As we digested Boris Johnson’s address to the nation this morning, and the mainstream media propagandists fell over each other to praise the Prime Ministers cautious approach and adherence to the advice of “scientists,” my own reaction was FUCK YOU BORIS, I declare lockdown over for me and my publications and while being disabled I don’t get out much at the best of times, I and possibly my colleagues will be arguing for a campaign of civil disobedience to prove the idiotic bletherings of “scientists” with their mathematical models of the real world have done more harm than good.
Which epidemiologist do you believe?
The debate about lockdown is not a contest between good and evil
by Freddie Sayers, Unherd
The past week has been a tale of two epidemiologists. First up was Swedish professor Johan Giesecke, whose interview with UnHerd a week ago caused quite a stir. Disarmingly blunt, uninterested in percentage points, Giesecke brushed aside the coronavirus pandemic with words that electrified sceptics and horrified his detractors. “I don’t think you can stop it,” he said, “it’s like a tsunami sweeping across Europe.” The real death toll, he suggested, will be in the region of a severe influenza season — maybe double that at most — so we should do what we can to slow it so the health service can cope, but let it pass.
Then, this weekend, it was the turn of Professor Neil Ferguson to answer the Swede’s critique that his overly pessimistic forecasts had tilted the Government into Chinese-style dirigisme. He cut a very different figure — more cautious, more media-trained, lacking the charismatic heft of the Professor Emeritus but making up for it with precise deployment of the facts and figures.
Unfortunately Freddie’s article falls apaet there unless you define precision as manipulation of numbers until your algorithm gives precisely the answer you wanted.
In his eagerness to present a fair and balanced view of these different academics approach to the pandemic, Freddie’s assessment, by avoiding any mention of the tack records on predicted outcomes of the two, is far too kind to Ferguson. It is a matter of record that he was instrumental in the grotesquely disastrous response to foot and mouth (which was handled far more rationally in the Netherlands) and that he was far too alarmist about the predicted SARS pandemic which cause the World Health Organisation to change the definition of ‘pandemic’ from “hundreds of millions of people all around the world will be infected and milions will die,” to ” a few people here and there will be a little bit poorly..
Moreover, evidence seems to be growing that nations and US states that did not impose severe lockdowns have seen fewer infections and deaths per million. Reports from Sweden where the option of lockdown was rejected, the government having decided that those who survived the pandemic (an overwhelming majority,) needed a nation with a functioning economy. Shutting people up in enclosed spaces has probably caused more deaths than allowing people to go out and get sunshine and fresh air – while quarantining the vulnerable and banning mass participation events, of course.
Without implying any support for anything Donal Trump is alleged to have sais, it is known that UV light destroys viruses very quickly, and so in sunny weather such as we have enjoyed in Britain during the lockdown period, and even on days with a light covering of cloud, we are very unlikely to be infected with a virus while outside so long as we do not start getting up close and personal with strangers.
Ferguson is primarily a statistician and a computer modeller – much like the IPCC ‘climatologists’ who gave us overheated projections which have not materialised.
Ferguson’s and Imperial College’s dependence on large-scale funding from the Gates Foundation, the of which and also of Microsoft – the company that made ‘not-fit-for-purpose acceptable quality to put on the market, is Bill Wannabe Galactic Emperor Palpatine Gates, who has been pushing the for profit vaccine manufacturer his charitable foundation owns to the forefront of the race to develop a vaccine against COVID – 19, does not exactly create confidence in the accuracy and objectivity of their projections.
As with the IPCC, the projections serve a political and social-transformation agenda.
The question is not of believing wither one or the other of these so called experts but detailed anaysis analysis of the FACTS. For the USA, from where we have the most reliable information, (UK figures are horribly distored to justify actions which have inflicted economic damage that will take decades to repair, ) facts on positive cases (numerator) over total tested (denominator) reflect a rapid percentage drop in the deaths against population. As to Ferguson, his views are as dangerous as his forecasts:
2,001 – All farm animals, even of species not affected by foot and mouth disease, on farms where the disease had been identified and adjacent farms even if they had had no cases of foot and mouth be slaughtered to prevent the disease crossing the species gap and killing humans, (actually it does not kill animals except in rare cases, but does destroy their economic value.
2002 – 50 000 CJD (Mad Cow Disease) estimated deaths revised upwards to 150 000 if sheep were infected. FACT, CJD Research Surveillance Unit at Uni of Edinburgh report 178 deaths since 1990
2005 – Up to 200 MILLION (!!!) deaths from Bird Flu (H5N1). WHO reports in 2006 78 out of 147 reported.
2009 – Swine flu would result in 65 000 deaths in UK. Ended up at 457.
Clearly he is deluded, stupid or downright dishonest (yes Prof Ferguson I just libelled you, I hope to hear from your lawyers soon – but I will not be holding my breath.)
The focus needs to move from death figures to quality of life and quality of death. We all die sometime, it is how well we live our lives up to that point and when we die the impact that has on those who mourn us. It is known that the majority of deaths have been among people over retirement age and, expressed as a percentage the curve steepens more sharply the further past retirement we get.
The main criterium in justifying the lockdown was that the Reinfection (R) rate should n be below 1, i.e. the average number of people infected by someone carrying the virus should be less than one. When the 5 tests were first announced the ‘R’ test was: we must not have a second peak that overwhelms the NHS. That changed to there must be no risk of a second peak – R must not get above 1.
We also need to look at all cause mortality ie the people who are not dying from the virus but because of the measures taken to stop it. How many people are going to have an agonising death from cancer because they are not being treated early enough or how many are dying of cardio vascular problems because they are not seeking help in time?
I have often noted in the past few weeks that everything in life is a risk, from crossing the road to eating an unfamiliar food that might give you anaphylactic shock. This is the inherent problem with the Ferguson mathematical modelling approach, he starts from the position that all risk can be eliminated but it can’t.
There can be no doubt that people are already dying from the lockdown, people are not going to GP or A&E with serious medial issues, cancer patients aren’t getting treated, diagnosis is being delayed etc. That’s before we get to the grim toll of suicides which will result from mental health issues arising from the effects of isolation, or from the financial distress caused by loss of jobs, income, house, etc. Yet Prof. Ferguson argues that most, if not all the lockdown restrictions should remain in place unti a vaccine is available, a statement that echoes the words of his paymaster Bill Gates in that disturbingly creepy interview he did for the BBC a couple of weeks ago.
The vaccine cult brings us to the “elephant in the room”. What if we don’t get a vaccine?
Everything out there says we probably won’t get a vaccine for some time, it probably won’t be that effective and there is every likely hood it won’t work at all. What then? If there is no vaccine or one that only protects for a short time we will have to go back to normal life and accept the consequences ie deaths!
The lockdown was designed to slow the spread of the virus until the NHS could create the capacity to cope. It’s been created. Now the goal posts are being moved to one of trying to defeat the virus. We can’t defeat any virus, we need a reality check. Life won’t stop and the lockdown will be gone long before the virus!
MORE ON THE PANDEMIC
Fear and Panic
The Coronavirus Response Is The Biggest Assault On Freedom Since World War 2
Scientist who convinced Boris lockdown was the only way to beat coronavirus criticised many times for flawed research
Is This The Smoking Gun That Proves China Has Lied About The Coronavirus