by John Ward
There is a way of measuring exactly how stupid, scared, delusional or inattentive the average citizen is considered to be by the Unelected State and its whores. Put simply, the more sloppy, contradictory, far-fetched or illogical the 3%’s rationales and explanations are, then the more confident the élites are that they could blame COVID19 on Mary Poppins and get away with it.
Ever since the Useful Idiot Modelling tendency proclaimed Climate Change both an established fact and entirely the fault of humanity’s CO2 output, the reality manipulators have become increasingly brazen and risible in their cover stories. Each year they become more diaphanous, until the Emperor is naked….at which point the security services and tame media insist that the King’s clothes are merely invisible, as opposed to absent.
It all began a long time ago with ‘cameras are being installed here for your safety and protection’, followed by hotels saying ‘in the interests of the environment, please only use those towels you really need’, then Clinton and his ‘I did not have sexual innercourse with that woman’, ‘we’re giving you your own customer space online to make life easier for you’, ‘we’ve developed zero-contact smart cards for your convenience’ and now – at last (but inevitably) we have arrived at ‘it’s important to lock you up at home for your own good’.
At the outset of the Corona molehill-into-mountain illusion, the most common thing we were told was “wearing a surgical mask will not help protect you from this virus”. Just six weeks later, those “in charge” began talking about obligatory wearing of face masks.
Boris Johnson said at first, if you feel ill, go home for seven days. Then he said no, to be on the safe side, make that 15 days. Then he caught the bloody thing himself. Then it transpired that you could be incubating infectiously for up to 27 days with no symptoms at all. And so the advice became Everyone Go Home. Then the advice stopped.
Then Piers Morgan began to rage about people going to parks over Easter…because the line had by then become ‘We must do everything to protect the NHS from being overloaded’. So lots of commentators worked out that, with a six-week lockdown of NHS protection, that would work out (in lost gdp) to £13-30m per life saved depending on one’s estimate of non-presenting case totals and the unemployment benefits required.
Then Matt Hancock said, ‘We’ll have to extend the lockdown because only 10% of the population has built immunity, they all hiding behind the sofa at home an’all. Then Matt caught the bloody thing.
Now we can all debate uphill and downdale about how hard it is when one’s surrounded by a cacophony of variously incompetent, conflicted, corrupt and Armageddonesque advice to keep one’s head and reach any kind of “final” decision. But I have two counters to that: first, protecting the NHS (at the obvious risk of complete social health meltdown in the longer term from gdp disaster) is not a viable justification for action – it is a vote-centric Party-political calculation designed to emerge from the swamp smelling of Crabtree & Evelyn soap. And second, we must surely be allowed to assume as taxpayers that the politicians and bureaucrats we elect and pay for repectively can add, subtract, multiply, divide, percentage and conclude.
The bottom line (this afternoon, but who knows what this evening might bring) is that conclusions aren’t being reached: in short, both contradiction and confusion continue to hold sway.
Yesterday, it was widely predicted that the UK lockdown would last “until a vaccine is found”. So mad was that opinion, it took me until after 3 am this morning to get to sleep after having read it.
But then Dominic Raab (deputising for Boris) went to the podium and said, “no end to lockdown for at least three weeks”. As the very earliest prediction of a vaccine is September, there’s obviously still a huge mismatch there. Raab also said “the social distancing recommendations do seem to be slowing down the virus”. As per my points above, that isn’t the issue: the issue is one of balancing cost and immunity.
Written again – only this time larger, because it’s at the core of everything about this farcical situation:
The issue is one of balancing cost and immunity.
I think we need more factual injection here…..and considerably less from Piers’ gob.
Lockdown, it is claimed – that is, in government publicity throughout the Western world – will slow down the case rate of COVID19, allow the public health services to cope, and keep vulnerable people safer….that is, devoid of the somewhat irreversible death thing.
Some States have opted for hard lockdown, others for softer versions, others still to focus on strict care for the vulnerable with no lockdown. The table below (extracted from Worldometer this morning) looks at the relative successes and failures:
Cases per mill Deaths per mill
Hard lockdown Italy 2794 367
Hard lockdown France 2528 275
Soft lockdown UK 1519 202
Softer lockdown US 2049 105
No l’down Sweden 1242 132
Now I realise that dozens of factors are in play here, but a month into the mission, the message of this table is that – based on its own success criteria – lockdown isn’t cutting it: not to beat about the bush too much, softer lockdowns work better than hard, and the top performer overall has to be Sweden (because it has the lowest case rate) followed by the US – which has done better than either of the hard lockdowns.
As ever in our history, Britain is sort of in the middle: the best of the lockdown options and the second-best case rate. But there is muddle in the middle.
For Britain in fact, two simple questions still hang in the air: is the very high cost of very few additional lives saved worth the long-term damage to the economy at a key time in our newly attained “independence” from the EU?
And for both the UK and everyone else, further – even bigger – questions are added: if the appalling liberty precedent set by Italy and France is worse than doing nothing, what’s the point of it? And if it’s going to be at least another four months before a vaccine is available (which will then need trials of course), what’s the route out of this economically disastrous lockdown thing while we’re waiting?
GSK and their somewhat tarnished new partners in crime Sanofi say their new vaccine won’t be in the market until November 2021 at the earliest.
Conclusion: for a whole plethora of mental health, economic, social and libertarian reasons, the lockdown strategy is unsustainable.
The Government isn’t saying this, but it should be. They are in something of a muddle. And no, Piers Morgan, I don’t care what you think because, as always, you are approaching the issue with an open mouth and little or no thought for the consequences. Also, you’re a serial liar, and your motives are questionable for reasons Messrs Tryle & Errah say I can’t go into. Yet.
Contradiction, obfuscation and accusational smears are always going to set off the Hidden Agenda Geiger-counter.
Once again, for example, the syntax is coming back to vaccination. All the Global Order loons like Blair, Macron and Gates are pushing the term “new normal”.
These are the same people who told us gdp growth is essential. Along with their secret service co-workers, they call any critique of the narrative wild conspiracy theory, but anything from the CIA, the Sureté or MI6 intelligence.
Their new normal consists of restricted personal movement, obligatory immunisation, ID tattoos, tracing by low altitude satellite and attestations in order to be allowed out of one’s own home.
And for what? For a virus which, fifty years ago, we wouldn’t even have noticed – in the surgeries, the hospitals, the social stats and the crematoria.
We need a powerful and coordinated counter-narrative, and we need it now.
And as a starting point, can we all please for Heaven’s sake stop clapping. You’re like performing fucking seals.