Lockdowns

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Stephens said:
Because there was high staff sickness, and looking after the people who had to be looked after required more staff per patient than is usual. "Bed" isn't a good metric, you want "staffed bed".
Click to expand...
I agree with that, there were higher than usual (about 1% more) NHS staff off sick around about that time and yes staff were moved into other departments etc. But, people were frightened and scared and told to stay at home which would of reduced number of beds occupied.

So, getting back to the risks and how the public were informed of the risks and how those informing the public were themselves behaving and not adhering to the rules. We'll have a party and a good knees up, whilst we scare the pants off the public. If you can't see the difference in what they believed about the risks and what they told the public, then nothing more I can say. To me, there is obvisouly something wrong here.
 
@Bruce Stephens
What I'm trying to say is, I have no issue with the party, nor the fact they broke the rules. My issue is that between them, they clearly (demonstrated in the video) had a very different understanding of the risks from the virus than what they were telling the public. Hence, why I view the aim to "scare the pants off them" as misinformation.

To tell everyone not to cross a road because it is really dangerous, then to go and cross it yourself doesn't add up. I've been saying this from the very beginning. Something was off with the whole narative. It felt wrong, not right from the outset. Starting with changing the definition of what a pandemic is, without this change in definition, a pandemic would never have been announced in the first place. Then they changed the definition of herd immunity to when everyone is vaccinated! Completely ignoring both naturally acquired immunity and innate immunity.
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
What I'm trying to say is, I have no issue with the party, nor the fact they broke the rules. My issue is that between them, they clearly (demostrated in the video) had a very different understanding of the risks from the virus than what they were telling the public. Hence why I view the aim to "scare the pants off them" as misinformation.
Click to expand...
I think I hold close to the opposite view.

I do not believe that their holding parties means that what they must have not believed what they were telling the rest of us. I think both are consistent, while the combination is horribly unethical.

Remember the story was always that the restrictions (on most of us) was about reducing demand on the NHS and trying to protect vulnerable people. It was almost always about not overwhelming the health service (there was a brief period at the beginning where there was a hope that the epidemic might be contained, but that didn't last long).

So No. 10 can consistently decide that it can continue working normally (including parties) while telling the rest of us that it's vital that we don't do that. No. 10 obviously can't defend that morally or politically (and obviously shouldn't have had the parties) so had to lie about it.
 
Bruce Stephens said:
I think I hold close to the opposite view.

I do not believe that their holding parties means that what they must have not believed what they were telling the rest of us. I think both are consistent, while the combination is horribly unethical.

Remember the story was always that the restrictions (on most of us) was about reducing demand on the NHS and trying to protect vulnerable people. It was almost always about not overwhelming the health service (there was a brief period at the beginning where there was a hope that the epidemic might be contained, but that didn't last long).

So No. 10 can consistently decide that it can continue working normally (including parties) while telling the rest of us that it's vital that we don't do that. No. 10 obviously can't defend that morally or politically (and obviously shouldn't have had the parties) so had to lie about it.
Click to expand...
That's fair enough, we don't have to agree.
 
They showed no fear of the virus (as demonstrated in the party video) and mp's also had an exemption from vaccine passports for parliament. A similar rule was employed in Australia, where unvaccinated people were banned from parliament but mp's were exempt from vaccine mandates.

No need to lockdown and no requirement for vaccines.

Did they know something the public didn't?

www.heraldscotland.com

Speaker rejects Covid passports for MPs despite crowded Commons

MPs should not have to produce Covid vaccine passports to attend the House of Commons, the Speaker has said, insisting Parliament will set its own…
www.heraldscotland.com www.heraldscotland.com

www.brisbanetimes.com.au

Qld MPs exempt from vaccine mandate in Parliament

But the exemption won’t extend to visitors and staff, who will be barred from the parliamentary precinct from next weekend if they haven’t had a jab.
www.brisbanetimes.com.au www.brisbanetimes.com.au
 
Last edited:
Amity Island said:
Did they know something the public didn't?
Click to expand...
No. They were entirely carefree, and somehow believe they were invincible. No record has been kept as to whether incidents of people acquiring Covid infections at these parties. It was their own individual decisions to attend these parties, NOT under advice from Epidemiologists.

They were seduced by Boris Johnson, a proven liar, who has no regard for the laws of the land, not because they knew something that the public didn't.
 
New study where they intentionally infected a group of people with sarscov2 published in Lancet shows

"Very few emissions occurred before the first reported symptom"

n.b emissions are not transmission.

Although only a small scale study (of only a younger age group 18-30), it tentatively indicates that locking in well people is not absolutely necessary to protect the NHS.

 
Last edited:
Anyone remember the original asymptomatic spreader? Well, the published article, which was cited over 2.5k times to convince the world the virus could be spread asymptomatically still hasn't been retracted or even corrected (see link below). Turns out that the "asymptomatic" spreader (which formed the basis for lockdown of well people all over the world) who attended a meeting in Germany did in fact have symptoms before the meeting. Four days after the article was published, on February 3rd, Science published an article revealing, based on official German sources, that the Chinese businesswoman did in fact have symptoms and had taken paracetamol to combat them, hence appeared asymptomatic when she attended the business meeting.

 
BBC The effects of lockdowns (not just on humans) starting to appear in dogs bought for company during lockdowns.

People who bought puppies during coronavirus lockdowns have been warned to watch out for potentially dangerous behaviour changes.

The pandemic saw a surge in new dog owners in the UK, as people sought companionship in lockdown.

Some dogs have had behaviour problems - particularly after being left alone for the first time when their owners returned to work.

The RSPCA fears the problems could get worse as the puppies reach maturity.

Dr Samantha Gaines, head of companion animals at the charity, told MPs: "Operationally, we are seeing an increase in the more challenging dogs that are coming into our care, which we think is an impact of Covid."

Many "pandemic puppies" were imported from outside the UK and had not been bred or reared in an appropriate way, she told the Commons Environment committee.

www.bbc.com

Concern as pandemic puppies reach difficult age

Dogs bought during lockdown may only now be starting to have behaviour problems, the RSPCA says.
www.bbc.com
 
It has been claimed by many that lockdowns were a last resort, but it seems in reality, lockdowns were the only option considered. Why? Why did just about every country in the world use the same strategy? We still don't have an answer....

Professor Mark Woolhouse of the University of Edinburgh, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M-O) said his team was never even asked to model the harm lockdown might inflict. Nor were they asked to consider alternative ways of mitigating health risks. “The question of how to avoid lockdown was never asked of us,” he added, “and I find that extraordinary.” Too right. This ought to be a national scandal.

www.telegraph.co.uk

The great lockdown scandal has only just begun

Nobody bothered to model the harms it caused, and almost nobody has shown humility about the mistakes
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Amity Island said:
It has been claimed by many that lockdowns were a last resort, but it seems in reality, lockdowns were the only option considered. Why? Why did just about every country in the world use the same strategy? We still don't have an answer....

Professor Mark Woolhouse of the University of Edinburgh, a member of the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M-O) said his team was never even asked to model the harm lockdown might inflict. Nor were they asked to consider alternative ways of mitigating health risks. “The question of how to avoid lockdown was never asked of us,” he added, “and I find that extraordinary.” Too right. This ought to be a national scandal.

www.telegraph.co.uk

The great lockdown scandal has only just begun

Nobody bothered to model the harms it caused, and almost nobody has shown humility about the mistakes
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...

It IS a scandal.
 
AndBreathe said:
It IS a scandal.
Click to expand...
Yes, in other evidence we know (we knew before, but without so much evidence) that SAGE wanted support for people to isolate, that everyone wanted more testing, earlier, that Sunak resisted offering as much as he possibly could, etc.

Nobody wanted lockdowns. It's just that that's what the dithering and delays forced on us.
 
Britain's Covid lockdown architect today denied ever calling for the first national stay-at-home order.

Professor Neil Ferguson's terrifying March 2020 models warned that 500,000 Brits would die unless tougher action was taken to curb the virus's spread.

It spooked Boris Johnson into adopting draconian restrictions that saw the country told they 'must stay at home' even if you are well.


www.dailymail.co.uk

'Professor Lockdown' Neil Ferguson denies calling for stay home order

Professor Neil Ferguson's modelling in March 2020 for then Prime Minister Boris Johnson suggested that 510,000 people in the UK would die without drastic action.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
Lawyers are calling for an amnesty on lockdown fines, as figures obtained by ITV News reveal that tens of thousands remain unpaid.

In total, 124,771 fines had been issued up to October of this year for violation of pandemic rules.

But almost half - 54,122 - were not paid, totalling £16.7 million in fines.

Some individuals owe more than £10,000, with their cases pursued through the courts and via bailiffs.

In Manchester, we met Xen Watts, who was a student at Leeds University during the pandemic.

He posted on Facebook inviting people to a 'socially distanced' snowball fight, which was captured on video and shared on social media.

Xen was fined £10,000 but says he has been unable to pay.

"For the last few years it's just been a constant stress on my mental health, which is getting worse because the threats and the pressure to pay is getting worse," he said.

 
Amity Island said:
Lawyers are calling for an amnesty on lockdown fines, as figures obtained by ITV News reveal that tens of thousands remain unpaid.

In total, 124,771 fines had been issued up to October of this year for violation of pandemic rules.

But almost half - 54,122 - were not paid, totalling £16.7 million in fines.

Some individuals owe more than £10,000, with their cases pursued through the courts and via bailiffs.

In Manchester, we met Xen Watts, who was a student at Leeds University during the pandemic.

He posted on Facebook inviting people to a 'socially distanced' snowball fight, which was captured on video and shared on social media.

Xen was fined £10,000 but says he has been unable to pay.

"For the last few years it's just been a constant stress on my mental health, which is getting worse because the threats and the pressure to pay is getting worse," he said.

Click to expand...
An historic Lockdown ...

BBC News - Eyam plague: The village of the damned
www.bbc.co.uk

Eyam plague: The village of the damned

The village of Eyam lost 260 people to plague in the 1660s - but thousands more in neighbouring settlements were saved by the villagers' remarkable decision to cut themselves off from the outside world.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Burylancs said:
An historic Lockdown ...

BBC News - Eyam plague: The village of the damned
www.bbc.co.uk

Eyam plague: The village of the damned

The village of Eyam lost 260 people to plague in the 1660s - but thousands more in neighbouring settlements were saved by the villagers' remarkable decision to cut themselves off from the outside world.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
It was an interesting read @Burylancs and good evidence of how, when and why lockdowns should be used effectively.

What we were put through in 2020 was a confected un-scientific nonsense, the culmination of which only encouraged and ground many people down, who didn't really want to take it or didn't need it (healthy people under 50) to getting jabbed, hoping it would be a way out of the widescale confected disruption, ignoring known and potential treatments like saltwater rinses etc which are known to be highly effective in preventing hospitalisation.

The worst of it was the deliberate division they created between friends, colleagues and families with the claims made which were never confirmed during the trials, like it stopped you passing on to others etc. Where some individuals wouldn't allow visitors if they hadn't been jabbed first!

The virus didn't shut schools, the virus didn't make daily announcements on t.v, conjure up ludicrous modelled predictions, claim they found the first asymptomatic person (which actually wasn't asymptomatic all) conjure up flawed pcr testing, scare the life out of society. Had it not been for the man made confected non-science, how much of it would we have actually been aware of? How much would it have affected and impacted society? It likely started well before 2020, with no increase in deaths seen before the so called lockdowns and other strategies were brought in (see graph attached), which to me did far more everlasting harm than good. There are now more deaths occuring now than there were during the pandemic.
 

Attachments

  • no excess deaths 2020 untill after elderly turfed out into carehomes.png
    no excess deaths 2020 untill after elderly turfed out into carehomes.png
    172.7 KB · Views: 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top