious questions, and probably criminal investigations need to be initiated into the true motives of the media, the WHO, academic “experts” and particularly Bill Gates and his foundation.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have donated 100’s of millions of dollars to universities, health organisations including WHO and the CDC in USA and individuals such as Ferguson and Dr Fauci advising the US administration on Covid-19 response. The donations are not the issue, it is the influence they appear to have purchased that is the issue. Bill Gates is telling anyone who will listen we need a vaccine to exit lock-down, a vaccine that he will own the patent for, and by his own admission could kill around 700,000 people. The average time to produce a safe and effective vaccine is around 3 – 10 years, by which time this strain of virus will have long gone, herd immunity would have stopped its spread much quicker and more effectively. Vaccines tend to arrive when they are no longer needed and are never 100% effective nor 100% safe.
Every new virus that appears is novel, as the media love to call Covid-19, the only thing truly novel is the ridiculous response to the virus by our government, a response which almost guarantees the dreaded second spike, which countries like Sweden will almost certainly avoid, and without inflicting untold damage on their economy. We need a healthy economy to fund our health service and other emergency services and to address the never ending challenges of social care.
Saving...