As reported positive cases plummet following ‘Freedom Day’ – down to 24,950 across the U.K. on Monday, less than half the peak of 54,674 just nine days earlier – the damage limitation among the doomsters begins.
In the Spectator , Professor Oliver Johnson of Bristol University stepped up this morning to try to explain.
He starts by observing that “for the first time in 18 months, there’s been a fall in cases that can’t be easily explained by a national lockdown”. Yet the Spectator recently published an article by Professor Simon Wood showing that new infections peaked and fell before lockdown on all three occasions in England. Did the editors forget to bring it to Professor Johnson’s attention?
Next, Professor Johnson offers some reasons why it may yet be a false dawn.
Indeed it’s possible that the peak in cases, welcome though it is, could only be a local maximum with further rises to come. The rapid reversal in trajectory (from 40% increases between corresponding days of the week to 40% decreases) seems too sudden to be caused by a rapid gain in immunity. It seems more likely to be due to changes in behaviour, with school holidays, the end of the European Championship football and recent hot weather meaning that infected people have had fewer opportunities to spread the disease.
You could have made a similar argument about Covid peaking in Bolton, one of the first places hit by the Delta variant. There was plenty of talk of local herd immunity there. But it’s worth noticing that those falls were subsequently reversed.
And here’s the risk now: what behaviour gives, behaviour can take away. I don’t think anyone can be certain if and when Covid might start going up again. But Scotland gives us hope that sustained falls may be possible.
So far we haven’t even seen the effect of the July 19th reopening in the data, let alone people following now-deleted advice not to ‘cower’, plus there’s the return to schools and universities to come, seasonal effects coming back in the autumn and so on.
The argument that “what behaviour gives, behaviour can take away” is precisely why the models always predict exit waves. Yet the modellers don’t seem to have noticed that these exit waves never happen. There was no exit wave in the U.K. or Europe in summer 2020, nor in spring 2021 in the U.K. as restrictions were eased, nor in the U.S. as measures were lifted. Yet the myth of the exit wave persists.
Why Professor Johnson thinks the “rapid reversal in trajectory” should be taken as a sign of behaviour change rather than herd immunity is unclear. Rapid reversals are entirely normal in viral outbreaks, whether COVID-19 (visible in the U.K. winter outbreak, among many others around the world) or in seasonal flu outbreaks, which almost always have this pointy shape – clearly not the result of lockdowns or behaviour change. In fact, it is exactly what you would expect herd immunity to look like, especially with an overshoot, as the pool of susceptible people runs out. Conversely, there is no evidence that behaviour change causes this kind of abrupt decline of an outbreak. Can Professor Johnson point to any such evidence?
The recent double peak in Bolton may be a result of the outbreak there having two phases, the first focused on the British Asian communities first infected with the Indian variant and the second spread across the community more broadly. As Professor Johnson notes, the sustained decline in Scotland since the end of June suggests it may continue in England too.
Then there is Professor Johnson’s inconsistency in claiming that the school holidays, which began on July 21st-23rd in England, are reflected in the drop, whereas ‘Freedom Day’, which was July 19th, is not. In fact, the assertion that a reopening seven days ago would not yet be seen in the data is bizarre: the mean incubation period of the virus is four to five days.
In addition, Professor Johnson’s colleague, Professor Philip Thomas, leader of the Bristol modelling team, writing in the Spectator in June, was clear that he did not think the reopening would make a material difference. “The model shows that the virus is growing exponentially already,” he wrote. “The final step on the roadmap out of lockdown makes little difference. We are already mixing about as liberally as we would otherwise do on a full reopening.”
His team predicted “an enormous final wave” in which the virus “would quickly seek out the one-in-three Britons who are still susceptible: mainly the not-yet-vaccinated” and peak in the middle of July (he got that bit right) “at anywhere between two million and four million active infections“. According to the ONS, in the week ending July 17th (which PHE data suggests is the peak), around 741,700 people in England were infected, a long way short of two to four million.
This is more than just a curiosity, to be explained by half-baked explanations about football tournaments and hot weather (the peak by specimen date was July 15th, and there was no obvious change in the weather in the week prior to that).
It fundamentally challenges the validity of the models, Bristol’s as much as those used by SAGE, that keep wrongly predicting mass infection in the absence of restrictions because they mistakenly assume everyone is susceptible and the restrictions are working. This has been evident since at least the peaking of Sweden’s initial wave in spring 2020, and arguably earlier with the evidence from the Diamond Princess cruise ship. But now that infections have plummeted in England as restrictions are eased it is exposed to the world and the lessons must be learned.
The modellers of doom convinced Boris Johnson to delay ‘Freedom Day’ for a whole month because of worries about rising cases, only for the reopening to coincide with a steep drop. There’s a beautiful irony in that, but it’s important that Government ministers now see through the fraud that is being perpetrated against citizens by the flawed Covid modelling and grasp that they do not need to live in fear of this virus.
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.
Of course they don’t exclude the possibility of a much earlier event.
At the risk of driving Steve Kirsch nuts: To me, it’s either man-made and escaped from the lab or was set free deliberately (more likely), or, it doesn’t exist.
I think the short answer is NO. A long way back, there were stories about the identity of the allegedly novel infection in different parts of the world – e.g. Brazil, Italy and others. As to whether there was actually a single source at all, or more than one that happened to be identified in a similar timeframe, we just don’t know for sure. Maybe the (SARS) Cov-2 viruses was around for rather longer before it was identified – after all, who looks for something novel at sufficient level of detail?
Remember that most of us do not report onto the records that we have suffered from most minor respiratory infections, such as the Common Cold, many of which are thought to be caused by other coronaviruses.
I dare not read BBC articles at the risk of puking
Short of confessions from multiple participants (as there must have been) in any leak cover-up, I doubt we will ever know. The evidence, if there is any, has probably been destroyed. It’s possible that those pulling the strings don’t know either – they just suspected it was a leak. At least some of those working at the lab must know what viruses they had in the fridge – was c19 one of them? Has that question been definitively asked and answered?
So why hasn’t the animal host been found after 3 years? one of many unanswered questions on COVID.
Lab leak is at least as likely as natural origin and any scientist who thinks otherwise has a COI, like this Covid God Fauci.
What’s been proven decisively is that there was a cover up to suppress lab leak theory and only that should make one very suspicious.
Everything points to a lab leak. Occam’s Razor: there’s enough evidence from the structure of the virus, which includes proteins that could could not have got in there naturally, that it came from a lab.
Maybe someone at the lab sold some infected bats to the Wuhan market – it happens in China, apparently – who knows? Maybe the virus emerged in several places at the same time because the Chinese unleashed it from facilities in S America and Africa as well as the Wuhan lab. It doesn’t change the facts that the virus bears all the hallmarks of being created in a lab and the Wuhan lab was doing the exact research that created this virus.
The amount of panicked covering up by the likes of Daczak and Fauci is deeply suspicious. Ultimately, the scientific establishment knows that if it doesn’t cover things up or at least obfuscate, the vast amounts of money it’s acquired (without questions being asked for decades) will dry up and all public trust in scientists will be annihilated.
These are people who have gleefully destroyed the West. This is no exaggeration: our liberty and future expectation of liberty has been obliterated. The possibility of new lockdowns, of our formerly free nations turning into police states overnight for any reason a government dreams up or – should the mooted pandemic treaty happen – if the WHO decrees it, is a Sword of Damocles hanging over out lives.
Virology labs – which are really bioweapons facilities using gain-of-function research under the auspices of researching cures for viruses that aren’t even in circulation – need shutting down and burning to the ground. The WHO needs criminal investigation and all Chinese and communist influence removed. The UN needs ground-up reform.
The BBC needs to be privatised. Its authority is in tatters and its report is Chinese propaganda.
I still fail to understand why this matters. Sars-CoV2 is there. Absent a confession, it’s origin can’t be determined with certainty.
That said, so-called gain of function research is no research at all as it doesn’t contribute anything to our knowledge about the real world. It’s just otherwise unoccupied people playing with really expensive lego bricks. At best, the outcome is completely uninteresting. At worst, these genome fiddlers might end up creating something really dangerous, say, a variant of Yersinia Pestis which spreads via aerosols and is immune to all known antibiotics.
Considering that so-called research biologists have – in the past – tried to grow bacteria which are resistant enough to alcohol that they surive common antiseptic procedures, there can be no doubt that people calling themselves scientists exist who are be mad enough to try that. And they’d doubtlessly also get funding for this from same the people who already fund semi-random genome fiddling for killing the time.
All of these so-called research labs need to be razed to the ground. And everybody ever involved with channeling money to them needs to be removed from any position of influence on the grounds that he’s an irresponsible twit of the kind who’d detonate a nuclear warhead in a shopping mall just to find out what happens.
And on a related topic, did you see the latest reports that rather than originating in the Soviet Union’s chemical research lab, Novichok actually occurred spontaneously in an orchard just next door, and was found to be growing on the trees?
BBC journalism is basically advocay for establishment panicky preoccupations, leavened by woke duplicity. Today on BBC 24 supercillious “science” special correspondent Roger Harrabin used a positive story on print technology to launch a specious jeremiad about “us all using too much stuff”. He sounded mire like Neil from the Young Ones with his “we’re all doomed man” schtick than a balanced reporter.
Apparently the BBC overlooked to place both the Wuhan Institute of Infectious Diseases and the Wuhan institute of Virology on their helpful map.
They obviously didn’t realise that both labs might actually be located IN Wuhan, although their names do give a sort of clue .
In the interests of objectivity, Igor Chudov has done it for them :-
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/lie-exposed-bbc-says-covid-19-came?utm_source=email