I’m never quite sure what proportion of my readers are highly science-literate and informed, and what proportion are not. In any case, Google searchers do come across these posts. So with your indulgence it’s time for a simple update on why the UK’s continuing lockdowns and mass testing are no more than the quickest way to destroy the country socially and economically for no benefit whatsoever. To understate the case somewhat.
The situation is quickly illustrated by the fact that the Daily Mail yesterday had a very complete and well-illustrated article on the actual science being hidden from us by our government and their advisers. My pharmacist friend actually e-mailed me to say how useful it was, and I agree. But in response the Department of Health used its offical account to tweet:
“This article is misleading.
“This is a global pandemic – national restrictions have been introduced to keep people safe and save lives. It is vital people follow the rules and continue to stay at home so we can bring the transmission rates back down and get back to normality.”
Now, Twitter is not the place for full academic discussion, but this tells us as much as the whole output of offical science has done in recent months: mere assertions in response to the Mail writer’s analysis of real data. If it’s misleading, then give your interpretation of the data for comparison. But not a single one of the statements in the tweet holds water scientifically, from the reality of the pandemic (according to historical definitions) to the promise of a return to normality (when there is no exit strategy and an already ruined economy – not to mention murmurings and trumpetings of “new normals” and “great resets.”).
As regards lockdown, today’s news confirms the reality of the psy-op ground preparation for it since this latest lockdown: that when it ends we’ll only be permitted to return to a toughened-up tier-system (graded from “catastrophic” to “apocalyptic,” perhaps?) if we are to be counted good enough children for Santa to call. In other words, lockdown simply continues under a new name. As a policy, it assumes a completely unsubstantiated and anti-scientific claim that lockdowns are a kind of fine-tuned thermostat to control epidemics. Hence the nonsense that 5 days or normality costs 25 days of lockdown.
But way back in early May I wrote about the demonstrable failure of the first lockdown whose end we were approaching. Nothing has changed since then except for confirmatory evidence in numerous studies , and more scientists remembering, and checking up, that we always knew lockdowns, as well as the mass testing now being rolled out at the same cost as our total gold reserves, could not work.
For as late as the end of last year, the WHO advice on pandemics clearly included scientifically long-verified statements that:
- Quarantine of healthy individuals is ineffective and socially destructive.
- Tracking and tracing is only of value to prevent an epidemic at the earliest stage, when cases are few.
The reasons are as obvious as the fact that you can quash an embarrassing breach of national security by silencing the whistleblower and his contacts next day, but not once it’s all over the news and social media. Or you can stamp out a campfire that catches grass alight, but are on a hiding to nothing once the fire has spread over multiple foci and many square miles. In both cases, the problem is everywhere and there aren’t enough people on the planet to get it under control.
Regarding track and trace, the government confirmed its limitations when it said its “world-beating” system would only be introduced once cases had fallen low enough from their peak in March and April to make it viable. This was spin – they just didn’t have the thing ready. But it was a correct principle, which they completely abandoned (thinking you’d forget) when “cases” began to rise to insane levels in line with their test-fever.
The “Moonshot” is therefore, by government’s own prior admission, a useless money-pit. I clarified the reasons last week. Even if it did not suffer from the inappropriateness of the test for screening, the technical errors, and the administrative inadequacies, then putting a firescreen around every bush you find to be at risk would still not be the way to manage a rampant wild fire.
It is similar for lockdowns – once the virus ceases to be confined (for example once it spreads beyond the people bringing it in for the first time on a plane) then preventing people’s movements is useless, except perhaps to protect isolated communities like care homes, as mentioned in the 2019 WHO guidelenes. Once it is epidemic, the virus is already everywhere, and that is proven by the very fact that the initial epidemic burned itself out in May. It declined (predictably) because the virus was finding too many immune people across the country, and for no other reason.
40,000 people died, all over the country, and with an Infection Fatality Rate of 0.12%, one can assume that at least 33 million people had been infected by it, and we know that many more will have been naturally immune or protected by T-cell immunity to other viruses. By the end of the summer, that number was certainly far greater, and even more evenly spread. In fact, the evidence was that it was spreading silently from last November, like a smouldering bonfire waiting to burst into flame once the the wind blows.
By the nature of herd immunity, scattered individuals are still somewhat susceptible, as are individual communites that were relatively spared in the spring (like the northern cities, perhaps).
But the virus is now endemic, and has been for twice as long as the initial wave lasted, and you just cannot contain an endemic virus effectively whatever trendy name you give to lockdown. Unless you wall up the entire population in bunkers, you may as well try to quarantine everyone who finds a fly in their house.
Furthermore, many studies have now come out demonstrating that there is no correlation whatsoever between severity of lockdown and severity of the epidemic, across the world. Two studies now show that lockdowns even cause deaths from COVID to increase. Studies like this were were never done before, because no nation had ever had the stupidity to try to control an established epidemic that way, and no public health authority had ever advised it before the WHO suddenly went ape and reversed their advice. On logical grounds, every doctor knew it would be useless, and they also knew the insupportable cost to society that must result (which is why the WHO now advises against lockdowns again – advice our government is completely ignoring).
But now, we have been able to prove their uselessness empirically, in much the way that a nuclear bomb enables theories about radiation sickness to be tested in an unsavory way. We can measure the effect on infections, and we can count the thousands dying from collateral damage, and watch the recession and debt increase in real time. Even without reading the studies, a quick look at the public statistics shows any of us that, both in March and this month, deaths were dropping before lockdown, and in some cases even before the Tier 3 restrictions now said to be inadequate.
But the stats also show that neither the national nor regional lockdowns produced any visible changes to the curves of death or disease at times relevant to their initiation, or their lifting for that matter. If a new medicine doesn’t change the pattern of people dying, it doesn’t work – it is no coincidence that NICE has not been consulted on lockdowns, because they would never have passed the first cost-benefit analysis.
Indeed, the very fact that whatever clowns are in charge of these things claim we have not done sufficiently well to lift restrictions altogether proves that this lockdown hasn’t worked any better than 2019 science predicted. Not that there appear to be any set criteria for success, when even an R-number below 1 doesn’t count any longer. It seems as if the Chief Medical Officer sniffs the air and says, “Doesn’t smell right to me yet.” Maybe he casts runes. Whatever is done, though, it is nothing to do with science.
Nevertheless, one can see this as an actual scientific success, although a national disaster: the WHO and all established epidemiology claimed up to 2019 that lockdowns would achieve nothing, and they have been spectacularly vindicated. The hypothesis was tested, and found valid, and so the nations abandoned their dangerous experiment and returned to the established science.
Except that they didn’t, did they? Instead, the effectiveness of lockdowns – a totalitarian panic measure copied from Communist China – has became an unquestionable, even a religious, axiom. Consequently every time lockdowns fail – as fail they must each and every time – the powers and principalities in high places decree more of them.
To a medic like me, living in Britain at the moment is like getting a hospital job in a developing country, and finding that the politically appointed Medical Director is a witch-doctor who advocates blood-letting for everything. You see recoverable patients succumbing to anaemia from blood loss, and the response is to bleed them some more. When they (inevitably) die, it is put down to starting the venesection too late. You protest, but the staff call you racist and remind you of the prestige and credentials of the MD, and the Director himself threatens to sack you or get his brother (the President) to imprison you if you question his policy. Even the patients complain about you as a science-denier.
The only difference, when it comes to real life, is that the hospital is one’s entire nation and most of the others. It is not a good place to be, emotionally, apart from a theological understanding of the inevitability of the spirit of deception’s rise before Christ returns.