You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Prof Neil Ferguson’ tag.

Early in March 2020, my far better half and I were optimistic that Prime Minister Boris Johnson, his government and his advisers would not be too proscriptive about coronavirus restrictions.

In the end, they were, but the following timeline shows how quickly their thinking on herd immunity changed.

In light of Dominic Cummings’s testimony to the Science and Technology Select Committee on Wednesday, May 26, and his lengthy Twitter thread prepared beforehand (continuing afterwards), I offer a short and a long version of what happened.

Short version

The Government denies that natural herd immunity — catching the virus — was ever government policy.

Yet, here is Sir Patrick Vallance, the UK’s chief scientific adviser, at a coronavirus briefing on Thursday, March 12, 2020:

It seems that Cummings might have advised the government to backtrack and deny it was policy, however briefly:

As Cummings said on Wednesday, once he received numbers from an NHS specialist/mathematician who extrapolated scenarios on what could happen, the Government changed tack:

Long version

I haven’t missed a single coronavirus briefing since they started in March 2020. As regular readers will know, I have been deep-diving into the pandemic since then.

February 2020

Lessons From The Crisis has an excellent article on how the herd immunity plan unfolded and changed. ‘It’s bizarre that this needs saying, but *of course* the UK had a Herd Immunity plan’ is well worth reading.

It includes a capture of SAGE minutes from February 4, 2020, advocating that policies for influenza be followed. The article summarises this as follows (emphases in the original):

On the 4th of February, at the UK Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’s fourth Covid meeting, influenza planning, with its assertions that spread was “inevitable”and halting the virus “a waste of resources” was adopted as the official recommendation- tragically this was about ten days before Chinese covid cases peaked, never return to their early 2020 levels …

The scientific consensus presented to ministers was: mass infection of the population was inevitable, a vaccine would not be available in time, so the only choices were about how to manage the mass infection of the population until the country had accumulated enough cases to get to herd immunity

The alternative being attempted by governments elsewhere, trying to stop the disease from infecting the population, was regarded as folly; the UK government’s scientific advisors were certain that countries attempting suppression would fail …

March 2020

In his testimony on Wednesday, Cummings claimed he broke rank with the Government on Wednesday, March 11:

Publicly, however, he was still on board with the Government plan:

Vallance gave his aforementioned briefing on herd immunity on March 12. This is what appeared afterwards:

This is a summary of an interview Vallance gave to Sky News the next day (full video here):

The Independent quoted a BBC interview with him on March 13:

Sir Patrick told the BBC that the advice the government is following for tackling coronavirus is not looking to “suppress” the disease entirely but to help create a “herd immunity in the UK” while protecting the most vulnerable from it.

Asked if there is a fear that clamping down too hard on its spread could see it return, Sir Patrick said: “That is exactly the risk you would expect from previous epidemics.

“If you suppress something very, very hard, when you release those measures it bounces back and it bounces back at the wrong time.

“Our aim is to try and reduce the peak, broaden the peak, not suppress it completely; also, because the vast majority of people get a mild illness, to build up some kind of herd immunity so more people are immune to this disease and we reduce the transmission, at the same time we protect those who are most vulnerable to it.

“Those are the key things we need to do.”

That same day, SAGE’s Professor John Edmunds also advocated natural herd immunity in this Channel 4 interview:

Nigel Farage was outraged by the policy:

The Lessons From The Crisis article says that the turning point happened almost immediately:

Partly in response to this outrage, the government changed course; Boris Johnson swapped strategies and began locking down the country just 3 days after the herd immunity plan became public, with new priorities built around suppressing the virus with blunt instruments such as lockdowns to buy time for building countermeasures- testing and tracing capacity, vaccines, treatments.

That is not to give Nigel Farage single-handed credit. The media also helped a lot, especially with frequent footage of what was happening in northern Italy at the time.

On Monday, March 16, Prof Neil Ferguson released his (spurious) numbers from Imperial College London, which changed the Government’s policy. 

UnHerd reported on it the following day — ‘Why the Government changed tack on Covid-19’:

The Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, and the government’s science adviser Dr David Halpern indicated that the government’s strategy was to allow the virus to pass through the population, to allow individuals to “acquire herd immunity” at a delayed speed, while vulnerable groups were “cocooned.” This strategy, however, was subsequently contradicted by health secretary Matt Hancock, who insisted that “herd immunity is not our goal or policy”.

The quick reversals did not end there, as a ban was announced on mass gatherings just a day after the government’s initial claims that it was not the right time for such measures. On Saturday, the government briefed select journalists on “wartime measures” to quarantine the elderly at home or in care homes, away from any contact with the rest of the population; earlier than such measures were expected to be announced.

Finally, it was revealed yesterday afternoon that the Prime Minister had decided to dramatically step up countermeasures, and switch entirely to a strategy of containment as a result of advice from an expert response team at Imperial College London, which concluded that the strategy of delay would likely cause “hundreds of thousands” of avoidable deaths.

The initial plans — to establish herd immunity based on research on social fatigue and assumptions that effective vaccines would not be developed — contradicted the guidance from the World Health Organisation (WHO), and the wealth of evidence in the fields of epidemiology, behavioural science and immunology, so it is unsurprising that countless experts have already questioned and criticised the strategy, including epidemiologists, immunologists, and behavioural scientists.

On Saturday, March 21, Alex Wickham from Buzzfeed summarised a tense and confused week inside No. 10, and the road to lockdown (emphases mine):

While the scientific debate was raging last week between experts, officials, and ministers in face-to-face meetings and over emails and text messages, Johnson’s government was publicly insisting that the scientific advice showed the UK did not yet have to bring in more stringent measures to fight the virus.

Political aides tacitly criticised other countries who had taken more dramatic steps, claiming Britain was being “guided by the science” rather than politics.

Towards the end of last week, some ministers and political aides at the top of the government were still arguing that the original strategy of home isolation of suspect cases — but no real restrictions on wider society — was correct, despite almost every other European country taking a much tougher approach, and increasing alarm among SAGE experts.

The thought of months or even a year of social distancing was simply not feasible, some in Johnson’s team still thought at that point. They continued to privately defend the controversial “herd immunity” approach outlined to the media by Vallance, even as other aides scrambled to claim the UK had never considered it to be policy.

And there was fury behind the scenes among members of Johnson’s team at the likes of Rory Stewart and Jeremy Hunt, who had been publicly saying the government had got it wrong.

But data from Italy — presented to the government before it was published by experts at Imperial College on Monday — changed all that. Their report confirmed the earlier fears of the epidemiologists who had been calling for more drastic action.

On Monday, March 23 — the day Prime Minister Boris Johnson took away every Briton’s civil liberties in five minutes by announcing the first lockdown — Byline Times posted a must-read article, ‘COVID-19 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Part Three — Behavioural Scientists told Government to use “Herd Immunity” to Justify Business-As-Usual’.

SPI-B is our behavioural, or ‘nudge’, unit and is part of SAGE. Dr David Halpern, a SAGE member, runs the unit. This was allegedly their role in the herd immunity discussions:

A SPI-B document dated 4 March, which rejected the need for school closures, went on to refer to the medical concept of immunity. In a discussion about how the public might be confused about the disparity between the Government’s approach of “not applying widescale social isolation at the same time as recommending isolation to at-risk groups”, the document acknowledges disagreement within the SPI-B.

The document explains: “One view is that explaining that members of the community are building some immunity will make this acceptable. Another view is that recommending isolation to only one section of society risks causing discontent.”

The idea of immunity does not come up elsewhere in the SAGE corpus. But, Professor Chris Whitty, the Government’s Chief Medical Advisor, claimed that 20% of the population of Wuhan, China, had contracted the Coronavirus and acquired herd immunity. He believed that this explained why new cases had begun to fall in China

This flatly contradicted data from China showing that, by end of January, after the crisis had peaked, just under 95% of the Wuhan population remained uninfected by the virus. This was, therefore, nothing to do with herd immunity, but a result of China’s emergency containment response. 

The UK Government, it seemed, had made a gamble: one that Dr Brian Ferguson, Director of Immunology at Cambridge University, described as “not scientifically based and irresponsible” because typically “Coronaviruses don’t make long-lasting antibody responses”.

Whether or not it was a specific goal of the Government, its network of behavioural science advisors had fielded herd immunity as a way of justifying to the public why the Government was not taking early action – despite having no scientific evidence behind the idea

Social media discussions on herd immunity began to appear:

On Tuesday, March 24, Byline Times posted another must-read article, ‘The Coronavirus Crisis: Oxford Model Touting “Herd Immunity” was Promoted by PR Agency Tied to Ministry of Defence and Nudge Unit’.

Excerpts follow:

On 24 March, the Financial Times claimed that as much as half of the British population may have already been infected by the novel Coronavirus, according to a new model by Oxford University’s Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease group

The conclusion, according to the FT’s science editor Clive Cookson, suggested that the country “had already acquired substantial herd immunity through the unrecognised spread of COVID-19 over more than two months”. If true, this would vindicate the Government’s “unofficial herd immunity strategy – allowing controlled spread of infection,” he stated.

Although numerous epidemiologists and scientists had questioned the validity of the Oxford model – which had not been peer-reviewed – it was promoted to the press by a PR agency with ties to the Government, raising questions about how and why this model was published and disseminated at this time.

The draft paper, which was originally posted to Dropbox, included a disclaimer noting that its content was “not final” and could be “updated any time”. The disclaimer also contained a contact point for journalists: “Contact for press enquiries: Cairbre Sugrue, cairbre@sugruecomms.com.”

Dr Lewis Mackenzie, a Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Discovery Fellow, commented: “Why on earth has this been sent to the media via a third party PR company instead of the Oxford University press team? Seems very irresponsible to encourage reporting on this topic before the scientific community had a chance to comment and peer-review it.”

When asked why its own press team did not release the study, Oxford University said: “All Oxford academics have freedom of expression regarding their areas of specialism, including communication through the media. It is therefore not uncommon for academics to make their own arrangements for contacting the press. The university cannot comment on individual arrangements that it is not party to.”

Caibre Sugrue is the founding director of Sugrue Communications, a technology PR agency. He is also a non-executive advisory board member of 100%Open, an innovation consultancy – which has worked for several British Government agencies, including the UK Ministry of Defence’s Defence, Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) and a leading charity which co-owns the Cabinet Office’s Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) or ‘nudge unit’.

This seems to be the first appearance of Prof Sunetra Gupta, later of The Barrington Declaration (a libertarian approach to coronavirus self-isolation), who works at Oxford University:

The original FT piece had claimed that, if substantial herd immunity had been achieved, restrictions could be removed sooner than expected. The article added: “Although some experts have shed doubt on the strength and length of the human immune response to the virus, Prof Gupta said the emerging evidence made her confident that humanity would build up herd immunity against COVID-19.

I contacted Professor Sun[e]tra Gupta, one of the co-authors of the study, to find out what this emerging evidence is. She did not respond to a request for comment. However, the model was reported worldwide and some commentators in both the US and UK used it to suggest that strong social distancing measures may be unnecessary

Scientists are divided on the prospects for achieving herd immunity, but most agree that, while achieving it may be possible at some point, it is not clear how long it would last. In any case, whether or not it is achievable, the immediate focus should be on minimising fatalities.

By the end of the month, confusion among journalists reigned:

April 2020

In April, it appeared that dealing with coronavirus was becoming highly complex. Author Ian Leslie tweeted a considered an explanation from a Financial Times reader:

May 2020

Two months later, Sir Patrick Vallance denied that natural herd immunity was ever a plan:

Prof John Edmunds gave Channel 4 another interview, wherein he appeared to backtrack on his previous claims about herd immunity. The first video is from his March interview and the second from May:

I’ll have more on the UK’s approach to herd immunity next week.

Yesterday’s post introduced Neil Ferguson’s interview with The Times, which the paper published on the evening of Christmas Day.

This was the biggest statement he made:

How Ferguson, he of the hopelessly outlandish — and false — predictions, could enter the fray on a worldwide pandemic using CCP methods beggars belief:

The other chilling statement made in the article was that lockdowns will be employed in future pandemics. That’s because they worked so well, we had to have one long lockdown — under various guises — for the better part of nine months, not the promised two or three weeks:

Yet, Matt Hancock relies on what this man and SAGE members regurgitate every couple of weeks:

My prayer for 2021 is that divine providence shines a light on the evil that Ferguson, a NERVTAG member, SAGE and Matt Hancock have been perpetrating on the British people:

Thank heaven that Bosnia and Herzegovina ruled against an inhumane coronavirus programme. I hope that we do the same:

Someone also needs to have the guts to investigate Ferguson and the rest of them:

Let’s look at The Times‘s article, which Science Editor Tom Whipple wrote: ‘Professor Neil Ferguson: People don’t agree with lockdown and try to undermine the scientists’.

Tom Whipple was absolutely gushing in his reporting, overlooking Ferguson’s previous bogus predictions over the past 20 years of notional pandemics. Some of those predictions put a severe dent into British farming (emphases mine):

He moved from Oxford to Imperial as part of the country’s leading infectious disease modelling group. They modelled the 2001 foot and mouth outbreak, as well as the 2009 swine flu outbreak, in which at one point, before better data came in, they estimated a “reasonable worst case scenario” of 65,000 deaths.

When he returned to advise the government once again, this projection, two orders of magnitude above the real total, was cited by his critics. So too was foot and mouth, where the cull of millions of cattle and sheep, partly on the basis of predictions about the disease, still causes deep bitterness among farmers.

Whipple at least calls lockdown ‘a medieval intervention’. However, I would posit that, even in the Middle Ages, there were policies of sequestering the vulnerable and quarantining the sick, leaving the rest to work. People needed food and goods. Anyway, Ferguson describes how he embraced the CCP policy of overall lockdown:

In January, members of Sage, the government’s scientific advisory group, had watched as China enacted this innovative intervention in pandemic control that was also a medieval intervention. “They claimed to have flattened the curve. I was sceptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued it became clear it was an effective policy.”

Then, as infections seeded across the world, springing up like angry boils on the map, Sage debated whether, nevertheless, it would be effective here. “It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought.” In February one of those boils raged just below the Alps. And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.

Whipple gushed:

That realisation was a fulcrum in British history, and in the life of Professor Ferguson.

That ‘fulcrum’ meant poor health and/or imminent penury for millions of the rest of us.

This was Ferguson’s outrageously erroneous prediction that prompted Britain’s continuing lockdowns:

a quarter of a million Britons would die. If we wanted to stop that, he also projected, it would require extreme social distancing measures until a vaccine arrived.

Whipple’s next sentence reads:

That was when he went from unknown epidemiologist to academic superstar.

That is incredibly disingenuous. Millions of Britons knew who he was from his previous predictions. Our celebrity astrologer Mystic Meg could have done better by staring into her crystal ball. She would not have advocated lockdown or masks, either.

Ferguson expressed his surprise that people would criticise him:

“It’s bizarre,” he says. “Particularly given that I’ve never been a public servant. We volunteer for scientific committees, we don’t get paid anything.” He says he has not read most of the coverage, but can’t help hearing some of the criticism.

“Where it’s been disappointing is if people start out from a viewpoint that they don’t agree with lockdown, then try to undermine the science and scientists behind it. That hasn’t been a pleasant experience.”

Those statements puzzle me greatly.

His own track record speaks for itself, yet, his and SAGE’s policies have been ruling all our lives for the better part of a year. He doesn’t think people should criticise him because they are losing their livelihoods? Pure bunkum.

Whipple then goes into the assignation that Ferguson and his married mistress had during the springtime lockdown. The rest of us were holed up in our homes and she travelled across London for an afternoon’s pleasure. My account of it is below. The title expressed my hope that this charlatan would be exposed and that we would be liberated. Alas, no:

Prof Neil Ferguson resigns: will coronavirus lockdown start ending in the UK now? (May 5)

Ferguson told Whipple that he had expected some sort of mercy, at least to be ignored. Why, oh why, did the media start digging into his private life? Oh, woe:

“I made some mistakes. I’ve been completely open in terms of saying they were mistakes. But, nevertheless, the fact that journalists were digging into my private life at that level of detail was not something I could ever imagine. That’s not something you want to be on the end of.

My wife and son and my partner had journalists on the doorstep. I was actually in my flat in London, they didn’t know where I was. It was a very difficult time.” He and Sir Patrick Vallance, the present chief scientific adviser, agreed he should step back from Sage work.

Unfortunately, NERVTAG — New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group — allowed him to stay, hence, his continuing participation in these illiberal restrictions upon our lives.

Returning to lockdown, this is a curious statement:

These days, lockdown feels inevitable. It was, he reminds me, anything but. “If China had not done it,” he says, “the year would have been very different.”

Yes, it would have gone on as normal, with Rishi Sunak’s fantastic budget putting an end to austerity and giving us a better economy and hope for our post-Brexit transition future.

This month, the new variant — B.1.1.7, or B117, as it often appears — has caused more panic. Ferguson and his ilk have determined it is more infectious. However, it might also be less damaging to COVID-17 patients in hospital:

Nevertheless, Ferguson now wants even harsher measures:

he strongly implies that schools will have to shut in January, and even then the virus might evade lockdown.

Goodness knows what ‘the virus might evade lockdown’ might mean for Britons.

Whipple actually believes that Ferguson is some sort of scientific saviour. Good grief:

This is, I say, petrifying. It is also extremely interesting. Nowadays, it is orthodoxy that lockdown was right. In the next pandemic, we won’t hesitate to use it. But as this new variant shows, lockdown does not always work.

However, it also seems as if our first lockdown, sold to us as ‘flattening the sombrero’, to borrow Boris Johnson’s term, was done so on a false premise:

It was never guaranteed that lockdown would crush the curve. He is all too aware of this. “During late March, early April, we kept looking at the data as it came in. Was there any sign of hospital admissions and deaths hitting a peak? It was a very, very anxious time.” We now know that when we got it to its lowest, R, the reproduction rate of the virus, hit 0.6. Lockdown worked. If the professor’s modelling of the new variant is correct, it won’t be so easy to control. In the same circumstances it could have a rate just over 1 and the pandemic would not have retreated.

Ferguson says to his critics:

It’s clearly unfortunate that a minority of people almost don’t like the idea that you can just have random bad things happen in the world, and want to attribute it to some malign plan.

Ferguson and his family are largely unscathed from the policies he helped to develop.

Two other sites that reported on this interview had pertinent insights.

NewsWars noted:

In the Christmas interview, the epidemiologist admitted “there is an enormous cost associated with” lockdowns, specifically the erosion of civil liberties.

However, thanks to the Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarian measures, he said, “people’s sense of what is possible in terms of control changed.

And how! A year ago, who could have imagined that the CCP would be indirectly controlling our health policy?

At UnHerd, Freddie Sayers wrote similarly (italics in the original):

He almost seems at pains to emphasise the Chinese derivation of the lockdown concept, returning to it later in the interview:

“These days, lockdown feels inevitable. It was, he reminds me, anything but. “If China had not done it,” he says, “the year would have been very different.””

To those people who, still now, object to lockdowns on civil liberties principles, this will be a chilling reminder of the centrality of the authoritarian Chinese model in influencing global policy in this historic year.

Let us look at what Laura Perrins, ex-barrister and co-editor of Conservative Woman, a haven of common sense, has to say about said policies. Let’s start with testing of schoolchildren, something likely to come in January, along with the current hue and cry to close schools again:

The Government, advised by SAGE, NERVTAG and other quangos — quasi-NGOs — have lied and lied and lied this year, culminating with Christmas:

In conclusion:

I could not agree more.

Pray that this scourge leaves us and other Western countries in 2021.

Freedom is never free.

Happy New Year.

We in the West have been well and truly played in 2020.

For those who think they’re doing the right thing by obeying all the coronavirus restrictions, consider the following statement from Prof Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London, the king of lockdown, even though he violated the rules himself with his married mistress. A tip of the hat to the Daily Mail‘s veteran columnist Peter Hitchens, who lived for several years in the former Soviet Union:

I’ll have more on the interview tomorrow, but here are a few of the reactions to Ferguson’s statement.

This is an important observation re what Ferguson said about Italy (emphases mine):

Italy signing up to Belt and Road with China have any relevance?

Yep.

Here’s another:

He is complicit either fully knowingly or because he is compromised. Either way he has blood on his hands.

And another:

A year ago most would have denied they would ever allow governments to tell them who they can see at Christmas, what they wear, what they can buy or eat. Now most welcome it. They are yet to realise it is permanent, governments don’t give up power without being forced to do so.

Many Britons are shocked that the Government wheeled Ferguson out yet again:

How could Boris listen to Ferguson? Boris is old enough to know better.

Check out Ferguson’s prior predictions:

Is it any wonder that people have been suspicious of prescriptions and proscriptions that are completely antithetical to Western values?

The longer this goes on, the better for governments influenced by C C P ideas:

Tomorrow, I’ll have more from the Neil Ferguson’s interview to The Times.

See Part 1 in this series about the anger in Britain over lockdown.

One or two tweets below might have salty language. The rest do not.

There is much anger by a proportion of the population at the government:

MPs, except for one, are largely silent on the subject. Luckily, John Redwood has been an MP for decades. He might be our only hope:

Most are like Conservative MP Nadine Dorries, however. She was one of the first MPs to get coronavirus. Her aged mother, who also had it, helped her recover. I was sorry to see her tweet this:

Yesterday, I left off on masks. On Thursday, June 4, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps said they would be mandatory on all public transport in England. Health Secretary Matt Hancock repeated the order the following day:

Someone in the know saw this coming in April (never mind the reply):

This is so irrational. Earlier this year, the WHO advised against it:

Exactly.

I’m looking forward to the first lawsuit when someone is unable to breathe on public transport:

The above advice applies to England.

Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are on their own track.

However, Scotland is no better:

This is what they are doing in Singapore. Simon Dolan, incidentally, is suing the British government over lockdown. Good man:

It seems masks are only the beginning. In the UK, we haven’t fully got off the ground with the track-and-trace app.

More from Simon Dolan about Singapore:

Track-and-trace is also getting up people’s noses:

Then there’s the R rate that SAGE and Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty discuss daily on the coronavirus briefings:

But that’s nothing compared to the wacky modelling from Imperial College’s Prof Neil Ferguson which brought about lockdown:

Yet, at least one London hospital is ignoring masks and social distancing:

Shouldn’t only the vulnerable be sheltered?

Picking up on the railway platform, here’s the latest on international transport …

… and the latest on public conveniences:

Why doesn’t any of this make sense?

Similar madness holds true for local buses:

Meanwhile, unlike protestors around the world complaining during coronavirus about the death of an American ex-convict thousands of miles away, when you’re Piers Corbyn (pictured with the policewoman in a mask), an eccentric weather forecaster as well as the brother of the last Labour leader, and say that climate change is caused by the sun’s activity and you’re protesting lockdown with like-minded people, you can be arrested twice at Hyde Park in London:

The sheer hypocrisy of it all is mind boggling.

More tomorrow.

Throughout the coronavirus crisis, one name has popped up several times, that of Prof Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology at Stanford University in California.

In 2013, Prof Levitt was a joint winner of a Nobel Prize in Chemistry, along with Martin Karplus and Arieh Warshel, for ‘the development of multiscale models for complex chemical systems’.

Levitt, 73, was born in Pretoria, South Africa, and is currently a citizen of the United Kingdom, Israel and the United States.

He holds degrees from King’s College London and the University of Cambridge.

He has had a stellar career, receiving several distinguished scientific awards and scientific advisory board appointments in addition to his university professorships over the years.

He has had much to say about coronavirus.

On Monday, March 23, 2020, he gave an interview to the Los Angeles Times, with a prediction: ‘Coronavirus outbreak may be over sooner than you think’.

The LAT said that he had been adopting a measured approach throughout the pandemic since January, refuting the wild and inaccurate overestimates from the likes of Prof Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London (emphases mine):

Michael Levitt, a Nobel laureate and Stanford biophysicist, began analyzing the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide in January and correctly calculated that China would get through the worst of its coronavirus outbreak long before many health experts had predicted.

Now he foresees a similar outcome in the United States and the rest of the world.

While many epidemiologists are warning of months, or even years, of massive social disruption and millions of deaths, Levitt says the data simply don’t support such a dire scenario — especially in areas where reasonable social distancing measures are in place.

“What we need is to control the panic,” he said. In the grand scheme, “we’re going to be fine.”

This is what he discovered about China’s experience of the pandemic:

On Jan. 31, the country had 46 new deaths due to the novel coronavirus, compared with 42 new deaths the day before.

Although the number of daily deaths had increased, the rate of that increase had begun to ease off. In his view, the fact that new cases were being identified at a slower rate was more telling than the number of new cases itself. It was an early sign that the trajectory of the outbreak had shifted.

Think of the outbreak as a car racing down an open highway, he said. Although the car is still gaining speed, it’s not accelerating as rapidly as before.

“This suggests that the rate of increase in the number of deaths will slow down even more over the next week,” Levitt wrote in a report he sent to friends Feb. 1 that was widely shared on Chinese social media. And soon, he predicted, the number of deaths would be decreasing every day.

Three weeks later, Levitt told the China Daily News that the virus’ rate of growth had peaked. He predicted that the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in China would end up around 80,000, with about 3,250 deaths.

This forecast turned out to be remarkably accurate: As of March 16, China had counted a total of 80,298 cases and 3,245 deaths — in a nation of nearly 1.4 billion people where roughly 10 million die every year. The number of newly diagnosed patients has dropped to around 25 a day, with no cases of community spread reported since Wednesday.

At that point, he moved on from China:

He analyzed data from 78 countries that reported more than 50 new cases of COVID-19 every day and sees “signs of recovery” in many of them. He’s not focusing on the total number of cases in a country, but on the number of new cases identified every day — and, especially, on the change in that number from one day to the next.

“Numbers are still noisy, but there are clear signs of slowed growth.”

On Tuesday, March 24, The Independent picked up on the article and had found another interview he had done for an Israeli financial newsletter on coronavirus modelling, in which he stated that he disagreed with the exponential growth formulae used in predictions, e.g. Ferguson’s, although he mentioned no names:

In an interview with Calcalist, an Israeli financial newsletter, Mr Levitt explained why he didn’t agree with models of exponential growth that many organisations were using as the basis of their predictions.

“In exponential growth models, you assume that new people can be infected every day, because you keep meeting new people. But, if you consider your own social circle, you basically meet the same people every day,” he said. “You can meet new people on public transportation, for example; but even on the bus, after sometime most passengers will either be infected or immune.”

He also thought that social distancing was a good idea:

Mr Levitt said that social distancing measures have been helpful in reducing the virus’ ability to spread rapidly.

At this point, he was studying Italy’s coronavirus numbers:

He suggested that the higher percentage of elderly people in Italy paired with the country’s vibrant social culture resulted in the explosion of cases in that country.

“Furthermore, Italian culture is very warm and Italians have a very rich social life. For these reasons, it is important to keep people apart and prevent sick people from coming into contact with healthy people,” he said.

He was rightly concerned with overloading health systems, including that of the United States:

“Currently, I am most worried about the US. It must isolate as many people as possible to buy time for preparations. Otherwise, it can end up in a situation where 20,000 infected people will descend on the nearest hospital at the same time and the healthcare system will collapse,” he said.

However, while he recommended a brief lockdown as a stop-gap measure to flatten the sombrero, as it were, he also believed that the nations’ populations were developing a natural, or herd, immunity to coronavirus:

Mr Levitt said that while isolating was an important step to fighting viral spread, he also believes a certain segment of the population may be naturally immune to the disease.

“We know China was under almost complete quarantine, people only left home to do crucial shopping and avoided contact with others. In Wuhan, which had the highest number of infection cases in the Hubei province, everyone had a chance of getting infected, but only 3 percent caught it,” he said. “Even on the Diamond Princess [the quarantined cruise ship] the infection rate did not top 20 percent.”

He said those numbers suggest that some people simply are immune or especially resistant to the virus.

It’s quite possible that some of us can build up immunity to COVID-19, because the common cold is a type of coronavirus. I’m not equating the two by any means, just highlighting that the principle could well be the same. We might not need an expensive drug — or a vaccine with who knows what in it.

On May 2, Prof Levitt gave an interview to Britain’s online magazine UnHerd, which is an excellent site. Freddie Sayers, the site’s executive editor, conducted the interview, which is just under 35 minutes long, available below and at the accompanying article:

The aforementioned article explains Levitt’s nuanced view of coronavirus. Lockdowns should be only short-term, or focussed on vulnerable groups, such as the elderly. Social distancing is important, but, even then, after a while people will ignore it. Therefore, some prior immunity or asymptomatic cases must factor in somewhere. Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College numbers are misguided, because this is not about exponential growth.

An excerpt from the article follows:

His observation is a simple one: that in outbreak after outbreak of this disease, a similar mathematical pattern is observable regardless of government interventions. After around a two week exponential growth of cases (and, subsequently, deaths) some kind of break kicks in, and growth starts slowing down. The curve quickly becomes “sub-exponential”.

This may seem like a technical distinction, but its implications are profound. The ‘unmitigated’ scenarios modelled by (among others) Imperial College, and which tilted governments across the world into drastic action, relied on a presumption of continued exponential growth — that with a consistent R number of significantly above 1 and a consistent death rate, very quickly the majority of the population would be infected and huge numbers of deaths would be recorded. But Professor Levitt’s point is that that hasn’t actually happened anywhere, even in countries that have been relatively lax in their responses.

He takes specific issue with the Neil Ferguson paper. “In a footnote to a table it said, assuming exponential growth of 15% for six days. Now I had looked at China and had never seen exponential growth that wasn’t decaying rapidly.”

The explanation for this flattening that we are used to is that social distancing and lockdowns have slowed the curve, but he is unconvinced. As he put it to me, in the subsequent examples to China of South Korea, Iran and Italy, “the beginning of the epidemics showed a slowing down and it was very hard for me to believe that those three countries could practise social distancing as well as China.” He believes that both some degree of prior immunity and large numbers of asymptomatic cases are important factors.

He also observes that the total number of deaths we are seeing, in places as diverse as New York City, parts of England, parts of France and Northern Italy, all seem to level out at a very similar fraction of the total population. “Are they all practising equally good social distancing? I don’t think so.” He disagrees with Sir David Spiegelhalter’s calculations that the totem is around one additional year of excess deaths, while (by adjusting to match the effects seen on the quarantined Diamond Princess cruise ship) he calculates that it is more like one month of excess death that is need before the virus peters out.

More generally, he complains that epidemiologists only seem to be called wrong if they underestimate deaths, and so there is an intrinsic bias towards caution. “They see their role as scaring people into doing something, and I understand that… but in my work, if I say a number is too small and I’m wrong, or too big and I’m wrong, both of those errors are the same.

He believes the much-discussed R0 is a faulty number, as it is meaningless without the time infectious alongside.

On May 23, the Telegraph had an article about Levitt: ‘Lockdown saved no lives and may have cost them, Nobel Prize winner believes’.

Levitt had been in touch with Ferguson to tell him his numbers were (once again, as the British know) woefully out of whack:

Michael Levitt, a Stanford University professor who correctly predicted the initial trajectory of the pandemic, sent messages to Professor Neil Ferguson in March telling the influential government advisor he had over-estimated the potential death toll by “10 or 12 times”.

The Imperial College professor’s modelling, a major factor in the Government’s apparent abandoning of a so-called herd-immunity policy, was part of an unnecessary “panic virus” which spread among global political leaders, Prof Levitt now tells the Telegraph.

Levitt told the Telegraph that he was no fan of a prolonged lockdown:

“I think lockdown saved no lives,” said the scientist, who added that the Government should have encouraged Britons to wear masks and adhere to other forms of social distancing.

“I think it may have cost lives. It will have saved a few road accident lives – things like that – but social damage – domestic abuse, divorces, alcoholism – has been extreme. And then you have those who were not treated for other conditions.”

Levitt nails it with his next observation. Politicians were terrified at the prospect of a high death toll if they did not implement lockdown:

“I think that the real virus was the panic virus,” Prof Levitt told the Telegraph. “For reasons that were not clear to me, I think the leaders panicked and the people panicked and I think there was a huge lack of discussion.”

Levitt believes that COVID-19 has a natural life cycle. Lockdown did little. The virus burned out by itself:

“In Europe, I don’t think that anything actually stopped the virus other than some kind of burnout,” he added. “There’s a huge number of people who are asymptomatic so I would seriously imagine that by the time lockdown was finally introduced in the UK the virus was already widely spread. They could have just stayed open like Sweden by that stage and nothing would have happened.”

Also:

“There is no doubt that you can stop an epidemic with lockdown but it’s a very blunt and very medieval weapon and the epidemic could have been stopped just as effectively with other sensible measures (such as masks and other forms of social distancing),” he added.

Levitt thinks that the UK will have total deaths around 50,000, which looks quite possible. He’s also drawn the ire of epidemiologists, yet his forecasts have been far more accurate than theirs:

“It turns out numbers are played out very consistently when you look at all the places that have been badly hit, particularly in Europe. The token number of deaths before things stop is about one month of natural deaths, which is something like one in a thousand.”

Based on his estimates, Britain was due to suffer around 50,000 deaths in total. “A lot of things went wrong but I think the main thing is that we just needed to think and discuss things a little bit,” he added. I was told on numerous occasions ‘you are not an epidemiologist, shut up’. I don’t really care. I was just looking at the numbers. I was looking at the cruise ship, looking at Wuhan. The same number held for these places.”

A few days before the Telegraph interview took place, an article comparing Levitt’s spot-on numbers with Prof Neil Ferguson’s off-piste ones appeared in The Critic: ‘We’re all in the big numbers now’.

As its author, Alistair Haimes, says, we are now in a place to begin studying UK coronavirus deaths and statistical curves.

This is how wrong, to be polite, Ferguson’s Imperial College numbers were:

Imperial College haven’t had a good war, and after their performance in other recent epidemics perhaps they will now pass their mantle onto another team.  Preferably one that can code to levels fit for publication, never mind policy: it is increasingly awkward to hear the Prime Minister quoting their forecast that, were it not for lockdown, the UK could have been looking at half a million deaths when, at the tail-end of the epidemic, there are only 320,000 deaths worldwide.

By contrast, we have Dr Levitt’s accurate predictions, but no one wanted to know because Levitt is not an epidemiologist!

In mid-March, Stanford’s Nobel laureate Michael Levitt (biophysicist and professor of structural biology) discussed the “natural experiment” of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, a virtually perfect sealed petri-dish disproportionately filled with the most susceptible age and health groups. Even here, despite the virus spreading uncontrolled onboard for at least two weeks, infection only reached 20% of passengers and crew (an “upper bound” to infection levels?); Levitt concluded that we must have high levels of innate immunity that can clear the virus. And using very simple mathematics (not “15,000 lines of uncommented code” like Neil Ferguson) he demonstrated that the virus’s spread had never been exponential but rather has been running out of steam from day one. Who listened?

The end result is a death toll that is no worse than a bad influenza year:

If we simply move covid-19 deaths from spring to winter, the death-toll and the extent of the epidemic is put in the context of recent bad (but not dramatic) influenza years.

We have had bad flu years in the UK, and within the past two decades, but we didn’t get hysterical about them:

Remember the killer flu of 2000, and the lockdown after the Millenium super-spreader events? Me neither. Covid-19 might not be “just flu”, but that’s because there’s no “just” about flu.

According to the article, Sweden’s no lockdown strategy was that of Britain’s SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) member and our Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance:

In Sweden, Professors Giesecke and Tegnell have managed the epidemic within Sweden’s healthcare capacity without suspending civil liberties or shutting down schools or society (Sir Patrick Vallance’s “Plan A”), with no greater death-toll than our own. The Free Swedes pointed out all along that lockdown would be much easier to get into than out of: no kidding, we’re in an eel-trap.

We have no idea if the UK government looked at models that contradicted Ferguson’s. Oxford University has more realistic models, but we paid attention to Ferguson’s numbers from Imperial College. They have never been right for other pandemics, so why would he have been right about this one?

One thing the article omits is the media narrative that drove us to lockdown. Britain was going along with the Swedish model of social distancing, but the 24/7 news channels — BBC and Sky — ramped up Project Fear by asking why we didn’t have a lockdown, too.

No doubt advisers put pressure on Prime Minister Boris Johnson, too, because everyone in that stratum of society, Boris included, will watch some BBC news every day. He probably already knew the narrative.

Hence, lockdown on the evening of Monday, March 23.

SAGE minutes actually state that the British public was so scared that they would comply:

SAGE minutes make it clear that the public was explicitly petrified in order to ensure compliance with lockdown.

Lockdown was a YUGE mistake socially and economically.

We are due to go through the worst economic disaster since the early 18th century. Years differ: 1704, 1706, 1708. Take your pick.

Questions must also be asked of Neil Ferguson. He ruined the farming industry with his past predictions. Now he’s ruined not only the British economy, but, perhaps, others where leaders looked at his unrealistic extrapolations. (The United States comes to mind.)

One could be forgiven for thinking that Ferguson has an agenda of some sort. It certainly looks that way.

Boris, his government ministers and his advisers now have to get us out of this mess, sooner rather than later.

Boris’s ‘baby steps’ won’t cut it.

The following British coronavirus version of Rudyard Kipling’s If– (original full text here) with regard to coronavirus brought a smile. I hope it does the same for you.

It’s a comment that Steven Brook left on a Spiked column by Brendan O’Neill: ‘What Neil Ferguson’s booty call tells us about modern politics’.

I’ve added a few grammatical edits to this witty take on the virus:

If – by Mr Kipling

If you can lose your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you for not panicking sooner.
If you can hide your doubt, judgement and perspective and put your faith in experts like Piers Morgan
If you make no allowance for other considerations, the economy or unintended consequences.
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting for a vaccine that is unlikely to turn up.
Or meekly accept being lied about, because the mainstream media don’t deal in facts any more.
Or being hated, don’t even think of cutting the public funding to the hatemongers.
And yet don’t look too normal, nor talk too wise, just put your critical faculties on one side and show you care …

If you can dream of a multicultural paradise but ignore the reality of a fragmented rudderless society
If you can think, then, for God’s sake, hide those thoughts, or you will look cold and heartless.
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster, having beaten the virus but wrecked the economy.
And treat those two impostors just the same; who needs a healthy economy anyway?
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by the BBC to make a trap for fools, but you’re too scared to deal with that nest of vipers.
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, the family, freedom of speech, education.
And stoop and failed to build ’em up because you imported third rate tools from China:

If you can make one heap of all our national wealth
And risk it on Prof Ferguson’s model which forecast that 121% of the British population would be dead by Easter.
And lose, because Imperial College has a long history of getting things completely wrong and start again at the beginnings.
And never breathe a word about our loss because no one takes responsibility for previous panics (and, for goodness sake, don’t publish the grooming report).
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew not to strangle Robert Peston even though he richly deserves it.
To keep having press conferences long after they have become utterly pointless.
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘You do realise that Common Purpose runs the UK?’

If you can talk with the public while selling out your nation to the globalists
Or walk with the Davos crowd — but still pretend to have the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you because you burnt the photos of you with the lady boy.
If all men count with you, but George Soros particularly;
If you can fill the unforgiving news cycle
With sixty seconds’ worth of calm reassurance,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, which, sadly, is a lot less than it used to be.
And—which is more—you’ll be a modern politician, old chum.

It nicely sums up the past two (and a bit) months here in England.

Friday, May 8, 2020, was a national holiday in the UK to commemorate the 75th anniversary of VE Day.

It’s a bittersweet commemoration.

The Allies fought for our freedom.

In the UK, we are still in lockdown for coronavirus.

Not a day has gone by when I haven’t considered that all those freedoms fought for were taken from us on the evening of Monday, March 23, 2020. All it took was an announcement from Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

This is where we are:

We await Boris’s announcement on Sunday, May 10, re lockdown.

This tweet is from the co-editor of Conservative Woman:

I find it hard to believe that Boris can credibly extend lockdown (which isn’t saying he won’t) …

… particularly in light of Prof Neil Ferguson’s bogus numbers

… and resignation from SAGE for having his mistress over — twice:

Boris told us his was to be the People’s Government. I hope someone reminds him of that.

This was VE Day 2020, as Kathy Gyngell, the other co-editor of Conservative Woman, puts so aptly:

This letter to the editor comes from author Virginia Ironside, born a year before VE Day:

She nails it in the last paragraph.

The lockdown has shown there is an ‘us’ and a ‘them’. Ferguson’s lover said that lockdown was straining her marriage. Aww diddums. She lives in a £1.9m house. Imagine if she were living with an abusive husband on the 15th floor of a council block:

So, what hope have we?

I have never lost sight of this fact:

A German virologist agrees. (I’m ever thankful that peacetime brought Europe together.) I watched this interview, which is excellent:

Meanwhile, in Sweden:

And let’s not forget the economic impact, the worst since 1706:

These facts make watching the late afternoon daily coronavirus briefing all the more painful.

Dominic Raab, Boris’s First Secretary (deputy PM), was at the main lectern on Thursday, May 7:

One veteran of the Second World War, Captain Tom Moore, raised more than $28m for the NHS by walking around his garden 100 times. He uses a zimmerframe (walker), so this could not have been easy.

For his 100th birthday a few days ago, the Royal Air Force gave him his own personal flypast.

And now ITV made a documentary about his time in the war, which was shown on Friday:

God bless him. Many happy returns, Captain Tom!

There is so much to write about COVID-19.

I have hundreds of bookmarks about PPE, lockdowns, deaths, profit-makers and more.

With regard to lockdowns and drugs, Americans and the British will remember two names after all of this is over: Dr Anthony Fauci and Professor Ian Ferguson.

Lockdowns

Professor Ian Ferguson of Imperial College London is the man primarily responsible for lockdowns in the UK and the US, heretofore known as bastions of liberty.

Unfortunately, Ferguson’s track record is less than brilliant, as this subtitled video explains. I have no idea if someone really hacked his 13-year-old modelling code. The video is what’s important here, as he did great harm to the British livestock industry on two separate occasions. Ferguson is the reason why beef and lamb have cost the earth over the past two decades:

I never thought that lockdown was the right way to go. I have not changed my mind.

I was so pleased with Prime Minister Boris Johnson and President Donald Trump for not going down that route … until they did.

Both had input from Ferguson’s faulty coronavirus modelling, which he has since revised downward — when it’s too late:

This is now reaching the media. The Spectator wrote about it on May 5 (see below):

The Spectator‘s editor Fraser Nelson wrote ‘Sweden tames its ‘R number’ without lockdown’. An excerpt follows, emphases mine:

Imperial also applied its UK assumptions to Sweden, warning that its rejection of lockdown was likely to leave the virus rampant with an R of between 3 and 4. That is to say: every person infected would give it to three or four othersIts modelling envisaged Sweden paying a heavy price for its rejection of lockdown, with 40,000 Covid deaths by 1 May and almost 100,000 by June.

The latest figure for Sweden is 2,680 deaths, with daily deaths peaking a fortnight ago. So Imperial College’s modelling – the same modelling used to inform the UK response – was wrong, by an order of magnitudeSweden has now published its own graph, saying its R was never near the 4 that Imperial imagined. More importantly, its all-important R level (all-important to the UK anyway – it has never much featured in the Swedish discussion) has in fact been below the safe level of 1 for the last few weeks.

As Johan Norberg has written, Imperial’s model ‘could only handle two scenarios: an enforced national lockdown or zero change in behaviour. It had no way of computing Swedes who decided to socially distance voluntarily. But we did.’ Anders Tegnell, Sweden’s state epidemiologist, has seen his trust ratings soar. Some Swedes are even having his face tattooed on their arm.

When Imperial first made its models, everyone was guessing. We know more now. Every day, in The Spectator’s Covid-19 email, we bring new studies that add more detail to our understanding of the virus. At present, Britain is considering the South Korean model: an ambitious combination of tech, surveillance, track and trace. But given that Sweden achieved what Imperial College had thought undoable, without the surveillance or the tech or the loss of liberty, its lessons are also worthy of consideration.

Sweden’s Prime Minister has said he is relying on ‘Folkvett’ – people’s wit, or common sense. As Boris Johnson considers his options, he should also ask whether a folkvett option – described in a recent Spectator leading article as a ‘trust the public’ approach – might work for Britain.

PS For all of its prominence in virus modelling, ‘the R’ is not a known number. It can only be guessed at, because the actual number of infections can only be guessed at. Sweden has not targeted the R. It has simply sought to keep the virus at manageable levels (ie, so hospitals have spare capacity). But the UK’s approach is more influenced by models, and No10 now says keeping an R below 1 is its main policy.

Fraser Nelson probably knows Boris, so I hope he sends him a copy of his article. Although Nelson began working at The Spectator a few years after Boris stopped editing the magazine to enter politics, they have probably met at the publication’s annual summer garden parties or at Conservative Party functions.

Check out this graphic, of Sweden’s coronavirus numbers predicted by Imperial and the reality. It is shocking.

Congratulations to Sweden! I knew they’d done the right thing from the get-go.

Returning to the UK, here’s one unanswered question about Britain’s coronavirus policy: why, in mid-March, was COVID-19 declassified as a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK only for us to have lockdown one week later, on the evening of Monday, March 23?

It wasn’t just the deaths that Ferguson messed up, there were other aspects of health policy, too, as Martin Geddes discusses in an excellent essay, ‘Coronagate: the scandal to end all scandals’:

The British justification for lockdown and abandonment of “herd immunity” comes from the work of Prof Neil Ferguson of Imperial College in London. This institution has received over $185m from the Gates foundation. He has a truly appalling track record, having grotesquely mis-modelled foot and mouth disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disase, H5N1, and swine flu. But he was hired again for COVID-19, where he was only out by a factor of 20 on mortality, and made obvious errors like presuming frail elderly patients would need ventilators when this is well known to be inadvisable (as it kills them).

The combination of a cataclysmic death forecast with no known treatment is what then drove draconian lockdown policy. This was despite the policy being implemented so late it cannot have had any impact on the actual peak demand for healthcare. Whether done with integrity or as sabotage only history can tell. The damage is done now.

Sadly, Martin Geddes is only too right.

How will we ever recover? Not just the UK, but the rest of the Western world?

British farmers never have. A number of them had to leave farming; they couldn’t afford it any more. Some committed suicide.

Pray God we pull out of this successfully — and relatively quickly!

Drugs

While there is no cure for COVID-19, anti-malarial drugs can be used to lessen the damage to lungs in sufferers who need it:

Geddes mentions Dr Anthony Fauci in the US, prefaced with this introduction (emphases in the original, those in purple mine):

I was going to title this essay “Hydroxychloroquine: does it cure CONS” — with the joke being CONS as an abbreviation for Credulous Official Narrative Syndrome. But people dying and losing their livelihoods worldwide for no good reason is not a joke. Coronagate is the political con job that promises to eclipse all others, even against stiff competition like Spygate.

Here’s the bottom line: Dr Fauci and his institutional sponsors have known since at least 2005 that chloroquine — and its milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) — inhibit coronaviruses like SARS from replicating in the body. They have withheld this important information from the public and failed to act on it when forming policy. Instead these besuited criminals have pushed experimental and expensive drugs, whilst having huge financial conflicts of interest.

This means that the present lockdown and the immense disruption and harm it is causing is for no real benefit. We could be offering cheap and effective prophylactic and therapeutic treatments for COVID-19, targeted at the vulnerable (like healthcare workers, elderly, those with comorbidities). Indeed, several countries are taking this course now with proven success.

Later on in his essay, he says:

The smoking gun is a Virology Journal paper from 2005 from the NIH, where Dr Fauci was director: “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” COVID-19 is a SARS virus similar to the one from 2005. It is undeniable that this information was public and known to Dr Fauci and his colleagues.

Yet, Fauci appears more often than not on the dais for America’s daily coronavirus briefings! WHY?

I have quoted one of my readers — Prex — before on matters coronaviral. This is an excerpt from Prex’s take on Fauci (emphases in bold mine):

notice how the MSM and Cabal, including Fauci, FIGHT against Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Zinc SO vigorously? Then at the same time, they HAIL, Remdisivir, after ONE study, which, was NOT as effective as HAZ (91% effective AFTER infected, preventing further damage AND hospitalization) Remdisivir, was made FOR Ebola. It did NOT work.

In fact, it KILLED far more than it SAVED in Africa. Gee, is that not what they tried to project on Hydroxychloroquine? Why YES, yes, it is.

Want MORE? Guess, WHO funded the Ebola research into Remdisivir? The NIH. Guess who is the HEAD of the NIH? Dr Fauci. Guess who signed OFF on the drug for Ebola? Dr Fauci. Guess who funded the Covid 19 research in NC? Fauci and the NIH. Guess who used 3.7 MILLION taxpayer dollars to move it to CHINA and the Wuhan BSL4? The NIH and Fauci.

Want MORE? Guess who was the head of the AIDS taskforce in the 80’s and 90’s? Dr Fauci. A vaccine was NEVER found, despite HUNDREDS of BILLIONS spent. Guess who is AGAINST Hydroxychloroquine? Dr Fauci. Guess who had the VA put out that SHAM Hydroxychloroquine study the media tried to pass off to scare people from using HAZ? The NIH and Dr Fauci. Guess WHO advised Trump to do the shutdown and social distancing mitigation crap to flatten the curve? Dr Fauci. Who wants the shutdown to CONTINUE and is almost guaranteeing no herd immunity and a second wave? Dr Fauci.

See a pattern? Guess WHO, pun intended, advised Dr Fauci? Tedros and the World Health Organization. Guess WHO, pun intended they enable? CHINA. Guess WHO, funds the WHO? The NIH and Dr Fauci. Getting a CLEARER picture yet?

Remember Event 201. The mock by Johns Hopkins that was almost dead on to Covid 19? Funded by Bill and Melinda Gates’ Foundation…AND…the NIH and Dr Fauci. Why do you THINK Fauci so readily took in the WHO and IHME models? HE had ALREADY seen them at Event 201. In October of 2019.

Want ICING? WHO does the WHO defend? China. WHO owns GILEAD, the makers of Remdisivir? CHINA. Who bought Gilead and used the drug in their country? China. Who would BENEFIT from that EXPENSIVE drug being used here in the US? CHINA. Who is PUSHING the NEW, expensive, hard to scale,limited effectiveness against Covid 19, and DANGEROUS drug in favor of the CHEAP, well known, easily scalable, safe, and PROVEN 91% effective against Covid 19 drug? Dr Fauci. WHO benefits from that? CHINA.

Now, ask yourself this. WHY would Fauci, who KNOWS EXACTLY where this virus came from, who did it, and who enabled it, PUSH something that was MORE expensive, LESS well KNOWN, LESS effective, LESS available and scalable, and MORE deadly than Hydroxychloroquine? Why would he push something that would BENEFIT China after THEY released the pandemic, hid it, and then enabled it to spread by hiding all info on it?

WHY would a member of Trump’s Coronavirus task force do ANY of that? WHY is Fauci there? WHAT is his REAL purpose? Who does he REALLY work for? My bet is CHINA. Fauci is either a MOLE, and OR he is so deep in all this he is trying to mislead to cover up HIS complicity.

I am putting this on my blog Church, feel free to link it or spread it. I hope all is well in the UK. Our shutdown begins to end May 11th. I hope yours is sooner or not much later than that. Take care my friend!

It makes sense. All of it.

Martin Geddes agrees that the medical establishment is downplaying — if not damning — the use of hydroxychloroquine and similar drugs in treating COVID-19:

The medical establishment knows that it has been withholding cures, and that this is now an existential threat to its legitimacy. We have seen unprecedented action by regulators in multiple countries to prevent the off-label use of HCQ for COVID-19. If there is a cheap and immediate cure, it removes the market for expensive patented drugs, and exposes the con.

For example, in the USA the FDA has restricted its use to official clinical trials. To bring this to life, here is a quote from one American emergency room doctor:

[Dr] Dopko said in his 17 years of being a medical doctor, he has never seen the FDA issue restrictions on a drug like they have with hydroxychloroquine. “We’ve been told we’re not supposed to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 unless the person is in the hospital and it’s part of a clinical trial.”

“I’ve never seen this before. Doctors prescribe drugs for off-label use all the time,” he said.

The same has happened in France, where HCQ was suspiciously reclassified as a “poisonous substance” on 13th January, despite decades of safe use and being listed by WHO as an “essential medicine”. Remember, denying people essential medical care is a crime against humanity: this was done by the same Macron government that has used illegal LBD40 ammunition against civilian protestors in breach of the Geneva Convention.

The same also applies in the UK, where HCQ is not being promoted by the NHS as standard protocol; this means many are dying on ventilators or in nursing homes for no good reason. “Do not resuscitate” orders are being widely signed by the elderly, who are effectively being culled to pad the COVID-19 numbers and hide the overreaction. Yes, it’s that bad.

We also hear awful stories coming out of New York from whistle-blower nurses saying patients are being left to rot and die, since they lack family as advocates due to isolation of COVID-19 wards. The CDC has been caught reclassifying deaths, as the scam becomes too obvious. What happened to all the people dying of other causes, including old age? Where did they go? Where’s the public outcry at the obvious massaging of the death toll numbers?

Conclusion

Regardless of what the media say, the total deaths worldwide (population: 7.7 bn) will be small.

More deaths, unrelated to COVID-19, because of severe hardship will be experienced by countless millions as a result of Prof Ferguson and Dr Fauci who live in their own little scientific bubbles yet ruin the world. I won’t even go into Bill Gates. He disgusts me that much.

Martin Geddes says that individuals must be brought to justice for this:

A corrupt media has covered up for a corrupt government, and neither could be brought to account (until now) due to a corrupt justice system. Many people — including Bill Gates and Dr Fauci — need to answer for their actions in court. Those in the media who have knowingly connived to hype the threat, yet withheld information about a cure, should face prison.

We do not know whether COVID-19 is natural or manmade, and if the latter whether its release is accidental or deliberate. To the extent that we have a good enough cure, it doesn’t matter at this point; indeed we may never know, as the truth could trigger WW3. COVID-19 is already the defining economic and social event of our lives, and Coronagate promises to be the defining governance scandal of modern history.

If we bring people to justice, and truly learn the lessons from it, it will trigger a deep reform our medical, media, and government institutions. If those reforms are successful, Coronagate could be the scandal to end all scandals. That is the only worthy legacy of the unnecessary death tolls of both COVID-19 and lockdown.

I couldn’t agree more.

We need to insist that our legislators, whether in the UK or the US, shine a very bright light on all of this now and afterwards.

There was big news on the evening of Tuesday, May 5, 2020.

N.B.: This post contains mature content.

Professor Neil Ferguson — aka Professor Lockdown — resigned from SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) in the UK. He remains in his post at Imperial College London.

He violated lockdown himself — with his married, left-wing lover, who is also a mother of two.

Apparently, the woman and her husband, also an academic, have an open marriage, so her gallivanting across London on two occasions was no big deal.

Ferguson is married but separated from his wife; they have a child.

The Telegraph broke the story. Christopher Hope, Chief Political Correspondent and Assistant Editor, is one of the journalists who co-wrote the article. Click twice on the image to see it. A summary follows:

For thee, but not for me.

Looking at it in another way:

A lot of people following Ferguson’s dodgy predictions about coronavirus — and, before that, foot and mouth, BSE (mad cow disease), swine flu, ebola — think this excuse is just a cover:

We await an exposé of this dangerous man. It’s midweek, therefore, time enough for a big splash in the Sunday papers.

The Telegraph was not alone in putting Ferguson on their front pages for Wednesday. Click on the photos to see them and the articles:

Here she is with a box labelled #EndFossilFuelSubsidies:

‘What is Avaaz.org?’ you might ask. You can read more about the activist organisation here. The name means ‘voice’ in a hybrid of various languages. It is an American organisation, supported by the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and founded by MoveOn.org, a group alleged to have ties with Soros.

This woman also opposes Brexit. Apparently, she is Austrian:

The exclusive Telegraph article says, in part (emphases mine):

Professor Neil Ferguson allowed the woman to visit him at home during the lockdown while lecturing the public on the need for strict social distancing in order to reduce the spread of coronavirus. The woman lives with her husband and their children in another house.

The epidemiologist leads the team at Imperial College London that produced the computer-modelled research that led to the national lockdown, which claimed that more than 500,000 Britons would die without the measures.

Prof Ferguson has frequently appeared in the media to support the lockdown and praised the “very intensive social distancing” measures.

The revelation of the “illegal” trysts will infuriate millions of couples living apart and banned by the Government from meeting up during the lockdown, which is now in its seventh week.

On at least two occasions, Antonia Staats, 38, travelled across London from her home in the south of the capital to spend time with the Government scientist, nicknamed Professor Lockdown.

The 51-year-old had only just finished a two-week spell self-isolating after testing positive for coronavirus

The first of Ms Staats’ visits, on Monday March 30, coincided with a public warning by Prof Ferguson that the one-week-old lockdown measures would have to remain until June.

Ms Staats, a left-wing campaigner, made a second visit on April 8 despite telling friends she suspected that her husband, an academic in his 30s, had symptoms of coronavirus.

She and her husband live together with their two children in a £1.9 million home, but are understood to be in an open marriage. She has told friends about her relationship with Prof Ferguson, but does not believe their actions to be hypocritical because she considers the households to be one.

But one week before the first tryst, Dr Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer, and Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary, clarified during the daily Downing Street press conference that couples not living together must stay apart during lockdown.

Prof Ferguson sat on Sage, whose advice has guided the Government response during the pandemic, as well as the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), which advises the chief medical officer and the Department of Health

Ms Staats declined to comment.

This will get people’s backs up. More on that below.

Only in the past week has the government allowed certain establishments to reopen, e.g. DIY stores and some restaurants offering delivery or takeaway service only.

These small pleasures are significant when Britons cannot work or are separated from their loved ones.

This was the newly reopened KFC in Basingstoke, Hampshire, on Tuesday, May 5. To be fair, Deliveroo drivers are in some of these cars, but not most of them:

Earlier on Tuesday — Ferguson resigned from SAGE in the evening — Speaker of the House Sir Lindsay Hoyle made a brief annoucement in the Commons:

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said several days ago that now was not the time to lift lockdown.

He will be making the annoucement on Sunday, all being well.

However much we like Boris and want him to get well soon, a number of us are getting itchy feet. Car use is up, as per the transport slide we get nearly daily on the government’s coronavirus briefings.

Will Ferguson’s resignation change the government’s mind about lockdown?

Some experts have also criticised the social distancing rule, which Ferguson and his lover clearly ignored:

There is also a suggested letter that Britons can send to their respective MPs:

I’ll have more in another post on Sweden’s sensible precautions, which Boris, too, was asking us to follow until the evening of Monday, March 23, when we went into lockdown.

I don’t know if this SAGE chart from March 6 is the real deal, but it wouldn’t surprise me:

Over the weekend, #endlockdownuk began trending on Twitter. If people were restless then, they must be downright furious now:

Neil Ferguson will have done more singlehandedly than any boffin over the past century to make the average person mistrust, if not hate, science.

Also, thanks to him, no one will trust government medical officers or scientific advisers for at least a generation.

In the meantime, Boris, please do the right thing and phase out the lockdown steadily and sensibly STARTING NEXT WEEK. Thank you.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,533 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

September 2021
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,658,720 hits