LOCKDOWNS
We need lockdowns to stop the spread of Covid-19, right?
Before we entered lockdown in March, deaths from all causes was the lowest this year than any other year out of the last 5. We normally see a spike in deaths every winter due to complications arising from the flu – particularly among the elderly and those already very ill with other diseases – but the winter/spring of 2019/20 was very mild for flu cases.
Interestingly, Covid-19 deaths began appearing in the UK in late January 2020 and grew in number in direct proportion to the drop in flu deaths. This drop in flu deaths at the height of flu season has never happened before (that we could find) since records began. It also interesting that the symptoms of Covid-19 are the same as for flu: fever, nasal congestion, dry cough, and so on.
​
The simplest explanation is that flu-related deaths were renamed as Covid-19 deaths. Even the mainstream media picked up on this anomaly and began reporting on it:
​
​
​
It's also worth noting that just days before the Government locked the UK down for the first time, Covid-19 was downgraded to no longer being considered a High Consequence Infectious Disease on March 19th.
But the lockdown in March saved lives, right?
The all-cause mortality rate (as provided by the ONS) from mid-April (which was about 2 weeks into lockdown) began to rise from the lowest in 5 years to just above the seasonal average as lockdown progressed. And despite the excuse that the lockdown was necessary to protect both the NHS and the vulnerable, the fact is the NHS didn't need protecting, as hospitals remained almost empty throughout lockdown and the tax-payer-funded, purpose built Nightingale hospitals were barely, if ever, used.
Here's the BBC admitting that bed capacity need is lower than last year (which was also mild for the flu):
There was also the care home scandal that was exposed by the media on behalf of concerned relatives. The scandal involved very sick and infectious elderly people being discharged early from hospital to be placed in amongst other elderly and vulnerably people in care homes. Nearly 50,000 care home deaths were registered in 11 weeks (up to 22nd of May in England and Wales) – that's 25,000 MORE than usual for the time of year. And although Covid-19 was placed on many of the death certificates, the real cause of death was often down to neglect, dehydration – or the existing diseases the patients were already being treated for, such as heart disease, cancers, and dementia.
It's worth considering the fact that the UK care home scandal was replicated throughout the world... simultaneously.
​
And while we were “protecting the NHS”, the NHS shut down treatment for all other disease – treatment that was crucial to save lives. People have died from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and many other diseases for which they should have received treatment but didn't due to the NHS favouring Covid-19 above all else.
Deaths from suicide and domestic abuse also sky-rocketed during lockdown. Suicide in particular increased during the first lockdown and continued to stay high as anxiety and stress affects many of the population.
So, taking everything into account, the first lockdown saw a huge spike in deaths from all causes (except flu, which virtually disappeared, which suggests flu deaths were being reported as Covid-19) – meaning the lockdown was far more deadly than the virus, itself.
But there must be a need for the latest lockdown, right?
Once the first lockdown ended, the all-cause mortality rate fell dramatically to below the 5-year average again – even lower than before the lockdown was introduced. The care home scandal was exposed and the practise of putting infectious, seriously ill people in with other vulnerable and elderly people was stopped, and, of course, flu season had ended by then. The NHS had also stopped the use of ventilators in cases that required oxygen, reducing ventilator-induced deaths.
​
Deaths continued to remain at a 5-year low during the summer months. Testing was then rolled out on a grand scale and the highly controversial rt PCR tests were used to 'diagnose' coronavirus 'cases' ('Covid-19 deaths' was quietly dropped by the media in favour of coronavirus cases during the summer). As you can read in more detail here, the PCR tests are NOT to be used as diagnostic tools and can NOT tell if you have Covid-19 and/or are infectious, so the term 'cases' is, in fact, meaningless.
Perfectly healthy, symptom-free people were being tested – either voluntarily or not – and pronounced to have Covid-19... even though the PCR test cannot test for Covid-19. There is also a concern among medical experts not on the Government payroll regarding the high false positive rate with the tests.
It is an extraordinary move for a Government to quarantine healthy people, and it is also a move that requires extreme justification, due to the risk to people's lives and livelihoods, as well as to our children's education. And when you consider that the average death rate for someone who reportedly dies of Covid-19 is 82 - with preexisting conditions - (the average age for death in the UK is around 80.4), and that the survival rate for Covid-19 is, according to the NHS, 99.9976%, then one must question if there is lawful justification for lockdowns.
There have been a number of FoI (Freedom of Information) requests made to the Government demanding evidence that:
-
a) there is an independent, peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves Covid-19 virus actually exists, and has been isolated and purified and shown to infect one human from another
-
b) the rt PCR tests can actually diagnose someone is infectious with Covid-19, and
-
c) the true death rate attributed to Covid-19 actually IS for Covid-19 (after it was revealed that the NHS was writing Covid-19 as a cause of death - even without a test having been done and the person quite clearly having died of something else)
To date, the Government have been unable to answer these questions. Furthermore, the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) in July revealed that there is no Covid-19 in a document titled "CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic panel", dated July 13, 2020.
But the Government wouldn't actually mislead us about something so serious, right?
The UK Government is currently subject to ongoing court actions relating to the illegality of lockdowns and the other draconian measures it used against the UK public since March 2020.
​
FoI request and response in which the DHSC (UK Department of Health and Social Care) admits it holds no data for SARS-COV-2:
​
To summarise:
-
there were and are no extra deaths in the UK that could support the Government's position that there is a highly infectious virus killing the population, and, therefore,
-
there was no justification for the Coronavirus Act 2020 being rushed into legislation (the Government waited until Parliament was about to recess for Easter before rushing the Act through in 1 DAY – perhaps it didn't want the legislation scrutinised too carefully?), and
-
there is no justification for: locking the country down yet again, destroying people's businesses and job prospects, spending billions of pounds of our money on furlough schemes and on useless projects like Track & Trace and mass testing (using a test that cannot diagnose Covid-19), as well as removing access to treatment for seriously ill people, which has caused many deaths and continues to do so.
But other countries have locked down. So, it must work if other countries do it, right?
Other countries that followed the same scientific projections as the UK – thanks to 'experts' like Neil Ferguson and his America counterpart, Anthony Fauci – have experienced the same 'case' levels as the UK, and are using the same useless rt PCR test as the UK in conjunction with lockdowns and other public liberty restrictions. Cases rise and fall roughly inline with the UK, because they follow the same procedure with testing as us.
But there are also countries who employed far less stringent measures than the UK, such as Sweden. Sweden did have a lockdown in the beginning of the year, but it was less strict than the UK and the rest of the world. It did not crash it's economy, and concentrated, sensibly, on protecting the vulnerable and letting the rest of the population get on with their lives.
Neil Ferguson (falsely) predicted Sweden would pay a heavy price for its lax approach to the 'pandemic' – 100,000 deaths by the beginning of July, according to him. The truth was very different, and Swedes are leading normal, mask and lockdown-free lives at the point of writing.
Still not convinced? Ask yourself these important questions:
If lockdowns work, why don't the 'case' numbers fall during lockdowns?
If lockdowns work, why do we still need to use masks and have a vaccine?
Why are big businesses allowed to remain open during lockdowns, but smaller business are forced to close?
Why do countries, like Sweden, who didn't have severe lockdowns, have a much lower death rate?
Why aren't frontline staff - police, nurses, shop-workers, etc. - who had to work as normal during lockdowns not dying in very large numbers?