On January 1st, the Times published a longish essay titled ‘What if we had done nothing about Covid?’, which focuses on Britain’s first lockdown.
It’s far from the worst thing written during the pandemic, as the author does try to consider both sides of the argument (i.e., pro- and anti-lockdown). However, he ends up leaning heavily toward the pro-lockdown side.
For example, he writes things like, “If we had done literally nothing, the economic impact from loss of life alone would have been catastrophic,” and, “There would probably not be enough workers left to run the NHS, let alone deal with the backlog of cancelled operations or the tidal wave of long Covid.”
The author does admit that “even if the government did nothing, we would have adjusted our behaviour” – though apparently not by enough to avert a huge death toll.
However, he omits one very important point: infections were almost certainly falling when Britain’s first lockdown began. While lockdown may have helped them to fall slightly faster than otherwise, it didn’t cause the initial fall. How do we know this?
First, infections began falling around the same time in Sweden, which didn’t lock down (see below). Neil Ferguson’s team predicted there would be 90,000 deaths in Sweden, but in the end there were less than 6,000. This shows that their model (which the author of the Times pieces takes very seriously) was simply wrong.
Second, the statistician Simon Wood reconstructed Britain’s epidemic curve using data on daily hospital deaths and the distribution of fatal disease durations (see below). He concluded that “fatal infections were in decline before full U.K. lockdown”.
Third, researchers on Imperial College’s REACT study reconstructed Britain’s epidemic curve by asking individuals who tested positive for Covid antibodies when their symptoms began (see below). Their analysis suggests that infections were already falling when Britain entered lockdown on March 23rd.
Fourth, in July of 2020, Chris Whitty actually told the Health and Social Care Committee: “Quite a lot changed that led to R going below one well before, or to some extent before, March 23.” For example, there was a large drop in mobility, and a lot of the most gregarious people acquired immunity to Covid.
The fact that infections were falling by the time lockdown began suggests that it didn’t make a huge difference. Of course, this doesn’t mean the correct response was to do “nothing” about Covid. What should we have done? The thing Chris Whitty said we were going to do in March of 2020: focused protection.
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.
“Nick Dixon and Toby Young Talk About Whether Klaus Schwab is Pulling the Strings”
Can we stop with this straw man stuff please?
Yes, it’s clear that, through funding by related parties, he very much is pulling the strings of the mainstream media, who won’t cover what in other times would have been a topic of immense public interest. I remember decades ago seeing heavy media coverage of the influence of freemasonry, but on the far more influential activities of the WEF, in particular their promotion of digital ID and CDBCs, both instruments of tyranny, there’s a deafening silence. This is not normal behaviour, and it can’t be explained away as political incompetence.
It is explained away by WEF stooges within the MSM. The MSM has been captured to ensure compliance on the messaging.
I take issue with Toby’s comments about those supporting Andrew Bridgen’s actions. Toby said something to the effect that those people view Andrew Bridgen in an idealistic way and can’t tolerate any criticism of him. Since when were politicians idolised by covid sceptics, especially an MP who voted for vaccine mandates for care home workers? No, it’s what he is doing that we support. And as Toby said, even a respectable professional like Dr Asseem Malhotra is getting smeared by the covid regime. They will always find something to use against the non-compliant so it’s not worth fretting over whether or not they’ll get triggered.
The story of the covid jabs is a massive crime that has resulted in at least hundreds of thousands of deaths and millions of injuries worldwide, while governments are in wilful denial. The Nuremburg Code has been ignored and vax refuseniks have been persecuted. Worrying about the use of the h-word is simply playing into the hands of those who want to avoid these crimes being exposed.
/tin-foil hat on/
My personal view is that Schwab et al are just a think tank – and tank that has morphed over the years from something to Globalism to now something truly tyrannical out of 1984 and BNW etc..
The genesis of this I believe stems from our banking systems and fractional banking with interest.
The World financial system has become too big, too complex and like all currencies will eventually go to zero. We are now in the exponential portion of currency creation and I suspect in the next few weeks or months, the whole system will collapse.
For the first time in human history, a very high proportion of civilisation will no longer be able to feed itself, grow its own food, use its own stock and trade to survive and rebuild.
The Bankers have known that mathematically this is inevitable. Wars and devastation have been a good way to reset and stave-off mathematical collapse in the past. The world is too interconnected now for that model on a wider scale. Too destructive to infrastructure.
I believe that the C19 episode fulfilled a number of key markers. Control, possible ill-health and death with the treatment, possibly some sort of “marking” system but also more importantly, reducing the velocity of money world-wide while the finances are re-arranged to stave-off the collapse a little longer. The resources going into Ukraine is another marker. I don’t see why the G-7 would really give a damn about UKr unless for an ulterior reason (money laundering or positioning for break-up of RUS for resources – followed quickly by China to stave-off mathematical collapse further) when it itself has been breaking middle-east countries apart for a quarter of a century with immunity?
The Bankers need a solution and to usher in a new control currency without it being their fault. A collapse now would be seen as their fault and never be given control again. A black swan (as Schwab tells us now – a cyber attack) could collapse the system relatively easily and usher in CBDC’s.
CBCD’s need to be seen as the saviour (along with the digital control and personal digital ID) and hence the WEF, I believe rather than directly control, have had well-placed wealthy (made wealthy) see where their bread is buttered and if they don’t see the downside, they are all rummaging in the shit and detritus like the rest of us.
The WEF, Global Elites etc…rely on us plebs all wanting a saviour when the financial SHTF and they have the solution to the problem they caused. We will receive with applause the false prophet and for the first time in history, control and monitor expansion to suit them and not us.
We are the carbon they want to reduce.
/tin-foil-hat off/