There is a political movement that is slowly dying before our very eyes. It lives under a variety of names, but the phrase I use for it is Nice Right Liberalism. This is, in essence, like a souped-up version of the polite, soft-Right, intensely-relaxed-about-everything form of wet Toryism embodied by David Cameron – slightly more sceptical of the state, slightly more ‘Brexity’, slightly more willing to be called nasty names by the Guardian, but still firmly committed to remaining on mainstream ground. Think Daniel Hannan; think Rishi Sunak; think James Cleverly; think in the end, Boris Johnson.
Nice Right Liberalism stands for many things, but above all it is insistent on the idea that, deep down inside every human heart, there is a polite, well-meaning, privately educated British schoolboy waiting to burst out. Liberalism always and everywhere relies on the construction of a rational, reasonable, deracinated individual capable of functioning autonomously in the absence of a history, culture, religion or background – and this is always and everywhere totally fake. (As Roger Scruton once said, the vision of humanity espoused by Marx – driven ineluctably by class interests and conflict – is in its own way preferable to the liberal one, because at least Marx provided a description of human nature that could be plausibly believed.) The Nice Right iteration of liberalism, though, is especially fake, because it espouses human interoperability and objective reason while being transparently rooted in a particular worldview and mindset: that of a well-to-do, well-brought up boy who grew up in a pleasant, prosperous, orderly place, where people are generally tolerant, hard-working, considerate of one another and community-minded, and where social conflict is more or less unknown.
Nice Right Liberalism is dying because the Nice Right Liberals are simply not equipped, precisely by dint of their backgrounds, to understand that human beings are always rooted in a place, a culture, a context, an upbringing, a class, and a circumstance – and that this informs how they see the world. We are all of us now I think familiar with David Goodhart’s description of modern societies as being torn between a division between ‘somewheres’ and ‘anywheres’, but the quibble that I have always had with this argument is that even the so-called anywheres have a ‘somewhere’ – they emerge from a very specific background and class that forms their views just as strongly as do the cultural roots of the ‘somewheres’ proper. And it is precisely this background and class origin that leads them to the hyper-liberal positions they adopt, informed by an idea that all other human beings can be just as nice as them if only they could be persuaded to abandon their foolish deplorability.
If ever there was an advert for the argument that people are distinctly products of their environment and ineluctably shaped by the culture and society in which they were raised, it is the journalist Fraser Nelson – former editor of the Spectator and now a columnist for the Times. Fraser Nelson is, evidently, a very nice, bright, thoughtful and well-meaning man – precisely the kind of man any father would wish to have for a son-in-law. And his very niceness arises from the fact that he is veritably permeated by his background as a well brought-up, posh boy from a pleasant, small, safe and homogeneous town (Nairn, in the Scottish Highlands), who went to a good fee-paying boarding school and was raised in a church. These are precisely the conditions within which the liberal mindset – that is, why can’t we all just be reasonable and tolerant and non-hierarchical, and respect each other’s autonomy? – emerges, because it is precisely the conditions within which those impulses work and in which they originated. And it is no surprise then that Nelson is a thoroughgoing liberal above all else.
Nelson gained a little bit of, probably unwanted, attention towards the end of last year when he wrote an almost wince-inducingly naïve and tone deaf column in the Telegraph (shortly before jumping ship to the Times) about the wonderful future of multiculturalism that awaits Britain in the coming decades – his main evidence for this premise being that fabulously wealthy Premier League footballers seem to have no problem integrating and that the King’s coronation was a ‘multifaith’ event. This column was widely shared around the internet and pilloried on various grounds, but the kicker was really Nelson’s insistence that since “Britishness” is only a “a set of values that anyone can adopt”, there is absolutely no reason to be concerned about net migration figures of, say, a million a year, nor any reason to be anxious about whether all these people can successfully integrate into British society.
Nelson recently appeared on the popular Triggernometry podcast, where he was questioned by Konstantin Kisin about this column. You can watch the discussion below and make up your own mind – I think Kisin takes Nelson to the cleaners, and only refrains from going for the jugular out of politeness to his guest, but you can make up your own mind about that. The way he takes him to the cleaners, however, and the ground on which he does so, is especially instructive.
Nelson reveals in the conversation that in his view, although he does not say it in quite so many words, any relationship between ethnicity, culture and nationality is essentially a myth. National allegiance is basically like a middle-class person’s idea of what supporting a football team is like – you just choose a team and support it. If you, as a Scottish couple, go and live in Japan, for example, and have children there and raise them, then, hey presto!, they’re Japanese. Whereas, if you had gone to live in Egypt and had them there instead, they’d presumably be Arabs. It’s as simple as that – and therefore it’s the same thing for the English: somebody is English simply by dint of having been born and raised in England.
Nelson bases this assertion on a characteristically liberal idea: there’s not really any such thing as ethnic identity because we are all essentially mongrels anyway; the English nation has been forged by waves of immigration over the centuries (the Anglo-Saxons, the Vikings, the Normans, etc.) so there is no meaningful sense in which you could say ‘Englishness’ has any sort of continuity; isn’t it terribly foolish and irrational to imagine that human beings should have to be tied to a tribe rather than being free to go and live where they wish?; and so on and so forth. The picture that he paints of British ethno-politics, if I can call it that, therefore, is one in which there is an overarching identity of ‘Britishness’ that defines certain ‘British values’ (tolerance, freedom, democracy, etc.), and then, underneath it, certain sub-identities (English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish) that are just thumbnail descriptions of where a person is from and which national sports teams they support.
The irony, of course, is completely lost on Nelson that it is precisely because he heralds from a very tolerant, liberal, relatively homogeneous background that he is able to say such things and hold such a worldview – thereby unwittingly proving precisely the opposite point to that he wishes to make: immigrants to any given society don’t necessarily subscribe to the ‘values’ of that society, nor raise their children to do so, and the result of that might be the undermining of precisely the ‘values’ which purportedly make the country what it is. If sufficient numbers of people who do not subscribe to ‘British values’ come to Britain, then is there a point at which ‘British values’ cease to be British? Nelson does not have a good answer to this and does not seem to have thought very hard about it (except in the sense that we should be more ‘robust’ about defending our values).
Kisin, though, emphasises precisely the right point in his questioning of Nelson, which is that, whatever Nice Right Liberals (Kisin obviously doesn’t use this phrase) might think, almost nobody anywhere in the world believes that the relationship between ethnicity, culture and nationality is a myth and that simply by being born and raised in a place a person automatically takes on the identity in question. Japanese people, for example, would in my experience (I know the country rather well) overwhelmingly reject the idea that just because a Scottish couple has a baby in Japan and raises it there the baby is Japanese. And that is true of everywhere a nation state, or anything like it, is thought to exist. If my wife and I were to go to live in, say, Norway and raise our children there, I don’t think it would be possible to say that my children are Norwegian – and I don’t think that the majority of Norwegians would say otherwise.
The reason why Kisin is right to emphasise this is that – hold on to your hats – the social constructionist vision of the world, i.e., that human social reality is created through shared, debated and negotiated understandings rather than emerging from empirical fact, is indisputably correct. That is to say, it does not matter whether ‘rationally’ it should be the case that if a child is born to Scottish parents in Japan and raised there then the child is Japanese. The point is that the Japanese understanding of Japaneseness says that the child in question is not Japanese. And for the purposes of determining who is, or isn’t, Japanese, we don’t care about empirical fact, precise measurements of DNA, the application of objective reason: we care about the only people whose opinions matter – that is, the Japanese themselves.
Ethnicity in other words is socially constructed. Nelson is obviously correct to point out that to speak of Englishness as an ethnicity has no real basis in genetics. (As a mongrel Scots-Irishman born in England I should know.) But we live in a world in which what is socially constructed (hard social constructivists would say this means every aspect of what we experience) is reality – we behave as thought there is a thing called ‘Englishness’, and it simply is not defined by just having been born and raised in England. It is something which is admittedly nebulous and fuzzy. But just because we can’t precisely define ‘Englishness’ does not mean that it does not exist – in the same way that, just because we can’t identify the precise millimetre at which we can say that somebody becomes ‘tall’, this doesn’t mean that we don’t know what being ‘tall’ is. Being ‘tall’ is socially constructed in that it is not a quality with an existence independent of social context – ‘tallness’ is not a law of nature – but that does not mean that it is not real.
Nelson, in other words, is living in a delusion in which an insistence on national identity beyond subscription to some vague set of values is a myth. It may be a myth, but since we live in myth and cannot escape from it, that is tantamount to saying that it is reality. And his delusion – this is the really important point – is itself rooted in a vision of the world which is socially constructed and fundamentally mythological: a world in which it is possible for people, through the power of objective reason, to simply subscribe to a set of values and thereby become ‘British’ – or in which said objective reason gets to determine who possesses, or does not possess, a particular nationality (for example, by determining that Englishness should just mean having been born and raised in England).
The problem with Nelson, and the other Nice Right Liberals across the piece, is in other words that they imagine that it is the deracinated individual who gets to determine social facts – when in fact it is the opposite way round: social facts determine the context within which an individual is situated. One can insist until one is blue in the face that English identity is all a lot of stuff and nonsense and that it has no objective reality. But that insistence is simply wrong, because English identity is a fact in the only sense in which it matters – it is a fact in the heads of the English. (And in the heads of the rest of the world too, for that matter.) And given that this is true, it is flatly false that one could simply add a million people from all over the world to the population of England each year and thereby produce more English people – it is just much, much more complicated than that.
The real tragedy of the Nice Right Liberals is that they are their own undoing – and that they are blind to the profoundly impotent, self-defeating nature of their own worldview. The fact of the matter is that liberalism itself in the pop-culture sense – what I earlier described as tolerance, respect for autonomy, rejection of hierarchy – emerges from a social and cultural context and milieu within which those values are rooted and can function.
It is not the case that any level of immigration whatsoever will threaten that; clearly, immigrants of any ethnicity can be integrated into a society, and are. But in the same way that if one were to add a million non-Japanese people to the population of Japan each year it would gradually change the values of that society, if we plan to continue adding hundreds of thousands of non-English people to the English population each year its values, the values from which liberalism itself sprang, will likewise change. In Fraser Nelson’s head this is a non-problem because there exists in the realm of ideas such as thing as ‘British values’ which transcend national boundaries and which anybody anywhere in the world can subscribe to. What I think is much more likely to be true is that ‘British values’ emerge from the cultural context of the sub-national entities beneath them, Englishness most of all, and that as Englishness deteriorates British values will deteriorate with it.
The New Right Liberals will in any case disappear long before this happens. In Milan Kundera’s Immortality there is a scene in which two men, who have hitherto imagined themselves to be friends, suddenly have a cataclysmic argument that reveals to each of them that their worldviews are completely incompatible. The first, Paul, presents a radio show at a radio station where the second, the Bear, is a programme director. Paul, a classic European liberal intellectual, is one day pontificating in the radio station’s cafeteria in a sophisticated way about the worthlessness of high culture, advocating instead an attitude of frivolity and an embracing of pop trash. And he has a carefully constructed argument supporting his position: European high culture, he exclaims, springs from the same origin as that which gave birth to all of the ills of the 20th century, and without it – with an embrace of mindless frivolity – tragedy can also itself be consigned to the dustbin of history. “High culture,” he ultimately declares,
is nothing but a child of that European perversion called history, the obsession we have with going forward, with considering the sequence of generations a relay race in which everyone surpasses his predecessor, only to be surpassed by his successor. Without this relay race called history there would be no European art and what characterises it: a longing for originality, a longing for change. Robespierre, Napoleon, Beethoven, Stalin, Picasso, they’re all runners in the relay race, they all belong in the same stadium.
And with the abandonment of high culture and the end of European intellectualism there will also be an end to all that is violent and conflictual: “Frivolity is a radical diet for weight reduction. Things will lose ninety percent of their meaning and will become light. In such a weightless environment fanaticism will disappear. War will become impossible.”
But the Bear has Paul’s number. He knows that his radio show will soon be cancelled. And he also knows that Paul’s own ability to indulge in intellectual flights of fancy rests precisely on the high culture which he so breezily and sarcastically dismisses. Having listened to this diatribe for long enough, he cuts Paul short. If high culture is coming to an end, the Bear says, it is only because of the failings of intellectuals themselves to defend their own heritage. He continues:
You remind me of the young men who supported the Nazis or communists not out of cowardice or out of opportunism but out of an excess of intelligence. For nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of nonthought. I experienced it with my own eyes and ears after the war, when intellectuals and artists rushed like a herd of cattle into the Communist Party, which soon proceeded to liquidate them systematically and with great pleasure. You are doing the same.
He ends with a flourish, telling Paul, “You are the brilliant ally of your own gravediggers.” An argument against high culture that is rooted in high culture does nothing but destroy itself and the position of the person making the argument – it ends nowhere but ruin.
Exactly the same thing is true of the New Right Liberals. An argument against the importance of national identity that itself emerges from a worldview, liberalism, that is embedded deeply within a national context and history does nothing but destroy itself, and ends nowhere but ruin.
But we can all I think recognise that, implicitly or explicitly, which is why the New Right Liberals are collapsing into complete irrelevance. We can all recognise that, as Kundera puts it in reference to Paul and the Bear, it is a “fairy tale” to imagine that “two men who deeply disagree with each other can still like each other”. As he goes on:
Perhaps they would like each other if they kept their opinions to themselves or if they only discussed them in a joking way and thus played down their significance… But once a quarrel breaks out, it’s too late.
That is the position in which the Right of politics in Britain now finds itself. The Nice Right Liberals and the actual conservatives were once able to like each other because they were able precisely to play down their differences. Now things have gotten serious and those differences are being revealed to be stark. We have entered, to come back to an earlier post, an era of regime politics – and regime politics is characterised by seriousness and struggle. In our current moment we seem to be learning that it is the actual conservatives who have the initiative and the impetus to win the emerging quarrel on the Right of politics. And the New Right Liberals therefore seem fated to vanish from the scene.
Dr David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – here.
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.
There was an interesting link on the previous thread about delays in death reporting leading to a statistical artefact that makes the vaccines look like they work even if they are placebos
In summary – if you compare deaths today against vaccinated population today you are underestimating the mortality rate of the vaccinated cohort. It should be deaths today divided by the number in the vaccinated cohort 2-4 weeks ago when they contracted it. With an increasing vaccinated cohort you will always overestimate vaccine efficacy.
The attached shows the apparent mortality rate of a placebo vaccine where deaths today are divided by the size of the vaccine cohort today but the deaths are delayed by 4 weeks from contracting covid.
weeks since vaccine rollout along bottom
https://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/11/is-vaccine-efficacy-statistical-illusion.html
This link was in the previous article as well and is well worth repeatingFrom July 2020 Coronavirus lockdown could cause ‘200,000 extra deaths’
https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/20/coronavirus-lockdown-cause-200000-extra-deaths-13014848/
Saving the NHS sure does seem to massacre a lot of people.
it was a fascinating article that assumed
1 – a vaccine rollout that was a placebo
2 – deaths from all causes being constant across both groups
3 – a 1 week delay in death reporting
4 – calculating mortality in vacced and unvacced groups by dividing all cause deaths today by size of cohort today
I repeated the analysis but assumed there was a virus going round , it infects equally among vaccinated and unvaccinated cohort and leads to death 4 weeks later. Apparent mortality from the virus is deaths today/size of cohort today (but it should be size of cohort a month ago)
And finally….
After 18 months of blaming covid, finally the bbc does an article with context. The nhs was never overrun as per the data, its always been about its efficiency, effectiveness and economy.
Staffing and social care (bed blockers) being the real issues. I should know, I worked in the system. Covid was and is just a side show.
However, still the bbc don’t get it. Its not about increased spending, its about performance / outcomes.
Privatise (at least in part) the nhs and save us all!
NHS grinding to halt and why it’s getting worse – BBC News
De-extorting NHS funding is key!
I knew that would be by Nick Triggle before I even clicked. He’s one of the last remaining voices of reason and evidence in that accursed institution.
That throwing more and more money at the NHS never works is without question. That it should be the eternal solution is insane.
It’s the structure. No bureaucracy of 1.4 million people can ever be remotely functional. As a senior nurse at the RHU in Bath told me a while back, when I asked her about the cult of management in the NHS – “Management? Dickheads with clipboards who stop us working”
Amen to that. Not to mention that the NHS has now been turned into a holy cult, and medics a priestly caste. **** that
Isn’t it funny (in a not-funny way) that these supposedly independent news outlets run almost exactly the same stories as one another? I saw a very similar article to the one you link to above on the guardian.
Most ridiculous is the ‘Independent’ newspaper. Who are they trying to kid? They bend over backwards to push government policy.
I get the impression the NHS has already been flogged off – seems like all their work is now ‘outsourced’ and done by for-profit private companies.
I’m seeing people posting on SM (one iSage member in particular) claiming it’s all caused by government mismanagement of the pandemic.
Dare I say it was people like them who were screaming that all resources be used up trying to eradicate a virus (billions of pounds spent) and are now trying to say the NHS has been underfunded.
Perhaps a more balanced approach on distributing resources may have led to a better outcome?
It was policy – consistent with planned population cull.
‘Voluntary’ sector bought by World’s government some time ago; they’re in ‘lock-step’. Hence zero out-cry against policy when instituted end March/early April 20.
Out-cry now to maintain fear of death to get more ‘funding’ and increase tax
NHS staff are being told that they no longer need to self-declare whether they’ve had the jab or not… because their medical details will be shared by the central medical database.
Around a year ago, we were told we can object to this from happening and we just needed to complete a form and send it to our local GP and ‘opt-out’ online of our details being passed around. I wonder where those in the NHS who ‘opted-out’ stand?
And everyone else who ‘opted-out’
Yes absolutely. This is undoubtedly the introduction to the vaxport for all of us, whether we’re in England, Scotland or Wales.
The State has presumably opted not to honour our mere expressions of opinion.
Just Google ‘my medical files’ and Google will share them with you.
I think in the PHE vaccine surveillance reports there was a column for individuals whose NHS numbers were unavailable to link to NIMS. My initial interpretation of that is that this might be or include those who have opted out of having their data used.
I wonder to what extent the following would also be true:
“Record Number of People Waiting for Vital Heart Scans Due to COVID vaccine injury”
I know no one who has died or been made seriously ill due to COVID, but I know two young, fit men who have had heart “anomalies” requiring hospital treatment following vaccination.
Similar experience, nobody I know has had or even suspected they had symptomatic Covid, but… one dead, two strokes, two MIs all post vaccine, one clotting issues. And, of course, all (Despite Bradford-Hill criteria) nothing to do with the vaccines.
Before winter 2020, the last time I lost a friend/family member was my grandmother over 20 years ago. Since winter 2020, I’ve lost 6 close family friends. Two suicides, one a stroke, two from heart-attacks and I know for certain one died less than 2 weeks after getting the jab.
Still no one I know has died because of covid.
they seem very keen on everyone who is vaccinated getting boosters
but less keen on giving the first doses to the unvaccinated – they haven’t contacted me for 8 months after an initial flurry of phone calls and texts
I had a blue envelope through the door last week, which I put, unopened, on top of the unopened one from the springtime.
Perhaps because I have never made any contact with the Regime for the past two years they have me down as a “contact details unknown” person.
If it’s addressed to “The Occupant”, just returned, noting “Not known here…” TVLA get one of those from us regularly…
The paper quality isn’t too bad, so anything which smacks of “NHS” goes straight into the shredder. There, it is admixed with shredded cardboard boxes, which form the “brown” compost element, and thence into the compost bins.
The most recent blue missive was about the flu jab; at least mine was. I had a blue envelope last year, around March-April about the jab, and nothing at all since, no letter, no email, no text, no phone call. They did – apparently – have door-knockers in our ward of low jab uptake, but no-one knocked at mine, more’s the pity.
Same here. Each step seems to be producing diminishing returns for them.
They must be disappointed in the vaccines.
Doesn’t stop you getting it or passing it on. Wanes over several months.
If you do the calculations of benefit vs health you might come up with some policy to vaccinate people. That calculation looks very different if you have to vaccinate them every 6 months for life.
I’ll stick with my natural immunity until someone can make a strong case otherwise (which I can’t foresee).
But you can’t stick to “natural immunity” if you want to keep a job or eat at a restaurant or go to a play or a sporting event, or attend college, etc.
The world-wide trend is now obvious: “Freedom” only for those who are fully vaccinated and fully vaccinated now means getting a booster jab every six months.
I think they have looked at the real figures that show that around 5-6 months after vaccination the negative effect kicks in and as many people are coming up to that point we could see a large number of double vaccinated infections unless they go for the boosters.
my prediction is that the boosters will wane even quicker. why would an immune system wait until its 3rd 4th or 5th exposure to have a long lasting response?
Virus (vaccine) Interference and Original Antigenic Sin are real, but vaccine manufacturers are ignoring the dangerous effects.
I made it clear to my GP way back, with supporting medical papers, that I would not have the jab. Get NHS texts occasionally, but none from my local practice.
It’s NHS England which are the problem – they absolutely refuse to allow any opt-out from their letters and texts.
It’s clear from the language used in press-conferences and govt statements that they have already, tacitly at least, relegated the unjabbed to being “non-persons”. Together with Johnson’s carefully worded statement relating to “booster” making life easier, it implicitly demonstrates that they will introduce a system of jab-related permissions to travel, work, socialise. They want to concentrate their efforts to ensure that those who have been double-jabbed will keep up with the programme. Otherwise they lose an awful number of taxpayers.
“There were no incidents in Slovenia on the first day of tighter epidemiological restrictions, with some dissatisfaction among unvaccinated citizens, mostly drivers who were unable to refuel their cars without a COVID-19 certificate.”
https://hr.n1info.com/english/news/slovenia-drivers-must-present-covid-certificate-in-order-to-refuel-cars/
I’ve not heard from them for a while either – long may it continue. If I receive any more blue envelopes I shall probably cross through the address, write ‘Unsolicited junkmail – return to sender’ on it and stick it back in the post!
The experimental gene therapy ‘vaccines’ bring on heart problems and the need for heart scans.
Protect and save the NHS – don’t get jabbed
Our friends, who most of the time live in Spain but maintain an apartment here in the U.K. (and pay taxes here) , have come over for medical treatment. He has had his cancer scan postponed this morning while they were in the taxi on the way to the hospital. He is due a heart scan next week also.
They flew over last week and today also received a call from T and T to say they had been a contact of someone with a positive “test” on 8th November (on the flight over?) so now have to isolate for 2 days. They have both been triple jabbed but their Pfizer vaccines are not acceptable in the U.K. as they were administered in Spain. Naturally they are bemused that they have been able to go about their normal lives for 8 days up until today.
As my friend says, they have done everything by the book and are being punished for it. They should have tried the rubber dinghy method!
Then they should tell Test and Trace of all the people they have been in contact with during the past 8 days, including everyone at the Police station, everyone at the local council offices, Mark Drakeford, Nicola Sturgeon, and, of course, the 16 Tesco stores they visited.
These and other issues (vaccine deaths including from initially sub-clinical damage) are showing in the all cause death data
Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional out today
In the week ending 5 November 2021 (Week 44), 11,550 deaths were registered in England and Wales; this was 563 more deaths than the previous week (Week 43) and 16.8% above the five-year average (1,659 more deaths).
It looks bad in all adult age groups. Here is the chart for the 65-74 age group. A zoomed in version of the Florence Nightingale chart appears in the reply. Appears to be worsening in the older age groups again. Boosters?
And here’s the zoomed in chart (it’s per million in age group at mid-year)
By the way thanks for the suggestions on improving the charts. Some of the good ideas I haven’t incorporated yet because they aren’t straightforward to do.
still better than 2008 though (as was 2020)
The weekly age banded data only goes back to 2010. But the monthly age standardised mortality (ASM) goes back to 2001.
You can just about see from that (see attached for England) that in terms of ASM, which typically reflects mortality in the older groups, because death numbers are massively higher in those age groups, has been on an improving trend since 2001 until 2019.
So what I can only put down to lack of access to healthcare and vaccine adverse reactions (numbers say its not deaths from covid) has pushed us back to about 2008-2010 mortality levels it seems if we judge by current mortality levels.
One way to look at it is all the harm from the damaging pandemic responses and dangerous experimental vaccines only pushes us back to 2008 mortality. Another way to look at it is as significant unnecessary death caused by the pandemic response and potentially the vaccines. It may be unreasonable to expect the mortality improvements to have continued, but it’s another thing for mortality to regress to 2008-2010 levels. So I favour the latter viewpoint of unnecessary death albeit we need to put it in context.
What are your thoughts? How do you view it?
this is an important table
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsintheukfrom1990to2020
improvements year on year, a slight tick up in 2020 back to 2008 levels – probably dry tinder
not really spanish flu
all cause mortality a little above 5 years average but that could be due to lockdown and missed appointments, stress etc
I still think 95% of covid deaths were old age and that if we count them as covid then 200,000 people die of colds every year
You seem to be talking mainly about the effect of covid (as in the disease not the positive test) and what happened in say Spring 2020. And arguing that the effect of genuine covid was minimal because of the dry tinder affect and it affecting those at end of life already. All reasonable, and I wouldn’t disagree.
But I’m talking about a completely different thing which is the higher mortality now (November 2021) when there is essentially no covid about (the disease not the positive test). Should we not be pointing out and trying to ascertain the cause of the current higher mortality? (even if it is only pushing us back to 2008).
there is higher mortality now compared to the last 5 years, a period of exceptionally low mortality. we have a panicked population, vaccines, boosters, old people having things shoved up their nose by people in hazmat suits, a failed NHS that only cares about something that is benign, missed cancer diagnosis, lockdown induced suicide, depression, obesity and alcoholism etc. very hard to disentangle
if we had never had any covid but told people there was and locked down and everything else – I would expect a higher death rate now – that it is higher than the last 5 years but low by historic standards is a blessing
I vote for this statement: “Another way to look at it is as significant unnecessary death caused by the pandemic response and potentially the vaccines.”
Bottom line: The pandemic response made “public health” worse and the vaccines may have done the same (especially in the under 65 cohorts).
This backlog helps conceal vaccine adverse effects. This has all been planned deliberately.
Was the young man’s heart inflammation a result of the vaccine? No no no says the Good Doctor, it was because he had to wait six weeks for a scan, so sorry.
It’s clear it’s a cover up for the effects of the vaxxine unfortunately most people are in denial.
Next year they’ll probably stop reporting/somehow alter all cause mortality data to hide the obvious.
as the disease is endemic the whole ‘with’ or ‘from’ argument becomes more important
I might die within 28 days of having athlete’s foot but certainly not from it
or Strep A. It does kill quite a few (with immune damage), but if you tested you’d have another casedemic
in my age band about 89% of people who die ‘with’ covid are double vaccinated
85% in that age group are double vaccinated
it just doesn’t look like an amazing vaccine to me
certainly after recovering from a mild dose, why would I sign up to a boosters for life programme?
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1032859/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_45.pdf
Why? To maintain your social credit score.
Will soon be the honest answer.
Home heating, transport and mobility, healthcare: the future is looking a lot like the past, isn’t it?
does anyone have a link to a good explanation of the maths behind
Test Negative Case Control?
Off topic
You may have heard by now that the NSW government opted to extend its SOE powers until March of 2023. You may also have heard that the NSW government did a hard 180 on the extension of the SOE powers. As far as I can tell, both of these things are real.
This, from Reignite Democracy Australia, might explain the first thing.
About 57,000 people in NSW did not come back for a second COVID-19 vaccine, prompting health authorities to stress it is not too late to complete the course…
More than 40,600 people in the state received their first Pfizer vaccine more than six weeks ago but have not had a second, according to the Australian Immunisation Register. An additional 16,100 are past 12 weeks since their first AstraZeneca shot. About 500 people have waited longer than six weeks without getting a second Moderna vaccine.
A new demographic is emerging: the booster resistant.
maybe they have realised there is a difference between vaccine, booster and life-long 6-monthly injections
“Sarah Woolnough, the Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation, said the growing number of undiagnosed patients was a “ticking timebomb” for the NHS.”
Not to mention all those young people with Myocarditis or Pericarditis from the jabs…
As one who has ARVC, a serious heart condition, I must say I’ve seen none of this.
Care has been superb from both the Oxford Radcliffe and Northampton General, as well as my brilliant GP.
Well, you know what they say, it’s the exceptions …..
just another tory scam :
So the NHS has had an above-inflation rise in spending every year since 1949?
“Sarah Woolnough, the Chief Executive of the British Lung Foundation, said the growing number of undiagnosed patients was a “ticking timebomb” for the NHS.”
Not that great for the patients either!!
Covid Vaccines are Epic Failure: Does not protect, kills more
https://hannenabintuherland.com/?mailpoet_router&endpoint=track&action=click&data=WzEzODI2LCI2ZDQ5NjcxYTRlMGE2Y2U3MjNhNjlhNGE2YmQ2NWE0NSIsIjIwOSIsImNlZmM4NzMwNzFjMSIsZmFsc2Vd
Ouch!
This is why :
Not sure if this has been posted before. If so, apologies for the duplication.
Natural Immunity beats “vaccine” by 27 timesIsraeli study: Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections.
https://drtrozzi.org/2021/11/16/natural-immunity-beats-vaccine-by-27-times/
Incidentally, if the “mass sacking of NHS staff who refuse to be vaccinated” does happen, has anyone whispered in Saint Boris’s ear “er… Mr Johnson… sir… has it not occurred to you that if we lay them all off at once, we will then be deafened by whistleblowing?” Those who are digging their heels in have time to find alternative careers, and lawyers to protect them.
I suppose it’s too much to hope for that Saint Boris and his merry men are merely bluffing, playing for time, and they are hoping that by then, the plandemic (which they might or might not have created) will have gone away enough for them to say “actually… we don’t need them all jabbed after all”.
Joe Rogan said his doctor, Pierre Kory, is part of a group that has used Ivermectin to quietly treat 200 Members of U.S. Congress for COVID19. Dr Simone Gold, from America’s Frontline Doctors, told that she has prescribed treatments for Congress. She still believes in her oath, but she is vocal saying she has been contacted by many in DC. Can you believe these demons? Healing for them are OK but not for us. Get your Ivermectin while you still can! https://ivmpharmacy.com