Jonny Peppiatt

by Jonny Peppiatt Health Secretary Matt Hancock This essay aims to highlight and address a single issue, and so, for that purpose, let us assume that the Government’s response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus has not set a precedent of how to deal with pandemics that sees the same response occurring every five to 10 years when new viruses emerge with similar pathogen profiles. Let us assume that our economy bounces back in a drastic way. Let us assume that our personal health data isn’t tracked in a truly unnecessary way. And let us assume everything else that would need to be assumed in order for our old normal to be returned to us unfettered. Further, let us assume that the roadmap out of this ludicrous insanity can be trusted, that our Prime Minister can be trusted when he says that this is the last lockdown, and that when we get to June 21st, if not before, we really are entirely done with every tangible aspect of this for good. Even with these SAGE-level assumptions, we are left with one very significant issue that will keep us distinctly separated from the old normal: trust – in all its guises; and that is what I plan to discuss here. We shall meander down two hypothetical paths in this essay: the first looks at...

by Jonny Peppiatt The question most often posed of me when I embark on yet another monologue about the endless lunacies plaguing our lives right now is “why?”; if what you’re saying is true, if the damage is so great, if the virus isn’t such a threat, if the efficacy of the measures is so low, then why would the Government be doing this to us? We’ve heard a lot of discussion around ‘cock-up’, ‘conspiracy’, and even ‘cockupspiracy’; be that, in the case of ‘cock-up’, the recurring inadequacy of advisers and politicians, in the case of ‘conspiracy’, more often than not, the Great Reset, and in the case of ‘cockupspiracy’, the opportunism of the likes of big tech and big pharma. All of these are important factors that require attention. However, it seems to me that the debate has largely been based on the fallacy that the reason for all this lies somewhere on a spectrum between ‘cock-up’ and ‘conspiracy’, with ‘cockupspiracy’ falling somewhere in the centre. I do not believe this is the case, because I do not believe that there is a spectrum here. What we are seeing, I’m sure many of you will agree, is a fraud – a wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain (or avoidance of loss) – on...

by Jonny Peppiatt This topic is a particularly interesting one for a number of reasons: first, because you’re probably thinking, “Of course loneliness is a major cause of mental illness, so why should I spend five minutes reading about something I already know?” – read on and find out; second, because we are all aware of quite how particularly pertinent it is right now; and, third, because it was the most significant factor in my experience with depression. Before we go any further though, I think it would be a good idea to explain what loneliness is, because it isn’t as simple as not having friends or being alone. It is a process within the brain that has been designed by evolution that gives you a feeling as a result of believing you have limited or no connections that provide a sense of mutual aid and protection with other individuals. Human beings began as a species on the savannahs of Africa but survived as a species because of cooperation and tribal support. If you were an individual who became separated from your tribe, no one would care for you should you fall sick, you would be unable to hunt effectively, and you would be vulnerable to predators; and it is because of this that the brain developed a way to...

by Jonny Peppiatt The research: While those who oppose lockdowns have rigorously sought to justify their position with research – and can reference tens of studies as to the lack of efficacy of lockdowns (or stringent measures under different names) – the Government has been capable only of publishing one graph in their cost-benefit analysis of the tiers which appeared to show a correlation between Tier 3 measures and a reduction in cases (since discredited). The use of data: While those who oppose lockdowns have analysed all data in as close to real time as possible, the ‘data’ used to justify lockdowns have been cherry-picked and often predictive, while being based on spurious assumptions that have repeatedly been proved inaccurate. The source and balance of information: While those who oppose lockdowns possess no bias in obtaining their information, the Government is informed on the risks by a number of committees (Sage, Nervtag, SPI-M) whose sole responsibility is to consider the virus and present the risks of that virus. The expertise of sources: While those who oppose lockdowns have been entertained by commentators, cartoonists, comedians, and so on, they have been informed by scientists and medical professionals (Gupta, Heneghan, Spector, Yeadon, Craig, et al.). The Government, however, has a disturbing proportion of social scientists or behavioural scientists (with no relevant expertise)...