Van Morrison – Born to Be Free
More music… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04tOyd7XHno It might not be there long, as it’s not Van’s channel
Well, well the birds in the trees
Know something we can’t see.
‘Cos they know, we were born, to be free.
Don’t need the government cramping my style
Give them an inch, they take a mile.
Take you in with a phony smile,
wouldn’t you agree.
The new normal is not normal,
it’s no kind of normal at all.
Everyone seems to have amnesia,
Just trying to remember the Berlin Wall.
Some kind of new old ideology,
With new psychology,
But it’s not for the benefit,
Of you and me.
The new normal is not normal,
it’s no kind of normal at all.
Everyone seems to have amnesia,
Just trying to remember the Berlin Wall.
“Van the Man” will be releasing 2 other tracks over the coming weeks see https://www.vanmorrison.com/ and https://www.vanmorrison.com/news/2020/van-morrison-announces-three-protest-songs-against-lockdown
Global Health/Medically-Based Communitarianism
Just to note the parallels of what is happening globally with what happened in the USSR:
And thank you for your work and dedication, especially in the current situation of confusion and fear.
Actually, confusion and fear is something that I was brought up with, I was born in 1975 in USSR. And I know from the very young age about fear and enemies.
It feels like a “déjà vu” to me now, fighting an invisible enemy, not to trust people who is saying something different or criticizes the government ( it was called désinformation, provocation and treason and millions of people were locked away and perished for seeing and speaking the truth in USSR) and I can’t help but see the same pattern emerging, the same approach, the same tricks and propaganda being used to keep people in lines.
We were celebrating achievements of the communist party and clapping and cheering our leaders for lowering prices on food and clothes etc., but our shops were empty, and everyone knew that the shops are empty but we were happy that the prices are down. Gosh, sounds like a nightmare, but it was happening and I remember it very well. The Emperor was always naked but people were too afraid to see it!
All I can see now is the naked Emperor, and the government is desperately pretending that is dressed in fine clothes.
Thank you again, Andrew . Have a good weekend.
Global COVID-19 Report
Thanks to Patsy for this link. 72 Pages – colourful and comprehensive… I think it has come from the ACU group in Germany.
Another Open Letter Sent to UK Govt from Professors
Don’t think this open letter to the govt got enough visibility perhaps partly because it was only a screen shot on Twitter so re-produced below so you can review in more detail. All the footnotes can be seen on the link below:
The Rt Hon Boris Johnson MP; Prime Minister
The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak; Chancellor of the Exchequer
Professor Chris Whitty; CMO, England
Dr Frank Atherton; CMO, Wales
Dr Gregor Ian Smith; CMO, Scotland
Dr Michael McBride; CMO, Northern Ireland
Sir Patrick Vallance; Government Chief Scientific Adviser
Subject: a targeted and evidence-based approach to the COVID-19 policy response (an open letter)
21st September 2020
Dear Prime Minister
We are writing with the intention of providing constructive input into the choices with respect to the COVID-19 policy response. We also have several concerns regarding aspects of the existing policy choices that we wish to draw attention to.
In summary, our view is that the existing policy path is inconsistent with the known risk-profile of COVID-19 and should be reconsidered. The unstated objective currently appears to be one of suppression of the virus, until such a time that a vaccine can be deployed. This objective is increasingly unfeasible (notwithstanding our more specific concerns regarding existing policies) and is leading to significant harm across all age groups, which likely offsets any benefits.
Instead, more targeted measures that protect the most vulnerable from COVID, whilst not adversely impacting those not at risk, are more supportable. Given the high proportion of COVID deaths in care homes, these should be a priority. Such targeted measures should be explored as a matter of urgency, as the logical cornerstone of our future strategy.
In addition to this overarching point, we append a set of concerns regarding the existing policy choices, which we hope will be received in the spirit in which they are intended. We are mindful that the current circumstances are challenging, and that all policy decisions are difficult ones. Moreover, many people have sadly lost loved ones to COVID-19 throughout the UK. Nonetheless, the current debate appears unhelpfully polarised around views that COVID is extremely deadly to all (and that large-scale policy interventions are effective); and on the other hand, those who believe COVID poses no risk at all. In light of this, and in order to make choices that increase our prospects of achieving better outcomes in the future, we think now is the right time to “step back” and fundamentally reconsider the path forward.
Professor Sunetra Gupta; Professor of theoretical epidemiology, the University of Oxford
Professor Carl Heneghan; Director, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, the University of Oxford
Professor Karol Sikora; Consultant oncologist and Professor of medicine, University of Buckingham
Sam Williams; Director and co-founder of Economic Insight
Professor Louise Allan; Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Exeter
Francois Balloux; Professor of Computational Systems Biology, UCL
Professor Sucharit Bhakdi MD; Emeritus Professor of Medical Microbiology, JG University of Main
Dr Julii Brainard; Epidemiology and Public Health Research Group, UEA
Professor Anthony J Brookes; Department of Genetics & Genome Biology, University of Leicester
Professor Nick Colegrave; Chair in Experimental Evolution, University of Edinburgh
Dr Ron Daniels; Consultant in Intensive Care and Executive Director, UK Sepsis Trust
Professor Robert Dingwall; FAcSS, Hon MFPH, Professor of Sociology, Nottingham Trent University
Professor Fionn Dunne FREng; Imperial College London
Professor Kim Fox; Professor of Clinical Cardiology, Imperial College London
Professor Anthony Glass; Chair of Managerial Economics, Sheffield University Management School
Dr Andy Gaya MD MRCP FRCR; Consultant Clinical Oncologist
Dr Peter Grove; Former Lead Analyst; Infectious Diseases, Pandemic and Emergency Planning, DoH
Professor Matt Hickman; Head of Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol
Professor Elizabeth Hughes; Professor of Mental Health, University of Leeds
Dr Tom Jefferson; Physician epidemiologist and Senior Associate Tutor, University of Oxford
Professor Syma Khalid; Professor of computational biophysics, University of Southampton
Professor David Miles CBE; Professor of Economics, Imperial College London
Professor Paul Ormerod; Economist, Department of Computer Science, University College London
Professor Andrew Oswald; Professor of Economics and Behavioural Science, University of Warwick
Professor David Paton; Chair of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School
Professor Hugh Pennington CBE FRSE; Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology, University of Aberdeen
Professor Barbara Pierscionek; Associate Dean Research and Enterprise, Staffordshire University
Professor Eve Roman; Epidemiology and Cancer Statistics Group, University of York
Professor Justin Stebbing; Professor of Cancer Medicine and Oncology, Imperial College London
Professor Ellen Townsend; Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham
Steve Westaby; Consultant Cardiac Surgeon, University of Oxford Hospitals Trust (retired)
Professor Simon Wood; Professor of Statistical Computing, University of Edinburgh
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE EXISTING POLICY PATH
· There should be a clearly stated objective for the overall response to COVID-19. Without this, neither the overarching strategy, nor individual policy choices within it, can be evaluated. At the time of the initial major policy interventions (the March 23rd lockdown), the objective was primarily framed around “flatten the curve” and “protect the NHS”. For some time, however, there has been an absence of a similarly clearly articulated objective.
· Any objective should be framed more broadly than COVID itself. To place all weight on reducing deaths from COVID fails to consider the complex trade-offs that occur: (i) within any healthcare system; and (ii) between healthcare, society and the economy.
· Individual policy choices within the strategy should be informed by an evidence base. The absence of similar policy interventions to those now being implemented in the past, coupled with the novel nature of the virus, means there is limited existing empirical evidence to inform the effectiveness of said measures. This means most weight should be placed on: (i) analysing what is actually occurring in relation to the outcomes we are targeting; (ii) metrics that can be most accurately measured and reported; and (ii) robust evaluations of interventions imposed, to ensure they deliver actual benefits. We are therefore concerned about the sole reliance on “case numbers” and the “R” to inform national and local policies, as these metrics are subject to significant measurement and interpretation challenges (and further, neither is an outcome that matters to society).
· The most pertinent epidemiological feature of COVID-19 is a greatly varying mortality risk by demographic. Mortality risk is highly age variant, with 89% of COVID mortalities in the over 65s. Mortality risk is also concentrated in those with pre-existing medical conditions (95% of COVID deaths). This large variation in risk by age and health status suggests that the harm caused by uniform policies (that apply to all persons) will outweigh the benefits.
· Blanket COVID policy interventions likely have large costs, because any adverse effects impact the entire population. These include: (i) short and long-term physical and mental health impacts; and (ii) social and economic impacts.
o In relation to health, the impact on cancer is especially acute. “2-week-wait” cancer referrals decreased 84% during lockdown. The impact of this alone has been estimated to be up to an additional 1,200 cancer deaths over 10 years (23,000 life-years lost). Cancer research UK estimated there are 2 million delayed or missed cancer screenings, tests or treatments. The impact of this broader disruption is uncertain. However, estimates indicate that it could be as high as 60,000 lives lost.
o In terms of the economy, the OBR’s forecasts are for unemployment to reach 11.9% by Q4 2020. As of July 2020, net debt had risen to £2 trillion for the first time, and public sector net debt is expected to be 106.4% of GDP at the end of the year.
· Set against the high costs of these policies, their effectiveness in reducing COVID deaths remains unclear. Focusing on the UK, there is no readily observable pattern between the policy measures implemented to date and the profile of COVID deaths. Caution should therefore be exercised in any presumption that such policy measures will successfully lower future COVID mortalities.
· In light of the above, our strategy should therefore target interventions to protect those most at risk. For example, Germany’s case fatality rate among patients over 70 is the same as most European countries. However, its effective reduction in deaths is based around a successful strategy of limiting infections in those older than 70.
· Finally, behavioural interventions that seek to increase the personal threat perception of COVID should be reconsidered, as they likely contribute to adverse physical and mental health impacts beyond COVID. Consideration should also be given to whether policies that are intended to “reassure”, may in fact reinforce a heightened perception of risk. Providing the public with objective information on the actual risk they face from COVID-19, by age and health status, would be preferable
Footnote: The best available evidence indicates lockdown occurred after the infection peak. As such, deaths would not have continued rising without the lockdown and the lockdown could not have mitigated the impact of peak demand on the NHS, as originally intended. Similarly, lockdown measures have been eased, we do not observe any discernible impact on the downwards trajectory of COVID-19 mortalities.
“Charge Dr Fauci for COVID Crimes” – Paul Sheridan
A very long document, detailing Fauci’s fraud
The Whistleblower Newsroom – OHIO LAWYERS RENZ AND GARGASZ: LOCKDOWN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE COVID PANDEMIC DOESN’T EXIST:
Thomas Renz and Robert Gargasz talk about their federal complaint against the state of Ohio charging that lockdown is mass imprisonment without due process and presenting statements from government sources and agencies showing that the death toll has been inflated, that current Covid testing is fraudulent and that Covid is statistically similar to a seasonal flu outbreak. In their complaint, Renz and Gargasz also detail massive economic and non-Covid death tolls resulting from lockdown.
UK Foreign Sec Raab says: ‘only 7% of tests will be successful in identifying those who have the virus’.
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab says the “challenge” with testing for #COVID19 in airports is ‘the very high false positive rate’ and adds ‘only 7% of tests will be successful in identifying those who have the virus’.
COVID19: ‘Test, Test, Test’ Is ‘Wrong, Wrong Wrong’
A good summary of what I’ve posted many times already
The New York Times, biased medicos, big corporations, our politicians and all fellow pandemic profiteers want to test everyone for COVID19 because the more we test, the more these flawed tests will throw out ‘asymptomatic’ (not sick) positives. This then creates the huge rise in ‘cases’ reported daily in the media to justify more draconian ‘lockdown’ measures.
“The maximum usage time for disposable masks is 4 hours”
For those who wear the same disposable mask for days, it is important to know that they may be protecting themselves from covid-19 coronavirus more effectively than if they were not wearing it, but they may not suspect that the problem they are facing is growing in the mask itself, in the form of bacterial culture.
Yes, because it is no longer just the bacteria from the mouth and surrounding area, but the result of handling and exposure to unsanitized surfaces when not in use.