Coronavirus Duplicity — what the politicians and experts are doing behind your back

Update 07/05/2020: difficult to express how misinformed we have been, but this segment does a great job. Suddenly my articles do not seem as much in the twilight zone as they might have seemed!

Update 07/04/2020: the first major contra-study published in the premium medical peer reviewed journal (‘the Lancet’) underlining the poor quality of the science used to lock people up:

Another interesting article:

We all know the best way to promote a lie is to decorate it with some truth. At the moment, there is a worldwide psychological assault on the citizens of the world by their political leaders aided and abetted by academic experts. It is being presented as a “moral duty” to self-isolate, stay indoors, do not go for a walk in the park, implement social distancing…The common patter is you do not want to breathe on your 96 year old Gran because you are likely to kill her…it is not for you, it is for your weak, vulnerable members of society, we “have to shield the vulnerable”. No one is going to want to argue with such morally noble actions but funny how no one has thought this was important to do before COVID-19? In the UK our Primeminister is now threatening to remove the right to go outside unless we act “responsibly”, i.e. go for a walk in the park and come within 1.5m of another non-relative. In other European countries you have already lost that right.

The UK is just about to pass emergency legislation (and there is now equivalent legislation in most European countries, now spreading worldwide) that is to be “nodded through” (i.e. no vote because the politicians have agreed it between themselves) that has the following high points:

  • Forced detention and isolation can be of anyone, including children, and for any amount of time
  • Authorities can forcibly take biological samples
  • There’s no clear access to legal rights from as-yet unidentified isolation facilities…maybe this is to help us empathise with asylum seekers renditioned to detention centres!
  • Lockdown powers could prevent protests against measures
  • State surveillance safeguards weakened (your phone GPS can now be hacked legitimately to verify your location) — you think you can sneak to the park and go jogging with your headphones on, think again…
  • Protections from forced detainment and treatment under Mental Health Act lowered (if I decide I am not going to comply with your request to stay indoors, I could be labelled as “mentally ill” — think creatively about how this could be applied)
  • Cremations can be enforced against personal and religious wishes
  • They stay in force for a minimum of “two years” — one concession today (31/03/2020) that has been forced from the politicians after many emails were sent to our MPs (Members of Parliament) is that the 342 pages of laws will be reviewed every 6 months.

Update 10/04/2020:

Some highlights of just what the police now think they can do.

Asked about suggestions that police were patrolling the supermarket aisles to see what people were buying, Downing Street said people were allowed to buy whatever they wanted from shops permitted to be open.

“We set out a list of shops which could remain open and if the shops are on that list then they are free to sell whatever they have in stock,” the prime minister’s official spokesman said.

Police in Cambridge had to clarify a social media post — since deleted — by an “over-exuberant” officer who suggested they were monitoring aisles of “non-essential” goods in supermarkets.

On Thursday, Home Secretary Priti Patel said it was “not appropriate” for police to be checking people’s supermarket trolleys after Northamptonshire Police threatened to introduce the measures.

Chief Constable Nick Adderley said the force would consider roadblocks and searches of people’s shopping if the public did not follow the rules. He later called his remarks “clumsy”.

With South Yorkshire Police also having apologised for a “well-intentioned but ill-informed” officer who told a family not to play in their own front garden, Downing Street said people could use their gardens as they choose — as long as they are with members of their household.

All these are example of State bullying to intimidate citizens, create and compound a climate of fear designed to control them.

Update 30/04/2020 — Find out how corrupt this legislation is here:

How have they managed to pull this off with a barely a whimper of dissent?

Well, this is the hour of the “expert” — we have Professors, chief medical officers, deputy chief medical officers all with their press conferences and flanked by more experts and their political masters. Someone wrote of postmodern art in the 1960s, the image is the message — the message for the citizen is “shut up and obey your government, it knows best” and if you are a Christian certainly do not dissent for that would be as the sin of witchcraft! Sure thing, but just to remind you the South Africans did not get free by following that advice and the US was founded on the back of “seditious” preaching against the British. No one can ever persuade me that Jesus would be locked in the upper room self-isolating with his disciples at this time, they would have been out engaging and defeating the disease, healing any that needed healing.

However, I shall have to deal with theology at some different time, I want to be scientific in this article. Our Primeminister— who would want his job — announced today, “The answer is always to be guided by the science,…You’ve got to impose these [draconian] interventions… at the moment they can have the maximum effect.” So let us have a look at some of this “science” and find out just how the science has been misrepresented and politicians with their experts are misrepresenting it and are thus justifying stripping away the basic rights of people, permanently.

Yesterday, a press conference was held in which the results of data-modelling by Imperial College London and its senior academics was presented….guess what 510000 deaths in a year if we do nothing! However, if we strip citizens of their basic rights, we get that figure down to 20000, job done!

The warnings prompted ministers to announce on Monday the most draconian crackdown on freedom in peacetime with the public told not to go to pubs, clubs or theatres, and to work from home if possible.

But the article itself, admittedly rather clumsily as the presenter had almost succeeded in pulling the wool over the reporter’s eyes too until someone who did know something about the figures got the presenter to “concede” the fallacious reasoning in the figures, shows how utterly false this assertion was. It was purely a rhetorical device to justify the unjustifiable action the State is taking against their own citizens and to pull the wool over the eyes of the politicians who might, if they listened to their consciences for 10 seconds, object to the legislation.

Am I making a groundless assertion here — no, read the article — the problem with this figure is that over 500000 people die every year in the UK anyway and the figure quoted included the COVID-19 cases. To be blunt, if disease X did not kill you, COVID-19 might but (and this is the point that was covered over) you would still be dead with or without COVID-19— that is a trivial conclusion and hardly a “scientific justification” for tyranny.

The modelling was totally redundant, they could have skipped it — it did not tell us anything useful that would help us and as the article also said, until the pandemic is over, we will not be able to do any predictive modelling about the actual effect of COVID-19. As noted, the presenter then used a comparison figure of 8000 dying of flu for the consumption of the politicians and the media who obediently reported it. However, the 8000 figure is for those who directly die of flu above and beyond that 500000 — many people within that 500000 will also die of the flu in the sense of complications caused by flu or resulting in flu (much as complications follow by COVID-19 which is a relatively mild virus compared to many flus).

Update 27/03/2020: Remarkably, the same institution and the same professor (think senior tenured professor if you are in the States, your “professors” we would call “lecturers”) were at it again in this article. Here the scare story is we will save 30million lives if we act [by removing people’s freedoms] now. However, 50 million die every year — if you die of COVID-19 or something else, it does not change the salient fact you died because of underlying health issues.

It is remarkable that there has been no protest about this research — peer review should have ensured it was suitably qualified so it was made exactly clear what was established by this research and what its limitations are. Its major purpose seems to have been to offer a pseudo-scientific justification for extreme political action to remove liberty and freedom from citizens.

Update 02/04/2020: it seems that some academics now are becoming increasingly uneasy with the “lockdown” policy of keeping people indoors as a way of managing the virus. Some are even now bold enough to directly challenge this assertion and even the Professor who was the author of the original report that was used as justification for the lockdown is indicating there may be “as much as a 2/3 overlap” in the deaths that would occur by COVID-19 that would have occured anyway by some other disease.

The detrimental effects on the economy and mental health are now being recognised as actually harming the life expectancy, reducing the quality of life and creating a greater mortality amongst groups that will survive the pandemic. This all underlines just how unscientific and political this decision really was and how the government should never have been able to push through such destructive measures without proper scrutiny and debate.

This is massive and deliberate abuse of data to confuse and alarm people and to justify tyranny against citizens. There is massive social re-engineering going on in the background of nations worldwide. Governments are sneaking in legislation that invades the privacy and diminishes the rights of citizens and which would never pass votes within parliaments. However, nobody wants to be seen to be doing nothing in this “crisis” and to be held responsible for deaths.

In contrast to this chicanery, one day later the Deputy Chief Medical Officer of the UK let it slip to try and avert the outright panic of heading for the 10% death toll in Italy, that the expected mortality rate for the disease ongoing is likely to be at 1% despite us seeing 4% currently in the UK, why? Because in the countries where you have respectable empirical evidence specifically related to COVID-19, e.g. South Korea, the mortality rate was just 0.1%. The vast variation is with the health profile of the “vulnerable” populations, i.e. elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. The BBC in speculating about Italy notes that Italian deaths are concentrated in the older population where around 23% of the population are over 65 — the highest after Japan. However, in Japan, the cafes and bars are still generally open, people are still going to work, and old people are not dying like flies. Why? This is where the rubber really meets the embarassing road for Westerners, they eat better and are fitter — we are content to strain the infection fly whilst swallowing the sloppy lifestyle camel which is killing far more of us. This last point is the specific point made by the senior Yale University doctor I referenced in the previous article.

We are apparenty happy to bankrupt our future economies as long as the government “fixes” this problem and we take no responsbility for our own health — to repeat, and this is not an arbitrary opinion, it is public domain knowledge, most healthy people will suffer no more discomfort than a common cold. Many might not have realised they have already had it and the infection is likely to spread and manifest itself because it already has spread, sufficiently within the population, no matter what we do now. Preventing people from leaving their houses to exercise is counterproductive, the best defence against the virus for most people is to improve their health and fitness, pay attention to personal hygiene and yes, wash our hands when we change tasks, like our parents taught us. This is just one disease amongst many and we need to test for, manage and prevent it as any other disease — unless as I speculated in my previous article on this — there is something we are not being told about that justifies a global crisis and loss of rationality.

I write engineering software for a technical website and am studying part-time for a PhD in Philosophy,

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store