Being generous, we could blame an incompetent Government blindsided by a ‘pandemic’ that hit just as it was popping the cork on finally ‘getting Brexit done’. But the actions it took went beyond naïvety and entered the realms of the Kafka-esque nonsensical. The last 18 months have been those of U-turns and false predictions followed by denials; hirings and firings of ‘experts’ paid to find or fabricate the evidence to fit the theory; promises to follow ‘the science’, to go by ‘data not dates’ – and then do the opposite. The mainstream media has refused to ask tough questions, social platforms have censored anything that doesn’t fit the fear narrative, scientists and medics and employees across the spectrum have lost their jobs and reputations for daring to speak out or refuse injection. The nurses on the ‘front line’ who worked around the clock last year without a vaccine will now be fired if they choose not to have one. This is their reward. The elites have flourished while the proles festered.
Much blame should be laid at the Government’s door for frightening its citizens and turning them into nodding, clapping, cheering automatons. But the people are not themselves entirely blameless, and tyranny does not operate in a vacuum. We are responsible for collectively swallowing the lies, the deceit, the buried evidence, the false predictions, the censored questions, the fairy tales told from Rose Gardens dreamed up in Barnard Castles in the air. Gullible en masse, we have refused to believe the evidence of our eyes, dropping last week’s headlines down the memory hole in favour of the latest scare, forgetting that the Government promised no further lockdowns, no vaccine passports, no jabbing of the under-18s, abandoning that most precious of resources: common sense. Why?
For sure, the public health sector over promised and under delivered. None call them visionary.
https://rebelwisdom.co.uk/42-film-content/vaccines-ivermectin/830-eric-weinstein-vaccines-ivermectin-dark-horse
Eric Weinstein makes some valid points. The authorities do seem to have given themselves permission to deceive, deflect, obfuscate, conflate, contradict themselves and sometimes even lie. Maybe, it was well intentioned and justified in order to present clear, unambiguous guidance. Why can’t they just admit they were making it up as they went along, based on past experience, and that as new evidence and facts emerged, they would adjust their recommendations. They did blow whatever credibility they had by not operating in good faith, re: the masks.
At this point, even liberals know they have been deceived. For example, in a recent podcast, a prominent liberal, mentioned overhearing three older, very liberal white women, in Portland, discuss this and agree that the authorities were just making stuff up.
I would say to Eric W, whatever the problem with US institutions and leadership, it seems to be almost universal. Here, we tend to be Ameri-centic about the covid effort, but we all need to ask who did significantly better and what did they do differently?
Hard to do, in the USA the data collection seems suspect and not very organized or managed with rigor.
Spanish flu lasted about two years. If covid is still around next summer it has has earned its place in the record books on longevity alone. If in all likelyhood it has faded away by then, why do we need a draconian and permanent solution, vaccine passports, to a transient problem?
All the nations that did NOT lockdown have a LOWER Covid death rate than we do in the United Kingdom.
“Then we should have locked down earlier” – some nations that locked down earlier than the United Kingdom, from Italy to Peru, have a HIGHER Covid 19 death rate than we do. Ditto the useless mask mandates in places such as the Czech Republic (which also has a higher Covid death rate than we do). Censoring Senator Rand Paul on the uselessness of the ordinary cloth masks does not make these masks any less useless – as even BIDEN advisers are now starting to admit.
Early Treatment with a combination of long standing medications could have saved a lot of lives – but it was systematically smeared, internationally.
Why? Because it is exceedingly hard to reason one out of a position one did not reason oneself into. Ms. Niemiec is expecting a level of intellectual integrity and critical thinking that most of the populace is either incapable of, too lazy for, or too invested in other causes for. There is a long history of people doubling down on failed predictions (example), and I would expect this to an unprecedented degree when none other than the government (in fact, many governments) is doing the scaremongering.
“Before you study public opinion, you wonder why policy isn’t far better. After you study public opinion, you wonder why policy isn’t far worse.” Bryan Caplan
Nobody ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the electorate.
With thanks to Mencken
Frankly it makes little sense to be jabbing the under-70s unless they have a co-morbidity. This whole affair is like some insane apocalypse cult on a global scale, complete with magic masks and ritual handwashing, modern civilisation’s Nongqawuse moment.
Once again, for US readers, I recommend the Covid-19 risk calculator hosted by Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland. Find it at Covid19risktools.com
Updated weekly, it uses a battery of data tools (all cited) to calculate your risk of mortality from Covid-19.
I have now used this tool more times than I can count to show people just how grieviously they over-estimate their risk from Covid to be. Many people have told me with a straight face that they believe that 1 person in 100 is going to die from Covid.
The tool shows clearly that for any person under about 70 with no serious co-morbidities, the risk of dying from Covid is at least 3 orders of magnitude less than this, and likely as much as 5 orders less. And in any event, far lower than 101 other everyday risks that they accept daily without a second thought.
One thing it clearly shows is that the vast majority of average people have no meaningful appreciation of statistics, nor yet even of basic math(s), and this goes 10x for any reporting of the matter in the main-stream media.
llater,
llamas
If it was 1 in 100, would it matter? Seem like pretty good odds to me. Maybe 1 in 50 for the oldest half of the population feels more comfortable as nobody likes the idea of a handful of kids dropping dead at each school.
To add to what Llamas was saying, I know plenty of people that do understand statistics but either love the drama of lock down, or can’t be bothered doing any research and are happy to go with what the BBC are saying.
Lastly, whilst it is rational to judge risks using the absolute risk measure (i.e. of ‘catching AND dying’ of Covid), many use the infection fatality rate, i.e. “if I were to get Covid what would the chance be of me dying”. That’s a higher number (albeit still very small for most people). Government has a lot to answer for here as their fear messaging has encouraged people to think in this way. Imagine if they did a similar campaign to stop people driving because they could be in an accident.
Being not so generous myself, I believe the reaction to the WuFlu was deliberate. The original escape from the lab was probably accidental. The use of that escape by China in keeping international flights at max capacity from Wuhan to the rest of the world was a deliberate bio-war strike on the rest of the world to damage all of China’s competitors and raise her relative standing. The initial reaction by the rest of the world to this unknown and highly contagious virus was excusable due to the lack of data. After a month or so, enough data was known to assess the risks by age group, health, etc. Unfortunately for the general populations, the government establishments quickly saw how much power they could seize over their economies and people, if they were kept ignorant and terrified. There must have been a number of back room calls and meetings to coordinate the lockdowns, media fear mongering, executive orders bypassing legislatures, and silencing of dissenting medical opinions and early effective treatments. The corruption of public data, the focus daily on cases, not deaths, was deliberate. We now see the results of this coordinated action, and the desperate efforts to maintain that seized power by screaming about delta, lambda, and other soon-to-be discovered variants even as deaths continue to fall. To be this coldly cruel, to knowingly kill so many who could have been saved, is the face of true evil.
There were some giveaways right at the start of the pandemic in the UK that it was an opportunity for the state rather than anything else.
1. The Coronavirus Act 2020 appeared out of nowhere, and was rammed through Parliament, with, I believe, Steve Baker MP weeping as he voted for it. 102 sections and 29 schedules, these things take a lot of time. As far as I know, it was never discussed in draft beforehand in template form, but had been drafted with a simple ‘replace’ function to insert the name of the disease. It is important that this Act was not the lynchpin of lockdowns but the Public Health Act 1984 (as amended) was, in England. It did allow for such regulations in Scotland.
2. Right early on, the government, in all its rush, made specific mention of bicycle repair shops being exempted from closure, showing the ‘environmentalist’ angle.
3. The provision for road and street signs came not long after, showing that the government had plans for this to be long term, giving the lie to the ‘a few weeks’ claimed at the start.
It was published at the time:
4. The calculated campaign to induce fear, as early as 22nd March 2020:
The rest we can see all around us. Ultimately, the response is central planning down to the level of the air that you breathe.
It was a given, that especially when dealing with government, ‘actions speak louder than words’, but today I think we can safely draw the conclusion that the government is lying 100% of the time.
This is the first step toward internal exile, and is exactly what we’d expect to see, if our government had been taken over by a bunch of international fascists.
[One] It’s not ‘jabbing’. That is an infantile description which obfuscates the gravity of this ‘treatment’.
[Two] Anyone with a reasonable expectation of a reletively healthy and normal lifespan ( 40 – 60+ years ) ahead of them, should not take this mRNA therapy.
The long term effects of the mRNA therapy is utterly unknown. Many of the short term effects are in many cases pretty devastating, and in some instances, potentially terminal*.
*Michael Mitchel reputedly took the third ‘clot shot’ on the 16th July. He was 65 but it’s just a cooincidence that he was found dead six days later on the 22nd July.
Tory scum and do a good line in crocodile tears. Filth!
You are happy with having a 1 in 100 chance of catching covid-19 and dying from it, OK. If the whole of the UK population also has that chance? That’s 1% of the population dead, aka 700,000. In the US, it’s 3,000,000.
Last I heard, the UK IFR is 1.5%, though it’s lower now because of the recent spike in cases but no corresponding increase in deaths. So if everyone catches covid we’re at that 1%.
Comparing case fatality rates (so higher than the IFR) covid has a global CFR of 2%. Malaria is 0.3%, Mumps 1%, Spanish flu 2.5%.
Anyway, an interesting for and against video about ivermectin at rebel wisdom.
https://rebelwisdom.co.uk/42-film-content/vaccines-ivermectin/828-ivermectin-for-and-against-with-tess-lawrie-graham-walker-gideon-meyerowitz-katz
My chance was 1 in 4,405, making me by far the highest risk person in my extended circle (given that Brian is jabbed). You really are a fountain of lies and bullshit.
Jon Eds said that he was happy with a 1 in 100 chance of catching and dying of covid. I simply pointed out that if that was the case for the whole country, those would be the death numbers.
At what point (by IFR, CFR or total deaths) would you approve of taking the vaccine?
I approve of people at high risk taking it right now, because the actual risk groups have been known for more than a year. Anyone else taking it, the vast majority in other words, is either a credulous idiot or is being forced by their need to get on with their life if they need to travel.
Our government parasites really have screwed us all with their disruption of the economy. I have sticker shock from looking at airfares for attending an October birthday.
and that is but one facet, of coercion under the terms of the Nuremberg code.
article one of which states:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This
means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent;
should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without
the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching,
or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient
knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved
as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This
latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision
by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature,
duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is
to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected;
and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his
participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests
upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is
a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with
impunity.
Mr Ed is correct – there is a lot of evidence that much of what was done was planned out (at least POTENTIALLY – in the hope that a justification would come along, that does NOT mean that Covid itself was deliberately released, it may have a genuine accident in the Wuham research establishment) before Covid, but I would add that this is true not just of this country. This was rather clearly an international thing – and not to do with saving lives. Indeed saving most victims of the disease (which Early Treatment with an combination of long standing medications, would have done) would have undermined the justification for the control of society – which, internationally, was the basic point of the exercise.
The control of society was not a means to an end (it was not an unfortunate price that had to be paid for saving lives), it was the end – it was the objective of international policy. Again that does NOT mean that a particular date was picked and Covid deliberately released (again its release may have been a genuine accident in the Wuhan research establishment), but powerful people, internationally, were eager for a justification to come along, a justification for what they wanted to do anyway.
It also needs to be pointed out that “Climate Change” (whilst it may be quite real) was NOT source of the international Collectivism either. There simply was not time for the C02 emissions are terrible theory (which really started to be pushed in about 1988) to have led to things like Agenda 21 – Agenda 21 may have only been agreed in 1991-2, but this sort of Collectivist thinking was in the works long before 1988, “Climate Change” was jumped on as a justification for what the international Collectivists wanted to do anyway – and the same is true of Covid 19.
One only need to remember that “Stakeholder Capitalism” (Klaus Schwab – later creator of the World Economic Forum) was published in 1971 – long before anyone had heard of “Global Warming” (indeed Global Cooling was the scientific orthodoxy of the 1970s), let along Covid 19.
The source of these policies is lust for power – for control of every aspect of human life (“you will own nothing and you will be happy” – as the government and Big Business backed plan puts it) – it really has nothing much to do with Climate Change or Covid 19 – such things are just pushed as justifications for what the international Collectivist establishment (the “international community” as they call themselves) want to do anyway. That does NOT mean they are not real – just that the “response” was created before the problem, and for other reasons.
‘Blindsided’ you say? How so? In America the CDC has an annual budget in excess of $9 Billion, which they dutifully make disappear every year. Regardless of the utility of individual items, they didn’t even have adequate protective gear to distribute in hospitals. They produce a narrow variety of apocalyptic think pieces, but not much else.
Roué le Jour, August 12, 2021 at 12:28 pm: “… why do we need a draconian and permanent solution, vaccine passports, to a transient problem?”
Because at this stage it’s no longer about the vaccine or the virus. It’s about exploring ways to keep the Great Unwashed on a very short leash for decades to come, with the excuse being ‘because Climate Emergency’, which this week has conveniently been declared a ‘Code Red’ concern.
How to get the Great Unwashed off the roads in their fourth-hand £500 rust-heaps? Easy, go for electric cars that cost about twice the average annual income. How to wean the Great Unwashed off their cheap sunshine-and-booze holidays to Tenerife or Majorca? Easy, impose a confusing and ever-changing system of travel restrictions, backed up by a regime of compulsory (and extremely uncomfortable) virus testing which effectively doubles the cost of the holiday.
Cesare – the CDC was very busy, it was not very busy treating people for Covid 19 (indeed it SMEARED Early Treatment), but it has been very busy. Agenda 2030, “Sustainable Development”, is very important to them, they are prepared to do just about ANYTHING to achieve gradual international Collectivism. So are the rest of the international establishment – government and corporate.
And conservatives? Many conservatives (over generations – and both Britain and the United States) have been fed an utterly FALSE view of Edmund Burke – they have been taught he was just about “gradual and peaceful change” – with “change” being defined as greater collectivism, and gradual and peaceful being defined as what that allows wealthy people to carry on with their comfortable lives as the state expands in both size and scope – as in Walter Bagehot (third editor of the Economist magazine) with his “concede whatever is safe to concede” (safe for him and his friends – so they could keep their “lifestyle” as we would say today).
None of this is what Edmund Burke was about – he was not some coward who just wanted to delay collectivism so that he could keep his comfortable life. He was interested in the DIRECTION of change – he wanted change in the direction of more individual liberty, he wanted to REDUCE the size and scope of government.
But this is not what generations of conservatives have been taught – neither in Britain or the United States.
What you call RINOs in America are never going to roll back collectivism – because rolling it back is not what they are about. What they are about is them (and their friends and associates) keeping their comfortable lives – by trying to make sure the move to collectivism is gradual and peaceful. That is what people such as the Senate Minority Leader are about.
A couple of years ago a “conservative” academic told me “history has no reverse gear” – he said that without any irony. Such men are as much use as a chocolate teapot.