In my e-book Seeing through Smoke, mainly written last year, I discussed how our times are really the first in history when the kind of final global deception, or “rebellion,” described in Scripture, might be able occur. This is because of the combination of global communications and institutions, and the sophisticated level of propaganda that has not only been understood, but comprehensively applied, over the last century. But I also wondered how such a delusion could gain the near-universal traction accorded it in Scripture, given the polarised nature of our political scene.
OK, maybe it’s time for an update on the UK Government’s stupidly named “Moonshot” testing programme, since my hopes that Boris Johnson would have quietly forgotten it have been dashed. Like so many reasonable hopes, this year.
For it is being rolled out, with the help of the military, in town after town – characteristically before any assessment of its value and problems, just like lockdowns, masks, track and trace, vaccines, etc, etc, etc, etc.
The name of the project is, obviously, an attempt to get the malleable propagandized public to identify with J. F. Kennedy’s “Can Do” Apollo project. It neglects the fact that younger generations don’t even remember that, let alone get stirred by it. And it forgets that a beleaguered and divided Britain, weighed down with financial and medical deficits, is not an optimistic and successful USA (but then neither is the USA now). Nations don’t rally round the launchpad when they’re feeling “Moonshot, schmoonshot. I just need my life back.”
The idea is to test 10 million people a day, or the whole population every week, with the promise that it will enable life to return to normal. That can only mean isolating all the positives, and their contacts, for a week or two, and releasing everybody else to mix as if they were human beings again, if the ONS stats look OK.
The cost of this project, at £100 billion in the year, is almost as much as the entire NHS budget of £130 billion, which has historically been considered near-unaffordable and is by far the biggest item in the UK budget. The Moonshot will cost more than 1/8 of the total government spending in 2016-7, and so will add around £1500 of liability to every man, woman and child in the country.
For a family of four on one median salary, it will therefore cost 20% of gross income, but as more than 3 million people are projected to be unemployed next year, the actual cost in taxes will, at some stage, be much more.
That’s the cost – what’s the benefit? Currently, most testing is done by PCR, which I critiqued here. The bottom line is that we have no idea, even now, how many of its results are false positives, or false negatives, for that matter, because there is no gold standard viral assay with which to calibrate it, even a year on.
The dirty little open secret is that this is because SARS-CoV-2 has never been isolated. There is no guarantee that the RNA sequences being tested are not also present in the myriad other viruses in the human body. Nobody talks about it, I guess, because it’s buried under a Mount Everest of other dirty little secrets surrounding this pandemic.
So if PCR were used for the Moonshot, its false positive rate of, at best guess, around 1% would guarantee 10,000 new “cases” going into isolation every single day, even if the virus had disappeared completely.
But the Moonshot will not depend on PCR, it seems, but on the new “quick tests” that give a result in 20 minutes or so. These are not PCR, but detect certain antigens by another method. The down side, or the up side, is that they are far less sensitive than PCR: according to reports they only pick up around 50% of infections.
The negative result of that is that it would appear that half the infected people will still be wandering around the population instead of quarantining. The positive is that there will be far fewer of the false positives caused by PCR’s over-sensitivity.
But hold on a minute – that percentage sensitivity can only be only estimated by comparison with PCR, there being no viral assay gold standard. And it’s not clear what PCR cycle threshold was used to make that estimate, and any case, the cycle threshold used varies widely from lab to lab and nation to nation. So the quick test has been calibrated against a test which itself has not been calibrated against reality, and cannot be for the immediate future. It’s the equivalent of calibrating omens by reference to horoscopes, though with a lower evidence-base.
There is simply no way of knowing the Antigen Test’s false positive and negative rates, because there is no gold standard by which to judge. But like PCR testing, doing the test on a massive scale in an asymptomatic population can have no other result than generating thousands of false positives, and hence crippling the country both directly, by keeping tens of thousands of healthy people out of circulation, and indirectly by giving the false impression that there is still an epidemic going on. This is the only POSSIBLE outcome.
Actually, an additional outcome would be possible if it weren’t for the evidence, on all other grounds, that COVID-19 is no longer an epidemic, but an endemic seasonal coronavirus. If we were still in a pandemic, then a screening test with such a low (and incalculable) sensitivity would be little better than chance in detecting infections, and preventing their spread. It would be as effective in controlling disease as mandating social distancing for every other person. This is entirely obvious to anyone with half a brain from the basic information we have on the tests.
For all we will gain from it, then, the UK Moonshot may as well be pouring our gold reserves into the sea: in fact, the comparison is exact, because the Bank of England has only £100 billion in gold reserves.
Skeptics in 1970 questioned whether the USA might have spent its money better on feeding its poor rather than “pouring its love out on the Moon.” But the Apollo program undoubtedly boosted Americans’ pride, advanced science and technology, and fired human imgaination around the world. Our own Moonshot is just a worse-than-useless money-pit, using our money without even consulting us. We’ll even get batoned, handcuffed and fined if more than two of us protest about it together.
Still, living in a world of utter folly, coercion and lies is becoming so familiar this year that, like the prisoner in Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag huddling alone in rags to seem invisible to the oppressors, it has started to become a way of life. For the moment, at least a few people may notice the scrap of paper in his hand saying, “I’m not the lunatic,” at least until the guards snatch it away as divisive hate-speech.
There’s something rather special about you people, though not many Hump readers get to express that in comments. I get around 100,000 hits a year, and particularly in the last few months those have been visits to posts mainly expressing dissidence to the mainstream narrative on COVID, on social justice and on world politics generally.
Yesterday our MPs, deeply conflicted, but not sufficiently so to check out the data intelligently, voted through another national lockdown. This was despite the well-publicized de-bunking of the doomsday projections made to justify it, the data showing that infections and deaths have both peaked and appear to be on the way down, the latest excess deaths report that confirms we have average deaths for the time of year, and above all the clear evidence that no proper impact assessment has been done, let alone made available to parliament or public.
The national lockdown I predicted (from the trajectory of the propaganda drip-feed, not from the data) was announced with another bunch of skewed, and already outdated, apocalyptic projections over the weekend. It is due to be voted on in Parliament tomorrow, but the official opposition are not opposing, and most Conservative MPs appear to have swallowed the “something must be done” line dictated by SAGE’s smoke and mirror displays.
David Snoke’s presentation at last week’s Christian Scientific Society webinar added a useful thought to my treatment of animal suffering in God’s Good Earth. This question plays a large part in the kind of theodicy tangles that Evolutionary theologies tend to get into, deep time being held to build up an immense “debt” of suffering for God to requite, and evolution itself (apparently) being grounded on senseless and wasteful suffering.
Well, that august scientific advisory body, SAGE, has produced yet another projection for a forthcoming second wave, courtesy (again) of Imperial College Modelling, inc. It’s all about death, this time. It appears on all the front pages today:
From time to time critics of Imperial College’s COVID-19 modelling have pointed out their previous poor track record in several previous “scares,” including the catastrophic UK foot and mouth disease epidemic of 2001.
I’m just re-posting a reminder that I’m giving a presentation on my first book, God’s Good Earth Earth: the case for an unfallen creation at a Christian Scientific Society Webinar thos Saturday, 24th October, on natural evil. It’s in the morning, in the US, or the afternoon in Europe. If you’re an Australian reader, you’ll have to set your alarm clock.
Speakers are Stuart Burgess from UK, and Fuz Rana, Scott Minnich and David Snoke from America, and the general tone of the others’ abstracts seems to be on “design” good or bad.
It’s free, though they ask for a donation in the region of $20 for the logistics (not for me!). It would be great to speak to some of you there.
I’m first up, and I’ll be making the case I make in the book that creation, unlike mankind, is unfallen, and how that might open the way to a better theology of nature to replace the semi-deistic model around which science now seems to revolve. There’s a Q&A at the end.