When the UK Government became aware of the Covid-19 virus, it was obliged to make a decision with extremely imperfect knowledge. In part the imperfection was of knowledge of the organism itself. Though knowledge of human coronaviruses has accumulated over more than 50 years, Covid-19 was very likely only recently existent and certainly only recently known to UK and worldwide epidemiology. But much more important was the imperfection of knowledge of what sensibly could be done. A policy aimed at the entire population was from the outset bound to impose burdens on the Government’s capacity to formulate in detail and implement a policy unprecedented in the history of the modern state. All that could be said at the outset was that the costs of such a policy would be immense, certainly greater than those of any other peacetime policy ever adopted.
Such a policy was nevertheless adopted, largely on the basis of the claim that it was extremely desirable as it would avoid huge illness and loss of life. I must make it clear that I believe the predictions of these effects were speculations of a familiar, alarmist type, since given public credence by statistical reporting and other official information that is worse than worthless.
The Imperial college model is a thing of mathematical beauty. It is intricate and complex enough that no mere MP would dare try to question the details of it. But no matter how good a scientific model looks, and how hard the theory and coding behind it is to grasp, if the fundamental assumptions are wrong it will not work. When Einstein simplified general relativity, he is quoted as saying: “everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler”. The above is a simple analysis of the data over the last 12 months from an undergraduate maths student. If Professor Ferguson wants to wager whether there will be a significant surge of coronavirus fatalities between June and September this year, I will happily put all the student loan I have saved in lockdown on him being wrong.
History is littered with examples of the atrocities which ensue when doctors abandon their traditional principles and judgement in favour of unquestioning subservience to government diktat – medical involvement in torture, human experimentation and psychiatric punishment of political dissidents being familiar examples.
Abbasi takes as axiomatic that there was no prior immunity in the population, that lockdowns are effective, that computer modelling is realistic, that statistics have been accurate and that WHO statements are reliable. All of these parameters have been widely challenged by knowledgeable and conscientious researchers whose findings were often disregarded, censored or vilified.
From a medical perspective, it was clear early on in the crisis that disregarding clinical acumen in favour of blind obedience to abnormal ventilation measures, reliance on an unsuitable laboratory test for diagnosis and management, and abandoning the duty of care to elderly hospitalised patients and those awaiting diagnosis and treatment of serious diseases, would create severe problems down the line.
Doctors who had empirically found effective pharmaceutical remedies and preventative treatments were ignored, or worse, denigrated or silenced. Information regarding helpful dietary supplements was suppressed.
This was further compounded by rule-changes to death certification, coroners’ instructions, autopsy guidelines, DNR notices and the cruel social isolation policy enforcement regarding family visits to the sick and dying.
When medical professionals allow themselves to be manipulated by corrupt politicians and influenced by media propaganda instead of being guided by their own ethical principles and common sense based on decades of clinical experience, the outlook becomes very bleak indeed.
Historically, public respect for and trust in doctors has exceeded that awarded to politicians. The unquestioning capitulation of medicine to an authoritarian executive and predatory corporate power may have undermined the doctor-patient relationship for a generation.
Those of you who continue to doubt that unchecked fear of Covid – and silence in the face of the resulting hysteria – leads to top officials seriously proposing policies that are absolutely inimical to a free society, check out this paragraph from a recent report in the Daily Mail:
It came after SAGE expert Professor John Edmunds told ITV’s Peston that most curbs on daily life — which may include the Rule of Six — are likely to be in force until the end of this year, while less restrictive curbs — like face mask wearing on public transport and indoors — could possibly be in place ‘forever’.
So it’s worth asking just how fortunate those Aussies and Kiwis really are. They can’t leave either. A foreigner would have to be a complete idiot to visit. Some 40,000 nationals are stranded abroad, many unable to afford the quarantine back home. The son of a close friend in London lives in New Zealand, and who knows when the family will be united again? The aviation, tourism and hospitality industries have been devastated. Most crucially: yeah, these countries have sealed themselves off from a world teeming with slime and impurity. But once hermetic restrictions are in place, how do you ever lift them? Wouldn’t ever opening up make all your sacrifices for naught?
“Texas boy, 12, hangs himself after battling depression amid COVID-19“. (An anecdote? Yes. Do children commit suicide in times other than Covid? Yes. Might this young boy’s mental condition have been such that he’d have hung himself even had there never been lockdowns? Yes. But if the pro-lockdown crowd treats individual deaths attributed to Covid as evidence of the need for lockdown, then it’s fair to treat individual deaths attributed to lockdown as evidence of the need to end all lockdowns.)