Positive Covid tests as reported by Public Health England declined again yesterday to 29,622 after two days of going up a bit. ONS data, also out yesterday, confirmed that infections have peaked and declined in the past 10 days among people over 16 – though, unexpectedly, also showed a surge among the under-16s that appears not to have been picked up by PHE. Is this because parents have stopped testing their children and reporting it to PHE now school is out and holidays are approaching? Some have suggested the ONS is picking up ‘cold positives’ from old infections. Either way, all eyes are on the data to see what will happen next.
But should they be? After all, what now are we waiting for? All the vulnerable and more are vaccinated, and the vaccines appear to give a decent enough protection from serious disease and death. Or even if they don’t, there’s nothing more that can be done, so we might as well go back to normal anyway and the virus will do whatever it does, and the vaccines will do whatever they do.
With all our delaying of lifting restrictions – planning to take an indefensible four months over it and in the event taking five, and then doing it half-heartedly, leaving strongly-worded guidance in place – it’s hard to believe that Florida ended all statewide restrictions in autumn 2020 and Texas and some other states did so in spring 2021. They saw no new surge after the winter – not until Delta arrived in the last few weeks, suggesting that it’s not lifting restrictions that causes surges (and thus it wasn’t imposing them that ended them) but new variants, presumably due to their partial immune evasion temporarily disrupting herd immunity.
But even so, Delta has shown that it’s nothing much to be afraid of, with the U.K.’s infection rate dropping following the lifting of restrictions on July 19th, having peaked by specimen date on July 15th at 60,665 positive tests. Scotland peaked over two weeks earlier at the end of June.
What more, then, is the Government waiting for? The only reason we were given for still being cautious was uncertainty over the threat from Delta, with Government advisers issuing warnings in the run-up to ‘Freedom Day’ of massive waves of infections and hospitalisations. We now know that this didn’t happen. Even if reported infections don’t continue to drop like they have in the last fortnight, we know that the threat was greatly overblown and the doomy models (which have always exaggerated the risk, as Sweden and South Dakota attest) can’t be trusted.
As Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith told the Telegraph yesterday:
The Government is constantly being assailed by scientists whose forecasts seem to be around fulfilling a purpose, keeping us in lockdown. We are in a state of unreality, it’s as though we don’t need an economy, we don’t need to meet each other, we don’t need to do anything that makes life worthwhile. But we do. … We have been driven into a vortex led by these incredible forecasts that never seem to be right.
One unnamed senior minister on Wednesday had the right idea, reportedly saying the Covid crisis was “all over bar the shouting”. He or she was quickly slapped down by Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam, who insisted: “This is not ‘all over bar the shouting’. I hope the worst is behind us, but I think it’s quite possible we will have one or two bumpy periods in the autumn and winter.”
But why isn’t it over? Now that we have developed our vaccines and delivered them to the vulnerable, reducing (we hope) their risk of death, what more are we waiting for? What now is to be gained from perpetuating the state of emergency? That the Deputy CMO thinks it “quite possible” the winter will be “bumpy” is no reason at all to continue doing anything that we didn’t do in 2019. What winter isn’t bumpy?
Most of the legal restrictions have now gone, thank goodness, though the threat that they may return remains and we are constantly reminded by our leaders that the pandemic is not over. Mass testing is still very much with us, along with its correlate, self-isolation, as is intrusive guidance on masks and distancing, travel restrictions, and of course the ever-growing threat of vaccine passports a.k.a. medical apartheid. But why? Now that the vaccine programme is delivered to the vulnerable and the fear around the Delta variant has been dispelled by events, what further justification can there be for continuing the state of emergency? Why are we still testing everyone all the time?
The CDC in America recently put out a notice that they will be discontinuing the Covid-only PCR test later in the year, encouraging labs to move to a test that can detect both Covid and flu. Some people mistakenly took this as a tacit admission that the current test cannot distinguish flu and Covid, but the true disturbing implication is that it means the U.S. authorities appear to be planning to carry on with mass testing, self-isolation and the rest of it for some time to come, and start doing it for flu as well.
The Government here in the U.K. has shown no sign of winding down its testing capabilities in preparation for a return to normal. Seven large lighthouse labs have been built in the last 16 months, and the NHS, which appears to be intimately involved with them, seems fully committed to ongoing mass testing. I’m told by someone in the know that mass testing for Covid was the first mass screening programme that bypassed evaluation by the National Screening Committee, and that there will be eagerness within the medical establishment for this to set a precedent that mass screening for flu and other diseases can follow.
With legal restrictions lifted, it is now primarily mass testing, vaccine passports and overbearing ‘guidance’ that stand between us and normality. As the Delta wave subsides (possibly after another ripple, who knows) and with it any remaining sense in which politicians can claim we are in an unprecedented or emergency situation, our efforts must be focused on ending these remaining measures and insisting that life return to normal as soon as possible.
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.
Because >60% of men, can think critically and believe in fundamental principles (freedom, work, self reliance etc). Not all men, but most. However, most women do not. <40% of women believe in such principles, a majority believe in state power, ‘the science’, authority and diktat including gender fascism. Not all but a majority.
Personally I am against women having the right to vote, or for that matter, anyone without assets. The reason is simple – 100 years ago a penis was a penis, today it is a vagina, and ‘the science’, with the majority support of the female is now the religion of dictatorship.
There are certain things about the nature of men and women which can be clearly observed and are hard to deny that simply cannot be discussed openly in modern “liberal” societies.
But the denial of reality always carries a price.
I blame men as much as I do women for this. Men should stand up for truth and reality and not be so easily browbeaten into going along with deluded fantasy.
Part of Reality is that it’s so easy to end up in a cell overnight, at the very least, and losing your job (and income). And if you’re not fully briefed, and have the required vocabulary to hand, it can be very traumatic, which makes holding your own against ‘the professionals’ that much harder, and doomed.
Personally I think it would be wrong to deny women the right to vote. That argument is unlikely to sway you, which is fair enough, but I also think it’s just not very practical. We need to learn to coexist and reach a compromise as women make up half the population and are required to keep us going. We just need to convince more people that our views will lead to a better life, regardless of sex.
It would be good to get a psychologist’s take on this because it’s a mystery. Regarding Germany, it’s like many young women haven’t had enough of being raped, sexually assaulted or seeing fellow citizens being stabbed. Nobody can be that asleep or apathetic!
Is it that young women are more prone to falling for propaganda? It would be interesting to take it further and see if there’s a difference in voting habits between university educated women vs non-uni educated women in this age range.
I don’t think it’s all that mysterious. Women have evolved to be more nurturing so they find “niceness” more appealing and the big selling point of the left is “niceness” (it’s a fake niceness of course).
Personally I am not sure there’s much to be gained by focusing on this “difference”, others may disagree.
But the study Noah references above is for women up to the age of 29yrs. So what about the rest of us? I think age features as a significant factor here. But that fact won’t stop the resident Misogynist Society rolling out their tired old “women shouldn’t be allowed to vote”, “It’s women that are the cause of the downfall of the universe” arguments. 100% predictable and indicative of the general attitude of men towards the opposite sex on here. After all, it’s not what people ( same old names, never fails ) post but what people *don’t* post, that I find most revealing, IYKWIM.
“Silence is compliance” and all that.
To say that women should be denied the basic right to vote, just because of how a certain % of them have voted, is authoritarian and as irrational as a government banning the sale of all alcohol because some people abuse it and become alcoholics. So what about the people who drink responsibly or don’t drink at all? It’s totally nonsensical. Essentially, I’m being judged purely on the basis of me having a vagina, not on the fact I’m an individual with my own independent and unique thought processes. Make it make sense.
It’s a generalisation so as such will not apply to all equally, but women are surely in general evolved to be more nurturing regardless of their age.
When a land is conquered, the men are eliminated, and the women get ‘more exciting’ partners.
It’s always been like it, and it could easily continue in liberal times.
If girls are persistently told that that their career is their most important goal, but they only realise that their biological clock is ticking away in their thirties, no wonder the results are as they are, for women under thirty.
I think this is exactly right. In a nutshell, women have more of a natural tendency to be empathetic and caring, and the left uses this to its advantage by painting itself in this veneer of “kindness”.
Men, I would say, are probably more sceptical and cynical by nature.
But if that’s the case why aren’t women being “empathetic and caring” towards their own sex? So this doesn’t necessarily translate when we look at the reality on the ground. Women are screwing other women over, and they’re not in a trance, they’re not even under pressure most of the time, they’re doing it willingly and consciously. Women abusing women’s rights! I mean, have you ever?
Good point, however, I am in my late 70s and married for 57 years and I have found that my wife and many of her contemporaries have moved dramatically to the Right. Following my teenage years as a budding young Communist, I have always been well to the right – the girls were always better looking on that side.
However, now, many political discussions I have with women are always well to the right and I wonder if the author’s perception is skewed by asking young men and women rather then more mature ones.
This was precisely my point. I’m in my late 40s and have a completely different mindset than I did 20+ years ago. But this sort of article is what the women-haters jump all over because then they get to conveniently tar us all with the same brush with their, “This is why women shouldn’t be allowed to vote” sexist nonsense, because to make sweeping generalisations bolsters their argument, in their eyes. All of us women get judged.
However, as soon as reality is acknowledged ( such as the acceptance that woketard men and anti-woke women, who are usually older, exist ) their lame, misogynist argument falls apart.
Who in their right mind would wish to deprive all women of their rights due to the actions of a certain segment of the female voting population? These men will be the very same who demonstrate their hypocrisy by pretending to be pro-democracy when what they’re advocating here is nothing more than authoritarianism.
Maybe
My Mrs is fortunately on the same wavelength as I am
This OAP has drifted rightward over a lifetime, gathering speed during The Pandemic That Never Was and blown along merrily by the Winds of Climate Change.
As regards what used to be quaintly called The Battle of the Sexes, much has changed for good, bad and indifferent.
All a mere man can do is stand ground and tell it how it is. If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell your spouse what she doesn’t want to hear (and vice-versa).
Most recently, yesterday afternoon. You can’t beat a good ding dong. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander – rancid goose and pickled gander always was notoriously unappetising. C’est la vie, c’est a guerre.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, shock, horror – men and women are different and think differently.
As I am a father of a boy and a girl, I can categorically state that from the moment they were born, they were different.
Patriarchy tends to create stable societies. Armies are suited for men’s mindset. There is a sense of purpose, solidarity, hierarchy and discipline. (Again, first hand experience, as I spent some time in the army.)
Matriarchal structures are inherently unstable, or at least far less stable. The emotional state of women fluctuates like their hormones; the emphasis on feelings and compassion is great for nurturing children but leaves them defenseless against brute force and hard decisions.
The entire woke movement and political ideology based on feelings, grievances and a sort of fake, syrupy, Meghan Markle style toxicity alienates the traditional male voters. What attraction could there be for a real man (not a soy-boy) for these ideas?
“Patriarchy tends to create stable societies.” What, like Afghanistan, Pakistan etc? Yep, Islam sure is the ultimate blueprint on how to produce a stable society via the subjugation of females and the overall abuse of their human rights.
Or maybe the UAE is more up your street?
I only said tend to, nothing more.
And yes, of course men are also prone to fighting and aggression.
Besides, it would be difficult to deny that Islam – a strongly masculine ideology – has survived about 1400 years. So, whether we like it or not (and I very much don’t), there is undoubtedly a cohesive force in it.
But I’m willing to be open minded.
Please give me a historical example of a working, stable matriarchal society.
A real example, not some feminist concoction.
But I’m not the one talking about a “matriarchal society”. I don’t believe I’ve ever said those two words together in my life. I’m pulling you up on that point about patriarchy because it’s as if you’re ignoring the massive elephant in the room, so please keep your strawman. For any society to be both stable and successful there must be balance, adherence to meritocracy and irrefutable biological facts, which is why no societies can thrive unless all things ‘woke’ get kicked to the kerb. The dreaded DEI being an obvious example, (trans)gender ideology another.
I’m confused.
What is the elephant in the room?
Islam. Hardly countries to laud given what rules apply and human rights abuses go on in those societies. ”Stable” is not the first word that would spring to my mind. But I guess if you like the idea of a bit of Sharia then it’s all good. I prefer a bit of democracy, myself.
Out of interest, what rank did you get to MM? Is there a hidden clue? :))
Haha, I hate to disappoint you, but I am not an army major. I did serve in the army, as I had to do national service when I was 18.
MajorMajor is a jocular name my university friends came up with.
Is it a Catch-22 reference?
Good name nonetheless! I suspect Nat Service worked quite well in the 50s/60s. Can’t see it working again.
The old elites have deployed their minions to promise greater recognition for women and matters that concern them. Men have reflexively been demonised and their concerns dismissed.
A difference in this political treatment of the sexes leads to differential support by men and women. Hardly an earth shaking idea.
I think it could be summed up as “boys have worked out that left-wing policies don’t work in their interests and they’re fed up with it.”
And they’re quite right.
Ask Jordan Peterson, men are naturally more disagreeable than women, which means they will value freedom and so small government more. Women are more prone to big government intervention because of the natural mothering instinct which is significantly interventionist. Small government is a balance between the two, and the proper name for so called right wing, or facists as they are now misnamed by the EU and UK government and media. The men are finally waking up to the fact that critical theory equality is bullying crap and a recipe for disaster. In the end the ultimate equality is heat death which critical theory is the political version of. Life needs difference as a driver , like gravity and the freedom to move to work properly.
Just to be clear, the necessary difference driver is in the context of a common or equal basic structure for life. This is not an excuse for differentialists to undermine this basic structure, freedom is a reciprocal thing
Women having the vote has not led to progress anywhere.
As far as can see.
Speaking as a female, I don’t think women having the vote is the problem. Promoting women into senior positions, when they haven’t earned it through performance/delivery, has caused it.
Yes, another failure of DEI. Appointments to senior positions should be by meritocracy alone.
Sometimes the right person for the job will be female, sometimes male. Equal opportunity is a good thing, of course, but merely wanting to hire more women, or ethnic minorities, or LGBWHATEVERS to “reflect society” is suicidal.
Employ the best person for the job, full stop.
I would say promoting *anybody* into senior positions when they haven’t earned it is a recipe for disaster. The sex of the person doesn’t even come into it. For instance, what good did the likes of Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer ever do for the U.K and its people? Just two examples of many, but you are either competent at your job and capable of delivering or you’re not.
One generalisation that it may be safe to make is that our politicians of both sexes are inept to the point of malevolence? The good ones can be counted on one hand
A refreshingly fair and accurate observation from a guy, based on reality, as opposed to the usual finger pointing and resorting to the ‘blame game,’ which I’ve come to expect from a large contingent of posters with a shared hostile attitude towards the opposite sex on this topic. But you’re spot on.
I don’t think it’s a “large contingent” of posters with a shared hostile attitude towards the opposite sex on this topic. It’s certainly a few with idiotic beliefs about women. Maybe you are paying more attention than I am, or we have different understanding of what we mean by a “large contingent”. I’d estimate it’s about 4 or 5 posters. If you think it’s more, you should list them, name and shame. That would be fun!
But what you’re not considering when I use that term is the vast majority who silently agree with said women-haters, by virtue of the fact they never ever challenge misogynists’ posts. It seems to be the unspoken rule of the Boys’ Club on here: “Never challenge another man when he’s badmouthing women in general”, otherwise known as:”Sexism is acceptable as long as it’s the right kind of sexism”.
Because I never see anyone ( including women, BTW) challenging certain posters the obvious conclusion is that it’s because the majority agree with the person. Well, it’s either that or cowardice. It’s got to be one or the other.
That’s why I said elsewhere that it’s often not *what* people post but what they *don’t* post which is the most telling of all. They close ranks, are scared to ruffle feathers. Look at all that drama with the paedophile and rape apologists on here. Minimising the crimes of the rape gangs and legitimising sex with minors. Several men on here actually defended them and came after me instead for calling them out. What does that tell you? Such sicko creeps should be condemned not defended! So I’ll stick with my “large contingent” because people have shown who they really are, both through their posts but mainly through not posting. And this is not just the odd time either, it’s consistently, with very few exceptions.
That’s absolutely true.
By the way my original comment doesn’t mean I don’t think women should have the vote, as citizens of course they should.
Just that objectively by most measures the quality of government has got worse not better since they did, I don’t know to what extent there may be a valid correlation.
For example I think you could legitimately say that people whose livelihood comes mainly from government employment contracts shouldn’t have the vote.
That’s a shocking conflict of interest when you think about it.
Possibly well evidenced by the string of soppy social workers in uniform that appear on TV parading as senior police officers. You can’t really blame them for taking the big salary and fat pension if the system offers it to them. They go to lefty universities and show all the required lefty ideals when it comes to promotion boards who value such nonsense.
I agree – but neither has universal male suffrage.
Because men are more protective generally and hot topics of conservatism tends to be around immigration, or “other tribes”. We are just angry apes.
Women are more nurturing generally and hot topics of liberalism tends to be around “being nice”, at least outwardly.
It’s that simple really.
This nonsense about not giving women the vote is a joke, I know many people who I’d see without the vote and they’re equal between the sexes.
I’d sooner have some sort of test to establish vote competency, whatever form that would take.
Men who think women shouldn’t vote and are obsessed with tarring us all with the same brush are showing their true colours, because for that to even begin to make sense they must ignore all of the woketard men and the rational, anti-woke women that exist, so that does kind of provide an unwelcome reality check, does it not? But they are intent on scapegoating us, no matter what, so what can you do…?
If you had to chose which one to give the vote to between Katharine Birbalsingh or Ed Miliband – christened Ed Siliband by a GB News viewer this morning – who would it be? I can assure you I would take the former while the latter is wrapped in a white coat with long sleeves and taken away.
Well exactly. Personally, I judge people by their actions. Not their words and definitely not their gender. And Katherine does nicely contradict and effectively give the ‘two-fingured salute’ to the many men who think women in charge of anything is a bad idea as we’re all so obviously inept.
How many countries just now have female leaders compared with males? And how many of those countries with men at the helm are rife with corruption, crime-ridden, woketastic or just sh*tholes? Just as well “correlation doesn’t prove causation”, isn’t it?
“Personally, I judge people by their actions. Not their words…”
Oh? But you judged me solely by my words in your comment to my post above…. Paleface speak with forked tongue, Kimosabi.
Erm…and how is one supposed to judge a person by their actions online? Desperate tactics, much?
Time to move to South Korea then.
One of the reasons I think women don’t tend to vote for right wing groups is highlighted by some of the comments below the article. They aren’t spaces that are that welcoming to women. We’re not daft.
This of course equally applies to why men are moving away from left wing parties – left wing parties don’t appear to value them. Men too aren’t daft.
Who knows. maybe it is all a giant plan to keep men and women divided whilst the real villains lurk in the shadows, having a good old laugh at us.
Because your survey asks questions in a loaded way to elicit precisely this result. Divide and conquer.
There is a growing trend and not just in western countries but all over the world where girls are out-performing boys in terms of university matriculation and performance. This is some sort of diminution of male energy worldwide. I think it has to be understood on a greater level. I don’t think it is solely due to the political realm because it is happening in Muslim countries as well. We are subject to all sorts of forces than we haven’t begun to understand.
Little girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice. Little boys are made of rats and snails and puppy dog tails.
Because boys generate the most wealth in an economy and pay for girls wants and needs and the Left is all about greed, the desire to take another’s money to be spent on me-me-me. Girls have become parasites aka equality… except in sports where suddenly boys and girls aren’t equal.
Socialism: A and B sit down together to decide what C will do for D.
“Girls have become parasites…” What’s that you were saying about me being a “misandrist” again?
You are aware of the meaning of the word ‘projection’, I take it? Or maybe not, given self-awareness never was the strong suit of the typical misogynist. 
“Typical misogynist”. Name calling – the redoubt of the intellectually weak unable to form a cogent response to the point being made.
Parasite = organism that lives at the expense of others = Socialist/Left wing.
What, like how you accused me of being a misandrist, with zero evidence? But I’m accurately describing you as a misogynist, with masses of evidence that you consistently manage to provide yourself? Bit of a difference there, methinks. Hypocrite.
You stick with name-calling, unsubstantiated accusations and spouting your contemptuous vitriol about the opposite sex due to your obvious grievance mentality and superiority complex, I’ll stick with making accurate assessments of posters based on much evidence observed from reading their posts ( inc the silent agreement from those who choose not to post ) over the years.
You hate women. Fact.
Perhaps like me the boys have always had the same outlook it’s just everyone else has moved to the left.