Douglas Murray has written an interesting piece for the Times today about what he refers to as “Britain’s new elite”. Who are they? He starts by considering a recent spat between Andrew Neil and Charles Moore in which each accused the other of being part of the “the Establishment”, while, as Douglas says, neither really is – not really. Here is the key passage in which Douglas identifies the people he thinks comprise the current Establishment.
So who is in charge today? What might the elite be right now? Charles Moore addressed himself to this question in his response to Andrew Neil. The new establishment, he suggested, is largely “a public sector affair”. As he said, they run almost everything that comes from the largesse of the state. They are in control of the universities, museums and oversight bodies. They are in charge of the BBC, quangos and all the major charities that receive money from government while also lobbying government.
The fact that this establishment exists can be discerned not least from the private language they have come to employ. These are the people who speak the present-day equivalents of Nancy Mitford’s U or non-U. The “U” of the past used to be about saying “loo” rather than “lavatory” or “sofa” over “couch”. In the present era the elite language signals come from the people who talk about “diversity”, “inclusion” and “sustainability”. They are the people who hold lockstep views on Brexit, LGBT issues and gender fluidity.
If you doubt this then consider for a moment if you can think of anyone who heads — or even sits on — any major public body who holds any of the “unacceptable” views on the questions of our day. Is there anyone in charge of our major institutions who believes that the UK must have a restrictionist immigration system and that the government should enforce the laws of the land when it comes to such matters? Has any one of these people ever spoken out in support of such policies?
What about the grinding intersection that clearly exists at the meeting place of trans rights and some women’s rights? Would any of the women who have spoken out about these matters, from Kathleen Stock to JK Rowling or Julie Bindel, ever be offered the chancellorship of a university in this country, the head of a government body or the chairmanship of a museum? These might sound like rarefied institutions and hardly the sorts of places where the moving and the shaking in the land occurs. And yet that would be wrong. The cultural weather of the country is precisely controlled by the people who control this country’s institutions. And while they are not of any one political party, the people in charge of nearly all such bodies in Britain today are people who have signed up to the exact same set of approved orthodoxies. To step outside these orthodoxies would be to commit a type of heresy.
For all elites have their rules and standards. And the rules and standards of the current establishment are to hold exactly the views that you are meant to hold on issue after issue. Run for a post at such an institution while saying the government’s net zero ambitions are fantasy or that governments across the West need to turn to coal, nuclear or fracking as energy solutions and you will find the coolest reception imaginable. And no job offer at the end of it.
That is the point that Moore made after his bruising doing-over at the hands of Neil. Neil believes Moore is part of the establishment, while Moore clearly believes Neil is. And while both of them are part of something, nobody could say it is the absolutely dominant elite of our time. For while both are masters of robust journalism, neither has the god-like right to cast people out of what passes for society in 21st-century Britain. Moore or Neil might duff an interviewee up and leave them wounded. But they cannot unperson someone. They cannot denounce them as a heretic and ensure that the life work of the opponent is reduced to a radioactive husk.
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.
Well ok, but if the variant spread out from New York then that would mean that travel restrictions would help slow the spread of the virus. But we know that such restrictions did nothing.
I have no idea how to explain what we are seeing here, or appear to be seeing here, except to suggest that the data is hopelessly incomplete and even misleading.
There’s far more to viral outbreak, spread and virulence than is dreamt of in your philosophy Horatio.
The problem with any analysis is it must rely on data produced by Governments or their agents which is wholly untrustworthy due to its deliberate corruption and manipulation and sheer incompetence.
There can be no meaningful analysis beyond we were deliberately misled and panicked by evil people for political, ideological and monetary motives.
I think that’s it. Gathering such data comprehensively, or at least sufficiently, to conduct useful analysis and draw useful conclusions would be extremely difficult with the best will in the world. But when governments, health agencies, and the like have deliberately corrupted and obfuscated the data then the task of analysis becomes almost hopeless.
My hunch is that Will is drawing ostensibly sensible conclusions from data which is probably hopeless, and hence not much relevance can be placed on those conclusions.
Happy to be shown to be wrong, but my feeling is that these conclusions can be regarded as only loose conjecture right now.
Australia and NZ had a more severe than normal winter (June to August) ‘flu season in 2019.
Was this not in fact Covid?
https://theconversation.com/its-a-bad-year-for-flu-but-its-too-early-to-call-it-the-worst-ever-5-charts-on-the-2019-season-so-far-120093
All-cause mortality, please! We need to stop referring to so-called ‘covid deaths’ as if there has been some definitive and reliable measure of this. And remember that some locations may test more than others.
Well sure. Given how the lurgy was “detected” with tests that amplified a genetic sequence far beyond what the inventor K Mullis intended (CTs of well above 30+, let alone its ability to differentiate live viral fragments from dead ones), how many afflicted were essentially at their end of life anyway (not including the Liverpool Care Pathway that was potentially used to accelerate those, and perhaps much younger others at that), the fact the average age-of-death due to the lurgy appears to be HIGHER than our average life-expectancy (something clearly doesn’t add up there if the lurgy increased our life-expectancy on the whole) and.. an mRNA “solution” that has arguably been the most dangerous intervention ever administered on the public (with no definitive evidence of its efficacy or safety other than the Yellow Card data which no one seems even the slightest bit concerned over, anecdotal hogwash of how awesome the potion is outside of the pharmaceutical’s own questionable declarations (PHE / HSA’s data clearly showed for months on end after its launch the recipients of the gene-therapy solution were testing positive up to three times as much as those ‘un-solutioned’, prolonging the pandemic by infecting others at a rate above R1).
All combined shows “the data” is useless – more than useless since it’s guided policies that themselves have caused untold disaster (some still to be realised in many years to come). Leaving us with only one metric that could be beneficial as you point out – all-cause mortality to give us an indication of how a complete and utter shitshow this really was / is.
Interesting that the data source used by Will shows the NY curve completely out of synchronisation with the five other locations depicted, which appeared to progress in lock step. And this graph also emphasises how different were NY’s results.
Of course, one reason for New York to be so different from the rest of the country is that the NY authorities simply made up the results, but surely nobody would do that, would they?
Could there have been a second leak in Wuhan, of a different variant?
Maybe the 1st release wasn’t doing the job, maybe the 2nd release was accompanied with a dodgy PCR test knocked up in a couple of weeks to big up the numbers. Maybe Omicron was released to cover up the shoddy vax and to show how effective they are at preventing death.
Remdesivir, Midazolam ventilators all helped with the numbers and the authorities deliberately muddying the statistics. Who actually knows?
In the UK we saw only saw deaths start to spike in the ‘care’ homes once they shut down the hospitals and started giving out Midazolam. That would be my investigative starting point.
There’s no mystery. It simply wasn’t killing enough people for anyone to notice.
Nor producing symptoms not shared by umpteen disease causing respiratory viruses that are routine part of life.
Another outstanding effort by Will Jones, for which many thanks.
Of course the main thing that New York, Wuhan and Lombardy all have in common is very poor air quality.
The other thing in common everywhere is very poor data regarding cause of death and covid/influenza diagnosis, distinction.
Nevertheless:
‘….the present study demonstrates that higher rates of spread of COVID-19 in Metropolitan Lima (Peru) are associated with previous long-term PM2.5 exposure. Men and older people were at higher risk of death due to COVID-19. Reduction in air pollution from a long-term perspective and social distancing are needed to prevent the spread of virus outbreaks.’
‘Association between air pollution in Lima and the high incidence of COVID-19: findings from a post hoc analysis’ 16 June 21 BMC Public Health
The key appears to be previous long term exposure to pollution with, no doubt, consequent previous respiratory infections.
The obvious solution would seem to be bicycles but these seem to engender frequent psychotic episodes in their users.
Since March 2020 I’ve suspected that air quality plays a major role in covid mortality. Back then I use to joke that it wouldn’t bother us down here in Devon and Cornwall, as the virus didn’t like the sea air. Except that I wasn’t really joking.
Completely agree. The reason that so many of us on here have been so incandescent for so long is that all of this is so obvious.
Up north, it hasn’t bothered us much either, except in the cities!
This is not complicated, has been going on since the ‘smogs’ in major cities in this country.
The common cold, coronavirus or other, is a major killer of the elderly and infirm, even more so than influenza, well documented.
Only the World Health Organisation and its acolytes, for reasons doubtless not unconnected with venality, could have instrumented this monstrous debacle.
Just as we can no longer be beholden to the global energy market, we must sever all links with this plethora of undemocratic supranational entities, WHO, OECD, ECHR, World Bank etc. who very much do not have our best interests (but their own) at heart.
My first thought after reading this was: orchestrated biological attack.
It is becoming pretty clear that Covid 19 started Oct 2019 or earlier but the panic only started when it reached high density centres of population with poor air quality, populations, many of whom had already had or still had respiratory infections which made them particularly susceptible to a novel common cold coronavirus, Covid 19.
The situation was further confused by simultaneous outbreaks of influenza and covid 19
‘The spread of COVID-19 in Wuhan and Seattle was far more extensive than initially reported. The virus likely spread for months in Wuhan before the lockdown.’
Using the COVID-19 to influenza ratio to estimate early pandemic spread in Wuhan, China and Seattle, US. The Lancet, 12 Aug 20
‘So the 20,000 cases in China is probably only the severe cases; the folks that actually went to the hospital and got tested. The Chinese healthcare system is very overwhelmed with all the tests going through. So my thinking is this is actually not as severe a disease as is being suggested.’ ‘There’s a vast underreporting of cases in China.’
Prof John Nichols Univ. of Hong Kong 06 Feb 20
Lima, also Iquitos, Peru are other examples of how poor air quality, a cause of respiratory infections for some years, created a population of the elderly and infirm particularly susceptible to Covid 19.
Interestingly I had to retire to my bed for several days in November 2019 with the then classic symptoms of Covid-19, especially the protracted dry cough. I was completely washed out. It could of course have been flu (though I had been jabbed a couple of months earlier) but it was unlike any previous bout of flu I can remember. I didn’t trouble my GP and fully recovered after a couple of weeks
I have come across a few other people with the same story…. curious.
It’s no mystery. Why did it spread undetected? Because nobody was looking. Had we not been told there was a ‘novel’ virus causing what we normally call Cold or ‘Flu, with all the unnecessary ensuing panic, we still wouldn’t know about CoVid 19.
How much do we currently know about the spread of rhinovirus and adenovirus? There is no daily escalating count of positive PCR tests for these, but they surely are spreading as they have been doing for some time.
Completely agree and these can, of course, be every bit as lethal amongst the elderly and infirm as the novel common cold coronavirus, covid 19, as this paper, well before Covid, explained:
‘Unexpectedly Higher Morbidity and Mortality of Hospitalized Elderly Patients Associated with Rhinovirus Compared with Influenza Virus Respiratory Tract Infection’ Apr 2017
The Prime Minister and Health Secretary both deserved to lose their jobs many times over for multiple grave derelictions of duty. Beyond time for the Gumby Brothers Whitty and Vallance to lose theirs.
Beyond time for the Gumby Brothers Whitty and Vallance TO FACE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.
It might be critical to look at treatment of Covid patients in hospitals and care homes, including use of sedatives and ventilators, if only to rule this out as a factor explaining the Spring 2020 surge in excess deaths.
Though the ONS buried historical mortality statistics in a dusty corner of their website (instead only ever choosing to publicly present five years’ of data), they were obtained via FOI, and are still available.
They show that absolute mortality in 2020 was no higher than ~2003. Age adjusted, the date moves forward several years. What made 2020 seem so unusual was that all cause mortality had decreased substantially from the early 2000’s onwards.
You can speculate as to why. Most likely a generation moving into old age who were more switched on to their health – reduction in smoking; better diets; better healthcare; better diagnosis with the aid of smarter technology, particularly of cancer and heart problems.
Health isn’t binary between good and bad though – there’s a continuum, and it’s likely these improvements left a large number of people who would have died of other causes in previous times, more vulnerable to death from viral infection.
It would have also left a section of the population less likely to survive aggressive and inappropriate medical intervention. The damage caused by this intervention could be hidden during an outbreak of a fairly nasty flu-like respiratory illness. Some have suggested governments used the pandemic to implement mass state-mandated euthanasia. This is a shame as it poisons the well, making it easy to dismiss legitimate worries surrounding this as conspiracy theorising. There’s no way such a programme could remain hidden.
There is however the possibility – and one that the healthcare sector might be understandably reluctant to acknowledge – that the surge of excess deaths was caused (or exacerbated) by a combination of panic and institutional errors resulting from the sort of groupthink that thrives in a crisis. That in a healthcare system riven with fear of being overwhelmed, of infection of its staff, and of fear of catastrophe enhanced by government and media hype, many already vulnerable Covid patients with pneumonia were pushed over the edge by interventions rather than the virus itself. That without these interventions, the excess death figures might resemble those of a flu outbreak. There’s also the possibility that this skewing of the data makes it harder to determine the true cause of later excess mortality.
Doctors, nurses and paramedics were inculcated with the idea that Covid infection in the vulnerable was a downhill path to a painful and protracted death; that due to irreparable damage to lung tissue, there was little chance of recovery beyond use of ventilators, failing which powerful sedatives should be used to ease anxiety and discomfort prior to death. It’s established that invasive ventilation causes lung damage. Ventilator associated pneumonia was also later shown to be higher in Covid patients than in non-Covid patients. Its also established that sedatives like Midazolam and Morphine cause respiratory suppression and distress, which for an elderly patient with pneumonia is likely fatal. These factors would have fed into the Covid mortality data, circularly heightening the perceived mortality risk of the virus and further justifying use of these interventions.
Regarding sedatives, it’s also known that the previously banned Liverpool Care Pathway was resurrected at this time. The Covid ‘end of life’ guidelines published by Public Health Scotland and the Birmingham NHS trust (which I found after a couple of minutes googling) recommend administering sedatives in Covid patients to ease anxiety and distress, in doses that according to CDC guidelines for their use act as anaesthetic, and in elderly people would often lead to death. Moreover with no clinical basis required for their administration in settings like nursing homes or adequate monitoring that the guidelines insist upon.
It’s not hard to see how such a policy could be disastrous. While a compassionate medic might understandably want to ease the suffering of a patient near death, and even hasten their passing, how, in the absence of clinical evidence, could they know that death is inevitable? Especially when the effects of the drugs they’re administering are indistinguishable from acute respiratory distress syndrome? Anxiety is a subjective measure – any Covid patient admitted to hospital was likely to be in a state of extreme anxiety and have breathing difficulty from at least mild pneumonia.
There’s a possibility that medical interventions might have acted at least as a multiplier for patients with Covid symptoms in excess death data, which could help explain the unusual bumps and age discrepancies. This needs serious investigation, but I’m not holding my breath..
The ‘surge’ in mortality spring 2020 was a simple product of hospital clearances.
The Amnesty International report “As If Expendable’ gives chapter and verse.
The rest of the year, age adjusted, was pretty much plumb normal and not much out of the ordinary since then.
This view chimes with what I’ve said. As far as I know, the NHS end of life guidelines would have applied to treatment in care homes as well as hospitals. In the former there would have been even less (if any) examination of clinical evidence justifying administration of sedatives and less medical expertise. Proper analysis of their administration in these settings would help clear it up, but the whole thing seems to have been swept under the rug.
Insightful post, methinks.
Government-reported COVID death numbers are completely useless as there’s no single definition of COVID death and the usual definitions are only insofar related to COVID as they’re based on a positive PCR test result some time before death.
Worth recapitulating here: According to lots of anecdotical evidence, the so-called Spanish flu was the most horrible killer disease since the black death. The German official history of WWI by the Reichsarchiv (Der Weltkrieg von 1914-1918) mentions hundredthousands of sick German soldiers (all malnourished and living in poor and very cramped accomodations, out of somewhat less than 5.5 million soldiers in the German field army) who will typically again be fit for service after 4 – 5 days and will have completely recovered within a few weeks. Which means this horrible pandemic was pretty much not more than a severe outburst of pandemic hysteria in the USA.
Even the most ardent COVID zealots freely admit that COVID is much less deadly than the Spanish flu. Considering the information from the source mentioned above, this means that COVID was, relative to a non-event, an even ‘noner’ event. Someone should really classify the WHO and everything associated with it as instrument of senseless mass devastation rivalling to the most deadly weapons invented by mankind so far.
I expect this has already been cited, but aren’t the axis labels reversed on the chart?
That’s what I thought?
A Chinese scientist charged with investigating the outbreak defected to the US and went on GB News where she claimed the release of the virus was deliberate. If that was the case, it might have been released in several locations before it took hold, possibly with different variants, while also escaping from the Wuhan lab. Omicron’s mysterious appearance in South Africa is a good example. And no, I’m not being a conspiracy theorist: just speculating. As for me, I had it at Christmas 2019 and was wiped out for weeks by it. Very unpleasant. It was all over my home town.
“Consider: there was a relatively deadly outbreak in Wuhan in December 2019”
Was there? I don’t believe a single word of it.
Are your axes mislabelled?