Archive
We know that lockdown is a social and economic disaster. Please, Boris – don’t do it again.
By DANIEL HANNAN. 18th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
Why give in to the same combination of flesh-creeping forecasts and hair-raising headlines? Here’s six reasons why, hopefully, we might not.
Not again. Not after all the vaccines, all the precautions, all the privations. Not after all the models that turned out to be so absurdly alarmist. Our freedoms are elemental. They are what make us who we are as a nation. We can’t surrender them on the off-chance that some putative ill might materialise.
The original lockdown was justified on grounds that it was the only way to prevent a meltdown in our healthcare system. In the event, our Nightingale hospitals stood empty, and real-world data (as opposed to modelling) showed that the peak in new infections had passed before the restrictions were imposed.
The second lockdown had a sounder rationale. It was supposed to buy time while the vaccination programme was rolled out. Since, by definition, lockdowns push infections into the future, rather than prevent them altogether, this at least made sense.
But we have more than done our bit. We are among the most inoculated people on earth, with some of us now on our fourth jabs. Vaccines were supposed to be the way out of this nightmare. If they are not, then we are facing chronic lockdowns forever.
I’m confident that, had that been the proposition in March 2020 – had we been told that we faced a lifetime of stoppages – we’d have refused point-blank. But we have been boiled slowly, like so many frogs in the pan. A three-week lockdown became six weeks, then 12 weeks, then a wait until we could vaccinate the clinically vulnerable, then the over-50s, then all adults, then kids, too. After all that, the idea of annual lockdowns can feel almost like a logical next step.
At each stage, we have been lulled, habituated, anaesthetised. Human beings tend to anchor to the status quo, becoming irrationally change-averse. When the status quo involves being paid to stay at home, along with a satisfying sense of solidarity and community, it is hardly surprising that some people take to it readily.
Government advisers originally feared that a lockdown of more than three weeks would be unenforceable: a free people would shake it off, as a horse shakes off flies. In the event, they need not have worried. Our liberties turned out to be much easier to remove than to restore.
Still, it is worth pointing out that, at every stage, the models used by public health agencies exaggerated the numbers of infections and of deaths. Indeed, it may well be that, once again, the lockdown will come into effect only after the peak in new infections has passed. Why do our leaders keep falling for it?
Because, I’m afraid, all the incentives are stacked one way. No politician ever gets into trouble for erring on the side of caution. Nor does any public health adviser. No one has ever been hounded from office for spending too much on test and trace, or for imposing restrictions that had little effect, or for making predictions that were excessively alarmist. Make the slightest slip the other way, though, and you’re finished.
Will that logic once again push Boris Johnson into a course of action that, in his heart of hearts, he doubts? Not necessarily. A number of things have changed since we last faced such a decision.
First, there is now organised political opposition to more bans. Last week, 100 Conservative MPs voted against the relatively mild restrictions set out in Plan B. They were not concerned, in most cases, about masks in cinemas. The vast majority of them recognised that, even with Plan B, Britain would remain more open than Europe. No, what they were really doing was drawing a line, seeking assurances that ministers would go no further. In some cases, they withdrew their opposition after reportedly getting such assurances.
Second, we have now had ample opportunity to measure Sage’s forecasts against the reality. We saw their predictions for the first wave, their predictions for the second wave, their predictions for what would happen after the July opening, their predictions for what would happen this autumn. Every time, what actually happened was less severe than their central predictions and, in almost every case, less severe than best-case scenarios.
Third, this wave began in South Africa, giving us a few extra weeks of data to study. Everyone accepts that the omicron mutation has been less lethal in South Africa than the delta, but there were worries that this reflected a difference in demographics: the average age is 27 in South Africa, 40 here.
Last week, though, studies started to come in that broke down South Africa’s hospitalisations by age group. They confirmed the view of both the European Medicines Agency and America’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, namely that this is a milder variant than its predecessors.
Fourth, we have had a control in the experiment all along. It has become almost indelicate to mention Sweden, these days, but there she stands, stolid, sensible and social-democratic, a living refutation of the claim that house arrest was the only way to avoid mass fatalities.
It takes a real effort of will to recall how affronted foreign media were by Sweden’s refusal to shut down. “Heading for disaster,” went one headline. “Leading us to catastrophe,” agreed another. Time magazine reported that “Sweden’s relaxed approach to the coronavirus could already be backfiring” and quoted a doctor saying that it would “probably end in a historical massacre”. “We fear that Sweden has picked the worst possible time to experiment with national chauvinism,” chided the Washington Post. It was “the world’s cautionary tale”, pronounced the New York Times.
So, do Sweden’s fatality rates stick out in every chart? Hardly. They are roughly in line with those of, say, Austria or Greece, and better than in Italy or Britain. At first, commentators tried to claim that this was because of some unique characteristic, such as low population density. In fact, Sweden is an urbanised society, with 85 per cent of its population occupying two per cent of its territory. Then they compared it only to its neighbours, pointing to better outcomes in Norway and Finland. But the original claim was not that a lockdown would fractionally lower the death rate; it was that nothing else would prevent a calamity. So now, commentators simply ignore the place altogether.
Fifth, public opinion has finally begun to turn. For 18 months, YouGov polls have shown unwavering support for every kind of prohibition: closed shops, closed schools, closed pubs, closed borders. But on Friday, there was a significant shift, with 60 per cent opposing shop or pub closures and 62 per cent opposing a ban on mixing with other households. Perhaps, after long slumber, we are remembering who we are as a people.
Sixth, and most significant, the PM ignored the official advice once before – and was utterly vindicated. When “freedom day” was decreed in July, public health agencies predicted disaster. Modellers at Warwick University forecast at least 1,000 deaths a day (in the event, the highest daily toll was 188). Sage told us that daily hospital admissions would be between 2,000 and 7,000 (the highest daily total was 1,086). Neil Ferguson predicted 100,000 infections a day (they peaked at 56,688).
I have criticised the lockdowns often in these pages. But the PM deserves vastly more credit than he has had for trusting his judgment in July. Britain is, as I write, still a freer society than almost any of its neighbours. Our businesses are open, our retail sector is prospering and we have more people in work.
Why throw it all away? Why give in to the same combination of flesh-creeping forecasts, hair-raising headlines and lockdown-nostalgic devolved administrations? The same off-the-record briefings? The same reports of “major incidents”? Why allow models, necessarily academic, to trump our real-world experience of having reopened and avoided the worst?
Had the lockdowns been a clinical trial, they would have been called off on grounds of the damage they were doing to public health. We all now know the effects. The disorientated teenagers, the rise in undiagnosed cancers, the bankruptcies, the mental health problems, the tax rises, the sheer human misery. Are we seriously proposing to go through it all again, at a time when the coronavirus has become endemic, and when, according to the ONS, 95 per cent of us have antibodies? Why inflict such ruin on ourselves and our posterity?
At such times, only Shakespeare will do:
Prevent it, resist it, let it not be so,
Lest child, child’s children, cry against you woe!
I tackled a Sage Covid modeller on Twitter and it was quite the revelation.
By FRASER NELSON 19th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
Why does Sage not tell us the probability of its gloomy Covid ‘scenarios’?
Over the weekend, the latest Sage document arrived with some blood-curdling figures on what could await us if we fail to lock down. The omicron wave could be the deadliest yet, we’re told, killing up to 6,000 of us in a single day. This would be at least five times more than the peak of previous wave – and this from an omicron variant that South Africans say is far milder! We are a highly vaccinated country whose people are teeming with antibodies. Yet somehow, after all of these jabs we are, once again, sitting ducks.
But dig deeper, and the Sage story changes. The 6,000 is the top of a rather long range of “scenarios”, not predictions. The bottom is 600 deaths a day, which certainly would not pose an existential threat to the National Health Service. Why won’t they tell us how likely (or otherwise) these scenarios are? I was mulling all this when, on my Twitter feed, up pops the chairman of the Sage modelling committee Prof. Graham Medley. I thought I’d try my luck and ask him.
It’s a strange place, Twitter. People turn up who should not be there, but sometimes, if you’re lucky, you can get a response. Prof Medley is with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), which last weekend published some grim omicron scenarios. A bank, JP Morgan, spotted a flaw: each LSHTM scenario assumed that omicron was just as deadly as Delta. “But evidence from South Africa suggests that omicron infections are milder,” it said. Adjust for this and Covid hospital numbers end up at just one-third of the January peak. So this omicron wave “would be manageable without further restrictions”. Quite a spot.
I asked Prof Medley: why not say so? When giving his scenarios, why couldn’t he say what JP Morgan had said: that if it’s as mild as the South Africans seem to think there could be no real problem and no need for lockdown? “What would be the point of that?” he replied. “Not a snarky question. Genuine to know what decision-makers would learn from that scenario.” To me, this seems odd: wasn’t the JP Morgan point rather relevant? That we might be able to live with Covid and carry on as usual without lockdown? Why not include that as a possible scenario?
“You know the answer,” he replied. “Decision-makers are generally only interested in situations where decisions have to be made.” But isn’t it just as vital to be told if action is not needed? I asked him straight. “So you exclusively model bad outcomes that require restrictions and omit just-as-likely outcomes that would not require restrictions?”
“We generally model what we are asked to model,” came the reply. “There is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform them with their policy.” Again, quite the revelation. Until now, we’ve been told that policy is informed by the data: the impartial independent Sage scientists come down with their figures, and ministers act on this advice. Lockdown is always said to follow the science. But Prof Medley suggests the scientists are doing what they are “asked” during a “dialogue” with a pre-existing “policy”.
At this point our conversation was interrupted by “Reg”. “This entire exchange has left me open-mouthed,” he told us both. “To think of the livelihoods at stake here, mainly because they don’t see the need to model accurate outcomes as it will not make the government take any action. Scandalous.” Prof Medley gave “Reg” the same cryptic reply. “We model the scenarios that are useful to decisions.” He then left, and started to responding to others who asked him if he’d model in his Speedos if asked.
What to make of all this? Is this how Sage really works? Are we all going to be locked down again based not on evidence-based policymaking, but policy-based evidence-making? Since our Twitter exchange went viral I’ve been contacted by a few government ministers saying they were alarmed to think Sage modellers are not giving the probability of various outcomes and cooking up gloomy scenarios to order.
Perhaps we’re all reading too much into what Prof Medley said. But given what’s at stake, these issues may be worth clearing up before Sage “scenarios” are used to lock us down again.
My Twitter conversation with the chairman of the Sage Covid modelling committee
By Fraser Nelson 18th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
The latest Sage papers have been published, envisaging anything from 200 to 6,000 deaths a day from Omicron depending on how many more restrictions we’ll get — up to and very much including another lockdown. Earlier today I had an unexpected chance to ask questions of Graham Medley, the chair of the Sage modelling committee.
He’s a professor at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) which last weekend published a study on Omicron with very gloomy scenarios and making the case for more restrictions. But JP Morgan had a close look at this study and spotted something big: all the way through, LSHTM assumes that the Omicron variant is just as deadly as Delta. ‘But evidence from South Africa suggests that Omicron infections are milder,’ JP Morgan pointed out in a note to clients. Adjust for this, it found, and the picture changes dramatically:“Bed occupancy by Covid-19 patients at the end of January would be 33% of the peak seen in January 2021. This would be manageable without further restrictions.
So JP Morgan had shown that, if you tweak one assumption (on severity) then — suddenly — no need for lockdown.
Why was this scenario left out? Why would this fairly-important and fairly-basic fact on Omicron modelling not presented by Sage modellers like Professor Medley to ministers — and to the general public? I was thrilled for the chance to speak to him on Twitter. It was kind of him to make the time (he’s still going, as far as I can make out). The Spectator data hub has a page devoted to past Sage modelling vs actual, and I wanted to make sure I was not being unfair to Sage in my selection or presentation of those charts.
The latest Sage paper-drop — the 6,000-deaths-a-day one — refers to ‘scenarios,’ not predictions. Professor Medley emphasises the distinction: saying something could happen is not saying that there’s a realistic chance of it happening. But then why do Sage modellers publish some scenarios and not others?
Apologies for the language at the end, but it was the last tweet that he replied to on this thread.
Revealingly, he seemed to think my question odd: if it’s quite plausible that Omicron is mild and doesn’t threaten the NHS, what would be the point of including that as a ‘scenario’? He seemed to suggest that he has been given a very limited brief, and asked to churn out worse-case scenarios without being asked to comment on how plausible they are.“We generally model what we are asked to model. There is a dialogue in which policy teams discuss with the modellers what they need to inform their policy.
Might this remit mean leaving out just-as-plausible, quite-important scenarios that would not require lockdown?“Decision-makers are generally on only interested in situations where decisions have to be made.
Note how careful he is to stay vague on whether any of the various scenarios in the Sage document are likely or even plausible. What happened to the original system of presenting a ‘reasonable worse-case scenario’ together with a central scenario? And what’s the point of modelling if it doesn’t say how likely any these scenarios are?
From what Professor Medley says, it’s unclear that the most-likely scenario is even being presented to ministers this time around. So how are they supposed to make good decisions? I highly doubt that Sajid Javid is only asking to churn out models that make the case for lockdown. That instruction, if it is being issued, will have come from somewhere else.
Professor Robert Dingwall, until recently a JCVI expert, has said that Medley’s candour reveals ‘a fundamental problem of scientific ethics in Sage’ — ie, a hardwired negativity bias. ‘The unquestioning response to the brief is very like that of SPI-B’s behavioural scientists,’ he says and suggests that the Covid inquiry looks into all this.
At a time when we have just been given a new set of ‘scenarios’ for a new year lockdown it might be good if someone — if not Professor Medley — would clear up what assumptions lie behind the new 6,000-a-day-dead scenario, and if emerging information from South Africa about Omicron and its virulence have been taken into account. And how probable it is that a double-jabbed and increasingly boosted nation (with 95 per cent antibody coverage) could see this worst-case scenario come to pass.
In my view, this raises serious questions not just about Sage but about the quality of the advice used to make UK lockdown decisions. And the lack of transparency and scrutiny of that advice. The lives of millions of people rests on the quality of decisions, so the calibre of information supplied matters rather a lot — to all of us.
I’ve asked Professor Medley to come on Spectator TV, to have a longer conversation outside Twitter. He has written for us before so I hope he accepts. For now, although I often curse the platform, I should thank Twitter for giving me the chance to ask some questions of someone so well-placed in such an important issue.
Fraser Nelson is editor of The Spectator
Also, here is the SAGE COVID-19 Register of Participants’ Interests
Vicar’s Wife Says Since the Roll-Out of Covid Injections There’s Been Funeral, After Funeral, After Funeral – “It’s Tragic”.
BY RHODA WILSON. 19th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
At the freedom protest on 4 December in York, Sarah, whose husband is a vicar in the Church of England, spoke out about the battle between good and evil we are facing.
“We’re in a massive battle. And this isn’t about the North or the South, or about whether you’re left or right politically. This is not a battle about land. This is actually a battle for the mind. This is the greatest battle that you’re ever going to be in … What people are seeing now is the battle between good and evil,” she said.
When asked her thoughts about vaccine mandates to protect others, she responded that it’s an inversion – darkness is taken as light, bitter as sweet. It’s a military PSYOP. You normally would think a vaccine would give you immunity. Boris Johnson has said it does not stop you getting it, the vaccine does not give immunity. It’s not a vaccine. “Most people I know with Covid are double and triple vaccinated. So, what they’re trying to do is to get you to do a virtue symbol. Wear your mask so you can say ‘I’m a good person, I’m a good Christian. I’m protecting people’. No, you’re not. You’re showing that you’re gagged.”
She explained that her husband is a vicar in the Church of England and that during the “pandemic” he conducted very few funerals. “Since the vaccine roll-out there’s been funeral, after funeral, after funeral,” Sarah said.https://videopress.com/embed/Pimg5Y3E?cover=1&preloadContent=metadata&hd=1Hatstruth: This protestor sums it up perfectly
You can watch excerpts of various interviews by English English from the York protest, including a portion of Sarah’s above, HERE.
“The Reverend Charlie Boyle, his wife and four children could be thrown out of the vicarage where they have lived for eight years after Church officials accused him of breaching Covid guidelines,” the Daily Mail reported in July 2021. The vicar’s crimes? He comforted a mourner with a hug, sang a hymn while not wearing a face mask and placed bibles on church pews. That vicar is Sarah’s husband.
Anna Brees spoke to Sarah a few weeks after their story was published in the Daily Mail.https://videopress.com/embed/vVf0wZPQ?cover=1&preloadContent=metadata&hd=1Anna Brees interviews Sarah Marie Boyle.
For the time being, Reverend Charlie Boyle remains the vicar of All Saint’s Branksome Park, Poole, Dorset.
More resources:
Omicron: such a joke that South Africa is about to dump all contact tracing and quarantines.
By Alex Berenson 19th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
Yes, the scientists advising the government of South Africa – where Omicron is now the dominant strain – say tracing and quarantining the contacts of infected people is a waste of time.
This cool-headed advice is exactly the opposite of the panic in wealthy European countries (and certain blue states).
Of course – unlike wealthy European countries – South Africa has tens of millions of extremely poor people. It can no longer afford to engage in viral theater to satisfy public health fanatics over a strain that looks more and more like a cold.
The prospect of nationwide food riots will tend to concentrate the mind.
Neil Oliver: Our new Christmas tradition? A great big dollop of fear from UK Government grinches.
Posted 18th December 2021. Find 9min Video Here:-
Why are so many people going Blind after getting the Covid-19 Vaccine?
BY THE EXPOSÉ 17th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
Since the first Covid-19 vaccine was authorised for use in the United Kingdom, and administered on the 8th December 2020, there have been hundreds of thousands of adverse reactions reported to the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. But there is one particular adverse reaction which is both concerning and strange, and the number of people suffering from it is increasing by the week – Blindness.
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme analysis print for the Pfizer / BioNTech mRNA jab shows that since the first jab was administered on the 9th December 2020, and up to December 8th 2021, 132 people have reported suffering blindness due to the injection. Another 6 people have also reported central vision loss, whilst a further 3 people have reported sudden visual loss.
Fifteen people have also reported an adverse reaction known as ‘blindness transient’ due to the Pfizer vaccine. This is where a person suffers visual disturbance or loss of sight in one eye for seconds or minutes at a time. And a further six people have reported an adverse reaction known as ‘unilateral blindness’. This is where a person is blind or has extremely poor vision in one eye.
In total there have been 6,682 eye disorders reported as adverse reactions to the Pfizer jab as of 8th Dec 21.
The AstraZeneca viral vector injection has also caused hundreds of people to go blind. As of December 8th the MHRA has received 306 reports of blindness, 3 reports of central vision loss, 5 reports of sudden visual loss, and 26 reports of blindness transient among 14,448 eye disorders reported as adverse reactions to the jab.
The Moderna mRNA injection, which was first administered in June and has the lowest number of injections administered in the UK, has also caused several people to suffer blindness.
As of 8th Dec 21 the MHRA have received 19 reports of blindness, and 34 reports of visual impairment as adverse reactions to the Moderna injection.
In all, when including adverse reactions reported where the brand of vaccine was not specified, there have been 22,060 eye disorders reported as adverse reactions to the Covid-19 injections, with 461 of these reactions being complete blindness. Now, “fact-checkers” alongside authorities have been on the case to sweep this data under the carpet and have labelled it as unreliable. Their reasoning is that “just because someone reports the event after having the vaccine, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is due to the vaccine”.
But what they’re not telling you is that it also doesn’t necessarily mean it is not due to the vaccine, and we imagine every single person who has reported an adverse reaction would disagree with the fact checkers and authorities attempts to play down these reports.
For instance one person who goes by the name of Louis has been documenting the story of his wife on Twitter since she had the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine.
Unfortunately his wife went completely blind in her left eye and 30-60% blind in her right eye after having the AstraZeneca jab and the neurologist treating her, categorically told her not have the second dose.
As you can see the misery which the fact checkers are disregarding as “not necessarily the fault of the vaccine” is very real for the people who are reporting them. But why are the Covid vaccines causing people to go blind?
Well there is another extremely concerning adverse reaction that has been reported to the MHRA Yellow Card scheme, one which has seen an astronomical increase in the number of reports in the past few weeks – stroke.
As of 8th Dec 21, the MHRA has received 652 reports of stroke due to the Pfizer mRNA injection, which is now the primary booster jab being administered to Brits. These reports include 14 reports of subarachnoid haemorrhage, which is an extremely rare type of stroke, 48 reports of cerebral haemorrhage, 55 reports of ischaemic stroke, and 414 reports of cerebrovascular accidents.
Sadly these 652 reported strokes have resulted in 47 deaths.
Unfortunately the AstraZeneca vaccine has also caused hundred of strokes. Up to 8th Dec 21 the MHRA has received 2,193 reports of stroke as adverse reactions to the jab resulting in 154 deaths. The 2,193 strokes include 180 cerebral haemorrhages, 114 subarachnoid haemorrhages (supposed to be rare), 156 ischaemic strokes, and a shocking 1,275 cerebrovascular accidents.
But what does this have to do with people going blind? Well this helpful fact sheet provided by the Stroke Foundation in Australia provides the answer as to why. According to the fact sheet around one-third of stroke survivors suffer visual loss, and most sadly never fully recover their vision.
The reason strokes cause blindness is that vision depends on a healthy eye to receive information and a healthy brain to process that information. The nerves in the eye travel from the eye through the brain to the occipital cortex at the back of the brain, allowing you to see.
Most strokes affect one side of the brain. Nerves from each eye travel together in the brain, so both eyes are affected. If the right side of your brain is damaged, the left side vision in each eye may be affected. It is rare for both sides of the brain to be affected by stroke. When it does happen, it can result in blindness.
So if you’ve been wondering how on earth the experimental Covid vaccines could cause a person to go blind, you now know why. It’s the vast amount of strokes the Covid injections are causing that is contributing to this devastating and life-changing adverse event. Strokes will not be the only contributing factor of course, but the numbers suggest they are most likely the main adverse reaction at fault.
With a national campaign to administer a third jab to millions of Brits within the space of a few weeks we dread to think how many more people will have to suffer the life debilitating condition of blindness due to an experimental injection that does not work and makes the recipient worse according to the UK Governments own data.
Pfizer to test Covid booster dose on infants, young kids
Posted 18th December 2021. Find Article Here:-
Nurse prepares the vials of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for use at a pop-up vaccination clinic in Belfast, Northern Ireland, December 4, 2021 © Reuters / Clodagh Kilcoyne.
Pfizer will start testing Covid-19 vaccine booster doses in children aged six months to five years old after finding that its lower-dose shot may not provide enough protection in one age group.
The pharmaceutical giant announced on Thursday that it would start testing a third dose on young children “at least two months after the second dose” in an effort “to provide high levels of protection in this young age group.”
Explaining its decision, the company cited clinical data showing that the smallest ‘baby’ dose administered to children under five does not appear to be effective in protecting those in the 2-to-5 age bracket.
Vaccine doses vary across different age groups involved in the study. Children aged 5-12 received two 10-microgram doses – one-third of the adult 30-microgram dose. Children younger than five, including infants, were vaccinated with three-microgram shots.
Pfizer claimed that no safety concerns were identified during the trial, and said it would seek emergency authorization of the new three-dose vaccination regimen for young children next year, provided the three-dose study is a success.
The announcement comes after the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) this week reported eight cases of myocarditis, a potentially deadly heart inflammation, in children aged 5-11 years old after they received the Pfizer vaccine.
As of November, everyone in the US aged five and above is eligible to be vaccinated for Covid-19. Americans who are at least 16 are also eligible for a Pfizer booster, while those 18 and above can receive a booster from Moderna or Johnson & Johnson.
The Truth is Where? 