by Iain Davis
"There are no historical observations or scientific studies that support the confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods...Such a policy would also be particularly hard on and dangerous to people living in close quarters, where the risk of infection would be heightened...Travel restrictions, such as closing airports and screening travelers at borders, have historically been ineffective.....the societal costs involved in interrupting all air or train travel would be extreme…It might mean closing theaters, restaurants, malls, large stores, and bars....Implementing such measures would have seriously disruptive consequences...a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe."
The public health rationale [17] for Lockdown policies was notable only for its absence. Respiratory viruses wither in in the warming sunlight [18], so the UK State franchise order for people to stay in their own homes during the spring of 2020 effectively incubated the virus in as many hosts as possible. They knew this would increase the risk of infection [19].
While SAGE advised the UK State franchise of this risk, given their otherwise staunch advocacy of lockdowns, it seems possible they did so just to cover their own backs. They too were more than willing to accept this increased risk. Informed influencers ignored the warnings, along with all the other prevailing science counselling against lockdowns. Just as the epidemiologists cautioned, they turned a manageable epidemic into a catastrophe.
The core conspirators wanted more infection, not less. They knew this would disproportionately impact poorer households and the most vulnerable, so this was of little concern and provided a much needed mortality boost.
The WHO also understood that lockdowns would increase the infection and mortality risk. In their 2019 guide to Non Pharmaceutical Interventions [20] for managing global influenza they considered quarantining healthy, exposed individuals. They concluded that this was:
“Not recommended because there is no obvious rationale for this measure.”
They too were clear that isolation for the sick should only be done for limited periods and did not recommended it for “individuals who need to seek medical attention.” They stated that workplace closures should only be considered in “extraordinarily severe pandemics.” They found “no obvious rationale” for contact tracing and the widespread use of face masks was not recommended because “there [was] no evidence that this is effective in reducing transmission.”
Having reviewed the scientific literature, the WHO listed the measures they considered to be effective in the management of an influenza pandemic. These were maintaining hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, face masks for symptomatic individuals, sanitising surfaces and objects, increased ventilation, isolation of sick individuals and travel advice.
If the pandemic was more severe, they suggested further potential preventative strategies, such as extended use of face masks for people working with symptomatic patients and school closures. Some workplace measures (minimal restrictions) should only be considered in extraordinarily dangerous pandemics, which COVID 19 most certainly was not.
With regard to the WHO's recommendation for possible school closures it should be noted that they were assessing a likely flu pandemic. While the risk of hospitalisation for people under 18 with a SARS-C0V-2 infection was practically zero, in a severe influenza pandemic hospitalisation rates among the young can reach 20% [21].
The WHO judged that the economic and health costs of some measure outweighed the disease risk, regardless of pandemic severity. Others were simply considered ineffective. These included contact tracing, quarantine of exposed individuals (lockdowns), entry and exit screening of premises and border closures.
In 2019 the WHO found the public health risks of lockdowns to be unacceptable in all but the most severe pandemics. Yet in response to the pseudopandemic they ignored their own research and urged governments to quarantine the healthy and re-orientate the whole of government to focus upon one low mortality disease, almost to the total exclusion of everything else.
They effectively maximised the risk [22] to the most vulnerable, something which never made any sense [23]. At least not if saving lives was the priority.
By March 25th 2020 The WHO had forgotten their own scientific and medical evidence. The science hadn't changed, only their opinion. Tedros Ghebreyesus [24] said:
"We call on all countries who have introduced so-called lock-down measures to use this time to attack the virus.......Implement a system to find every suspected case at community level.....ramp up production capacity and availability of testing.....And finally...refocus the whole of government on suppressing and controlling COVID-19."
The UK State franchise, like many others, enthusiastically embraced this "whole of government" approach which, by pure coincidence, fitted perfectly with their Fusion Doctrine. This was envisaged in the 2015 UK National Security Capability Review [25]. Fusion centralised strategic UK State power under the auspices of the National Security Committee (NSC). The aim was to "identify the most effective and efficient combination of ways to achieve the government’s objectives."
Similar in many respects to the Chinese totalitarian model of centralised authoritarian control, this new UK concept of national security meant far more input from private corporations, philanthropic organisations, NGO's and other key partners:
"Many capabilities that can contribute to national security lie outside traditional national security departments and so we need stronger partnerships across government and with the private and third sectors....Many technological challenges are best addressed through partnership between the public and private sector.....One or more major hazards can be expected to materialise in the UK in every five year period. The most serious are pandemic influenza."
This seamlessly moved public health into the national security context. The pseudopandemic was an opportunity to flex the new Fusion Doctrine muscles.
A study published in the Lancet [26] in July 2020 analysed statistics from the 50 countries with the highest number of cases. The scientists stated:
"Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people."
A similar study by french researchers [27] analysed data from 160 countries and they too found no evidence of reduced mortality attributable to lockdown measures. They reported:
"Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate."
Another from scientists at Stanford University [28] looked at the impact of lockdowns on case numbers. The Stanford researchers contrasted the use of NPI's, applied to different degrees, between countries and then within national boundaries between provinces, states and county authorities. They found no evidence or correlation between lockdown restrictions and case number reduction. They concluded:
"While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs."
A study published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigations [29] found:
"There is no evidence that more restrictive non pharmaceutical interventions [lockdowns] contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020"
This United Nation's have acknowledged that there is nothing to suggest lockdowns achieve any disease mitigation [30]:
"Our analysis shows that governmental policies related to mobility restrictions and physical distancing has dramatically reduced people's movements but their impact on COVID transmission vary across countries. Although some countries still have highly stringent measures, they seems to not have served the purpose as the number of cases are still increasing."
The MSM have not reported any of this to the public. In 2021, in the UK, we continue to suffer the disastrous consequences of lockdowns. All the signs are that we are now moving to a new model of variant dependent, tiered lockdowns. This will not have
any public health benefit.
A project of the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University called the Coronavirus Government Response Tracker [31] formulated the Stringency Index. This compared various NPI's with infection and mortality rates. It shows, in terms of managing a respiratory virus, there is no measurable benefit to lockdowns.
Lockdowns were not public health initiatives. The lockdown consequences of contact tracing, entry and exit screening, shutting schools, destroying businesses and quarantining the healthy were widely acknowledged as harmful in the scientific and medical literature. Subsequent scientific and statistical research has confirmed what was already known prior to the pseudopandemic.
Lockdowns were a political, economic and social control mechanism. In Britain they were part of strategic national security project run by the UK State franchise of the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP). They served exactly the same purpose in other nations, as the core conspirators and their informed influencers began the process of building the global biosecurity State.
Yet the ubiquitous, incessant MSM incantation remains that COVID 19 caused [32] all the problems we are now familiar with. COVID 19 shut businesses, it halted education, emptied sports stadiums, shut the pubs, the restaurants and the community centres. COVID 19 created mass unemployment, ended international trade, increased economic inequality and slashed national GDP's.
This was and is mendacious pseudopandemic tripe. Political policies were the cause. It had nothing to do with a relatively low impact viral infection. Those policies were steam rolled onto the population in an act of wilful economic sabotage. This was purposefully designed for the "Great Reset" of the global order.
Initial pro lockdown arguments [33] were focused upon "flattening the curve" (FTC). The various claimed lockdown objectives have shifted continuously as the pseudopandemic progressed through its biosecurity phases. As the reported number of deaths hit the headlines “flatten the curve” was discarded [34].
The FTC theory proposed that by prolonging the outbreak health services wouldn't be overwhelmed with a rapid, unmanageable surge in symptomatic cases. Many scientists pointed out that this approach had serious shortcomings. Not only did it inhibit the building of community (herd) immunity and fail to reduce to the total number of projected deaths, by lengthening the duration of the pandemic, the most vulnerable were exposed to the virus for the maximum period.
This was largely confirmed by researchers at the University of Edinburgh [35]. They corrected the assumptions made in Report 9 and applied the data that was available at the time (March 2020). Using similar but properly coded models, they demonstrated that policies to "flatten the curve" were more, not less, dangerous:
"Adding school and university closures to case isolation, household quarantine, and social distancing of over 70s would lead to more deaths compared with the equivalent scenario without the closures of schools and universities. Similarly, general social distancing was also projected to reduce the number of cases but increase the total number of deaths compared with social distancing of over 70s only."
Papers claiming to demonstrate the effectiveness of lockdowns were heavily criticised by other academics. For example, a well funded article financed by the BMGF and the UK and US government [36] by Flaxman et al. claimed that lockdowns had led to an 82% drop in the virus reproduction rate. The paper was based upon the ICL models and was published to some fanfare in the respected scientific journal Nature.
When independent German academics reviewed the article, frequently cited as evidence of lockdown success by pseudopandemic advocates, they discovered it was founded upon assumption [37] and circular thinking. They stated:
"Purported effects are pure artefacts, which contradict the data. Moreover, we demonstrate that the United Kingdom’s lockdown was both superfluous and ineffective."
There was a palpable sense of anger in the scientific community. It is rare for scientific researchers and academics to use such strong language when challenging other scientist's theories. Researchers from Stanford University [38] were equally scathing of the Flaxmen et al article. They said:
"Flaxman et al. made the statement - We find that, across 11 countries, since the beginning of the epidemic, 3,100,000 deaths have been averted due to intervention. - Both the provided estimate and the accompanying limited uncertainty are highly misleading......The results included in the Nature paper seem to suffer from serious selective reporting, providing the most favorable estimates for lockdown benefits."
The Stanford team also analysed the ICL lockdown (suppression) models, in light of the available data, and observed:
"Lockdown appeared the most effective measure to save lives in the original analysis of 11 European countries performed by the Imperial College team......these impacts were highly exaggerated, with little or no benefit from lockdown in most of the same countries......Claimed effects of lockdown are grossly overstated........Data and results may be filtered by modelers according to whether they fit their prior beliefs. This bias can have devastating implication if it leads to adoption of harmful measures."
The claimed justification of "flattening the curve" was spurious in the extreme. In Britain, the reproduction rate (rate of infection) had already started to decline [39] before the UK State franchise initiated its ICL (Report 9) inspired lockdowns. Lockdowns had absolutely no impact on the trajectory of the disease.
The State franchise did the same with the second national Lockdown [40] in October 2020, and repeated the tactic again with their 2021 New Year lockdown. Similar exploitations were deployed elsewhere. For example, a study by scientists in Munich found that the German State franchise had used the same ruse [41]. They also noted that there was "no direct connection" between lockdowns and disease distribution.
According to Public Health England's Weekly National Influenza and COVID 19 Surveillance Report [42] there were 266,245 alleged additional cases for week 51 (ending December 24th 2020) but 241,969 (nearly a 10% decline) for week 52 (ending December 31st 2020).
In accordance with Farr's Law [43], and epidemiological opinion the world over, this slowing of the increase in the rate of infection (the R number) is the point at which the trajectory of the infection can be reasonably projected.
The reported case rate was always false. It was based upon little more than the number of tests conducted. As we shall see, the COVID 19 hospitalisation and mortality figures were similarly manipulated.
However, there was only so far the statistical manipulation could go. Within the fake figures real COVID 19 hospitalisation and mortality was occurring. For the pseudopandemic to remain at least vaguely plausible the case figures couldn't be completely disassociated from the hospitalisation and mortality statistics. They had to correlate to some degree.
By opportunely timing the lockdowns, the State franchise could claim the inevitable FTC and subsequent decline was due to their policy. In reality it had nothing to do with it.
The Republic of Belarus, with a population of nearly 10 million and a GDP of of more than $200Bn, has an average per-capita income of just over $21,000. It was a thriving, medium income, developing nation during the pseudopandemic. In September 2020 the Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko claimed that the IMF and the World Bank [44] tried to "bribe" Belarus with a $940M aid package in exchange for imposing lockdown restrictions.
Lukashenko said the money was offered on condition that he impose lockdowns, enforce the wearing of face masks, introduce curfews, establish an effective police state and shut down the economy. He is a tyrant and faced mounting political pressure in Belarus. The extent to which his allegations were intended for domestic consumption wasn't clear. However, for their part, the IMF more or less confirmed his story [45], though they portrayed it in less scandalous light.
The IMF director of Communications Gerry Rice said:
"Belarus approached the Fund with a request to discuss possible emergency assistance.....We did not demand quarantine, isolation, l
ockdown, but we sought assurances for steps to contain the pandemic in line with WHO recommendations, which is our standard operating procedure in all countries. So, just the same."
The relief money was dependent upon the imposition of lockdown measures by the Belarus government, as Lukashenko described. If the IMF and the World Bank were genuinely concerned for the welfare of ordinary Belarusians, faced with a global pandemic, there was no reason to deny Belarus access to relief funds.
Lockdown in Belarus were what the GPPP wanted, not what the people needed. The public health threat faced by the population of Belarus was irrelevant to the IMF and World Bank. It seems perfectly reasonable to describe this conditional offer of aid as a "bribe."
The net effect in Belarus was that, unlike its European neighbours, it did not impose any lockdown restrictions. Instead Belarusians could go to testing centres if they felt the need. Testing stations were set up in high density population areas like Minsk and Belarusians were tested in significant numbers. The people were advised to carefully observe hygiene and to self-isolate if they felt ill or tested positive.
At the time of writing (June 2021) there have been 2,892 alleged COVID 19 deaths in Belarus. This means that the claimed COVID 19 deaths per million of the population (DPM) are 306.
In the US COVID 19 deaths per million are said to be 1,838 and they stand at 1,874 in the UK (624 times the DPM in China and 5 times that of Belarus). Total claimed cases per million (CPM) are 102,709 in the US (1,630 times the CPM in China) and 66,056 per million in the UK (who have a worse death rate than the US.)
In Belarus alleged CPM are 42,138, which is a little below two thirds of the UK figure. However, the UK has a mortality rate five times greater than Belarus. This suggests COVID 19 is a far more dangerous disease in the UK than it is in Belarus.
Perhaps a better Belarus comparison would be with its immediate, neighbouring nation states, all of whom deployed lockdowns to some extent. The DPM in Poland is 1,960, in the Ukraine it's 1,174, it's 843 in Russia and in Lithuania it has reached 1,599. All considerably higher than the 306 DPM in non-lockdown Belarus.
