Are we really living in the midst of a deadly plague? Part two.
I wrote a post the other day analysing, based on statistical data and facts, whether we are currently in the midst of "a deadly plague" (spoiler alert: we're not). Here's the post.
It wasn't emotive or propagandist, it was just factual, based on one ineffable fact: if you are in the midst of a deadly plague, then the overall death rate goes up. The death rate in 2020 didn't (indeed, the global population increased). That's it, really, end of story, open and shut case.
I knew no plague aficionados would argue against that, since they cannot, but I did get the old chestnut:'
"May I ask how many people YOU have lost to Covid?"
(Translation: "You cruel, heartless monster, this terrible pestilence is ravaging the nation's families and striking down people in their prime, you just wait until it happens to YOU and then you'll see!")
This is the only rebuttal they ever seem to have, and I sympathise with the fact that they genuinely believe it (the propaganda these last few days, as predicted, has really intensified to grotesque new levels of evil and so I try - with varying degrees of success - to reserve my real contempt for those who produce it, rather than those who fall for it).
First of all: when I say "the death rates were the same as normal last year", this is not synonymous with saying "nobody died last year", which is what people seem to hear. Did tens of thousands of people die last year? Yes. Was this in every circumstance sad for those who knew them? Yes. Were some of these deaths premature, tragic, and likely preventable? Yes.
But that is so every year, and has been all throughout human history. Every year, all across the world, tens of thousands of people die, leaving bereft families, grieving friends, and, in some circumstances - such as the death of a child - irreparable heartbreak. Nobody is suggesting such situations are not devastating and fully deserving of our acknowledgement and empathy.
What we "cruel, heartless monsters" are suggesting is that 2020 was no different to any other year in this regard, and so, if you didn't spend any other year living in quaking terror of the imminent spectre of death and allowing your entire life to be dismantled to "protect you", why did you permit it in 2020? Objectively and based on irrefutable statistical facts, there was no more risk to you or anyone else in 2020 than any other year.
The only difference between 2020 and every other year is that, suddenly, the media started scaremongering you with repeated reports of death. They don't do that usually. Usually, the media only reports on death if it concerns someone famous. They don't issue daily reports about all the chronically unwell and elderly who die every day (roughly 1,400, in normal, non-plague UK), thus giving the general public the impression death is a relatively rare event. We are all only personally connected to a few hundred people, and so we are not used to hearing about death that much.
All the media has done (first rule of successful marketing) is reframe your perspective, by suddenly starting to report on the deaths of lots of ordinary people, thereby giving you the impression death rates have suddenly, dramatically shot up, when, in fact, they haven't (or, they hadn't until the vaccines began to be administered, at which point they began steadily creeping up).
Now, a person may say, "well, maybe death rates have stayed the same, but that's only because all the restrictions worked! If we hadn't had restrictions, they would have been much higher!" - a position that is easily rebutted by pointing to Sweden and other countries that didn't lock down. Those who did not impose restrictions had the same (normal) death rate as countries that did, or they had lower death rates.
The next objection may be, "well, maybe deaths didn't increase, but people are dying of a new terrible disease and so we need to take precautions to stop it getting worse!"
What is critical to understand here (and this is not 'denying' respiratory illness, which sometimes kills people, exists) is that there is no conclusive evidence the novel coronavirus referred to as "COVID-19" exists, because it has never been isolated in a lab, or fulfilled the gold standard of virology for identifying new viruses, Koch's postulates.
The PCR and lateral flow tests that purport to detect it CANNOT and DO NOT accurately test for novel viral infectious illness, and if you 'trust the science', then presumably you trust the scientist who invented the PCR test, who stated this unequivocally and repeatedly, and all the other scientists who have spoken out in the British Medical Journal, The New Scientist, and The Guardian, detailing at length how and why the lateral flow test is completely inadequate and unreliable. Please note also that inappropriate use of PCR testing is renowned for creating false "epidemics" and attendant hysteria, as happened in the USA in 2007. Everything I've just mentioned in this paragraph has been confirmed by mainstream news reports, please see links in footer.
So, let me make this very clear: there is no reliable way of testing for "COVID-19", therefore there is absolutely no way of gauging accurate figures over how many people - if any - have even contracted it, let alone died from it. And even if the tests WERE reliable (which they absolutely are not), simply 'testing positive' for a virus does not mean that virus is responsible for someone's illness or death. The human body is full of viruses. A terminally ill cancer patient may test positive for all sorts of viruses, so may someone fatally injured in a car crash - that doesn't mean these viruses played any role in their death.
So, when someone says "I know someone who suffered an agonising respiratory illness and died" - I am not 'denying' this happens. What I am doing is explaining why this is not evidence of a "deadly pandemic" or reason to terrorise the population and shut the country down. (And if someone with a respiratory illness goes into hospital, then, as I have detailed in previous posts, they are very likely to receive completely inappropriate treatments that will do nothing but expedite their demise.)
Moving on to the final, emotive part of "how many people do YOU know who've died of Covid", this is founded on a fundamentally false premise, which is that I am authoritarian enough to believe that, if something negatively affects me, it should be banned for everyone else, e.g. if I knew someone "who had died of Covid", it would follow I would want lockdowns, masks, tests, quaxx!nes, etc.
Well, that doesn't follow, because I haven't got an authoritarian personality (a disturbingly large segment of the population clearly has) and I understand that life is inherently risky, and part of free will is deciding for yourself what risks you will take - you are the arbiter of that choice, not anyone else. Far more people throughout history have been killed on the roads and through alcohol than by any cold virus, and yet, I would never suggest cars or booze should be banned.
Do I know people who have died in car crashes? Yes (and young people, too). Do I know people who have died from drinking? Plenty, unfortunately.
But it is a completely false premise to assume a healthy adult mind would therefore make the leap, "and so these things must be banned for everyone in order to keep me safe".
So EVEN IF all the propaganda about "Covid" were true (and not a word of it is), I still would not support the restrictions, because the Government is not responsible for "keeping us safe". It is responsible for protecting our rights - and that is its only legitimate job. (And, just in case this needs clarifying for anyone, never contracting a cold virus is not a 'right'.)
If the Government wishes to issue "guidelines" over what it believes are healthy behaviours, then it can, as it does with diet, drinking, smoking etc. But its authority stops a long way short of forcing people out of their jobs and into house arrest because it claims to believe this is "safe" for them.
It's quite simple: if you fall for Government propaganda and believe wearing a mask, injecting mRNA, and staying at home protects you from anything, then you do that. However, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to impose it on anyone else - including and especially if you have 'MP' after your name.
As for "overwhelming the NHS", I have no contract with the NHS, a body which has non-consensually extorted money from me all my life, and it purports to exist to serve me, I most certainly do not exist to serve it, so I do not consider the NHS when making decisions about my health - not least because I consider the NHS an organised criminal monopoly that specialises in mass murder, and I would therefore like to have as little to do with it as possible. I and most of my fellow conspiraquacks would be QUITE happy to sign a document stating that if we develop so-called "Covid symptoms" (cold / 'flu / hay-fever) we want nothing to do with any NHS hospital, who would likely attempt murder-by-midazolam or tortuous and usually fatal "ventilation".
So, there we have it. Next time someone asks "how many people have YOU lost to Covid", I'll link them to this. They might *slightly* regret asking.... 
------
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html
https://blogs.bmj.com/.../covid-19-government-must.../
One comment on “Are we really living in the midst of a deadly plague? Part two.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Search
Archives
Categories
A SPLENDID pair of articles. Thank you. You have eloquently captured my own feelings on the matter in a way that I couuld never hope to construct in a year of pondering.