It's certainly fair to say that maths has never exactly been my strong point, and I failed it quite spectacularly at school - I got an E, enabling me to be technically telling the truth when I told grandparents my GCSE results were 'ACE' (three As, three Cs, and three Es...).

I did eventually struggle through it at the age of 31, with the aid of a maths tutor who was, rather mortifyingly, a year younger than me, and cheerfully told me, "don't worry, you'll definitely pass it this time!"

Rather flattered, I thought he must have noticed some latent flash of mathematical genius in the practice exercises he had set me.

"Oh," I said. "What makes you so sure?"

"Oh well," he said blithely. "They're much easier now than when we did them!"

So I sat it again, and this time passed with... I'm not sure 'flying colours' is the right phrase, as I got a C, but that was a huge improvement on the F I thought I'd initially got, before realising I was looking at the 'gender' box rather than the results part...

Anyway: despite my less than distinguished mathematical career to date, there are some simple sums relating to the corona quaxxinations that I'm going to lay out. They'll be really easy, so don't be scared (even the Government could do them, if they really wanted to).

So, here's the situation. At present, we are told that the efficacy of corona jabs wanes very quickly, hence everyone needs a 'booster' within about six months of the first dose. We have also now been told the quaxxes will be added to the winter vaccination schedule, and that one will be needed every year, just as with the 'flu vaccine.

While the 'flu vaccine is only targeted at so-called vulnerable groups, that isn't so for the corona jab. We are told everyone needs it, including now children as young as five. Five minutes ago, the jab was only being given to the over-80s and the very vulnerable - now it's being given to kindergartners. So we can easily extrapolate from that that it won't be long until it's added to the "routine" infant immunisation schedule, which means everyone in the country (all 67 million of us) will be eligible for injection. We've already been told the efficacy doesn't last and boosters will be necessary every year.

Well: can you even begin to quantify the cost of injecting 67 million people, once a year, every year, all throughout the normal life expectancy of 82 years?

There is currently no medical product in existence that is made freely available to every member of the population, every year, for 80+ years, because the cost of this would be unfathomable. Any government that attempted to do this would bankrupt itself instantly.

The only way the books balance is if the purpose of this injection is actually to dramatically decrease life expectancy. This isn't conspiracy theory, it's basic economics, and even the 'mathematically challenged' such as myself can do these kind of simple sums.

Healthy people under the age of 50 have a statistical risk of effectively zero should they contract 'Covid' (or any other cold virus). These people are not 'overwhelming the NHS' or in any other way costing the country money if they get a case of the sniffles (which is all 'Covid' is for the overwhelming majority, if not completely asymptomatic), so spending a fortune injecting them every year (and don't forget the £25 kickback doctors get for every double-quaxxed patient) is economic insanity. You don't spend a fortune 'protecting' people from something they are at no risk from. It's like sending every non-cyclist in the country a free bicycle helmet every year. Totally irrational, nonsensical, and profligate madness. (Well, it's not really like that at all, in that helmets actually act to protect people and corona quaxxes don't, but even if they worked as advertised, it would make no sense to spend so much from the public purse providing them to people who are at no risk from the illness.)

Governments are always seeking to balance the books and every time they invest in a public health measure, they have to ask themselves, is this financially viable? There is no financial reason to inject healthy under-50s every year with an expensive serum for a disease they are at no risk from... If the purpose of the serum is actually to protect their health.

It only makes economic sense to do this if that isn't the purpose. If the purpose is actually to dramatically decrease their life expectancy, so that they die before they enter the age bracket where they would typically start to develop chronic health problems, be eligible for a pension, and therefore become a financial drain upon the state.

I've relentlessly said the same about the 'flu vaccination programme which is free to over-65s. What possible motivation would any government have for extending the lives of economically inactive citizens who are draining from the pension pot - pensions making up by far the biggest chunk of welfare spending? No motive. What motive would they have for expediting these peoples' deaths? An enormous one.

This isn't rocket science. Like I said, it's very basic maths.

I would like someone to go away and crunch these numbers: what is the cost of paying for 67 million doses of an mRNA vaccine (since it seems everyone's getting Pfizer now), which includes production, distribution, storage, and doctor kickbacks, every year? What would that cost the state if it were to do it every year across a normal life expectancy of 82 years?

That figure is going to be gargantuan - dwarfing even the frankly unbelievable £37 billion spent on track and trace.

No government could ever afford it, and it wouldn't make any economic sense for them to try, since the large majority of the population are not at high risk from coronaviruses and don't need to take expensive state-bankrolled preventatives for them.

I'm going to say this again so it's really clear: the only way the current approach to Covid vaccination makes economic sense (and economics are every governments' bottom line) is if the true purpose of these injections is to induce premature death, thus massively easing the burden on the state in terms of welfare spending (primarily pensions) and other costs associated with an ageing population, e.g. hospital care, medications, residential support, etc.

Any suggestion that vaccinating the under-50s and other healthy, low-risk groups is worth it "because it stops them passing on the disease to the vulnerable", is a misnomer, because it doesn't. All sources agree - mainstream and conspiraquack alike - that the vaccine does not prevent either contraction or transmission of the disease. Therefore, and as many critics have pointed out, it is a misnomer to call it a vaccine at all. Vaccine zealots seem the least informed about how vaccines are actually supposed to work, so let me explain it to you: a vaccine prevents you getting the disease by protecting you if you come into contact with someone who has that disease. That is literally the definition of the intervention. Something that doesn't stop you contracting a disease, doesn't stop you passing it on, but may "reduce symptoms", isn't a vaccine, it's a therapeutic, like aspirin. If I take an aspirin, it doesn't stop you getting a headache, and it is the same with the Covid injection. Other people receiving this therapeutic makes no difference to the health of those around them, only to their own.

If the Covid 'vaccine' was really a vaccine, you would be able to be in a room full of people with the illness and be at no risk of contracting it, because that is the whole point of vaccines. To protect you should you come into contact with those with the disease. If you are at no risk of coming into contact with an infected person, there's no need for you to receive a vaccine for that condition (hence why we do not routinely vaccinate for yellow fever in the UK). You only need it if you are going to be around infected people because - so the theory goes - the vaccine has caused you to produce antibodies which stop you contracting the disease from an infected person. If an injection does not have this effect, then it isn't a vaccine. Which the Covid injection clearly is not, and I've outlined above what it actually is.

What's going on currently may certainly be a conspiracy, but it's no 'theory': official UK data shows that excess deaths from non-Covid causes have skyrocketed in 2021, and there have been thousands more deaths than the five-year average in heart failure, heart disease, and circulatory conditions - with evidence growing every day that these are "side effects" of the Covid injection (actually, in my view, its intended effects).

Having laid out my position, I'm not interested in squeals of "crazy conspiraquackery" in rebuttal, I'm just interested in logic and numbers. My argument above makes sense, and if anyone thinks it doesn't, I want to hear a counter argument using a similarly rational approach, and I want to see the sums to explain how spending an unfathomable fortune on "protecting" people from an illness they are not at risk from makes any economic sense whatsoever.

I'll wait.

I'll be waiting a long time. Long enough to go for my Maths PhD, even...