Totally correct; NHS Covid Pathway and RCGP Surveillance data paint a completely different picture to that presented by the government.
It is interesting that the US has now ceased using PCR tests because they are unreliable and generate large numbers of false positives; the UK is determined to keep them front and centre for exactly the same reasons. For over 12 months, the government's entire narrative has been based upon fake cases generated by knowingly misused tests - a deliberately false narrative not supported by other data.
The government, aided by the media, has basically created a smokescreen using manipulated, falsified data (with new "variants" whistled up to create the scare factor).
This planning actually started early in 2021 as it was becoming evident that the impact of the vaccines was catastrophic (e.g. the 70% surge in weekly care home deaths in January alone following their targeting in December). Of course, the biodistribution studies would also been known about at that time, as would more complete trial data. That would have set alarm bells ringing in government.
Cover was needed particularly for any unseasonal increase in cases and deaths caused by ongoing vaccine roll outs - oh, look what happened after June, when the highly seasonal respiratory virus should have been close to dormant (which was the case according to NHS Pathway data, etc).
Just imagine, without the government falsifications and a compliant media, CV-19 could well have gone the same way as SARS. Instead, we are somehow stuck in this virtual world sustained by lies.
There is every reason to entertain the possibility that if we simply did nothing at all (as in whatever someone wants to do to protect themselves is encouraged and facilitated while nothing is required of anyone who doesn't want to do it) perhaps the virus would have burned out like SARS.
There is every reason to also entertain the possibility that whenever "the herd" is required to act in a coordinated manner in a specific direction, it opens up the possibility for the virus to exploit that loophole to persist longer than it could if everyone was just doing something slightly different.
Hah! Clever. The problem is that those who intuitively grasp what those two points are, cannot easily explain it to people who mischaracterize it is "let it rip". In fact, it's the most plausible "don't let it rip" thesis because it relies on no single trick that could homogeneously fail and leave the herd vulnerable.
This subtle difference between facilitating people in whatever they intuitively feel they need to do to protect themselves versus collectively denying other people the right to protect themselves by banning certain options, leaves us both the individual and the collective more vulnerable.
The worst thing to ban is the "right" to have an accurate picture about the world and circumstances that surround them. The second worst is denying people who want to communicate their observations and possibilities with others who wish to hear about it. However, banning both these things allows us to perpetually doubt our own experiences and doubt the experiences of others. So it leaves us with no solutions and compounding problems.
FDA if you ever read these comments: - Your role was to diversify the risks but instead you consolidated them and presented it to virus. Then you complain about "variant". Well, who wiped out the other variants? You.
Also my uncle runs a care home of 70 people in the West Country. He was proud to have got through 1st wave entirely unscathed including one hospital return still positive with COVID that he was able to put up in a side-building away from the rest. (The hospital discharged her and said if you don't pick her up she's on the street!) Then he went silent the following winter, and this winter he demanded I and my family have lateral flow tests to attend the Christmas party.
What's odd is that from my perspective, I didn't really know anyone who had covid until last summer, when it started infecting younger people after the vaccine rollout to younger age groups. Since then it's been a constant stream of hearing of someone or other who has been infected, usually symptomatic.
Could the chart above reflect panicked calls at the height of covid fear that were not actually covid? Perhaps the mainly younger age groups who have been infected over the past six months just don't bother calling 111. I don't think anybody I know has felt the need. My household had very mild symptomatic covid before Christmas and, other than being tested (we're all vaxx-free and I wanted proof of infection), we didn't contact anybody.
It would be nice but alas, they weren't so zealous in reporting such things pre-COVID! We had influenza-like illnesses (ILI) but I don't think they recorded data through NHS Pathways, only through GP networks? Remember the days?!
Totally correct; NHS Covid Pathway and RCGP Surveillance data paint a completely different picture to that presented by the government.
It is interesting that the US has now ceased using PCR tests because they are unreliable and generate large numbers of false positives; the UK is determined to keep them front and centre for exactly the same reasons. For over 12 months, the government's entire narrative has been based upon fake cases generated by knowingly misused tests - a deliberately false narrative not supported by other data.
The government, aided by the media, has basically created a smokescreen using manipulated, falsified data (with new "variants" whistled up to create the scare factor).
This planning actually started early in 2021 as it was becoming evident that the impact of the vaccines was catastrophic (e.g. the 70% surge in weekly care home deaths in January alone following their targeting in December). Of course, the biodistribution studies would also been known about at that time, as would more complete trial data. That would have set alarm bells ringing in government.
Cover was needed particularly for any unseasonal increase in cases and deaths caused by ongoing vaccine roll outs - oh, look what happened after June, when the highly seasonal respiratory virus should have been close to dormant (which was the case according to NHS Pathway data, etc).
Just imagine, without the government falsifications and a compliant media, CV-19 could well have gone the same way as SARS. Instead, we are somehow stuck in this virtual world sustained by lies.
There is every reason to entertain the possibility that if we simply did nothing at all (as in whatever someone wants to do to protect themselves is encouraged and facilitated while nothing is required of anyone who doesn't want to do it) perhaps the virus would have burned out like SARS.
There is every reason to also entertain the possibility that whenever "the herd" is required to act in a coordinated manner in a specific direction, it opens up the possibility for the virus to exploit that loophole to persist longer than it could if everyone was just doing something slightly different.
There is every possibility that you could be EntirelyRight on both points! ;-)
Hah! Clever. The problem is that those who intuitively grasp what those two points are, cannot easily explain it to people who mischaracterize it is "let it rip". In fact, it's the most plausible "don't let it rip" thesis because it relies on no single trick that could homogeneously fail and leave the herd vulnerable.
This subtle difference between facilitating people in whatever they intuitively feel they need to do to protect themselves versus collectively denying other people the right to protect themselves by banning certain options, leaves us both the individual and the collective more vulnerable.
The worst thing to ban is the "right" to have an accurate picture about the world and circumstances that surround them. The second worst is denying people who want to communicate their observations and possibilities with others who wish to hear about it. However, banning both these things allows us to perpetually doubt our own experiences and doubt the experiences of others. So it leaves us with no solutions and compounding problems.
Hah, indeed! Reminds me of the early 2000's when the FCA mandated a market standard for derivative risk models. Then 2008 happened. Doh!
That's it!
FDA if you ever read these comments: - Your role was to diversify the risks but instead you consolidated them and presented it to virus. Then you complain about "variant". Well, who wiped out the other variants? You.
Yes I see your December surge in the bigger picture https://twitter.com/Britcoin11/status/1421398384078991362?s=20
Also my uncle runs a care home of 70 people in the West Country. He was proud to have got through 1st wave entirely unscathed including one hospital return still positive with COVID that he was able to put up in a side-building away from the rest. (The hospital discharged her and said if you don't pick her up she's on the street!) Then he went silent the following winter, and this winter he demanded I and my family have lateral flow tests to attend the Christmas party.
Wow! Numbers dropped off sharply. No wonder they stepped up testing numbers, which I've read is terrible strategy and discounted pre-'20
What's odd is that from my perspective, I didn't really know anyone who had covid until last summer, when it started infecting younger people after the vaccine rollout to younger age groups. Since then it's been a constant stream of hearing of someone or other who has been infected, usually symptomatic.
Could the chart above reflect panicked calls at the height of covid fear that were not actually covid? Perhaps the mainly younger age groups who have been infected over the past six months just don't bother calling 111. I don't think anybody I know has felt the need. My household had very mild symptomatic covid before Christmas and, other than being tested (we're all vaxx-free and I wanted proof of infection), we didn't contact anybody.
Even the Daily Telegraph openly reported in 2021 that the UK had already achieved herd immunity.
It would be nice but alas, they weren't so zealous in reporting such things pre-COVID! We had influenza-like illnesses (ILI) but I don't think they recorded data through NHS Pathways, only through GP networks? Remember the days?!