- Deliberate Manipulation of Public Response
- The WHO Ignored Taiwan, so They Set Up Their Own Screening Tests on December 31st 1999
- China Knew About Human-to-Human Transmission, and Lied
- Professor Lockdown’s COVID-19 Modelling is Flawed
- If China had Been Honest From the Beginning, This Could Have all Been Avoided
- Alternative Opinions by Medical Professionals and Journalists are Being Shut Down
- Statistics on COVID-19
- The Pandemic is Being Used to Accelerate Green Policies and Usher in Socialism
It is no good to say that "every other jurisdiction in the world is following basically the same policy". That would strike me as herd stupidity! pic.twitter.com/hFjYcXODET— Desmond Swayne (@DesmondSwayne) October 22, 2020
This year has been a very challenging time for all of us, regardless of which side of the fence we sit in relation to the devolved governments’ handling of this situation.
What hasn’t helped is the constant stream of hysterical fearmongering from the entire UK broadcast & print/online media, and outright censorship from all of the social media platforms of any views that they have deemed unacceptable in relation to COVID-19.
It really has turned into an Orwellian world when social media is removing posts that don’t fit with what they have decided is acceptable content.
Instead of having an emotionally-fuelled rant about government overreach, media complicity, and social media platforms acting as publishers, I am going to use this opportunity to provide factual information – you can make up your own mind.
Deliberate Manipulation of Public ResponseIndex
The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting Evaluation of options for increasing social distancing emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat1
The government strategy from the outset has been the use of fear tactics to engineer a guaranteed response from the public. This seems to have affected most of the public quite heavily.
The WHO Ignored Taiwan, so They Set Up their Own Screening Tests on December 31st 1999Index
When the World Heath Organisation failed to respond to their request for information regarding the possibility of human-to-human transmission, Taiwan immediately began screening all flights from Wuhan.
It was three weeks later that China announced that there was indeed human-to-human transmission.
On December 31, 2019, when the World Health Organization was notified of pneumonia of unknown cause in Wuhan, China, Taiwanese officials began to board planes and assess passengers on direct flights from Wuhan for fever and pneumonia symptoms before passengers could deplane.2
China Knew About Human-to-Human Transmission, and LiedIndex
Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳. pic.twitter.com/Fnl5P877VG— World Health Organization (WHO) (@WHO) January 14, 2020
For six days in mid-January, China knew the novel coronavirus could become a deadly pandemic while it told the world there was nothing to fear, according to an Associated Press report published Wednesday. A memo of a confidential phone call with Ma Xiaowei, the head of the National Health Commission, and provincial health officials on January 14, obtained by the AP, said that “human-to-human transmission is possible” and that “all localities must prepare for and respond to a pandemic.” The call was supposed to convey direct orders about the coronavirus from President Xi Jinping and other top Chinese government officials, according to the AP. But in the six days that followed, Chinese health authorities publicly maintained that the virus posed a low risk to people. … It was on January 20 that Xi finally told people to practice social distancing and avoid travel and that a Chinese epidemiologist, Zhong Nanshan, told state TV that the virus was, in fact, being transmitted among humans.3
Professor Lockdown’s COVID-19 Modelling is FlawedIndex
Professor Neil Ferguson’s COVID-19 outcomes modelling (which projected 2.2million deaths in the US, and 500,000 deaths in the UK) failed to take one major factor in to account – human behaviour.
Enter the new NBER paper, jointly authored by a team of health economists from Harvard University and MIT. Its authors conduct a measured and tactful scrutiny of the leading epidemiology forecasts, including the ICL model at the heart of the lockdown policy decisions back in March. Among their key findings:“The most important and challenging heterogeneity in practice is that individual behavior varies over time. In particular, the spread of disease likely induces individuals to make private decisions to limit contacts with other people. Thus, estimates from scenarios that assume unchecked exponential spread of disease, such as the reported figures from the Imperial College model of 500,000 deaths in the UK and 2.2 million in the United States, do not correspond to the behavioral responses one expects in practice.”As the authors explain, human behavior changes throughout the course of an epidemic. Even basic knowledge of the associated risks of infection induces people to take precautionary steps (think increased handwashing, or wearing a mask in public). Expectations about subsequent policy interventions themselves induce people to alter their behavior further – and continuously so. The cumulative effect is to reduce the reliability of epidemiological forecasts, and particularly those that do not account for behavioral changes.4
His code is not replicable, and churns out different results based on different hardware.
What went wrong? Shockingly, the code that generated Professor Ferguson’s doomsday prediction was neither public nor peer reviewed. He himself admitted the computer code has thousands of lines of “undocumented” code, which makes it impossible to verify. A senior software engineer from Google found the code has amateurish errors, including giving different answers depending on the number of CPUs in the specific computer running the model. This makes the results unverifiable, and therefore meaningless.(16) Professor Ferguson’s track-record is poor, to say the least (see Table 2). In 2002, he predicted up to 150,000 deaths from CJD (“Mad cow disease”)—55 times the actual death toll of 2,704. In 2005, he predicted that bird flu could kill up to 200 million people. The actual death toll was 455.(17)5
Clearly, the documentation wants us to think that, given a starting seed, the model will always produce the same results. Investigation reveals the truth: the code produces critically different results, even for identical starting seeds and parameters.6
The original code that Ferguson used for his COVID-19 has never been released to the public for scrutiny.
The code. It isn’t the code Ferguson ran to produce his famous Report 9. What’s been released on GitHub is a heavily modified derivative of it, after having been upgraded for over a month by a team from Microsoft and others. This revised codebase is split into multiple files for legibility and written in C++, whereas the original program was “a single 15,000 line file that had been worked on for a decade” (this is considered extremely poor practice). A request for the original code was made 8 days ago but ignored, and it will probably take some kind of legal compulsion to make them release it. Clearly, Imperial are too embarrassed by the state of it ever to release it of their own free will, which is unacceptable given that it was paid for by the taxpayer and belongs to them.6
Professor Chris Whitty, leading the UK’s COVID-19 response, did not challenge Professor Lockdown’s modelling at all.
One has to wonder if there was any conflict of interest due to the fact that they had coauthored a paper previously?
Downing Street was panicked into a full national lockdown after its scientific advisers Chris Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance were given doomsday mortality projections by Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson, an explosive new biography of Boris Johnson by investigative author Tom Bower reveals. Bower tells how a critical meeting of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) on February 25 was presented with the ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ from Professor Ferguson under which 80 per cent of Britons would be infected and the death-toll would be 510,000 people. The author writes: ‘This was an improvement on Ferguson’s earlier assessment that between 2 per cent and 3 per cent would die – up to 1.5 million deaths. Even with mitigation measures, he said, the death toll could be 250,000 and the existing intensive care units would be overwhelmed eight times over. ‘Neither Vallance nor Whitty outrightly challenged Ferguson’s model or predictions. By contrast, in a series of messages from Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who would correctly predict the pandemic’s initial trajectory, Ferguson was warned that he had overestimated the potential death toll by ‘ten to 12 times’.’ By Friday, the total number of UK deaths had reached 42,268.7
Sweden was the only nation that didn’t go into full lockdown, and they seem to be fairing much better than everyone else who did in terms of new cases.
Nobel Prize for Science winner Professor Levitt of Stanford— Ivor Cummins (@FatEmperor) June 29, 2020
– one of the few who called this thing correctly back in February
– with a population fatality rate of 0.04 to 0.05%, largely regardless of lockdown
Now calls it again – on how science has let us all down dreadfully: pic.twitter.com/LrUA7t4rhv
If China had Been Honest From the Beginning, This Could Have all Been AvoidedIndex
If NPIs [inserted for clarity: ‘non-pharmaceutical interventions’] could have been conducted one week, two weeks, or three weeks earlier in China, cases could have been reduced by 66%, 86%, and 95%, respectively, together with significantly reducing the number of affected areas.8
Alternative Opinions by Medical Professionals and Journalists are Being Shut DownIndex
Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have all been removing content that doesn’t fit with the officially accepted narrative around COVID-19.
Not only that, but governments around the world have been clamping down on freedom of speech, and scientists have been vilifying their own for deviating from the accepted narrative.
Journalists globally are already being obstructed while reporting on COVID-19: South Africa and Iran banned reporters from interviewing “unofficial” sources or medical professionals; the Philippines allows only state media into briefings, with other outlets ordered to submit questions in advance.9
But today campaign group Big Brother Watch suggested the Unit – and Twitter’s suspension of Pearson – were both examples of a wider attempt to ‘censor’ freedom of expression around the virus. Its director, Silkie Carlo, said: ‘It’s an affront to fundamental rights for Twitter to censor people’s lawfully held opinions, however controversial or poorly worded. ‘The pandemic makes freedom of expression, open debate and rebuttal more important, not less. Censorship has never aided science, only power. ‘It’s a little known fact that a mysterious government ‘counter disinformation’ unit is pressuring social media companies to act as speech police online, silencing lawfully held opinions. It’s Orwellian in the extreme.’10
Last week Twitter suspended the account of a Chinese virologist named Dr. Li-Meng Yan after she gave a televised interview in which she claimed that the Chinese Communist Party intentionally released COVID-19 into the world. Facebook and Instagram subsequently added warnings to videos of the interview. These actions shed light on how mass corporate censorship is becoming routine for Silicon Valley’s monopoly platforms—even on matters of public health that affect the lives of billions of people. Also, they further illuminate the pattern of social media’s censorship of COVID-19 information—to protect and advance the interests of an elite whose center of gravity is its relationship with the CCP, America’s China class.11
There have been 426 (at the time of writing) cases of press freedom violations worldwide linked to covid-19 reporting. That is according a tracker created by the International Press Institute (IPI), that documents arrests and charges, restrictions of access to information, censorship, excessive ‘fake news’ regulation and verbal and physical attacks happening right now. This shows that in some countries, the coronavirus pandemic has been seized as an opportunity to silence and intimidate journalists.12
Statistics on COVID-19IndexYou will find more infographics at Statista
To put the above infographic into perspective with regards to the UK’s death toll per hundred thousand people, converted into a percentage it amounts to 0.07% deaths from the entire population, which means that 99.93% have not died of COVID-19.
The Pandemic is Being Used to Accelerate Green Policies and Usher in SocialismIndex
To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.13
Klaus Schwab is a former member of the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, along with being an honorary professor of the China Foreign Affairs University.
Whatever your views on the state of the climate, it certainly behooves you to have a closer look at our friend Mr Schwab, especially given his affiliations.
The UK has accelerated its green ambitions quite dramatically since the unfolding of the pandemic. In February it was announced that a ban on petrol and diesel cars would be brought forward from 2040 to 2035.
A ban on selling new petrol, diesel or hybrid cars in the UK will be brought forward from 2040 to 2035 at the latest, under government plans. The change comes after experts said 2040 would be too late if the UK wants to achieve its target of emitting virtually zero carbon by 2050. Boris Johnson unveiled the policy as part of a launch event for a United Nations climate summit in November.14
It seems that the ambitious target of banning petrol/diesel car sales from 2035 has now been brought forward to 2030.
The UK government is set to bring forward its ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles from 2040 to 2030, according to this morning’s Guardian, which reports that Boris Johnson is expected to make an announcement on the move in the coming weeks. The government had hoped to announce the plans this week but delayed the move to focus on tackling rising Covid cases, the paper reported, citing sources from within the energy and transport industries. A 2030 deadline would put the UK ahead of France, which plans to adopt a 2040 deadline, and in line with Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands, which have opted for an earlier date for the phasing out of conventional cars and vans. The government earlier this year held a consultation on plans to pull the ban forward to 2035 or earlier. But Ministers are understood to have settled on the more ambitious 2030 goal after being assured that the UK’s infrastructure will be able to cope.15
It should be mentioned that the UK government took expert advice before on emissions, advising the public to switch to diesel engines because they were better for the environment. We now know this is not the case as they have completely backtracked on this advice, with people being penalised now for owning diesel cars which they bought on government advice.
There is no doubt that the WHO ignored Taiwan’s concerns regarding human-to-human transmission, and it is only because of Taiwan’s previous experiences with China that they avoided any significant fallout from COVID-19, with a total of 7 deaths at the time of writing.
Had the WHO and China been more forthcoming with the truth, the scale of this outbreak could have been reduced by many orders of magnitude, and even possibly contained to mainland China itself.
Social media has overstepped its mandate in censoring content that runs counter to the officically accepted narrative, with this overreach even extending to Google Search. Search results on Google Search are not appearing at the head of results as they should. The same is not true of other search engines such as Bing and DuckDuckGo. Try an exercise for yourself and search for ‘great barrington declaration’ in each of these search engines to see what I am talking about.
While it may be true that it was simply negligence on China’s part that allowed this virus to run rampant all over the world, with no malicious intent at all, one has to question all the peripheral proposals that are suddenly being accelerated towards fruition with very little input from the people these proposals will affect in no insignificant financial way.
The conspiracy theorist in me comes rushing to the foreground when I hear all the things that are suddenly being done in the name of the ‘climate emergency’, with implementation periods being drastically accelerated on the back of this pandemic.
If you’re not worried, you should be.
- Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures – 22nd March 2020
- Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan Big Data Analytics, New Technology, and Proactive Testing
- China knew the coronavirus could become a pandemic in mid-January but for 6 days claimed publicly that there was no evidence it could spread among humans
- How Wrong Were the Models and Why?
- The Flawed COVID-19 Model That Locked Down Canada
- Code Review of Ferguson’s Model
- Neil Ferguson’s doomsday prediction of 510k COVID deaths went unchallenged by Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance – despite warnings it was 12 TIMES too high as No.10 panicked into full lockdown
- Effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions for containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China
- Coronavirus the New Scapegoat for Media Censorship, Rights Groups Say
- Is Twitter acting as a Government Covid censor? Social media giant is accused of ‘Orwellian-style censorship’ for locking journalist Allison Pearson out of her account for post disagreeing with No 10 policy
- Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram Censor COVID-19 News From China
- How has covid-19 affected press freedom around the world?
- Now is the time for a ‘great reset’
- Petrol and diesel car sales ban brought forward to 2035
- Reports: Government to pull forward ban on sales of new petrol and diesel cars to 2030