We’re publishing an original piece today by Lockdown Sceptics regular Glen Bishop, a second year maths student at Nottingham University. Glen has read a paper released by the Warwick modelling team that is part of SAGE’s SPI-M group last May and uncovered some interesting facts. Not the least of these is that when the team modelled what the signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration refer to as “Focused Protection”, i.e. protecting the elderly and allowing those who aren’t vulnerable to the disease to go about their lives taking sensible precautions, as they would during a normal flu season, the projected loss of life between March 2020 and May 2021 was 138,000, only 11,000 more than the 127,000 that have supposedly died from Covid already, with the Government embracing the suppression strategy endorsed by SPI-M. The modelling team also acknowledges that of all the alternatives to an indiscriminate lockdown, shielding those aged 60 and over would have resulted in the least loss of life as well as the least socio-economic disruption. Here’s the key paragraph from the Warwick paper:
A completely uncontrolled outbreak is predicted to lead to around 200,000 deaths, approximately 2 million QALY losses but no lockdown impacts. If the current controls are maintained until the end of 2020, then we predict 39,000 deaths this year [2020], but a further 159,000 if controls were then completely removed. Regional switching and age-dependent strategies provide alternative exit strategies in the absence of pharmaceutical interventions. Of these, the age-dependent shielding of those age 60 or over generates the lowest mortality and also the lowest lockdown scale, thereby minimising socio-economic disruption. However, it is unclear if a protracted lockdown of this age-group would be practical, ethical or politically acceptable.
Glen’s article is worth reading in full.
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.
Referendum Fails? Or was it carried out and delivered the result the citizens wanted, rather than acting as a rubber stamp for the politicians? I guess there are all sorts of failure modes, which would result in the outcome being null and void, but return an unexpected result is not a failure.
This can only be good news if we can trust the democratic process to deliver the will of the people.
My principle concern is that although our elected representatives are ostensibly ‘populist’ those who enact government policy in the civil service, the uniformed services, the education and health systems and local government are all staffed by ‘graduates’ of the Gramscian Common Purpose organisation. They have won the ‘culture’ inside our public bodies which have become manifestly Culturally Marxist. Unless government can take a broom to the upper echelons of these organisations and get any Common Purpose graduate to reapply for their job, nothing will ever change at the ballot box.
I am sure every nation has its own equivalent to Common Purpose acting as the vanguard for the Long March through the Institutions.
Principal not principle. 😠
Good news.
Most people understand that the Eco Fascism is what it is – the end of our civilisation.
Notice the disconnect between the hoi polloi, the Wat Tylers, and the elite, the plutocrats, the pharma-ments, the useless Churches and the Richard II’s.
Surely if you mean rhyming slang, you mean Richard III’s of which Bill Gates is the biggest and smelliest
Just to be clear – a narrow majority of those who voted were in favour of bringing forward the target from 2045 to 2030. The referendum failed because the turnout was far too low.
Indeed it was 50.9% in favour https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksentscheid_Berlin_2030_klimaneutral and they weren’t so very far short of their quorum either, some fear propaganda might nudge the result over next time.
Absolutely. This result won’t stop the Davos climate train. They’ll look at it as a problem to fix before continuing full steam ahead.
Time is not on the elite’s side.
The more time passes, the more people realise what net zero actually means in practice.
100% of the FFF and det Luischen supporters in Berlin voted Yes. This meant 442,210 yes votes. Almost as much (423,418, just 4% less) voted No. In total, this means 18.2% of the population voted Yes, 17.4% of the population voted No and 64.4% didn’t bother (rounded to one decimal place). A sensible referendum law, ie, one designed such that it’s not susceptible to activist minority groups whose members are more motivated to vote than the general population, would either require a significant majority of the actual electorate, at least 65% – 75%, or count the non-voters as opposed to whatever change was proposed.
A sensible referendum law, ie, one designed such that it’s not susceptible to activist minority groups whose members are more motivated to vote than the general population, would either require a significant majority of the actual electorate, at least 65% – 75%, or count the non-voters as opposed to whatever change was proposed.
What a pity we didn’t have such a ruling for the Brexit referendum.
That’s something I thought at that time as well: Majority in the range of measurement error, probably partially caused by bad weather in London. Considering that this turned me into an illegal alien overnight, ie, someone whose legally gained so-called permanent right of residence was withdrawn and that I then had to re-apply for it which was a seriously unnerving process, I think I had (and have) a right to see things in this way.
I don’t think you can claim the same for you.
“I think I had (and have) a right to see things in this way.
I don’t think you can claim the same for you.
Are you saying because the referendum did not affect my status I have no right to see the problems with it?
I’m saying two things:
1) You’re barking up the wrong tree. I’m legally resident in the UK. This doesn’t mean I had any voice in this (while pretty much everyone else on this planet — every citizen of a commonwealth country who was legally in the UK at that time — had).
2) I have a right to be critical of this procedure because it negatively affected me despite I had no voice in the decision (also stripped away my right to vote in local elections). Unless you’re either British or legally resident in the UK, it’s really none of your business.
Plus an additional one: The Brexit discussion is over. Time to move on to more current affairs.
We didn’t have a vote before joining, therefore membership was undemocratic (and unconstitutional, as was pointed out to Heath), so leaving without any vote at all would have been democratically perfectly acceptable.
We would then need a massive “yes” vote in order to democratically rejoin. Except it would still be unconstitutional.
The shock on hearing the result exhibited by remainers like Johnson -he only pretended to be a leaver because he knew the majority of Tory party members were and he was thinking about his leadership hopes – tells us that the vote was rigged, but they screwed up by not rigging it enough. I don’t just mean rigged in the sense that millions of foreigners were allowed to vote, or that Jo Cox was murdered by the intelligence services in a not-quite-successful-enough attempt to swing the vote (they should have picked a far more sympathetic MP)
The ‘foreigners’ allowed to vote here were those who had nothing to lose and everything to gain from the referendum outcome being what it indeed became and whose immigration numbers have since skyrocketed. This was even not so covertly marketed as such: Stop white people from continental Europe coming here and throw the ones who already came, based on trusting that what they were told would be the law governing this was actually a law under a bus, so that more global majority people can come to the UK instead.
Or the devolution votes in Scotland and Wales. Devolution in Wales went ahead based on a Referendum vote which won on a majority of around 6,700 votes (less than 0.5% of the vote).
Yep!, and look where devolution has got us.
This loss, tactical or not, will be used to galvanise the Blue Hair anti life nutters.
On a parallel theme, with elections coming up in the UK, is there a place / website where you can buy T-shirts, badges etc with pithy sceptical slogans? (I wonder if even the manufacturers / distributors of these items have there own sort of D notices on them – I’m deeply suspicious that no campaign of a ribbon or lapel badge or personal adornment of some sort has emerged to signal general libertarian / sceptical / pro CO2 inclinations.
Perhaps it’s an area Bob Moran could get into. Simple t-shirt merch? I say this as an early doors customer for one of his fantastic hoodies with the demonic child injector on it – if anyone remembers that one!
So, anywhere to buy decent protest merch, anybody?!? I do think like the Lincoln Green of Robin Hood we should be able to identify each other (and I know there are many sub variants of resistance not unlike LGB etc.) on the streets. Surprised it hasn’t happened.
If you look on ebay you will find plenty of sellers who will print or embroider items of clothing such as caps, t-shirts, hoodies, sweatshirts with your own message.
I have a “Bollox to Lockdown” t-shirt which I ordered off eBay in April 2020 – family not amused.
I also have a couple of embroidered polo shirts:
No
SD
Covid 1984
The Covid 1984 is very attractive.
This is good news.
All government is by consent in the end, and when people withdraw their consent en mass, there’s nothing the government can do about it.
Even tyrants like Ceaușescu don’t last long once the people decide they aren’t having any more of it.
Governments ignore the populace and press on regardless with their agenda. Who voted for uncontrolled immigration or Netzero?
Look at what happen after the Brexit vote, even today we have not left properly and with not so subtle moves now to keep us aligned and eventually rejoin.
I do wish us British had some French passion.
An interesting referendum, in that it looks as if the percentage of the voting population required to go forward with the change was just 24%. Many aspiring politicians would love a voting system that gets them into power on that basis. Others might call it… well, loaded.
They might want “no part of it” but like the rest of the wealthy western world they are going to get it anyway. Tyranny does not ask you politely to accept it. But remember, most people who think they agree with NET ZERO because they think there is some kind of climate change crisis underway only think that because their mainstream News Channels are feeding them evidence free garbage in support of the political agenda of Sustainable Development. If there was a totally neutral assessment presented to the people of the politics, science, morality and social aspects of the climate issue those people would certainly have a much different point of view. ——–Propaganda works and that is why government and it’s bought and paid for media use it so extensively.
There has to be something to celebrate
First Friday Freedom Drinks
Please contact directly regarding food
Friday 7th April 7pm
Oakingham Belle
Oak Avenue (Junction A329 London Rd)
Wokingham
RG40 1LH
If you take the majority as the difference between those who agree and those who don’t it is 0.0425% almost the same as the proportion of CO2 in our atmosphere. Apart from the fact that the human contribution to this has a minimal impact on our climate, CO2 is essential for life and plant crops would grow better with more of it. Real scientists who are not tainted by financial support from those benefitting from the nett zero craziness know this and report it, but their reports are not broadcast by mainstream media and it is necessary for intelligent people to search for it to find the truth. Perhaps the Germans are better than our people at finding it.
I’m not sure it can be described as a resounding rejection when 82% didn’t bother to vote.
It looks more like a resounding result for apathy….. or possibly a resounding result for “it won’t make any difference if I vote NO since the Globalist Eco Nutters will ignore a vote they don’t like.”
The globalists will see a majority of 1 as approval.
Yep! and a loss to one vote, or any result they did not want as a wrong result and must be overturned. See various EU referendum results these last couple of decades and the subsequent reactions..