Sweden’s Per Capita Deaths in Line with the European Average in 2020
Will Jones has taken another look at the situation in Sweden. He finds that the country does indeed show that lockdowns aren’t needed.
Severe restrictions on civic and economic life are the only thing standing between us and the virus spiralling out of control and killing many times more people than at present. That is the foundational belief of lockdownism. Unfortunately, it is defeated by the example of any country or state that does not impose such restrictions and does not experience such an outcome. A number of states in America fit this description this winter, such as Florida, Texas, North Dakota and South Dakota.
Sweden is the main example in Europe. It is also a good comparison for the UK as it is similarly urbanised (actually slightly more, 87.7% vs 83.4%) and the capital Stockholm has a similar population density to London.
In the spring Sweden imposed only light restrictions, including a limit of 50 on public gatherings, but did not at any point close businesses or most schools or require people to stay at home. This light-touch approach has largely continued, although the country has come under huge pressure to impose more restrictive measures.
In the midst of a winter surge, Sweden finally passed a law that came into effect on January 10th adding some new restrictions on gathering sizes and venue capacity and enabling the Government to close businesses, though it has not yet done so. Reuters reported:
Sweden tightened social distancing rules for shopping centres, gyms and private gatherings on Friday and said it was ready to close businesses if needed, but stopped short of a lockdown to fight the spread of the pandemic.
Earlier in the day, parliament voted the Government wider powers to close businesses and limit the size of public and private gatherings as an addition to what have so-far been mostly voluntary measures to ensure social distancing.
“Today, the Government has not decided on the closure of businesses, but the Government is ready to make that kind of decision as well,” Prime Minister Stefan Lofven told a news conference. “This is not something that we take lightly, but people’s lives and health are at stake.”
From Sunday [January 10th], gyms, sports centres, shopping malls and public pools will have to set a maximum number of visitors based on their size.
In addition, private gatherings will also be limited to eight people, a rule which until now has only affected public events.
A Lockdown Sceptics reader whose family lives in Sweden sent us an update on the current rules.
- We can visit family and friends – max eight people inside or out
- Social distancing – one person per 10 square metres in shops etc.
- Bars and cafes are open but can not serve alcohol after eight o’clock, max four people to a table
- Restaurants open – table service only and max four people to a table
- All shops and businesses open but must be Covid safe
- Hairdressers and beauty parlours open but must be Covid safe
- Nurseries and primary schools (under 13) open
- Lower secondary schools mostly open but decision up to the school board
- Schools over 16 years mostly closed but may take decision to open from January 25th
- Universities closed
- Theme parks closed
- Gyms mainly open but must be Covid safe
- Public swimming pools and theatres closed
- Museums and cinemas – some open, some not. Must adhere to Covid restrictions
- All other businesses open
- Advice is to avoid unnecessary shopping/travel and so on
- No requirement to wear a mask/face covering. However, it is advised on public transport during peak times and should be more substantial than a face covering
Despite these much lighter restrictions than in the UK and many other countries, Sweden has had a death toll broadly in line with other countries that locked down hard. Indeed, a study from researchers at the University of Oslo concluded that between July 2019 and July 2020 Sweden had almost no excess deaths at all.
The winter surge is currently in decline in Sweden, and was in decline prior to the new restrictions coming into effect on January 10th. ICU admissions have been declining sharply across the country since the week beginning January 4th, and in Stockholm, which was hit hard in spring, ICU admissions stopped rising at the beginning of December and have declined since (see below).
Overall excess deaths in the country have been running quite high since mid-November but are now, like ICU admissions, in decline (see below). A recent, very thorough blog post found that if you add Sweden’s all-cause mortality in 2019 and 2020 together (2019 had below-average mortality), it was about the same as the cumulative total for 2017 and 2018.
Sweden didn’t do nothing. But it did a lot less than many other countries including the UK, and without seeing the huge death tolls predicted by those who tell us lockdowns are the only way to “control” the virus. There are places which did even less than Sweden, and their examples should also be studied for the lessons they teach us. But Sweden continues to expose the central myth of the lockdowners – that without severe restrictions things would be far worse than they are now, and so all the collateral damage must be worth it.
Stop Press: Philippe Lemoine, a PhD student at Cornell, has produced a great Twitter thread about Sweden and the unavoidable conclusion that lockdowns don’t have much impact on reducing Covid mortality.
Ivermectin: Miracle Cure or Snake Oil?
City AM reports that Oxford University is to investigate the potential of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin for treating COVID-19:
A cheap drug credited with dramatically reducing COVID-19 deaths has been moved to trial stage in the UK.
Researchers at Oxford University are carrying out a Principle trial programme aimed at finding a treatment that can counteract the disease at an early stage and could be used at home soon after symptoms appear.
The next batch of medicines it will assess includes ivermectin, which has been hailed as a Covid “wonder drug”, the Times reported.
Ivermectin has traditionally been used on livestock and to treat people with parasitic infestations, but has been credited with reducing Covid deaths in the developing world.
However, scientists have warned that its efficacy is yet to be properly proven.
“It has potential antiviral properties and anti-inflammatory properties and there have been quite a few smaller trials conducted in low and middle-income countries, showing that it speeds recovery, reduces inflammation and reduces hospitalisation,” Chris Butler, Professor of Primary Care at the University of Oxford and a co-chief of the Principle trial, told the newspaper.
“But there’s a gap in the data. There’s not been a really rigorous trial.”
The drug has been shown to block the entry of viral protein into the nuclei of cells, which could prevent the virus from replicated.
Results from initial, small-scale trials have been described as “promising”, though scientists and health officials have warned that further tests are needed.
It seems worth doing a mini round-up of just some of the evidence recently amassed for the beneficial effects of ivermectin:
- “Prophylaxis Covid-19 in Healthcare Agents by Intensive Treatment With Ivermectin and Iota-carrageenan” – A clinical trail in Argentina evaluated the protective effect of intensive treatment of Ivermectin and Iota-carrageenan. It found that the treatment was able to reduce the number of health workers infected with COVID-19 and that it reduced the severity of the disease
- “Controlled randomised clinical trial on using Ivermectin with Doxycycline for treating COVID-19 patients in Baghdad, Iraq (Preprint)” – In this controlled trial, 70 patients were treated with ivermectin and doxycyline for a defined period, and 70 were given standard therapy. The treatment reduced the time to recovery and the mortality
- “Ivermectin as a potential treatment for mild to moderate COVID-19 – A double blind randomised placebo-controlled trial (Preprint)” – This trial administered 12 mg of ivermectin to adults with mild to moderate COVID-19 disease on day 1 and day 2 of hospital admission, and set a primary outcome measure of a negative test on day 6. While there was no difference in the primary outcome, a significantly higher proportion of the patients who were given ivermectin survived
- “Role of ivermectin in the prevention of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers in India: A matched case-control study (Preprint)” – This study took place in India, and was aimed at exploring the association between ivermectin prophylaxis and the development of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers. It found that two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 μg/kg with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers for the following month
- “Meta-analysis of randomised trials of ivermectin to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection” – A WHO-sponsored meta-analysis investigating ivermectin in 18 randomised clinical trials (2282 patients) identified through systematic searches of PUBMED, EMBASE, MedRxiv and trial registries. It found that in six randomised trials involving patients with moderate or severe infection, there was a 75% reduction in mortality with favourable clinical recovery and reduced hospitalisation. It pointed out that “Ivermectin should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomised trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities”
The Swiss Doctor has an explanation of how ivermectin works:
To date, the mode of action of ivermectin against the SARS-CoV-2 has remained somewhat of a mystery. Early studies indicated that ivermectin may inhibit viral protein transportation. But a new US-Canadian study, published in Nature Communications Biology, found that ivermectin is highly effective (>90%) in inhibiting the main enzyme (3CLpro) involved in the replication of the SARS-CoV-2 (and other RNA viruses). This might explain why ivermectin appears to be highly effective even as a prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 infection
Scepticism is required in all things, of course, but this treatment does look promising, as Mike Yeadon confirms:
REACT Report: Why Wasn’t it Peer Reviewed?
The latest REACT report from Imperial College received a fair amount of media attention for its finding that “Coronavirus infections are not falling” and that they “may have begun to rise”. Today we’re publishing a guest post by Alice Bragg, who points out that the REACT reports are seldom subjected to peer review.
Here we go again! Imperial College publishing reports that tell us we need more lockdowns for longer. The latest REACT report claims the last three weeks of lockdown have made no difference, so our children must suffer more.
The problem is that this report has not been peer-reviewed. As an academic friend once said to me, “If it’s not peer-reviewed, it’s not relevant.”
Which begs the question: why have only two of the 14 REACT reports, stretching back throughout last year, been peer-reviewed?
Here is the December 15th REACT report on the World Health Organisation website with its own clear warning:
“Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behaviour and should not be reported in news media as established information.”
Worth noting…
We have all been shocked by the footage from inside Intensive Care Units at hospitals in London and the South East. All the doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners and managers working in them are heroes, and we are indebted to them for the rest of our days.
But are lockdowns the way to prevent these scenes?
One would assume that policymakers would only implement a policy as far-reaching and punishing as lockdown if they had a strong degree of certainty that the suspension of our liberties will save lives.
It was in response to a model produced by Imperial College that the Government imposed the first lockdown. However, it is now widely acknowledged that the assumptions underpinning that model were highly dubious.
In addition, the code that powered that model has been found to be of very poor quality when reviewed and analysed by coding experts, computer programmers and epidemiologists. Even Professor Ferguson himself said that it was a model he had created more than 13 years ago to model the likely course of flu pandemics.
Nevertheless, we have watched our freedom of movement be suspended indefinitely, along with our freedom to associate with others of our choosing, the freedom to assemble and gather, and the freedom to protest (the cornerstone of any democracy). Our children are being denied their right to go to school and, in many cases, have been separated from their peers and wider family for almost a year. Businesses have been forcibly closed, many of which will never recover.
At a time when the stakes are so high, why would Imperial College’s REACT reports not be peer-reviewed?
The answer can be found in the peer-review process itself. Over the last 20 years, the number of papers submitted to journals has grown dramatically. This has been compounded by the growth of ‘pay to publish’ sites that make money every time a paper goes up. Experts who are qualified to carry out rigorous peer-reviews would probably prefer not to spend all their time critiquing other peoples’ papers. Demand outstrips the ‘peer’ supply.
That said, when research findings are being used to guide Government policy, there must be a way to cut through the crowd? After all, not many scientific papers are used to justify a population being denied their basic freedoms or children being taken out of school.
According to David Livermore, Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of East Anglia and Chair of the Public Health England Resistance to Antibiotics Programme:
“REACT is a surveillance programme which then supports various studies and analyses. Such a surveillance programme would normally have an Independent Advisory Committee”
An Independent Advisory Committee of this nature, according to Prof Livermore, would undertake a number of tasks, including making sure that the people who participate in the programme continue to represent the population. They would also, he stresses, play the role of the peer-reviewer, so that when REACT reports hit the media and arrive on ministers’ desks, the information they contain has been rigorously assessed.
This is only possible if ‘independent’ means what it says, and that people who are constructively sceptical – asking awkward questions – are appointed, not just like-minded ‘friends of the project’. As the debate about ‘the science’ becomes increasingly polarised, inviting informed and qualified critics such as Dr Clare Craig, Dr Jonathan Engler, Dr Michael Yeadon, Dr John Lee and Joel Smalley onto an independent REACT advisory board would inspire great confidence.
Stop Press: Over at the Spectator, Philip Thomas has more on why the REACT study is problematic
What Value Should We Put on a Human Life?
Today we’re publishing a new piece by Dr David Cook, a senior scientist with over 20 years’ experience in drug research and development. Following the row over Lord Sumption’s contribution to the Big Questions last weekend, Dr Cook explains the concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY), and then applies it to lockdowns.
In 2017 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) rejected the drug nivolumab for use in the NHS to treat patients with advanced head and neck cancers. The reason given was that, despite the drug showing positive benefits, it was judged to be too expensive based on the cost per ‘quality adjusted life year’ (QALY). For patients with this disease (and clinicians treating them) this was a hugely disappointing decision and although subsequently nivolumab has been approved for use, at the point of this judgement it must have felt to these patients that their lives were somehow being deemed to be less valuable than those of other patients.
Let’s wind forward to today and Lord Sumption discussing the impact of lockdown on society and apparently suggesting something similar, namely, that some lives are less valuable than others.
But in both of these cases is this what was actually meant? Are we really assigning a value to a life? Are we really judging that some lives are more valuable than others and so more worthy of saving?
To answer these questions, let’s focus on QALYs because these seem to be highly culpable in the crime of ‘life valuation’.
Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) are not used to assess the quality of a life and they are certainly not used to make a judgement on its value.
The reason for this is because QALYs are used to assess the impact and value of an intervention. The judgement as to the quality of someone’s life is something that only the individual can make, but regardless of how they feel about it as a whole, they would certainly be able to tell if it had improved or got worse after some kind of treatment. If I whack you on the hand with a ruler has this improved your quality of life? What if I now kiss it better?
This is the fundamental point – QALYs are always used comparatively: did this treatment or intervention improve or reduce the quality of life?
In assessing the value of new therapies, QALYs are used to try and produce an objective view of their (hopefully positive) impact. A good example of the challenges of this kind of assessment and why QALYs are so helpful is if we think about how we would assess the value of a new analgesic or pain treatment. Such a treatment may have no effect on life expectancy and so its whole impact is on quality of life. But how do you assess this impact when pain is such a personal experience? The only way is to actually ask the individual patient. As a result, a major part of the assessment of the benefit of such medicines is done through use of questionnaires and asking how the individual feels; did the treatment improve your quality of life? Then, by aggregating all of these individual responses together, we can start to assess whether overall the treatment was beneficial or not. You can see that at no point are we making a judgement of the quality or value of the patient’s life. The assessment we are making is of the value of the treatment.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: John Humphrys covers similar ground in his Saturday Daily Mail column. Noting that, according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the value of a QALY is about £30,000, he writes:
No one can possibly know yet how much the lockdowns have cost the country. The bills rocket with every day that passes. What we do know is that if we applied the QALY test to the lives ‘saved’, we would no longer be talking about £30,000 a year. It would be many times that amount.
The price of even the most expensive new drug is a drop in the ocean compared to the vast cost of closing down half the nation’s economy – and the bill is rising with every word I type.
So does that mean the life of someone who faces the risk of dying from Covid must be valued more than those who have other life-threatening conditions?
Many people have died because they’ve been unable to get the treatment they needed. Hard-headed calculations were presented to policy-makers who knew what the consequences of lockdowns would be but they took them anyway.
Look Him in The Eyes… A Reader Responds
A reader has written to us to express his disappointment about the NHS’s latest advertising campaign.
I am writing about the shocking new HMG/NHS coronavirus public health campaign. These are the adverts with “Look them in the eyes…” which show a poorly person wearing an oxygen mask.
In public health the aim of an information campaign should be to give accurate, truthful and honest information so that the public can understand the issues and take any necessary steps or measures for their own health.
Does the Governments and NHS “Look them in they eyes…” poster campaign fit any of the above? A resounding NO! Their campaign is one of blame and division. They have chosen to set one group against another. There is the victim group, this is the sick virus sufferer. They are portrayed as the innocent victim whom someone else has done a terrible thing to.
If there is a victim then this other person must be a perpetrator, a bad person or person who has committed a crime. We would generally consider a perpetrator to have carried out their actions against the victim on purpose and in a planned way. It follows that whoever becomes sick with Covid, or any virus for that matter, has had a bad thing done to them and a bad person is to blame.
The Government and NHS in this poster campaign is blaming one set of people for doing a bad thing to another set of people and no good can come from this. No one is given accurate, measured or honest information upon which they can take actions. Instead, in setting up a victim and a perpetrator, our Government and NHS are setting one lot of people against another. It is extraordinary that a Government and Public Health Service should commission a campaign that blames and divides its population. The campaign fails on all accounts – it provides nothing, people will be angered by it and take no notice of it because it is not truthful, while other people will seek out the bad people to punish them.
A poster campaign like this fails all groups. There are real families who have passed covid on to each other. One person I know of who works for the NHS likely picked up the infection during their hospital shifts. From this person, the elder parents picked up an infection and sadly one died. Does our Government and NHS understand what it is suggesting to this worker and their family? The suggestion is the NHS worker has killed their own parent.
It is widely acknowledged that many patients acquire their coronavirus infections during their hospital stay. Some of these people have died. Has the Government and the NHS looked itself in the eyes?
This is a terrible public information campaign. I believe it has come from a Government which has taken on the belief it can control a respiratory virus and is desperate to deflect blame as it becomes obvious it cannot.
When a Government blames its population and attempts to turn one group against another what will become of us? Is the Government aiming for civil war?
A Smidgen of Optimism on Masks
Lockdown Sceptics reader Steve Sieff finds cause for optimism in the change in emphasis to medical and surgical masks in the various mandates, rules and guidance. Steve runs the Green band: Red band website which makes the case for a coloured wrist band system that could promote individual choice when it comes to social distancing and managing Covid risk.
I have an optimistic view to offer on the advance of N95 masks.
I know that the position of most lockdown sceptics is that masks should go. I also know that many of the LS arguments are based on the lack of evidence that they are effective to reduce transmission – even in some cases that they increase the risk of harm. I do not know, but I suspect, that for many LS readers, the question of transmission is largely irrelevant because they consider that the negatives of a masked society outweigh the gains that might be made if some reduction to transmission were shown. The logic behind this goes back to the fundamental belief that COVID-19 should not be ascribed the special status that it has been given on the basis that it affects a small percentage of people. Beyond that, the groups most likely to suffer can be easily identified and therefore can easily protect themselves or be protected.
I believe that underpinning the views above is a strong desire amongst the vast majority of LS readers to see a restoral of the individual’s right to make choices for themselves. We would all like to see a more balanced presentation of risks and of facts from our Government (and others). In the event that the balanced presentation of available data convinced some people to take extraordinary protective measures, we might disagree with the reaction, but most of us would acknowledge and respect others’ right to be cautious provided their decisions did not overly impact on the decisions we make when not in contact with them. This is the basis of Green Band: Red Band of course.
In the context of individual freedom, I wonder if a shift towards more protective masks might be a positive thing. I know that this might sound like anathema to most LS readers so I will explain. The mask narrative to date has been that “my mask protects you, your mask protects me”. This logic moves us away from personal responsibility towards collective responsibility. Those who do not wear a mask are letting down others and are stigmatised. More protective masks such as N95s and N99s could change this narrative. These masks are designed to protect users. If they were widely available then the message could shift to wearing a mask to protect yourself. There would still be some protection for others, but the emphasis would be on protecting oneself. That is extremely important because it could pave the way for masks to become a choice. Those at lower risk (whether through age or vaccination) could decide that they do not require the protection that a mask provides while those who were more concerned could opt to protect themselves.
Of course, this shift in approach will not come easily. There will be many who argue that mandatory self-protection has an important place (see seat-belts, motorcycle helmets, etc.) because the dramatic reduction in risk is worth enforcing for the relatively minor loss of liberty. And there will be those who will continue to believe that the individual has a duty to protect the NHS by making every effort not to get sick/injured, etc. While hospital numbers remain high, those arguments will no doubt be persuasive for the majority. However, as hospital numbers fall, the general assessment of risk will change. It is harder to maintain a climate of fear without supportive death rates and as increasing numbers of people are vaccinated. At that stage the availability of protective masks could give the Government the opportunity to end mask mandates in favour of advising people to wear N95/N99s if they are concerned.
Stop Press: The Connexion reports that the WHO is maintaining its recommendation for fabric masks.
A Close Encounter With the Police
A Lockdown Sceptics reader has written to us describing a nightmarish afternoon dog walk.
I just need to offload.
I went two miles to a huge area of open space. Arrived at 3pm. Walked the dog and got back to the car at 4.30pm, darkness now creeping in and a howling gale. My 21 year-old was with me (student final year law degree… yep so much stress and upset). We were about to drive off when a police car drove up and a rather hot (okay unnecessary detail) bobby stopped us.
Now at this point I looked around at the car park. Four cars and maybe a few bedraggled dog walkers. Hmm… No way he’s here for Covid surveillance, I thought. Maybe it’s a drug selling hotspot? To cut a long story short, yes he was there to nab (engage and educate) Covid rule-breaking criminals. After a 15-minute chat I drove off uncomfortably, having given him no details about how far we had come or why. The local police had actually sent a patrol car out in the rain to a hill at dusk to ask people why they were there!
Admittedly, my husband is critically vulnerable according to the NHS. Was I taking unnecessary risks and endangering his life? We walk locally and rarely go in shops. I’m antisocial. I don’t need shops but I do need open spaces!
I relayed this story to a close friend. Her reply was aggressive, judgemental and swift. I shouldn’t have driven and my actions put others at risk. She claimed I could have had an accident and caused yet more issues for the ambulance service. I was very much in the wrong. She is a partner at a large law firm. She’s now so far lost in the crazy mists of fear that her reasoning is, in my opinion, misguided and extreme. A lawyer! We’ve had many such conversations and I’ve patiently listened and respected her views. This was a line too far over-stepped.
I’m terrified for the evolution I see in society. It’s gnawing holes of fear and anger into my very being . I’m watching the shifting mood, peoples lives used like props in a high-budget Derren Brown special.
And so, don’t stop fighting. I’m a harassed and war torn ‘at home mum of three’ with no influence. I need you… and all the other questioning sceptics. I want educated reasoning rather than fear-focused propaganda.
Next Week’s Davos Guest List
Like so much else these days, next week’s DAVOS summit will take place on Zoom. Deutsche Welle has the story:
It’s that time of the year again when a sleepy Alpine town in Switzerland usually comes alive as the global elite descends on its snow-clad slopes to debate global challenges. This year, however, Davos has been left undisturbed with its eponymous annual jamboree moving online amid a still raging COVID-19 pandemic…
The more than 50-year-old annual event attended by global political and business leaders, celebrities and prominent social activists is taking place amid the worst economic crisis in living memory that has rendered millions jobless and deepened global inequalities.
An annual risks survey published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Tuesday warned that economic and social fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to “social unrest, political fragmentation and geopolitical tensions”.
We need an economic recovery that is “more resilient, more inclusive and more sustainable”, WEF founder Klaus Schwab told reporters…
The pandemic and the uneven responses to the crisis unleashed by it have stoked geopolitical tensions. Governments have chosen to put national interests ahead of others, unilaterally shutting down borders and hoarding food and medical supplies.
We need to restore trust in our world, Schwab said. “We have to substantially reinforce global cooperation again and engage all stakeholders into the solution of the problems we face, and here we have to engage particularly business.”
Nowhere has this me-first approach been more apparent than on the vaccine front where rich nations have secured billions of doses – many times the size of their populations – while poor nations struggle for supplies. The head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is also one of the speakers, cautioned that the world was on the brink of “catastrophic moral failure”.
The global scramble for vaccines, or vaccine nationalism, risks prolonging the pandemic and delaying the easing of global travel restrictions.
“COVID-19 anywhere is COVID-19 everywhere,” WEF President Borge Brende told reporters. “We all are in the same boat and we would have to collaborate to really make progress.”
It is interesting to note that the WEF has a date in mind for when it may be able to meet in person:
A virtual summit doesn’t mean that Davos regulars, many of them without official badges, would be robbed of their opportunity to hobnob and strike deals at glamorous receptions that take place on the side lines of the main event.
The WEF has said it would hold its marquee event in person in Singapore from May 13th-16th later this year.
Worth reading in full.
Sceptics Under Fire
It won’t have escaped readers’ attention that lockdown sceptics are coming under increasing fire from defenders of lockdown orthodoxy. Now, it seems, the most fanatical of these defenders – a group that includes Neil O’Brien MP – have created a website called “Antivirus: The COVID-19 FAQ“. As you’ll see if you click on the link, it attempts to rebut most of the sceptics’ arguments and singles out a group of sceptics for criticism, most of them contributors to this website.
We thought about producing a lengthy response, making all the obvious points: the fact that some sceptics’ predictions have turned out to be inaccurate doesn’t mean their main argument – that the costs of lockdowns outweigh the benefits – should be dismissed; the proponents of lockdowns have made equally inaccurate predictions (remember the “Graph of Doom”?); some of the stories we’ve flagged up that were initially dismissed as “conspiracy theories” have turned out to be quite plausible (e.g. that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology); there’s a world of difference between being a ‘lockdown sceptic’ and a ‘Covid denier’; the WHO has confirmed that our reservations about the accuracy of the PCR test are well-founded; etc., etc.
However, we thought it might be more fun to invite readers to defend lockdown scepticism from the arguments set out on Neil O’Brien’s ‘myth-busting’ website instead. So please take a look at the website and let us know what you think. Put the word “Antivirus” in the subject line and we’ll publish some of the best responses over the next few days.
Stop Press: We’ve received a terrific response to Christopher Snowdon’s Jan 16th piece in Quillette that we’ll publish tomorrow.
Round-up
- “Covid: More deadly’ UK variant claim played down by scientists” – The BBC notes that there is only “some evidence” that the Kent variant may be associated with “a higher degree of mortality”
- “Who is Britain kidding? We can’t control the virus with a travel ban and we shouldn’t try” – Juliet Samuel in the Telegraph says that an expensive and damaging travel ban makes no sense
- “Don’t blame the public for packed hospitals, urge top doctors after string of medics tell rule-breakers they have ‘blood on their hands‘” – MailOnline report that two doctors have warned their fellow medics against blaming rule-breakers for packed wards
- “Why is the Labour Party so enthusiastic about COVID-19 lockdowns when they are so destructive to our poorest communities?” – Writing for RT, Dr Lisa McKenzie asks an excellent question of the Labour party – and the British Left more generally
- “Fast-spreading Covid variant can elude immune responses” – Nature reports on the evidence that a variant identified in South Africa might compromise immunity, sparking concerns about vaccine effectiveness
- “Those with the least have suffered the most during the COVID-19 pandemic” – “People on the lowest incomes have faced the worst of the pandemic’s economic bite” say Ian Hamilton and Aleks Collingwood in the BMJ
- “So is this really an epidemic of despair?” – Peter Hitchens points out in his Mail on Sunday column that there is no counting the damage done by the loss of social contact
- “Do people want to be free? Or do they prefer security at any price?” – In her Sunday Telegraph column, Janet Daley says weighs up today’s answer to an old question
- “Word of the Week: Sceptic” – Spectator Life‘s resident satirist Andy Shaw provides a new definition of the term ‘sceptic’
- “Reject Bad Science with Nick Hudson, PANDA – Pandemics Data and Analytics” – The Pandemic Podcast interviews Nick Hudson, the founder of Panda, an organisation with a mission to challenge the scientific basis of lockdowns
- “Lockdown Forever; The State of ‘Lockdown Scepticism’” – The latest edition of the Irreverend podcast sees Tom and Jamie considers the growing hostility toward lockdown sceptics
- “Tanzania took 27 million Euros from the European Union, embezzled it and then declared the country as Coronavirus free” – Africa Explained reports that officials in Tanzania are struggling to explain what happened to the 27 million Euros they collected from the EU solidarity fund for the fight against COVID-19. President Magufuli declared the pandemic in Tanzania officially over in May 2020
- “Travel bans should be based on evidence, not politics or fear” – Jakub Hlávka and Lisa Bari set out the case against border closures in Statnews
- “Wuhan one year on: The city that appears safe from Covid – but at what cost?” – The Telegraph’s China Correspondent reports from Wuhan, where, one year on, residents are grappling with the new normal
- Following the alarmist press conference on Friday, The Great Barrington Declaration Twitter account has a produced a great thread on Government messaging
Theme Tunes Suggested by Readers
Seven today: “Hard Times Of Old England” by Steeleye Span, “Who’s Zoomin’ Who” by Aretha Franklin, “Running Out Of Fools” by Aretha Franklin, “Never Get Out Of These Blues Alive” by John Lee Hooker and Van Morrison, “Don’t Keep Me Wonderin’” by The Allman Brothers Band, “Won’t Get Fooled Again” by The Who and “Hard Times (Nobody Knows Better Than I” by Ray Charles
Love in the Time of Covid
We have created some Lockdown Sceptics Forums, including a dating forum called “Love in a Covid Climate” that has attracted a bit of attention. We have a team of moderators in place to remove spam and deal with the trolls, but sometimes it takes a little while so please bear with us. You have to register to use the Forums as well as post comments below the line, but that should just be a one-time thing. Any problems, email the Lockdown Sceptics webmaster Ian Rons here.
Stop Press: In another disturbing development for our times, it would appear that the best hope of a right swipe on a dating app is getting vaccinated. TMZ reports that Tinder, Bumble and OkCupid have all seen a major uptick in profiles mentioning the words “vaccine” or “vaccinated’ in their bios, and indicating vaccination readiness as a screener for matches. The jury is still out on whether the vaccine reduces transmission.
Sharing Stories
Some of you have asked how to link to particular stories on Lockdown Sceptics so you can share it. To do that, click on the headline of a particular story and a link symbol will appear on the right-hand side of the headline. Click on the link and the URL of your page will switch to the URL of that particular story. You can then copy that URL and either email it to your friends or post it on social media. Please do share the stories.
Social Media Accounts
You can follow Lockdown Sceptics on our social media accounts which are updated throughout the day. To follow us on Facebook, click here; to follow us on Twitter, click here; to follow us on Instagram, click here; to follow us on Parler, click here; and to follow us on MeWe, click here.
Woke Gobbledegook
We’ve decided to create a permanent slot down here for woke gobbledegook. Today, we bring you the author Jen Hatmaker, who has publicly apologised for the offensive opening line of the prayer she delivered at the inaugural interfaith prayer service held for President Joe Biden. The Christian Post has the story:
Christian author Jen Hatmaker, who on Thursday joined a progressive group of interfaith leaders for the National Prayer Service in honour of President Joe Biden’s inauguration, has apologized for the first line of a prayer she delivered at the event.
“Almighty God, You have given us this good land as our heritage,” Hatmaker began in the prayer that she said was written by organisers of the event in her apology posted on Facebook shortly after the event.
“I was proud to offer the final liturgical prayer which was written by the organizers to serve as an anchor. I have one regret and thus apology. The very first sentence thanked God for giving us this land as our heritage. He didn’t. He didn’t give us this land,” she said.
“We took this land by force and trauma. It wasn’t an innocent divine transaction in which God bestowed an empty continent to colonizers. This is a shiny version of our actual history. If God gave this land to anyone, it was to the Native community who always lived here,” Hatmaker continued.
She explained that as soon as she read the line from the prayer she began to regret it.
“I panicked and froze and then just kept going. I am so sorry, community. Primarily sorry to my Native friends. It matters to me that we reckon with our history of white supremacy and the lies we surrounded it with, and I am filled with regret that I offered yet another hazy, exceptional rendition of the origin story of colonization. Ugh,” she lamented. “I can’t go on without apologizing. My stomach hurt all day.”
Hatmaker, who is also a mother of five, said if she could change anything about the prayer she would have included a call for America to repent of things like the unjust systems the nation has built.
Hatmaker, who is also a mother of five, said if she could change anything about the prayer she would have included a call for America to repent of things like the unjust systems the nation has built.
“God, may we continue to be a people who reckon with our violent history, repent from the unjust systems we built, denounce white supremacy in all its forms past and present, and continue to work together to form a more perfect union,” she said
Stop Press: In a comment piece for the Times, Janice Turner says that the US is heading towards eradicating “the language of biological sex in order to appease an influential trans lobby”.
Stop Press 2: The Post Millennial has an exclusive interview with they/them, the editor of the Spectator USA’s new Wokeyleaks column who is seeking to expose the “CEOs and board members of the social justice movement”.
“Mask Exempt” Lanyards
We’ve created a one-stop shop down here for people who want to obtain a “Mask Exempt” lanyard/card – because wearing a mask causes them “severe distress”, for instance. You can print out and laminate a fairly standard one for free here and the Government has instructions on how to download an official “Mask Exempt” notice to put on your phone here. And if you feel obliged to wear a mask but want to signal your disapproval of having to do so, you can get a “sexy world” mask with the Swedish flag on it here.
Don’t forget to sign the petition on the UK Government’s petitions website calling for an end to mandatory face masks in shops here.
A reader has started a website that contains some useful guidance about how you can claim legal exemption. Another reader has created an Android app which displays “I am exempt from wearing a face mask” on your phone. Only 99p.
If you’re a shop owner and you want to let your customers know you will not be insisting on face masks or asking them what their reasons for exemption are, you can download a friendly sign to stick in your window here.
And here’s an excellent piece about the ineffectiveness of masks by a Roger W. Koops, who has a doctorate in organic chemistry. See also the Swiss Doctor’s thorough review of the scientific evidence here and Prof Carl Heneghan and Dr Tom Jefferson’s Spectator article about the Danish mask study here.
Stop Press: We have been reminded that today, 24th January, is the deadline by which the Secretary of State for Health was bound to review the requirements of the mask rules. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 were passed on 24th July 2020. Regulation 9 stipulates that: “The Secretary of State must review the need for the requirements imposed by these Regulations before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which they come into force.’” It is unclear what the review will have entailed, but if any reader can enlighten us, please do so. According to Regulation 10, the mask regulations expire “at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which they come into force.” Six months to go.
Stop Press 2: The Telegraph has an entertaining postcard from South Dakota, where the Republicans are shunning masks to the consternation of the Democrats.
The Great Barrington Declaration
The Great Barrington Declaration, a petition started by Professor Martin Kulldorff, Professor Sunetra Gupta and Professor Jay Bhattacharya calling for a strategy of “Focused Protection” (protect the elderly and the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with life), was launched in October and the lockdown zealots have been doing their best to discredit it ever since. If you googled it a week after launch, the top hits were three smear pieces from the Guardian, including: “Herd immunity letter signed by fake experts including ‘Dr Johnny Bananas’.” (Freddie Sayers at UnHerd warned us about this the day before it appeared.) On the bright side, Google UK has stopped shadow banning it, so the actual Declaration now tops the search results – and Toby’s Spectator piece about the attempt to suppress it is among the top hits – although discussion of it has been censored by Reddit. The reason the zealots hate it, of course, is that it gives the lie to their claim that “the science” only supports their strategy. These three scientists are every bit as eminent – more eminent – than the pro-lockdown fanatics so expect no let up in the attacks. (Wikipedia has also done a smear job.)
You can find it here. Please sign it. Now over three quarters of a million signatures.
Update: The authors of the GBD have expanded the FAQs to deal with some of the arguments and smears that have been made against their proposal. Worth reading in full.
Update 2: Many of the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration are involved with new UK anti-lockdown campaign Recovery. Find out more and join here.
Update 3: You can watch Sunetra Gupta set out the case for “Focused Protection” here and Jay Bhattacharya make it here.
Update 4: The three GBD authors plus Prof Carl Heneghan of CEBM have launched a new website collateralglobal.org, “a global repository for research into the collateral effects of the COVID-19 lockdown measures”. Follow Collateral Global on Twitter here. Sign up to the newsletter here.
Judicial Reviews Against the Government
There are now so many legal cases being brought against the Government and its ministers we thought we’d include them all in one place down here.
The Simon Dolan case has now reached the end of the road. The current lead case is the Robin Tilbrook case which challenges whether the Lockdown Regulations are constitutional. You can read about that and contribute here.
Then there’s John’s Campaign which is focused specifically on care homes. Find out more about that here.
There’s the GoodLawProject and Runnymede Trust’s Judicial Review of the Government’s award of lucrative PPE contracts to various private companies. You can find out more about that here and contribute to the crowdfunder here.
And last but not least there was the Free Speech Union‘s challenge to Ofcom over its ‘coronavirus guidance’. A High Court judge refused permission for the FSU’s judicial review on December 9th and the FSU has decided not to appeal the decision because Ofcom has conceded most of the points it was making. Check here for details.
Samaritans
If you are struggling to cope, please call Samaritans for free on 116 123 (UK and ROI), email [email protected] or visit the Samaritans website to find details of your nearest branch. Samaritans is available round the clock, every single day of the year, providing a safe place for anyone struggling to cope, whoever they are, however they feel, whatever life has done to them.
Shameless Begging Bit
Thanks as always to those of you who made a donation in the past 24 hours to pay for the upkeep of this site. Doing these daily updates is hard work (although we have help from lots of people, mainly in the form of readers sending us stories and links). If you feel like donating, please click here. And if you want to flag up any stories or links we should include in future updates, email us here. (Don’t assume we’ll pick them up in the comments.)
And Finally…
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This is the link to Library/Odycee:
https://lbry.com/
Integrity Initiative. Check it out. MI5.
What is Interpol doing about all this corruption?
Odyssey and Library were two new sites mentionned on Mark Windows last night. Have not checked them yet.
Some Democrat shmoo from Georgia just compared a Tesla electric car to an 18 wheeler diesel fueled truck. How many suburbanites drive 18 wheeler diesel fuelled trucks? How are these people going to rearrange the trucking networks across the country if they all are converted to electricity? I bet that they don’t have a clue. It’s all emotion.
https://www.gktoday.in/current-affairs/davos-agenda-summit-2021/
CCCP Ping part of World Economic Forum conference this week. I heard a translated version of his speech on Steve Bannon just a few minutes ago. Look out Taiwan.
If there are thousands, perhaps millions, of drones flying around the skies of the U.S. I think this would be the perfect time to create a new variant on skeet shooting.
Ji Hotties.
Ping’s speech was referred to as the keynote speech at Davos this week.
Technocratic Totalitarianism. The New Class System. Techs at the top, us at the bottom.
Anyone try Rumble yet? I’m going there right now.
NWD-New World Disorder
https://rumble.com/vd88id-exclusive-lin-wood-i-believe-the-military-is-in-control-joe-biden-is-a-fake.html
Rumblings from Rumble.
Rumblestiltskin.
GETTING TOGETHER, with the lads to record the next episode of the Pod tonight. Has to be via Zoom as one of the boys is on a work trip up norf!
We’re going to be talking about Vaccines. Has anyone got any thoughts they’d like to share? I’ll try and get them in.
Many thanks,
Lord R.
Isn’t Sweden something of a red herring because of the inherent advantages that all Scandinavian countries enjoyed relative to “core” Europe?
Is the Dawn Breaking. ?
Surely anyone can see the rotten stinking reality now ?
BTW Is Snowdon Boris ?
Thanks NN for the update.
I hear things are getting feisty in the Low Countries too, ( racist remark from when we used to have An Empire – don’t you know !)
Fuck Boris and all his rip off corruptionists.
Fuck the NWO
We will PROUDLY burn Jet A-1 again and enjoy it !
Last?
There’s no blue envelopes left in Scotland!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55781951
Or perhaps, there’s no ‘vaccine’ left?
File under: extended period for second jab: Snow closing jab centres etc etc
And so it will continue…. delay to vaccination, extension to house arrest.
(if we let it😉)
Oh, apparently it won’t alter the timetable! Let’s, keep an eye on the hospital admissions in the meantime. Completely unrelated and unaffected by this. What a waste of envelopes.
Absolutely brilliant!
I think that Hans Christian Andersen foresaw Boris and his Covid delusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9mQoJU-6I0
its a winner.
Should re-post tomorrow, IMHO.
It’s a great little cartoon. Made me laugh.
Lots of lefty pant-soiling on Twitter over the latest Presidential polling in France. Also lots of the exact same lies that were told about Trump, with unintentionally honest menaces threatening France that if they dare to elect LePen they will get what the US got. Which they will, of course.
Most likely the establishment supposed rivals will close ranks behind Macron again to exclude the outsider. Nothing will change and after an even shorter honeymoon than last time Macron will continue driving France towards implosion.
Jeez! That old hobby-nag’s saddle is getting worn. 🙂
Can’t even be bothered repeating the same old response to your same old spam, tbh, Rick.
When Macron won the run off last time, I was surprised. He was clearly going to introduce policies the majority of the people opposed: yet, they voted for him.
She was thoroughly demonised, and he was still kind of squeaky-new, in a Blairite kind of way.
This time round, I have no idea what the politics of covid are in France, though.
With centrist politicians having become ultra-authoritarian, LePen, Salvini, the AfD&co have become much more electable for liberals and conservatives.
The righteous indignation in the comments says it all. Also the term covidiots is used in the headline. I comment as sceptic56. https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/anger-covidiot-dancers-defy-lockdown-4924006#comments-section
Interesting comment on there is the oft repeated “hospitals were at risk of being overwhelmed“.
How long now have our hospitals been “at risk of being overwhelmed” now? Not acutally overwhelmed, just “at risk“.
Seems like forever to me.
Yep.
Try to pick up this cup.
(picks up cup)
No, you failed. I said TRY to pick up this cup.
The power of DIstinction in language.
eg
(Alas ! and with a Heavy Heart)
Bollocks
This manufactured C19 care ‘crisis’ is largely due to agenda driven Tory austerity spending policies overseen by a succession of lame duck apologies for chancellors. 17,230 beds have been cut from the 144,455 that existed in April-June 2010, when the government imposed a funding squeeze on the NHS. This has backfired in spectacular fashion, and the current government propaganda machine shunts the blame onto those that might need care as opposed to those politicians (from both sides of the House) who have chosen to over and over vote to deprive them of it. Bigging up C19, and so using it as an excuse to impose Lockdown, is a convenient way of protecting their sorry, incompetent political hides from past decisions.
The King’s Fund put it clearly in March 2020:
Nevermind all that please teach me about the, as you said earlier, smugness of the elite rats delores and corbett. I sense i am in the presence of someone who really knows a thing or two. You didn’t provide links earlier as asked so please teach me what you know.
I am a great pupil.
With your evident flair for cynicism, you clearly need no assistance. Sceptics need to question links, not rely on them.
You need to present evidence for your suggestion you are nothing but a user name. And irrelevance. A 77 brigader or a troll.
Suggesting delores cahill is a smug rat jumping ship requires backing up with links or other evidence, otherwise it comes across as dim.
My opinion is worthless. I share it when I choose. If you haven’t realised that sharing information is advantageous and we must base all on opinion then you are mistaken.
Plesse explain what causes your opinion that james corbett is smug. I was expecting you to offer better sources for learning other than suggesting I don’t have an opinion.
IMHO Juries out, Basics.
Personally, i don’t think the usual dipoles are helpful where we find ourselves, so I avoid. eg
Left/Right
Brexit/Remain
Tory/Labour
seems to me they have little leverage and are more divisive than helpful.
That said, I approve of cynicism. 🙂
Cheers
Ad hominem, how nice. You provided a link, I questioned the agenda driving the views being presented. Am I obliged to agree with the views expressed in the link, and if I don’t do I then have to stfu or be accused of being a troll or worse? I gave an opinion, you disagree, get over it.
1987-2018… A period during which Labour were in for 13 years, Lib Dems were in with Tories for 5 years.
What could it all mean?
It means its a tory plan. F B says so. Tories working in the guise of Labour I suppose.
1987-2018 = c10 years Tory + c13 years Labour + 5 years Tory led coalition + c3 year Tory. It means they have the same neo-liberal centrist corporate agenda, although I do accept it was a rhetorical question. Blair tried to be like Thatcher, Dave tried to be like Blair – and largely succeeded. The NHS began to disentangle when Trusts were introduced in the 80s, and management replaced medical staff.
NAILED.
A great discussion for the new page.
Im about to crash.
Slayer – can you deal with it ?
Cheers
We are all Dutch Now !
In 2000 when Blair was prime minister there was 240144 beds when he left there was 207789 a loss of over 32000 why are those losses which are substantially more than than recent losses not important to you?
They are important, but they are not an excuse for further Tory cuts ‘because Labour did it’. I see no difference between Cameron and Blair’s politics, and voted for neither. Nevertheless by November 2019 (pre-C19) the 127,225 remaining beds was the smallest number of beds available in acute hospitals, maternity centres and units specialising in the care of patients with mental health problems and learning disabilities since records began in 1987/88. So the NHS was particularly vulnerable at that point.
Cutting the beds certainly has not helped.
However, there is plenty of blame to spread around.
Doen’t really help in the matter of getting us out of this horse goop though.
“Bigging up C19, and so using it as an excuse to impose Lockdown, is a convenient way of protecting their sorry, incompetent political hides from past decisions.”
Spot on as one of the drivers. Meanwhile the top NHS management is also playing a ‘dodge the blame’ game, too. PFI was partly paid for by bed cuts. The rest is history.
Oxford University was going to open source its vaccine, then the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stepped in and convinced them to sell exclusive rights to AstraZeneca.
Now AstraZeneca is failing to deliver and poor countries are struggling to access vaccines.
https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1353330538292121602?s=20
You can read the full article about Oxford reversing course and selling its vaccine’s rights to AstraZeneca (at the encouragement of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) here:
https://khn.org/news/rather-than-give-away-its-covid-vaccine-oxford-makes-a-deal-with-drugmaker/
Is this a bad thing?
I dont know it depends on many things doesnt it. You seem a little bit sore towards my opinion of things.
Would you please supply more than your own arogance and explain why you think delores cahill is a smug elites rat jumping ship? I want to learn but am unable to without knowing your reasoning.
You posted info, not an opinion. I commented. I am not sore at you, I hadn’t noticed the commenter’s name, I just thought my question was appropriate in the light of these largely untested vaccines.
It is not a vaccine. It is an experimental gene therapy and this particular one seems to be the crappiest sofar.
Manipulated efficiency data wise and safety wise.
And none of the vector vaccines like it and Sputnik work against any of the mutations.
Like a flu vaccine, they are outdated once administered.
If possible and still necessary, people should wait for the safer and proper vaccines, ideally the recombinant ones, as they seem to be more efficient against plenty of the mutations too- see Rushworth, the Newcastle OZ professor and the BHF(!) summary on them.
Focusing on vaccines was and is a gigantic strategic and medical error.
If there was a pathogen and disease unsuited for a vaccine, it’s SARS Cov2 and Covid 19. It fulfills none of the usual 4 criteria for a target for a vaccine.
It was and is criminally negligent by the corrupt government and public health officials to forego sponsoring proper RCTs on treatments like HCQ and Ivermectin from the start.
If they had done so, and adhered to the longstanding WHO pandemic guidelines of doing nothing, there would have been no second wave and no to very few second wave deaths.
For that… Read more »
Struck me yesterday when hearing of the passing of TV anchor Larry King in the states, and of how this 87 year old (I think?) had been “taken” by Covid.
Up until last year, a frail celebrity in their 80s dying would have made the news as follows “beloved actor…. passes away at age 87 in a care home” before talking about their career. You would have to read on a long way through the article to find the cause of death, if ever, as it was always accepted that a person in their 80s would have just died. Yes, if they were shot or hit by a car it would be a story, but otherwise it would have sounded ridiculous to say, for example, they were “killed” by pneumonia.
Absolutely not.
thay would have ‘Sadilidied’
🙂
(Apologies to The Great Annie, or whoever came up with the perfect single worded descriptor).
Bend over, everyone! Just lifted this from the forums:
Beijing tests for COVID-19 using anal swabs, where virus may survive longer: experts – Global Times
Someone suggested this to me in jest the other day, I said “give them time”.
Finally, a test suitable for Whitty, Vallance and Boris.
It’s too good for them. Nothing else but a red hot poker up their arses would suffice.
Well Boris would have remove the collective hands of Sage from up there first to make room.
True
Wrong end, all the shit comes out of their mouths.
I’d forgotten about them. Viz!
China is trolling the shit out of the World.
The fear propaganda being pumped out on our national TV stations is absolutely disgusting. I pretty much avoid the news nowadays but was exposed to a bit this evening…absolutely vile and non stop, creeping into everywhere in including the effing weather forecast. What’s it doing to the national psyche? Whats it doing to children’s psyche? I find it difficult to believe that good is being done.
– Where are the reports on Sweden being at the average death rate for Europe and without destroying their economy, education, health service, family life, culture and sport or turning their people into a nation of neurotic germophobes?
– Where’s the report from the USA explaining how the death rates for lockdown states and nonz-lockdown states is very similar?
– Where are the reports on the effective and cheap treatments and preventativeslike Ivermectin, HCQ and Vitamin D supplementation?
– Where are the reports on deaths among the very elderly and frail being caused by the Pfizer vaccine. If it’s a phenomenon in Norway and Ireland how likely the same phenomenon isn’t occurring in the UK – but the appalling UK non-journalist community refuse point blank to investigate.
The UK… Read more »
Totally agree and the relentless propaganda campaign is simply to distract from the truth. This is the plan and this week in Davos the same evil cabal of global elites are planning the next phase…
I meant UK media of course, not the UK, being totally beneath contempt. Contrasting the lying, conniving, preenng, arrogant, fear-mongering, underhand, dishonest UK media with the mostly good people of the UK is instructive.
Nah, you were right the first time.
Same in the rest of Europe though.
The UK MSM is giving much more airtime to the sceptical Viewpoints than the Germanic ones.
Which isn’t difficult, as over there it’s zero.
Belgium
Compulsory wearing of a mask deemed unconstitutional
The judge recognized that the current health situation justifies a restriction of the freedom of movement and the imposition of certain measures. But he considered that these must be based on legal bases – yet the legislator has not legislated to authorize the restrictive measures taken by the various ministers since the start of the crisis – and that they must be compatible with the others. rights in force.
https://www.levif.be/actualite/belgique/le-port-obligatoire-du-masque-juge-anticonstitutionnel/article-news-1383249.html.amp?cookie_check=1611530062&__twitter_impression=true
No way our supine judiciary would be as brave. They love lockdowns and deprivation of human liberty, being all on board with the PC globalist mission .
Blair’s Supreme Court legislation set this up perfectly.
So, they’ll either ignore it, or pass such a law.
And most people will continue to wear them anyway even if they were told they wouldn’t face a fine anymore for not doing so.
It’s all about virtue signaling and obediently displaying your cult membership now.
How do you hold on to respect for pro-lockdown, BBC brainwashed folk in your family circle? I know its discussed here most days.
Weekly facetime call to in laws this evening so they can see and chat to the kids. No C word mentioned until the very end when MIL begins her hysteria about new variants and quoting non sensical statistics. I left hubby to listen to it all whilst I got childrens supper ready.
Finding i have less time and tolerance for this horse shit with no energy to counteract it anymore.
Is this just me?
Probably just as well my MIL and I haven’t spoken for the past five years 🙂
No, it’s not just you.
It was very noticeable as well that quite a few of the weak-minded were starting to come out of their funk towards the end of last year, but allowed themselves to be scared back into it by the regime’s transparent winter bullshit.
Very hard to respect or tolerate such people.
Pointed out to my OH that his folks have banned him from visiting until they’ve had the vaccine, ‘treating you like a leper’. He totally didn’t like it but couldn’t deny it.
No. It’s not you. They think it’s ok to spread their beliefs/propaganda with no opposition. I’m struggling (on WhatsApp) not to let rip with in-laws re their blind faith. Keep telling myself ‘keep the faith, forgive for when we are on the other side of this’ but it really is testing.
It’s such a hard one. On the one hand I cannot be angry with people I love who have been scared to death. Angry with those pushing that fear, absolutely, but nobody wants to be this way, and whatever we think, living a previously happy life in permanent fear (and guilt) is a living nightmare. I can’t purport to be fighting this for sanity and to prevent damage to those I love, if I then hate them for it.
But on the other hand, every single mask, every single person with strong lockdown opinions but who has researched nothing past daily headlines, everyone who accepts this, is complicit in its continuance.
Wish I knew how to handle them, but I am utterly lost.
Definetely not, there is a few folk I thought i’d got through to until recently. They are right back to the beggining getting tested when they don’t have symptoms.
I have to be careful about relatives who are shielding. Of course they could be shielding just as effectively without destroying my freedom and the freedom of tens of millions. I keep quiet because family and friends are important, But I did find it nauseating when one shielding relative was expressing their sadness at the effects of lockdown on their grandchildren but also expressing satisfaction that a 7 year old grandchild now had an active virtual social life. If you’re shielding you’re shielding. The chances of you being more at risk as a shielder under lockdown or under a Swedish style response must be zero or less than zero, because these variants probably take hold more easily under lockdown conditions,
If a relative or friend makes a direct statement in support of lockdowns and the fear propaganda, I do take them on, giving them both barrels.
I hate how these buzz words have made it into common parlance too. Shielding…. it conjures up images of medieval battles and protecting yourself amidst the onslaught, instead of locking yourself in your bedroom watching Netflix.
Social distancing…. there’s an oxymoron if ever I heard one.
And the worst, “stay safe”…… actually I cannot even bring myself to rant about that last one!
“Stay safe”. Whenever anyone says that to me, I just want to reply with “fuck off”.
Yup, hate that. I often sign off my emails with Stay sane (not a typo). I’m surprised autocorrect hasn’t tried to change my “n” to an “f.” Lucky for me that sane is still a word..for now at least. When you’re clear you mean to say sane and not safe it lets people know where you’re at on this whole charade.
I know, it’s sad and painful. mostly, we have an unspoken agreement not to talk about any of it, which means that we can no longer engage freely and openly, which drives a wedge through our relationship
For the first time, my obedient father has voiced scepticism.
In Germany, the majority of the people are now unhappy with the government. For the first time, and he is now one of them.
For some different reasons than me/us, like too slow vaccine rollout, but also for some we share, like screwing up protecting care homes, illogical restrictions (you can’t play golf in NRW, but you can in neighboring RP, for example) and the economic damage and inflationary impact and fear becoming more visible.
Gave me a little hope.
and tell him he is a fucking useless lying twat
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/1914238/new-rule-requiring-medical-grade-face-masks-being-actively-explored-in-scotland/
Now the ape at the supermarket door has to be an expert in mask quality.
It’s beginning to look like Bruce Reynolds is way ahead of the pack with his WW2 mask.
Haha snap
Hey, we’ve done this before, BBRS. Great minds DO think alike. 🙂
Not so fast, Bruce Reynolds. I have a plague doctor mask.
Handy for picking up your spuds without having to handle them. 😉
That’s very true. It’s been sitting up in the loft since Christmas 2015. Knew it would come in handy some day. Thank god for a pandemic, eh.
How do they get around the claim that masks work then? Absolute insanity. We’ll all have mandated Bruce Reynolds set up soon.
FFS! Why does this not surprise me? The SNP wants to be so ‘European’. It’s absurd and if enforcement is actually attempted (how?), you will see a big increase in mask rage incidents with real violence.
I actually doubt that the Scottish Government will attempt this and think it’s just more virtue signalling and an attempt to distract away from the current (big) problems with Salmond.
It’s not much fun living here.
I don’t put anything past this parliament.
And who, pray, will pay for them? Some people are unable to afford anything other than home-made.
The state is paying for them in Germany. Nod doubt Nicola will try to follow suiting Westminster to cough up.
Just when I thought the response couldn’t get any worse.
How can people not see this is a casedemic. More testing more cases not rocket science this.
Their not infections or cases either. A positive PCR result is proof of neither.
*They’re 🙂
Yes, but this is sufficient ‘evidence’ to fool the hysterical halfwits who seem to make up more than half of our population
Does anyone have a link to clear data about current ICU bed occupancy?
I’ve just been posted a Scary Fairy article for comment.
ICARN or adapnation.io
Cheers.
You could always attach the picture below S unspoken commentary on the ethics of those in nominal charge.
Losing battle
‘well if we don’t do this the NHS will be overwhelmed’
‘Ffs, let it be overwhelmed. It’s a bureaucratic mess, it’s overwhelmed every year. What’s so different this year that we should kill society? Answer me this – are you prepared to lose your job to not overwhelm the f’ing NHS? Your savings? Your pension pot? That’s what you’re asking of others!’
‘Stop going on, it might not be the right thing. I don’t know. What do you want me to do about it?’
Likewise, I was exasperated to hear this drivel yet again as I have said before they do not pass a law saying you must defecate in the garden because the local sewage works is overwhelmed. This is a shocking example of the tail wagging the dog. As well as being wrong in principle it is currently wrong in practice, the NHS maybe moaning and groaning but it seems to be doing OK. Our local district hospital, Barnstaple, currently has 7 patients who have tested +ve for covid, I understand that not only are they coping they are running other health care on a relatively normal basis.
It almost seems to me that Hancock is now so pleased to have this high profile position that he is clinging to straws to keep the pantomime on the front stage, he is keen to at least get a knighthood out of this, possibly even more.
Yep. If it fails then we’ll get over it and start again. This is a like dealing with an addict. They’ll sell everything you own just to keep their fix.
You don’t enable addicts
Exactly. The NHS management will NEVER say – ‘no problem, we’re coping now.’
We can’t predicate our freedom on people not dying of COVID-19 or anything else. Death is a condition of life.
Why is it so bleeping obvious to us yet the majority sanction this nightmare by their compliance?
Oh yeah. That’s the next response
‘Well it’s not just us, why would all the other countries be doing it?’
‘Why the f should I give them a motive? You tell me why they’re all doing it cos we sure as hell have just agreed it’s not about a virus. Let’s leave history and the courts to establish the ‘why’, we just need to deal now and fast with the ‘what’!!’
Part of the trick here has been to keep extending the furlough scheme. A lot of people are actually saving money being stuck at home with little to tempt their wallets and purses. It’s state-subsidised complacency. If people were actually losing their jobs the national mood would be very different.
Absolutely.
And those handouts are only possible because of zero interest rates and the central banks buying all the new paper.
This cannot and will not end well, but it can go on for another while, primarily because everyone else is doing it too.
Some pundits already talk about prolonging lockdowns to continue to prevent people from spending their money, as that would push up the velocity of money and result in a huge spike in inflation.
Stockman has done a good writeup recently on US furlough handouts being a multiple of the truly lost wages.
As well as the fact the overwhelming the NHS is ALL TOTAL BOLLOCKS how about other countries who have no bastard NHS, like….the USA< The Republic of Ireland, Europe, Africa, SOuth Africa, AUSTRALIA, do they have a bastard NHS to save NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
agree, it’s not about the NHS, just as it’s not about public health, and it’s not about a virus
Does anyone else find themselves feeling pleased when they hear of someone who has ‘broken the rules’?
Yes! I encourage everyone I know to break the rules. Just did it myself as we had friends over to snowshoe. The outdoor portion was “legal” but once we had them inside for drinks and snacks we were breaking the law. Loved every minute of it!
Are they still building detention centres in Canada for people who break the rules?
I wouldn’t say detention centres per se, but I did see a Rebel News report yesterday about a hotel that has been turned into a quarantine centre. Perhaps a distinction without a difference. The government recently began requiring a negative Covid test within 72 hours of returning to the country. The case Rebel News reported on was a man and his dad returning from Jamaica where they were unable to get tested as the centres were booking in February. They were allowed on the plane since it was well known that testing was impossible, but they then refused a test at the airport upon return and were shipped off to this hotel for “quarantine.” However, after a few days they just up and left so I guess it’s not strictly a detention centre, though I don’t think many people would know that they aren’t obligated to stay. The “security” guy tried to claim the hotel was under construction when the reporter asked about booking a room — a total joke as it is clearly not under construction and you could see people in the rooms. Canada is by no means the only country turning empty hotels into “quarantine centres” but… Read more »
I’m not sure. Lockdowns don’t work. Logically, scientifically, every which way; lockdowns and masks don’t work. Hand sanitizers make us more vulnerable, not less. Rule breaking allows those setting the rules point to the nasty people and blame them for restrictions not working. If people weren’t breaking the rules then de Piffle et al would have nowhere to hide and would have to admit that they are barking up the wrong tree.
Oh, excessive sanitizing has long been a problem, associated with increased allergies, increased milk intolerance, and no doubt will be a factor in any recent excess deaths.
Wish I could fly myself over to your house and do some snowshoeing.
I wish I could do some shoeing of Handycock & Sage
Would love to have you! Always eager to take in fugitives of unjust laws. The snowshoeing has been particularly good this winter.
Makes me want to cheer, every time.
Oh yes. They be on the right side.
Then again, pleased …..and sad. That normal human behaviour is breaking the rules. God help us.
‘when injustice becomes law, resistance is a duty’ – so keep partying, everyone, as hard as you can!
Definitely
Every act of non-compliance is a victory.
Ignore the rules.
It’s one of the few pleasures left in life.
I have had some great fun today firing off emails to the Neil O’brien website asking some very pertinent questions. I have been very polite and wonder if I will hear anything back from them. O’Brien is my local MP so very interested in replies. He has a large majority but I will do my best to persuade friends and neighbours never to vote Tory again
That’s how we get out kicks these days 😊
Plenty of seats lost throughout history with large majorities.. Sarah Woolaston, Chuka Umunna, both at one point had 13k+ majorities. Dominic Grieve a few years back had a handy majority of similarly in the region of 13k, ended up losing his seat to someone who got close to twice as many votes as him! Portillo famously lost his seat despite elected with something like a 15k majority. Keep the faith!
Whatever happened to Chuckup anyway – he used to be all over the MSM luvvies ?
Indeed he used to be flavour of the day, let alone the month… I suspect every party eventually got sick of him using them as basically as a revolving door, in, out, he’s gone again! He was quick enough a few years ago to rant against the Conservatives & their alignment with nasty authoritarian regimes abroad..
… and instead to vote for who exactly??
Well in the case of somebody as egregiously personally nasty as O’Brien, sceptics should vote tactically for the nearest rival – in this case Labour, just to get him out of office. Probably no better on supporting lockdowns, but worth doing just to punish him.
Would take about a third of his vote to overturn his 2019 majority, but if there’s a general swing away from the “Conservatives” then it will take fewer.
The kind of things he’s been saying are the kinds of things we should have long and vindictive personal memories of.
Come on Mark, your standards are normally high. less, ffs. 🙂
I’m claiming fewer refers to the number of voters making up the percentage. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, damn it!
🙂
That O’Brien man is an appalling individual. If he was my MP I would dedicate a large portion of my life to campaigning for his removal by whatever means possible. I cannot believe (hmmm) that the standards of behaviour in the HoC has fallen so far in such a short space of time that this man can be called an MP, and his current behaviour has not raised more top brass eyebrows. He is a total disgrace.
Yes, there are few “Conservative” Party MPs so bad that I would be prepared to vote Labour just to oppose him or her. O’Brien has become one of them.
Not sure if already posted but tells us something we didn’t already know https://padailypost.com/2021/01/18/stanford-study-lockdowns-have-no-clear-benefit/
Oh well, it’s only Stanford, not as if there was any intellectual weight behind it, eh?
Who is he?
Sacked Eton teacher: I stand by my patriarchy lecture
This to me is absolutely hilarious.
Establishment liberal Freddy Sayers looking as uncomfortable as a C19th Victorian vicar who sees himself as a believer in freedom of speech, forced to discuss why some content insufficiently critical of homosexual behaviour has been banned from being discussed – “I mean, obviously it’s just offensive,isn’t it?”
The fact is that it says our society is deeply sick, when issues and attitudes such as this, not only perfectly legitimate as defensible (in principle) points of view, but within living memory generally received opinion, are ruled outside the bounds of acceptable discussion regardless of evidence and scientific opinion supporting them (as well as some opposing, obviously), for basically political reasons. The bias is heavy and systematic, and designed to push particular ideologies and dogmas, and to empower particular identity lobbies above the general population.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society
Jk
There was a telling comment by a US liberal over the weekend who said that you are entitled to your opinion and free speech (in your home) but you are not entitled to the spread of your opinion and free speech.
And a brilliant article on Achgut explain a Jordan Peterson video which went even further: in the views and minds of liberals and most young people, you are not entitled to be an individual and have your own opinion anymore.
You can and do only belong to a group/groups and those groups have zero interest or capabilities to talk to an opposing one about facts and arguments and come up with a compromise or joint solution for something.
Describes the current situation and cancel culture to a T.
From the Denmark protests. At this point, I couldn’t care less if they were all violent football ultras and neo-Nazi skinheads. They’re heroes. I want them to torch government buildings and inflict terror on the comfortable elites who have made it their mission to destroy us.
This is the only way these people will listen.
Makes me kind of ashamed to be British. Go Danes!
With the news of it kicking off in the Netherlands today, and the organized disobedience in Italy and Poland, it seems that our country will be the very last place it Europe to stand up to this tyranny.
This 100%. There are only 2 sides now – freedom or oppression. If you are on the side of freedom then I am with you whatever your other beliefs.
Maybe it’s time to replace the term Lockdown Sceptics with Freedom Fighters?
Exactly – 100%
absolutely! all other differences fade away in the glare of this one burning issue
With total surveillance on the horizon, people will have to wake up
We’ve had total surveillance for years.Try counting the spy cameras in your town centre.
What is your agenda? Why are you trying to start riots? It’s quite obvious what the outcome of that would be.. the only way to stop what is happening to us is not to be thugs but to be smarter than the bullies inflicting this and quite frankly that shouldn’t be too difficult. Since early on in this mess we’re all in, totally obvious paid trollers and /or bots have tried to bring in homophobic / fascist / misogynistic posts to denigrate and bring down the aim of this site.. if you’re a real person and are earning money from doing this, have a think about how you’re contributing to the destruction of what was once a good country to live in and is now well on the way to being destroyed. But we will defeat this ..
‘But we will defeat this…’
How?
How are you going to defeat it without dissent? And if that dissent is put down by the police (instruments of the state) what do you expect the people to do? Limp home with their tail between their legs?
I would have agreed with you four months ago – now I am afraid this is the only way. We won the logical argument and it just got worse. Direct action is the only answer now. It’s sad, but true.
Sorry but things have moved on since a few months ago. Being reasonable is not going to change the policies of the tyrants who now rule us. Peter Hitchens needs to work this out as well.
We’re on dangerous ground now.
I don’t mean the silly bit about “homophobic / fascist / misogynistic posts” which is just mainstream political correctness. I mean the issue of approving violence.
The problem with closing all the peaceful ways to resist basic liberties being over-ridden is that it leaves dissenters with only two alternatives – submission or violence. But violence also gives the hardliners a pretext to crack down harder. This is what we are seeing threatened in the US at the moment over Trump derangement, and might soon see here over lockdown.
Crackdown either fails dramatically, or seems to succeed, by forcing dissent to go fully underground, but in doing so it creates real hatred and bitter resentment. That’s when the seeds are sown for real civil unrest and ultimately civil war. We still probably won’t travel that far down that road, but it’s the direction the lockdowners are pushing, as the Democrats are in the US, and they are playing a dangerous game. If it goes wrong, it will do so suddenly and possibly irrevocably. But regime hardliners always want the confrontation, and for certain agents provocateurs will be used to push it.
The fault lies with the… Read more »
we may feel real hatred and bitter resentment (I know I do) but we are powerless – you can’t fight a civil war with no army, no weapons,- no powerful backers, in other words. why is there no civil war in N Korea? Venezuela? China,even? you think their populations don’t feel real hatred and bitter resentment? and sadly I think you are right – if powerless people revolt with no real military hardware behind them, they will be brutally crushed by the unstoppable machine- it will be simply playing into their hands. I think the answer is not in some violent uprising, but in dogged, persistent civil disobedience… think the ‘solidarity’ movement in Poland in the 1980’s….
Is it obvious what the outcome would be ? Im not sure.
We have been locked up for damn near a year on the flimsiest of pretexts.
there are around 400k cops in the UK. Most are backroom or too fat to fight.
They are protecting the cabal who are torturing us.
I was living in the USA in the 90s. Bumper stickers were big.
‘ITS TIME TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH’.
That was a very effective one.
Normally, most people would have a go at you for saying that. I know I would.
Not now, though; I agree with you 100%.
👍
“black-clad resistance”
I upticked this. I don’t want to see any violence. Not from protesters or from the cops.
We see the strange spectacle a few weeks ago of the cops smashing up anybody who was “marching” “protesting” or otherwise identifiable as an anti covid protester…..or something.
These people were right next to hundreds of Christmas shoppers in Oxford Street.
One side of the street TSG arresting people and jumping on women, wresteling them to the floor because of a placard or something and shoppers watching them do it…
So protests about lockdown/covid bollocks are not to be tolerated.
Tricky, I remember the poll tax protests, they happened in every town in the country, ordinary folks getting out and marching on the councill offices. There was no social media, it was all just word of mouth. It spread like wild fire.
Protests. 2million people in London to stop the Iraq war, made no difference. Why would 300 or even 500 people in a town centre be anything other than a grave risk to the public and need to be squashed immediately. They would say, and they would pull out ALL the stops to break heads and fuck people over.… Read more »
vive la revolution! vive la resistance!
The government plans to allow 16 year olds to spy on their parents on behalf of 20 state institutions! What the f**k is going on!?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/24/tory-revolt-looms-state-plans-use-child-spies-against-parents/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
Sounds pretty standard for this government and this society, tbh.
STASILAND INNIT
In particular, pretty standard for today’s 16 yr olds…
George knew! 🙁
George definitely knew!
Great quote. Totally frightening
It happened in Nazi Germany and Orwell knew that.
Yes, that scene leapt instantly into my mind too.
We joined the Cubs or the Brownies.Now, all children are enrolled in the Spies.
Don’t fall for it. Planted propaganda. The kids don’t buy or read the Telegraph and certainly don’t want any part of this scam.
https://cherub.fandom.com/wiki/Main_Page