Two years into the pandemic, the Pacific island nation of Kiribati has gone into its first lockdown, after 36 of 54 passengers on the first international flight into the country in 10 months tested positive for Covid. All the passengers were vaccinated. Despite that, the office of President Taneti Maamau said on Facebook: “The only way that we can fight this virus is through complete vaccination. The public is urged to complete their vaccination doses in order to protect themselves and families.” The BBC has the story.
Under the new measures, people have been told to stay at home and social gatherings are banned.
Some 36 people on the flight from Fiji have tested positive. Four people have caught the virus from community transmission.
Until last week, Kiribati had recorded just two Covid cases.
Kiribati is one of the most isolated islands in the world. It is some 5,000km (3,100 miles) from its nearest continent, North America.
On Tuesday, the government confirmed that 36 of the 54 passengers had tested positive. It said in a post on Facebook that all passengers are currently being monitored by health officials..
All of the passengers on the flight are fully vaccinated, the Government said.
However three members of the quarantine facility’s security team have since tested positive. Another person who does not work at the facility has also contracted the virus, the Government said.
The lockdown came into force on Saturday but it is not clear how long it will last.
People are not allowed to leave their homes unless for essential services. They can buy essential items from shops but only between 06:00 and 14:00.
Yet more evidence of the fantasy land public authorities are living in, where the fact that all the people infected were vaccinated does nothing at all to dent the push for universal vaccination as supposedly ending transmission. The purpose of the lockdown is also unclear, as are the criteria that would make it successful. Is the Government trying to delay the outbreak until enough of the population has had two or three vaccine doses? Even then, of course, the virus will still spread.
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.
Mask effects are:
1-You are advertising yourself as an idiot
2-You are admitting you are ugly
3-Both 1 and 2
You eat bacteria, co2, plastic carcinogens and reduce oxygen levels and they do nothing against a 0.03 sized nano sized particle I am not the science but I would classify that as unhealthy.
It’s staggering it has taken 3 years
An A level science class could design the experiment
‘….for years and years and years the Chief Medical Officers and their departments are supposed to have been preparing for the next pandemic, they even had some high-placed people doing that, importantly, and yet they had completely failed to invest in assessment and development of physical interventions, new physical interventions, and even new materials and new technologies. They have completely failed to do that…’
That kind of comment could no doubt read across to most sectors of government in this country, all the while intervening with regulations to make life more difficult, expensive for private citizens, the private sector, ‘net zero’ being the most remarkably stupid example ‘de nos jours’
I looked up the C.V. of a particular MP this morning: ‘After her graduation (University of Sussex)…. became a policy adviser to her father, in his role as a MEP. Prior to her election she was chief executive of the National Pony Society, an animal welfare charity…..and then a local borough councillor…..’
Belgium showed us the way:
‘….the longest period in which a country has been without an elected government, at 589 days’
Sort of related, but were people aware of this? Football regulator: New white paper delayed until later this month – BBC Sport
The publication of the UK government’s long-awaited white paper proposing reforms to shake up football has been delayed to later this month.
So we’re in a perma-crisis but the government has time to poke its nose into FOOTBALL – a sport that appears to be thriving at every level – popular, not short of money. If there was ever a non-problem, football in the UK is it (and even if it were a problem, WTAF does it have to do with HMG?). The “Culture secretary” is involved. Why do we need a “Culture secretary”, or can we afford one when the government can’t even catch criminals or ensure the conditions are optimised for us to have cheap energy with no political strings, protect our borders.
FOOTBALL – a sport that appears to be thriving at every level
That’s the problem tof – thriving. We can’t be having thriving in the UK. Only one solution, government involvement. Where there isn’t a problem introduce government and there soon will be. And what do problems require?
Solutions. Nice and tidy.
Bang on the money!
Yet more evidence that this is a ‘democratic’ socialist fascist government.
‘Italy was the first state, together with the Soviet Union, to organize [an explicit] policy that would lead the country to become a sports nation.’ In this regard, Mussolini’s plan began with the promotion of new soccer clubs and huge stadiums across Italy.’
‘When Giorgio Vaccaro, the FIGC president, met with Mussolini to officially inform him that Italy would host the second World Cup, the following dialogue reportedly occurred:
The Duce sounds exactly like Hancock……
Thanks to Dr Tom Jefferson and the other authors for doing this very important Cochrane review
A statement like there doesn’t appear to be any convincing evidence that masks make any difference to transmission. They may do, but the evidence is not present from trials at present is all the mask-pushers need: Masks may work! The precautionary principle dictates that they must be worn! In fact, even Chris Whitty, UK mask-pusher in chief of not that long ago, never claimed anything else. He always just said that masks may reduce transmission by …%.
Considering this, Dr Jefferson, no thanks for this interview. A more honest summary would be We don’t now what – if any – effect masks have on transmission. They might prevent it. Or enhance it. Or – depending on the situation – might both prevent it in some cases and enhance in some other cases. Or they might have no effect on it at all. And because we don’t know this, no rational argument for wearing or even mandating them can be made.
From the authors’ conclusions on page 3 of the full report
Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated
And the confidence intervals of masks effectiveness includes negative and positive efficacy as indicated in the transcript above.
An acknowledgement of uncertainty is all that the authors are doing and that acknowledgement strengthens the case against masks in my view, when compared with the un-evidenced assertions that masks work.
I’m specifically referring to the sentence from the interview I quoted. That’s exactly the completely official argument in support of masks: They may prevent transmissions. True believers are convinced they do. So-called scientists mandated them based on an appeal for ignorance which is a logical fallacy.
And my point is that it’s almost impossible to conduct an interview like this and not say something that could be taken out of context or twisted in some way. The confidence interval itself is mentioned in this interview albeit by Carl Heneghan
And that the review itself is the evaluation of the evidence and not a line from an interview about it.
Given the amazing job Tom Jefferson has done in destroying the case for masks, to say ‘no thanks for the interview’ is somewhat mean spirited in my view.
I’ve neither taken this out of context nor twisted it anyhow. In the answer to the third question, it’s stated that
The result means that regardless of what pathogen or what presenting symptom there is no evidence from high quality studies that either medical or surgical masks make any difference to transmission,
This reappears in the answer to the fourth question in weaker form as
there doesn’t appear to be any convincing evidence that masks make any difference to transmission. They may do, but the evidence is not present from trials at present.
And that’s, for all practical purposes, just Chris Witty’s Masks may reduce transmission. Plus a hint that future trials may well additionally prove that they do. That’s not helpful unless the agenda is mask marketing or even mask mandate marketing and a simple admission of ignorance (like the example I gave) had served the case against masks, if that’s supposed to be a case against masks, much better.
Don’t get me wrong, I am glad people are gathering scientific evidence to demonstrate the futility of masks.
However, it’s a terrible indictment of our society that scientific evidence is required in the first place to demonstrate something so spectacularly obvious.
If there was an advantage to covering our mouths in some way, I am quite certain that we would have evolved in that way, much like our eyes have a cover. Or our ears. But I’m pretty sure our mouths and noses are open for a very good reason.
But such are things now that if the government mandated that everyone had to block our anal passage with a cork while out and about, we’d be compelled to conduct a range of scientific studies to demonstrate that it was probably a really bad idea.
How many decades has the medical profession being using masks and only now they discover this.