Covid 19: Where Are We Then?

 What exactly is going on in the UK today? Having only 9 months experience of a new strain of a known branch of coronavirus, our scientific experts are still of the opinion that what we should do is hide. It didn't work before, but they assure us, that was because we didn't lockdown everyone hard enough and the public keep disobeying their masters. 

Evidence suggests the virus was receding before lockdown commenced in March, but science today seems to rely exclusively on predictions and ignores evidence. At the outset, when some science was involved, we knew we had to take care, but wait for herd immunity to do it's thing.

Then someone had a great idea; why don't we get some modelling done on the likely path of the disease. Why not get a known failure to work out what he thinks will happen. He can gather all the data we have on how infectious the virus is (none), any likely existing immunity (unknown), what the fatality rate is (unknown) and various similar parameters that were, at the time completely beyond us.

Using this almost total absence of data, a figure of 510,000 deaths if we don't lockdown was produced. Cue Boris Johnson panicking. 

In the early days, hospitals were the main source of infections and the staff some of the only people allowed to travel and work. To clear space in hospitals for the undeniable tsunami of Covid cases, medically trained people saw no issue with sending people who may, or may not have the disease we are terrified of, to care homes. (To help things along, care homes' PPE was diverted to hospitals).

Hospitals have, of course a terrible record for infection control and so it proved again, killing many of their own. Now, with our sophisticated approach to this disease, we know that we should shut pubs and restaurants, when as many as 5% of infections are thought to come from there. Hospitals remain uncriticised, even though recent figures for those hospitalised with Covid 19 included up to 24% who caught it there!

Students have returned to their universities, a time when we see all kinds of infections soar. But imagine our surprise when this included coronavirus! So, a cohort who are resolutely not ill with the virus leads to all kinds of renewed panic. More dire predictions and lamentation. Lockdowns follow.

Just what are we basing our continued pursuit of lockdown, with all its concomitant misery, economic destruction and unnecessary deaths, on?

Well, we are testing vastly more than previously, targeting where we expect to find it, like university towns and then even more so, the contacts of those testing positive. So we are finding loads. But we don't know if it's 'loads more' or not.

We know that the PCR tests are grossly inaccurate and do not tell us who among them are infectious, which is actually all that matters (it's probably around 10% of the total). Hospitalisation means a patient in hospital, with Covid 19 - but many didn't go into hospital with it. so it is not a representation of the public at large, being infected. 

Then the bizarre notion that we should include anyone who a doctor felt, not definitely knew (they could have tested positive, or had a cough) had coronavirus within the 28 days before they died. Even where the coronavirus had no role whatsoever in their death. And some who were going to die anyway.

Again, the 'died of' Covid will be very much lower than the government figure, which strangely they seem keen to inflate.

We are left with inaccurate tests, leading to unknown numbers of hospitalisations and an unknown number of deaths which causes our politicians and not least, their scientific (!) advisors to go into an absolute panic. There is no other way of describing it.

The other point is; we could be more accurate but we don't seem to want to. We could factor in the inaccuracies but we don't and the public are certainly not alerted to any of this (and the media, outrageously, don't ask).

Exams U Turn

 Before going on to the recent turnaround in how grades have been awarded to A level students recently, let's just look at what we are considering. Due to the government panic over coronavirus, the exams were cancelled for this year and guesswork grades would be handed out, without the children having to do anything for them. 

A formula was arrived at between the teaching Unions and the education regulator, Ofqal as to how the grades should be arrived at. It was explained that some 'downgrading' was necessary as teachers had submitted unrealistically high assessments.

Once the 'results' were announced those with grades that didn't suit them, started objecting loudly, including little flowers telling the BBC, that they would have got A's or A*'s if they had taken the exams. The option exists to take the exam in the Autumn. No one seems to want to take that route and the BBC don't mention it.

Boris the Weak, as he left to holiday in Scotland seems to have instructed his Education Secretary to give in to the wailers and a 'U turn' as the media like to call these things, was performed. Now the outrage (from the BBC and Labour, who supported the formula strongly originally) is that Gavin Williamson hasn't been sacked and won't resign.

The BBC are slightly amazed that Williamson is blaming Ofqal on the weak basis they feel, that Ofqal are actually to blame. Labour think he should go because he chose a system that they agreed with, but now don't. Honestly, the BBC isn't a news outlet and the Labour party has no integrity left, whatsoever.

Me And My Shadow

 So, we have now long known what should have been blindingly obvious from the outset, that the charlatan Neil Ferguson's modelling was, once again, a million miles off track. 500,000 deaths without lockdown. So we shut our country down on his say so.

The test though was Sweden, who didn't lockdown and ran numbnuts programme for their country, producing a figure of 90,000 dead by the end of May. Slightly out Neil, slightly out. By which I mean parallel universe out.

Currently, something interesting is going on as the virus seems to not be as killy as it was. Hospitalisations are down over 96% since the peak and reducing. Deaths are running at 10 a day. But Boris the Weak is absolutely terrified because the massively increased testing is finding more infected souls. Which apparently, no one expected. 

The infected are not getting ill, but that doesn't matter any more! Wear face masks to show your loyalty to the regime. They are pointless as the scientists told us before, but now they are a symbol of those committed to being frightened of their shadow.

However, I hear nothing about what we think is happening with the virus, has it weakened? Have we virtually achieved herd immunity (all that would ever save us - hiding as we did guaranteed a 'second wave')/ If we have got that deplored and laughed at herd immunity, then even the second wave won't happen. 

After all, from the Swedish experience, we should be pretty much done with deaths. If you think we had too many deaths already, then you need to concentrate on the geniuses who decided to ship elderly people out of hospital, untested into care homes, so they could introduce the virus there and kill many. Another outstanding example of the leadership of our wonderful NHS.

Also, causing many more deaths from ignoring the sick, while waiting for the tsunami that never came. But the sloth with which it started return to it's usual role, whilst blaming people for not going to hospital if they were ill, tut!

What this virus has really done is shown up the weaknesses in our public sector and its supposed experts, the talent in the Civil Service for deflecting blame and the ineptitude of government and the mentality of politicians today, who concentrate on entitlement rather than service. Root and branch, Root and branch.

NHS Perspective

Let's get this straight, so the absolutists are dealt with from the start; I think the NHS is a great idea. But the way it is run is typical of an uncontrolled bureaucracy; it is dysfunctional and too often not capable of fulfilling its primary role.

A graphic example of this was of course, the recent decision to send elderly patients, untested, to care homes (whilst simultaneously diverting PPE away from said homes). There is no way to view this as anything other than completely crazy.

Prior to 1948, more was done as a collective effort at local level, with well intentioned doctors. What often was the outcome was that local hospital you may dimly remember. The one that was closed by the bureaucrats to 'centralise' 'healthcare provision' in 'supercentres' that would be better able to provide a full range of services. Plus save money.

Well, that hospital was probably paid for by local subscription, by people keen to ensure they had medical assistance locally. And the NHS gladly received it, without paying anything for it, when the NHS was set up. Seemed a good deal at the time, bearing in mind the state would now provide and cover the costs.

Up until they don't. Then the hospital gets sold and the proceeds, for no discernible reason, went into the NHS coffers. Not back to the local community, who had more claim to the title.

Like many other successful projects of the Left, such as destroying education (except for an elite) and increasing the power of the bodies surrounding and controlling elected politicians, the NHS now has an almost perfect system, within the parameters of state control.

Set up specifically to treat sick people and make them well, hospitals have transmogrified into industrial warehouses. Naturally, some medical staff do stick to some of the traditional tenets, but it soon gets beaten out of them (or should they highlight medical negligence, with dismissal).

Under the auspices of a managerial class, hospitals are now concerned with output while talking about outcomes. Once a patient came into a hospital and the objective was to discern what ails them, to take them through restorative medical treatment, whether drug treatment or surgical, and once satisfied to allow them to return home.

Now the 'customer' is a number, a nuisance. Something to get out of the system as soon as possible - a successful outcome, for the system. A single discipline will consider the subject, for example, if a GP refers a patient believing the cause to be cancer, you go to oncology. If the condition is not cancer, they will not be passed on until every possible test has been done to prove cancer.

This may be detrimental to health of the 'customer' but it is clean for the system. Treatment, once decided on, will be monitored for cost control and the pressure is on the 'free up the bed'. Discharge will be effected as soon as possible and without reference to the suitability to the 'customer'.

An elderly person may be given the news that they can go home with great enthusiasm and not a little hurry up, at 2am on a Friday, when they have no money. Hospitals are keen to get people out before the weekend, when there will not be enough staff on to cope. Once again, all thought is on the effects on the system.

Once gone, a green tick is applied to the chart and the system clocks up another success. Now the bed is free for the next person who relapsed through having been discharged too early. There is no penalty for that and, while being an annoyance to the system, it still keeps it clean. (What do you mean, what about the patient?)

Hospitals are not about healthcare any more, they are about getting people through the system as quickly as possible. We are to be grateful they exist. But they are supposed to exist to treat the sick, that is their raison d'etre. But what is wrong with you when you come into contact is no longer, really, of interest. 

This is just a snippet to provoke thought on the subject, because it is extensive and constantly feeds bad practice and wrongly focussed effort. This bureaucratic maladministration is causing so much harm and is way beneath the talents and abilities of the British people. 

Consider how Grenfell happened and the pathetic response to it. Watch the reality programme about the ambulance service and have the sympathy for the pressure they are under evaporate, when having just heard they now have no ambulances available, but have sent two ambulances to a suspected heart attack, because that is 'protocol'.

The NHS is a great idea, but you know, instinctively, that no private company could survive operating as it does. It doesn't need to be privatised, it just needs to be run properly. 

Geography

I thought I was OK with geography, generally. OK, so there has been a fad for renaming countries for unknown reasons, but you know, OK.

But I am really confused. You see, there have been a number of 'spikes' in cases of Covid infections and they have been in certain areas of Leicester, Bradford and Luton. Whilst the problem of carefully not identifying the cultural background of these communities (the BBC referred to the Luton outbreak as 'in the LU4 postcode'), it is clearly among those of Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage.

Nothing wrong with that, as such, but the propensity to not speak English doesn't help keep information flowing. But speaking to a Council representative, himself a Muslim he referred to the problem as being among 'South Asians'. Other commentators have made the same remark.

But, pretty much the only Asia North of Pakistan is Kazakhstan. Lord knows what Indonesia is. Possibly in these re-named days Southy McSouthface.

Or maybe there are way more Indonesians and Vietnamese living in the UK than I thought. In Leicester, Bradford and Luton.

Conservative Confusion

Well this is weird. I distinctly remember a Conservative victory at a General Election, but incompetent panicking has defined the government's reaction to the Covid pandemic. And these are primal Labour characteristics.

Obviously, there is way too much to cover in detail, but let's look at face masks. Originally, we were told these were unnecessary and possibly harmful, they would give people false confidence. We were told about the science behind the decision.

This was handy, because there was a desperate shortage of face masks at the time. But we looked and we saw that it was good. And calmness prevailed.

Then, to ease our way out of the now fairly recognised mistake of lockdown, but without admitting that, we were told we could go to shops again. Then, a while afterwards we needed to wear masks in shops. But not the shop staff. And you don't have to wear them in a restaurant or bar.

I'm assuming that the new update is that coronavirus has become very picky about who it will infect, not people enjoying themselves for instance, and that masks are suddenly efficacious because coronavirus has put a lot of weight on.

But we don't know for sure because we don't need to know the science any more. Just some panic activists and invested scientists saying, 'yeah, blimey you need to wear a mask, because we know it stops large amounts of the deadly big droplets'.

Yes, a mask will help catch a sneeze and smear it over your face, rather than over other people. If you have Covid 19, I'm not sure why you are wandering about, face mask or not, but there you go, that is what 'scientists' fear. If you sneeze, you could try putting your hand over your face, or go really old school and use a handkerchief.

Personally, I don't remember the last time someone fully sneezed over me without trying to stop or mitigate it at all, which is the scenario the 'scientists' present. Remember the government ads telling you that you would die if you hit a brick wall at 30mph, so slow down? Why would you drive into a brick wall at 30mph? If I lost control of a car and was heading at 30mph for a wall, I might press the brake pedal somewhat.

In 2010, the University of Alabama tested face mask efficacy, mainly aimed at pollution and dust. They tested a surgical face mask (one that fits over your nose, closely to the sides of your face and down the neck), a bandana, or piece of folded cloth and a dust mask from a DIY store.

The median particle size was 1.6 microns, which is pretty small. Unsurprisingly, the surgical mask did best stopping around 33% of particles. The 'dust mask' only managed 6.1%!

Coronaviruses however, tend to be 0.1 microns or smaller, so none of the masks would stop it.

So, the masks are useless, except against a sneezing, infected person who isn't quarantining themselves. And currently, your chance of meeting an infected person, assuming they all go out is about 1 in 2500. How many people do you meet a day? And with the rate of false positives in tests, it is reckoned that only around 44% of those listed as positive, actually are.

So yeah, face masks in shops. Great idea. Should see this problem virtually disappear overnight I should reckon.

Surveys

I do surveys for Nectar points. I don't know who pays for these, but they obviously have money to burn. I get very annoyed about the quite lengthy ones who collect a lot of information and then drop you out as 'not suitable' or the survey has 'met its quota'. I may stop doing them because of that, as it wastes a lot of my time while they dodge 'paying'.

Today however, hilarious. It was about Next. Have I shopped there in the last 12 months. Yes. Rank the three main reasons you shop at Next (out of about 9). How much did you spend? £101-200. Did you spend more or less than before? Well, more. Will you spend more of less next time? Less.

What reason were you shopping? Pick answer from list, of which none were relevant.

In fact I detest Next. I went in there and bought quite a bit for our granddaughter, who is somewhat abused by her mother's family, poor soul. Being four, she quite liked the experience. We went into Next as we were in the shopping centre and it was the most likely place we could get what we wanted for her.

I never give the place a thought outside that and certainly have no plans to go back in there. I also seem to have found myself on a good number of email lists, but not theirs.

Black Lives Do Indeed Matter

If you aren't that interested in politics, but are a lovely, caring person, the headline seems fairly straightforward. There is racism within the predominately white Western societies, that at worst shows itself with incidents like the killing of George Floyd. It doesn't matter that he was an armed robber, his killing was almost casual.

But do think about it (and as I write this, I am thinking of white and black people). We don't know that the policeman killed Floyd because he was black. All we know is that the policeman is exactly the sort of person who shouldn't be a policeman and his basic immorality permitted him to kill someone.

But more than that, why is there an organisation called Black Lives Matter? And you not only don't hear 'All Lives Matter' it is a theme that is actively attacked if you try to use it. The essence of BLM is the inherent suggestion that someone thinks black lives don't matter. Don't get started, yes I'm sure some people are like that, but they are the ones to ignore, not those actually targeted by BLM.

I mean, some nit flew a banner over a football stadium (that's actual football, not modified rugby) saying 'white lives matter' which is also a statement of fact, but the professional outrage crowd went nuts. But it was playing into BLM's hands.

BLM is actually fairly unconcerned with racial issues, beyond their usefulness to ideology, being an organisation dedicated to Marxist principles and consequently seeking to destroy capitalism and the justice system, which all stand in their way.

Getting black people to riot and loot and burn on the streets, was specifically to say to other people (whites, similarly horrified blacks) that here were black people doing terrible things. We should oppose and clamp down on these people. Basically, promoting and perpetuating racial division, which would be largely non existent without their constant input.

Pushing victimhood makes you feel oppressed, even if you aren't. That there is racism is evident in the range of names for black people, that are designed to denigrate, yet I am not aware of a reciprocal repertoire against whites. Though interestingly, the equally disgusting 'coconut' is amazingly racist, yet of more recent invention (from the Left, naturally).

To accuse a person who's skin tone is darker, of being a white person within, is a particularly pernicious insult. Not really black, because they 'think' like a white person, also suggesting there is always something wrong with being white!

The Left believe that if they can destabilise society, particularly through violence, then that society is ripe for them to step in and take over. Corbyn was indifferent to election results because he never envisaged achieving real power that way.

So black people are told probably by the white, intolerant, illiberal liberals to take offence at every turn. Sticks and stones are for riots, but everyday words must be considered more harmful, causing injuries you cannot recover from. You must take to the streets, riot and loot. Only by this route can you find yourself governed by people who will show you what real and professional oppression is.

To the Left of course, a successful black person is a problem, they have got above their station. You are not supposed to benefit from capitalism, as it lifts more people out of poverty than any other political system ever has, and you will be abused for it. A traitor, indeed.

To me, I care nought for race, but support the idea that you measure a person by the content of their character, which is why ipso facto I detest Marxists for their nihilism. To me the biggest crime is to deny anyone, anyone at all, opportunity. The rest is up to you and the content of your character.

Supportive Labour And Covid 19

At the outset, the Labour opposition made it clear that the coronavirus emergency was no time for party politics and they would work constructively with the government. This of course, is what the nation would hope to be the case and is entirely sensible. It's what people wanted to hear.

It didn't last long. Unpleasant people struggle to be something different and so it is with Labour. (I lose track. Are we now on New New Labour? That sounds awfully like it is run by a vacuum from the Tellytubbies). Whether there is an alliance between the Unions and not-Left-enough Keir Starmer is not clear, but they are meshing nicely.

The Unions, suddenly possessed of medical and scientific knowledge as yet denied to everyone else, are refusing any measures to return life and the economy to normal as quickly as possible. Due to the 'risks' of going to work, the teaching Unions are demanding that a) the virus has to have been completely eradicated, b) they will need more money c) everyone should wear masks and d) the roads have to be cleared of traffic, so that they also don't get injured in a car accident.

Teachers must not face any risk. Likewise Tube drivers. Locked away and physically separated from the diseased sardines they haul around, puts they at risk apparently and so, insists the ridiculous mayor and Unions, they shouldn't be 'forced' back either.

Labour object to everything the Tories say (ably supported it has to be said by a completely out of control BBC and Sky, with the papers largely just as spooked). This, and nearly dying, affects Boris strongly and so he continues to ignore any science that might drift in from somewhere other than the useless PHE, NHS England or Imperial College of Hapless Modelling.

The trumpets blare and Boris announces in a statement to the nation his steps to removing lockdown. We are clearer on many aspects of the coronavirus and countries without lockdown seem to have the same rate of infection as those in lockdown. Evidence is mounting that more people have already been infected than previously thought and that, whilst we carefully avoid finding out how many, herd immunity might be achieved at much lower levels than predicted  with the Imperial modelling scenario.

So what is announced to an expectant country? You can go to work, if you can't work from home. Which I think is only a slight nuance on what we already had.

Having not offered anything, Labour were obviously stumped with their prepared objections, so they complained that the er, distinctly lacking advice wasn't clear. Apparently, we could 'meet' people in the park as long as social distancing is followed. Oops. When I have taken the dogs for a walk, if I met someone I knew, I spoke to them observing the separation rules.

So, Starmer, who I am very confused to see described in glowing terms, has settled into the kind of policy that he likes and can cope with. Pretty much, Oh no you can't. Widow Twankey indeed.

WHO?

Well, I suppose if someone was going to tell the truth about the emperor and his unclothed state, it was going to be Trump

The World Health Organisation is a United Nations body and like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations itself, it is simply a corrupt non-entity.

In the current Covid 19 crisis they are merely talking and trying to tell you just how important they are. But actually, the boss owes his position to the backing of China, who insisted he be given the role and boy, is he happy to do whatever is necessary to repay the debt.

This pompous carbuncle Ghebreyesus, has colluded with the Chinese authorities to hide and lie about the coronavirus, despite any worldwide consequences. Just as the UN is basically a talking shop of no importance for First World countries, but an excellent cover for despots and dictators.

Again, the IPCC is another make-work project to energise anti-capitalist agendas. Interestingly, the whole Climate Change scam is based entirely on computer modelling (which to be on the safe side, is predicated to find climate change), just like the modelling that terrorised our government into closing down our economy.

In this instance, with no substantive information about the virus being available, a model by Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, said 500,000 would die unless the government did what he said. He was also part of the team that decided in 2001, we should slaughter 6 million animals to end a foot and mouth outbreak, against the prevailing worldwide advice on dealing with outbreaks.

This led to the British Prime Minister and those acting on his behalf, including the police to break the law of the time. (Tony Blair subsequently introduced a new law, making his actions legal and that was also retrospective!)

The needless slaughter of healthy animals, not only showed no understanding of animal disease, but additionally led to huge financial loss and upheaval in UK farming. This kind of disruption seems to be a desired dramatic outcome of a Ferguson projection, as if it is a goal.

Tony Blair gave him an OBE.

A lockdown, such as that which this strange individual insisted was the required action, does absolutely nothing in relation to the disease, except hide from it. This protects the NHS from being swamped of course, which makes sense to buy time to increase capacity. But what did Ferguson suggest from there? It seems, stay in lockdown forever. Pray. And, oh yeah, keep paying his salary.

Naturally, the Western media has gone into overdrive about how ridiculous it is to turn your back on the leading international health organisation leading the way on coronavirus. There is no evidence to support this assertion, but it's what WHO is supposed to do so, well it must be doing it (big government never does anything wrong in the minds of the Left media - look at Soviet Russia and China, Venezuela and North Korea).

But then PHE, a kind of mini-me WHO is supposed to protect the UK from things exactly like coronavirus, but working for a living doesn't seem to have occurred to them. Have you ever seen Yvonne Doyle actually answer a question?

Wouldn't it be lovely if our leaders acted decisively and cut all funding to the WHO, sacked the leadership at PHE and told Neil Ferguson to go and clean toilets.

Give Me Hope, Help Me Cope, With This Heavy Load

Apologies to the late George Harrison for stealing his lyrics, but they seem to fit the times.

It is the essence of the absence we are faced with currently; a lack of hope. Hope is the prospect of things getting better, the light at the end of the tunnel.

What hope is the government giving us? It's going to get worse? Nope, don't think that would cut it. Their strategy for dealing with the outbreak? Well, if they have a strategy it's a closely guarded secret, with less leaking than at any time in the history of government.

The indicators to look for, as to when we can start returning to normal? No idea.

Whilst the information from and indeed even the access to the senior medical figures to answer media questions (even if none of them seem to think any analysis of the issue, leading to proper and searching questions, should trouble their empty little heads), is laudable, when did they get to make policy?

Surely anyone would realise that 'this thing will last six months at least, reviewed every two to three weeks' would be interpreted as 'lockdown for six months'. Because actually, that's what you said.

The government urgently needs to get the message across that there is hope. And then explain why. Now if the reason they can't is because they don't have a plan then we probably are all doomed, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.

May I help?

The challenges are - stopping too many people getting seriously ill at once

limiting the disease transmission

planning for future prevention

increasing medical preparedness for higher levels of demand

We can only deal with this virus with knowledge. In the long term a vaccine, but in the short term lethality and spread. We don't have this information. Also, we could do with dialling down the panic in the NHS. The theme is that this is apocalyptic and a tsunami is coming, so doctors and nurses live in fear of that.

Then there is the fear of catching it. I'm not sure why we are hearing so much about how scared medical staff are, whilst the general public (well, the young) don't see what the problem is. Maybe it is because the media, with the goal of sensationalism constantly harp on about it and the BBC only interview union representatives, to get expert medical opinion (about what the [Tory] government is doing wrong).

Politicians have said they don't like the term lockdown and so I offer an alternative that is at least more accurate - hiding. By locking ourselves away and avoiding associating with others (or avoiding non-essential travel, as the police have interpreted it), we are not catching Covid 19.

We are also not building herd immunity. Why is this important? Well, flu could be just as troublesome, but it isn't because we have had long exposure to it's like and many of us are immune (I'm getting on and I have never had flu). That means the virus struggles to find people it can infect and kill.

Don't get me wrong, it kills loads of people every year, but you don't hear much about it. Apparently, if you have a pre-existing condition and catch flu, which then finishes you off, it gets recorded as death from your pre-existing issue (cancer, for instance). Not flu.

But with Covid 19, anyone dying who tests positive is a coronavirus death. It's illogical and doesn't help us understand the lethality of the disease. How many people does it kill? And it is part of the NHS panic. Another is the closure of hospitals to anything else and often, if you turn up with a temperature they want to send you away, rather than you bring this dangerous disease into their hospital (as happened to my one year old granddaughter).

So, the strategy as I see it should be, test as widely as possible to discover the extent of the disease today. If we find a significant proportion of the population have already had it (and I gather something like 40% would confer herd immunity, or something like it), then bingo! Let's reopen the doors.

If it is only partial then get the 'immune' who have had it back to work wherever possible. But we need to know and we need to stop mis-recording deaths and we need to get our strategy across to the public.

If you go back to the early days, all the warnings fell on deaf ears because we have heard it all before; SARS was going to be the apocalypse, Avian flu would kill us all and the delight at the WHO that this time their claims of doom seemed to be getting wings, didn't help. People were getting it and soon got over it, barely noticing.

The simple point that, as a new virus we could all get it at once and swamp the NHS was never clearly enunciated until Boris' broadcast about lockdown. Now, they are keeping from us how we get over the herd immunity issue, all hiding at home.

This crisis has shown there are some truly great people in the NHS, that many things 'impossible' in our medical system can be in place in hours and that large numbers of the administration is entirely unnecessary. Actually creates problems.

We have also seen the talent of politicians to talk to the wrong experts too often and take on what they are told rather than asking searching questions and making the decisions themselves. Boris originally wanted to get herd immunity as quickly as possible and so tried business as usual.

 Now this would risk swamping the NHS, but the reason he really did a U turn on this, was the loudness and shrillness of the 'experts', predicting 250,000 or even 500,000 deaths if he didn't do as they said. Something which, having got their way, their day in the sun, they are now backing away from.

Judge For Yourself

The Daily Mail is carrying a story about Dr Clare Gerada and her experience with Coronavirus. What she says is that she was in New York for a conference and just as she left, New York had declared a state of emergency due to coronavirus. On the Monday she worked as normal with a slight cough. Tuesday she felt very unwell and, unable to get through to 111 went to a coronavirus testing pod. Initially, they refused to test, we are told, because she hadn't been somewhere seen at that time as a threat.

The ex Chairwoman of the Royal College of GP's knew she had coronavirus though, as she never gets ill. She then goes on to describe the horrendous experiences she had as the virus ran through her, including the very rare sore throat. As you can guess from the story being out there, this plucky 60 year old fought it off and is alive and well today.

There are no dates given in the article, so let me fill in some detail. New York declared a state of emergency on 7th March when they had 89 confirmed cases. This means the onset of symptoms occurred on Tuesday 10th March. As today is the 17th, I will assume the story was compiled yesterday, the 16th.

So, our good doctor, ex leader of the GP's union, caught coronavirus in a city of 8.5 million where 89 of them had been confirmed as infected. Let's ignore the going to work with a slight cough, physician first heal thyself, and concentrate on the experience. She caught, suffered immensely and completely recovered in six days.

She went to a pod for testing. The article is very careful here. It says she was initially refused, but she knew she had coronavirus because she is never unwell. I wonder what she would say to a patient running with that line. It doesn't say she was ever tested and I don't know why they would relent. Plus Public Health England guidelines are that if she had the virus the whole pod needs decontaminating.

Plus their first reaction would have been to give her a phone to speak to 111!

So, as you can see none of this story hangs together very well. It seems likely that she is not amongst the 'confirmed' and probably had something else, despite never being ill before.

As an interesting technical detail, which is pertinent when we are talking about the testimony of a doctor, there is also something very casual about her use of language. In a study of the Covid 19 outbreak in China, the analysis states that persons found to have coronavirus almost definitely didn't have Covid 19. Dr. Gerada repeatedly refers to having coronavirus and doesn't mention Covid 19.

Perhaps she is unaware of the research, or doesn't think it matters when addressing the general public. Personally, I like my doctors to be precise and correct in their pronouncements. I figure it kinda goes with the territory.

I leave it up to you as to what you think of this story of an ex union official.

Noble BBC And Coronavirus

Hands up if you think the BBC has done what it sees as it's core responsibility, in a situation like Covid 19 is presenting and that is, to spread as much panic as humanly possible. I don't think they've missed any opportunity, failed to exaggerate and push the narrative.

It is a fabulous organisation, with guaranteed funding, stuffed only with Left ideological staff and certain of it's righteousness and just how benign it's instructions to the population are.

They say they have to pay their senior management huge salaries, to attract the best talent. My question would be, when do you intend to start recruiting talent?

Fear And Loathing

Difficult times, with absolutely no reason to be. But when you fail to recognise an enemy, when you are faced with war and you either don't mobilise, or use insufficient forces, what do you suppose happens?

This country (and the US with most other Western style democracies following along) have been faced with an implacable enemy engaging in an ideological war. Marx attempted to start that war, using 'conventional' forces. He came to the conclusion that 'the people' were oppressed. As with most things there was a kernel of truth to this assertion.

But he then got carried away, coming to believe it was a fundamental truth that would cause this trampled mass of people to rise up and violently overthrow their 'masters'. The trampled didn't quite see it like that though. So unreliable (Corbyn would sympathise).

So, after decades of trying and seeing sensible, grown up people turning their backs on nihilism the Marxists went for the long game. Join all the key institutions and stay resolutely against capitalism (common sense, best outcomes, friends, family, country...) and capitalism could be destroyed from within.

Marxism of course, needs proles, uneducated idiots who don't question them, accept their hard lives and do all the real work, so the education system had to be destroyed. How would you say that was doing? Try asking a youngster today a fairly straightforward question about anything detailed (i.e. not TV, social media or celebrity related). They won't have a clue. Capital of Peru? No chance ("What's Paroo?")

The Civil Service? Well, seemed very unhappy to be leaving a leftie dictatorship. The police? That would be the no longer crime focussed police. The courts? I don't need to go on do I?

But Climate Change is their real push. This is the global anti-capitalist play, to get countries to destroy their own economies. They are the girlfriend who chips away and bullies the 'boyfriend' into killing himself.

The climate is changing, it has been getting warmer. You would be pleased surely that the Thames doesn't freeze over any more? Crops grow more readily, we don't die of the cold so regularly. What would you rather have, the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age?

But science tells us that increased concentrations of CO2 causes the temperature to go up and we are churning out loads of CO2. The Greenhouse Gas theory is sound, too much of certain gases and the planet absorbs heat from the sun, but won't let it escape. We're done for.

But we have no idea what the concentration that is too much is. Fundamentally, we don't understand climate. But huge though it is, our output of CO2 etc is insignificant to the planet. It doesn't notice.

You'll notice there is never a debate about Climate Change, just the propaganda from the likes of the BBC. Obviously, when you cannot possibly support your argument, you don't have a debate. Hence for the first time ever in human history, the science is settled. We have a pristine, perfect answer to a scientific conundrum.

Except, we don't. We have a bunch of lies. There are fewer big storms hitting landfall, fewer areas of the planet burned, rain is as it has been for decades, you name it and it isn't what the eco loons claim, with no data (they do present cooked data, or just lies). The Met Office recently claimed that last year was the hottest evah. It wasn't and their own records prove this, but you only heard what they said. Who checks these days? Not dopey kids.

Which brings us on to Greta Thunberg. The poster child. In the Telegraph today, Phillip Johnston has a headline, saying if he had to choose between Greta and Trump, he'd go with Greta. Well, I guess the choice between the President of the United States of America, who is a PR disaster, but has also reduced unemployment, reduced energy prices making US industry more competitive and child puppet of anti-capitalist extremists, I suppose it would be difficult.