X Close

How we appeased China’s Zero-Covid regime Western liberals cheered on Xi's authoritarian measures

China for a day (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

China for a day (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)


December 1, 2022   5 mins

In the streets of China, people are rising up to reassert their human dignity in the face of the most dehumanising machine of social control in the world today: the Chinese Communist Party’s Zero-Covid terror-state.

For three years, the Chinese government has maintained its policy of draconian city-wide lockdowns, endless daily mass testing, and digital Covid-passes. It has set up vast camps to house those dragged into quarantine for weeks at a time, and, more recently, “closed-loop” factories.

But many have finally had enough. Over the past several days, protests have erupted in at least two dozen cities and 79 universities across the country, with spontaneous demonstrations quickly drawing crowds of hundreds, even thousands, of people willing to fearlessly demand an end to the Zero-Covid nightmare. In Wuhan, where it all began, swarming crowds smashed down containment barriers and “liberated” locked-down neighbourhoods. In Lanzhou, they overturned Covid-testing booths; in Chengdu, they chanted “give me freedom or give me death!”

This is without doubt the largest wave of protest seen in the country since the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989. In some cases, protestors’ frustration with Zero-Covid tyranny has translated into something more: an outpouring of raw anger against the CCP and Xi Jinping.

What has really sparked these protests, however, is the Zero-Covid regime’s lack of basic respect for humanity. On 24 November, a fire at an apartment complex in Urumqi, Xinjiang, killed as many as 44 people, including children. Social media posts alleged they could not escape because the doors and windows of their building were wired shut (you know, for safety), and because responding firetrucks were not allowed past a checkpoint into the “quarantined” zone, preventing them from reaching the building (you know, for safety). While authorities have denied this — instead blaming residents for lacking “the knowledge or capability to rescue themselves” — China’s citizens are convinced otherwise.

They can see the residents were killed by the senseless, inhuman bureaucracy of China’s Zero-Covid machine. They know that they could easily be next. It is their anger and frustration with this system’s mindless stupidity that has prompted them to finally come out en masse.

Like every Kafkaesque technocratic nightmare, the Zero-Covid machine is seemingly constructed entirely out of arbitrary rules. This is a regime that deploys armies of flying robots to pointlessly spray vast quantities of (probably toxic) disinfectant into the air over entire cities; that installs machines in libraries to painstakingly sterilise every book, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that Covid doesn’t transmit through surface infection.

Most visibly, this regime is embodied by the Dabai (the “Big Whites”), the omnipresent “public health” thugs who have flawlessly succeeded in dehumanising themselves into zombie-like agents of the machine by donning their iconic (and totally pointless) full-body white hazmat suits 100% of the time, no matter what their job is or what miseries they’re inflicting on the people while just following orders.

The most surreal and tragic part of all of this, is that there is absolutely no practical or scientific reason for it. As the protests rage, China’s state media asserted again and again that they will continue with Zero-Covid because it is “scientific and effective”. But of course it is neither. Lockdowns don’t work: a fact that was clear from very early in the pandemic. Even masks don’t appear to demonstrate any really any significant effect on transmission. By contrast, the “Swedish Model” for “living with Covid” has by now been fully vindicated.

The rest of the world has pretty much come — kicking and screaming — to accept this reality and allow people to move on with their lives. Which is why when Chinese citizens were exposed to insufficiently censored footage of the packed, maskless crowds of the World Cup, they were in for a shock that may have helped push the country over the edge.

I find it rather odd, then, that Western media outlets have insisted on upholding China’s Zero-Covid narrative. The BBC, the New York Times, Axios, and the Financial Times have all praised China’s “freedom fighters”, but they also echo the Official Line: sombrely asserting that China’s leaders are “in a bind” and can’t actually open up like the people naively want. If they do the hospitals will immediately be overwhelmed, untold millions will die, and the economy will suffer massively. Zero-Covid might be a bit excessive — what with people starving in their apartments and throwing themselves off buildings — and the government should probably loosen up somewhat, especially to get commerce flowing again. But ultimately top-down control will have to be maintained for the people’s own good. It’s an understandably difficult situation for Beijing.

I will go ahead and call total bullshit on this. To do otherwise would require pretending we don’t now have three years’ worth of collective experience from around the world, during which time every “expert” model predicting mass death in the dangerous event of freedom was consistently proved wrong. With only rare exceptions, health care systems in most countries ended up being able to handle the impact of the pandemic without any kind of collapse. Every big Covid wave quickly reversed itself and diminished. Why? Because herd immunity works.

Ultimately SARS-CoV-2 is a virus with a greater than 99.9% overall pre-vaccine infection survival rate for those under the age of 69, and above 99.5% even if the most elderly are included. Vaccines have long been available for all those who want them. None of the humanity-crushing germophobic paranoia and tyranny is necessary or ethically justifiable in the slightest, and never has been.

No, there is only one real reason for China’s insistence on the Zero-Covid policy, and it’s one we also have some recent experience with in the West: pure ideological psychosis, rooted in the CCP’s pathologically fearful desperation to maintain total control of everything at all times, no matter how self-destructive the results.

The control-obsessed minds of the CCP’s leadership have been broken by the uncontrollability of the pandemic. The propaganda narrative they quickly built up around Covid — the web of lies intended to inculcate a “healthy” fear of the virus and thereby enhance social cohesion and control — took on a life of its own and became self-perpetuating. Now, in a closed information environment, the Narrative is setting the policies of government instead of the other way around. Much as during other massively self-destructive episodes of CCP history (the Great Leap Forward comes to mind), they are trapped not by a difficult reality but by a collective unreality — one from which at least some Chinese people have now woken up.

The pandemic has helped to shatter the image of modern China as a bastion of effective technocratic governance: a country run by sensible engineering PhDs, and possessing the enviable authoritarian “state capacity” to build marvellous mega-projects. Gone are the days when New York Times columnists and Canadian prime ministers daydreamed about what could be accomplished if their countries were but “China for a day”. The truth is of course that even technocratic central planners can be possessed by horrifyingly blind ideological madness just like everyone else.

It is pretty clear why the mainstream international media won’t talk plainly about China’s Zero-Covid mistake. To do so honestly would be to strike directly at the same animating myth that drove “emergency” Covid measures in their own countries. The lockdowns, vaccine passports, QR codes, mass censorship, and brutal treatment of so-called “far-Right” or “conspiracy theorist” dissenters that we saw gleefully implemented by governments all over the world — and which were based directly on the China model — were always worse than irrational and illiberal. To point out that such measures are a continuing crime against humanity in China would be to point out that they were a crime against humanity everywhere.

That would be pretty awkward for Western governments. Besides, it seems we’re not done yet with technocratic solutions to “public health” threats: new plans for sweeping, “technology-enabled ‘always-on’ global health infrastructure”, including a global digital health pass that will determine whether or not anyone anywhere “can move around,” was just agreed to by the leaders of the G20. The last thing our governments need is for their grand plans to be derailed by the kind of pro-human independent spirit on display in China.

Fortunately for everyone (except the people), police have successfully flooded the streets of China, and the protests seem to have died down. Stability will likely be restored; revolution doesn’t seem to be in the cards. Regimes and their journalists everywhere will breathe a sigh of relief. After all, what would the future be like if everyone was inspired to stop obeying disembodied robot-megaphones demanding that we show our health pass?

***

This essay originally appeared on The Upheaval on Substack.


N.S. Lyons is the author of The Upheaval on Substack.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

100 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Excellent article. I love this comment in particular;

“The pandemic has helped to shatter the image of modern China as a bastion of effective technocratic governance: a country run by sensible engineering PhDs, and possessing the enviable authoritarian “state capacity” to build marvellous mega-projects. Gone are the days when New York Times columnists and Canadian prime ministers daydreamed about what could be accomplished if their countries were but “China for a day”.

I choked on my coffee the other day when reading about Trudeau’s support for the Chinese protestors. This vomit-inducing actor playing the role of a politician is the poster child of authoritarian overreach. Like his comrades in China, Trudeau will never be held accountable for his despicable treatment of people.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Superb. There were three types responsible for the horror of the Lockdown in the UK. Ignorant bewildered cowardly politicos (Johnsons Executive) who panicked & surrendered power to a second cadre of leftist authoritarians within the State apparatus; the armies of public health officialdom, academics, scientists PHE NHS etc. These people – drunk on power – determined to enforce a Xi like tyranny over us. They were joined by the likes of the teachers union who were determined to quit the schools and children be damned. Many were driven by the knowledge that the suffocation of the enterprise culture and need for magic mondy tree were powerful weapons which would destroy the brand new despised Brexit State. They were fully protected by the no show silence of our legal system and human rights laws (ha) and the base self serving propaganda of a BBC bent on inducing national hysteria by suppressing all truth. All these parties profited from lockdown and have blood on their hands. This is why articles like this are only aired here. The Bio State is still there waiting because its crimes have not been exposed.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Am I the only one who has noticed the congruence between Remain and lockdown fanaticism? There’s some kind of psychosis at work there, I think.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It’s been observed on the daily sceptic/lockdown sceptics.
It’s not a perfect relationship but the venn diagram of remainers and lockdowners has a healthy overlap. For the most part, I think it’s a desire for technocratic bureaucracy.
I’m sort of neutral on the EU (at least our membership) but have been extremely opposed to lockdowns.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

I am completely against lockdowns but was pro remain, mostly because of the work abroad opportunities that freedom of movement provide. So there is likely an overlap but it is far from perfect

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Fran Martinez

So you’re a man of principle

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Fran Martinez

So you’re a man of principle

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

There is a link. It is just too ugly and scary to contemplate. Not all pro lockers were Remainiac. It was the fool Johnson who surrendered to them after all (then lapped up like Sturgeon the positive opinion polls for his supposed vigorous Churchillian leadership) . But History will prove that – consciously or even sub consciously – many of the pro lockdown advocates were driven by their maniacal hatred of the Brexit State. Covid arrived at the very peak of the pyschotic rage or derangement which possesses the entirety of the British State/Technocracy. The gift of power to override an empty Parliament and suffocate the entire economy was way too tempting for the authoritarians of the Left. It is good old fashioned Leninism. Destroy and strangle the rogue Brexit State at birth. It is naive and dangerous to pretend this did not happen.

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I believe you are very close to the mark with that comment

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

That might explain why some people are all too eager to blame Brexit for economic woes rather than lockdowns.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Totally!! If the BBC had not been an active lead agent in the lockdown tyranny -first generating hysteria then suppressing truth- then they would be calling the current socio economic crisis – the Lockdown Reckoning. But they will not. Nor will the politicians whose hands are also bloodied So the BBC call it a ‘cost of living’ crisis instead and join the other guilty parties – Tories Labour all – in blaming Putin & Brexit for all our woes. Pathetic. Insidious. The Blob have not even begun to free us from the oppressive risk averse heavy handed EU legislation. We are in law a de facto EU province still. And Brexiteers will not even exist in Parliament after 2025 and the Tory rout. Brexit is and will only be a belief held by a majority of the British people – all outside the British State. Democracy? Ha! Go figure…

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Hi again. I’m sorry but I hate, hate, hate these simplistic theories you keep peddling. Tonight I have time, I going to try and take you to task properly. Probably badly this writing business isn’t my strongest skill. But. I’m willing to try. They are doing us no favours, these easy theories. Some people like to put things in neat boxes and catalogue a nice neat chain of events while simultaneously projecting there own biases onto a story. You are one of those people. The world is not neat, or tidy, one event leads to a multitude of other outcomes, a multitude of different possibilities. The world is a massive raging pot of conflicting interests and wars. There is never one person, one power, or even one country in COMPLETE control. Its all big games and power plays. Now.
You are saying that the NHS, the teachers, the nurses, the BBC all worked together to enforce lockdown. Every post you particularly point to public sector workers as the problem. You also make a point that lockdown was enforced or encouraged by remainiacs. That spews political bias. I’m a brexit beleiver but I can’t stomach a theory that is entrenched in someone elses own biases, it is immediately in danger of becoming illogical, as yours frequently do.
Reminder first of the timeline: Wuhan outbreak, lots of press, escalating to China on shutdown,( I don’t know also if anyone else noticed at the time if you like it was part of the decoupling process theory Google and that pulled all their people out quietly on pretence of escaping the virus.) Just interesting point that’s all. Next we get massive press from Italy, parts of the Indo Pacific, people laying all over hospitals, looks really bad china are apparently building hospitals at the rate of a couple a week or what ever, people start getting really twitchy. Then it blows up massive, day after day there’s more and more information, more and more pictures, videos, people supposedly dropping dead in the street in China, people throwing there dogs out of windows in China remember that? Cos they thought they could carry covid? Remember how crazy the press got? Off the back of this, governments have to be seen to do something. The people are getting worried, the government has no control of the global media narrative spewed its way. Now at this point, there’s an important question. That I don’t know the answer to either. Or all the right questions even. What did our governments know at this point? How bad, how dangerous, was it the Chinese playing biological warfare, was it all part of a bigger game, what. Until you can answer that, you cannot go on to say that our government did not act in the interest of the people or assume it had much choice. You cannot sweepingly accuse the people you are accusing of conspiracy. If it was hyped by the press, it was global, way beyond the scope of the BBC. If it was a Chinese bio weapon, and they used who the WEF and whoever they could buy, bearing in mind russia situation they could potentially have had russian help too, then the original stuff, data, virus samples etc. they had to go on, came from China. If you remember we held out, until we could get further samples from OUTSIDE China, implying that they didn’t entirely trust them perhaps. By which point it had snowballed and gone crazy anyway. We get (probably definitely dubious now, but no one could say at the time) figures from imperial saying the NHS is about to implode itself. The press obviously only pick up the scariest ones cos that’s what tabloids do. So now, your leading a country, the whole of Europe is in or entering lockdown as is china, trump is flapping like boris they know they’re voters are not for lockdowns they aren’t idiots they understand that much, in the end what else could they do? It was massive daily escalation in the press your trying to fight. If they hadn’t they’d have done them anyway, saying they were killing people, remember that? And in having to concede, you then have to follow it through, stuffed. Now who did the stuffing, why, and who helped are the important questions, that no one can categorically answer.
I have to say this was a good article, I’m starting to put a bit more money on it was a stitch up, maybe even with china and Russia working together, now we have inflation from bottlenecked shipping, china can close down the Western multinationals factories in China at will, we only get what they let out. And massive energy price inflation cos Russia went into Ukraine. If this is the case, we’re in big trouble, cos they have obviously planned this as a long game to kill the influence of the west.
I honestly don’t know, but can we please, have less of the simplistic bbc, nurses remainiacs conspiracy. Please. On the basis of your theory, where the left remainiacs control everything, brexit vote would have been rigged remain in the first place or would never have happened.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I welcome criticism. But this is ridiculous. I never mentioned nurses. I wrote about teachers UNIONS and institutions. I said lockdown began in panic – not conspiracy and pointed to Johnson’s abject complicity. I said not all Remainers were pro lock. And that the anti government impulse/animus may even have been subconscious amongst some of the lockers. (Though not perhaps other experts and unionists we all can think of). I stand by what I actually wrote. You are welcome to your belief that the British State is not hostile to Brexit. If you do not see danger in the State’s erasure of both our liberties and free speech to protect the monolithic NHS – fine. History will have its say…

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

On the article about a class war the other day quote you wrote:
Lockdown revealed the ugly authoritarian hatreds lurking within this now wholly detached class with their mitts on all the levers of power. Sadly, not all materials are natural allies either. NHS nurses, leftie lawyers, RMT thugs and public sector strikers are NOT allies of farmers or truckers in this conflict. They side with the corrupted ever growing State under whose branches the Virtuals thrive. But to know and to see a hostile enemy through the fog is a first and important step.
Comments live forever on here mate, my memory is razor sharp.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

You are that Walter Marvel are you not?
You see I remember attempting to engage you a few times.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

You are that Walter Marvel are you not?
You see I remember attempting to engage you a few times.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

On the article about a class war the other day quote you wrote:
Lockdown revealed the ugly authoritarian hatreds lurking within this now wholly detached class with their mitts on all the levers of power. Sadly, not all materials are natural allies either. NHS nurses, leftie lawyers, RMT thugs and public sector strikers are NOT allies of farmers or truckers in this conflict. They side with the corrupted ever growing State under whose branches the Virtuals thrive. But to know and to see a hostile enemy through the fog is a first and important step.
Comments live forever on here mate, my memory is razor sharp.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. That is every bit as lazy as what you’re accusing Walter of.
Events are often, if not always, emergent. Typically the result of mutual interest and serendipitous association.
There is no reason to assume this is a choice between conspiracy and happenstance. Elements of both can be seen, but it is not purely one thing or the other.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

All we have are theories, I am objecting to simplistic theories that suggest a massive alliance between the BBC, the NHS, teachers unions etc. Being responsible for lockdown. He then suggests that nurses rmt unions etc will ally with wholly authoritarian powers like its a forgone conclusion and says we must seek enemies in the fog. Screams crazy to me. You make of it what you like, it’s just my humble opinion.
Edit: understand that you know, I’m here for alternative opinions, I’m happy to argue it out and concede defeat, but people need to understand some of these theories are bordering on crazy, we need to be really careful in what we are saying and reading and believing. I’m trying to demonstrate that there are so many conflicting ideas we can’t start jumping on remainiacs and stuff it’s just, not smart.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

This is tiresome. I do not believe in crude catch all conspiracy. It is what you are doing now in reverse. The point you quote relates to a separate debate about class – on Virtuals v Materials. Yes – I argue that Covid witnessed the State and public sector acting against the interests of our public liberties health children and economy. Our economy and sme sector is shattered now after the madness of a two year suffocation of enterprise. Public sector workers (many doing laudable brave work of course)
were collectively insulated by taxpayer cash from the worst effects. No one lost a job. A new deeper divide has opened up between them and the stressed enterprise sector. It could only work if the Left’s Money Tree Theory worked. Well it hasnt worked so now the public sector must pay a heavy price too. If you think that the BBC and MSM told the truth about covid (death data – hello) or openly interrogated ideas like Great Barrington you are naive. They actively nurtured a national hysteria to help enforce lockdown and the idea that WE should protect the NHS – not the other way round. I always accept there was panic and confusion at the outset and despise Johnson for lapping up the positive polling for his supposed Churchillian leadership. But the nightmare lasted two long years and the all powerful Bio State was set to argue for even more before reason miraculously took hold again. The Brexit Remainer/Leftist animus issue is a separate one. Covid more broadly has seen the public sector detach itself from the people. So many areas are failing (DVLA Passport, FCO Police) and the retreat of GPS and upcoming strikes within NHS and teachers are clear signs of this rupture. When will all realise that mass support for and clapping pots for lockdown is linked to the inflation crisis we now suffer? There were warnings aplenty about the money tree, about poor childrens education, about inflation, about the consequences of forgetting cancer and focusing on one disease only – but they were only heard here. In the MSM/BBC they were dismissed as eugenic and Trumpian. Read the good Judge Sumption is you do not believe me. Now we are living through the Reckoning. I find it strange that you cannot comprehend that what unites the many different causes of the Covid catastrophe is a monstrous casual failure of our over mighty technocracy and British State.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I’m sorry you find the discussion tiresome. You have simply regurgitated your narrative and proven my point that your narrative is steeped in political bias. Your rhetoric is frequently over the top and you frequently draw conclusions with no evidence what so ever then spew it as a legitimate chain if events without ever questioning yourself or the ability to recognise you frequently mix up what is known with what MIGHT have happened. I take exception to your repeated attacks on NHS workers, they were the front line in stopping mandatory vaccination. Remember the campaign, they all wore ribbons? Their resistance and the courage of some in speaking out against the vaccines and lockdowns was of paramount importance in stopping the slide into mandatory vaccination. No one ever credits them for this, you repeatedly attack them and describe them as enemies of the people. Everyone knows the BBC has its own agenda and bias, from Saville, to the Diana interview you are not having a realisation that no one else has thought of. My point in reminding you of the ACTUAL chain of events that unfolded in China at the start was to demonstrate that initially, the pictures, press, videos, data, virus samples, all came from China. Fact. Not the BBC. In ignoring the chain of events previous to our own lockdown you immediately skew your theory to fit your narrative, if you want to go with your theory that’s fine, but could we have delivered without your own bias imposed upon it and without making sweeping assumptions about whole sectors of our society. Do you run an SME by the way?
This part ‘ But the nightmare lasted two long years and the all powerful Bio State was set to argue for even more before reason miraculously took hold again’
So what? The remaniacs and bbc and bio state just relinquished the levers of power, miraculously. Wow. Its a good job we still have miracles, you might want to let the pope know, I think he missed the memo.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It’s not a conspiracy; many institutions like the BBC, the teachers’ unions, the NHS, the news media, and the education establishment have pretty much been co-opted by a ‘narrative’ for lack of a better word. They’re all reading from the same script. I think what’s causing this is funding structures e.g. you need to meet such and such diversity targets to receive x amount of funding from the public purse. Moreover failure to comply can result in loss of funding or even fines.
As we saw during lockdowns any individual, expert or otherwise who went against the script was publicly excoriated and risked loss of livelihood and reputation. This is no conspiracy theory. We all saw this actually happening. We are in a grave situation in which institutions that were once built to serve the public interest have become psychopathic and predatory. We need to clean them out and rebuild them from the ground up.

Last edited 1 year ago by Julian Farrows
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Seriously mate, re read his part about them miraculously relinquishing the levers of power edit sorry reason miraculously prevailing and tell me everything he has posted is plausible, intelligently presented, devoid of bias and objective, does not reach illogical conclusions or condemn people who have demonstrated in real life they don’t fit what he is saying.
When I say conspiracy theory I simply refer to a theory that stands outside the set, mainstream narrative of events. I don’t mean in a derogatory way, normally a theory that sits outside the mainstream narrative, that’s what you call it.
Now, you will find I’m an Alex jones kid, I’ve been on these circuits for a long time, long before covid, I’m a millennial, I been trawling this stuff for like 15 years. I know there is a lot of weird stuff going on. I know the BBC is biased, I know that lockdown was promoted, that lockdown sceptics, anti vaxers were dragged through the shit, the figures were dodgy, etc. Etc. OK. What I’m looking for is the real reason that happened. I’m not looking for a trope that includes remainics, enemies in the fog or miracles. That is the worst kind of conspiracy theory. No evidence, steeped in political bias, illogical, dangerous.
And that is my problem with it.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I can’t surely be the only one that sees this? If I am, I’m going to get the gin out now, we are doomed.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I can’t surely be the only one that sees this? If I am, I’m going to get the gin out now, we are doomed.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Just stunned silence and a down vote. Lol.
Don’t be such a pu**y Walter Marvel, I’m calling you out, your comments are dangerous and getting too many up ticks for my liking. I’m pi**Ed off. I’ve took the time. Where are you.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

What on earth! I have replied to you at length at least twice. You do not acknowledge amy of my points and just insult my opinion. So whats the point? As others have tried to argue with you too, we do not affirm some simplistic Grand Conspiracy in relation to Covid. But there a set of awkward brutal facts you alone find problematic. Ergo- the BBC did trash its Charter obligation to truth and independence in the reporting of Covid and knowingly induced a national hysteria. After the initial lockdown panic was over, the British State in the form of an emergency bio state acted in a near tyrannical and arbirtary fashion, casually smashing the enterprise sector, suffocating our liberties, sacrificed the welfare of the poor and children and ultimately breaking the State finances when it realised belatedly that the magic money tree policy was not going to work – all in the name of protecting a broken State Health monolith, not the people. They were insulated from the pain they unleashed and many enriched themselves (see savings data). The behaviour of the likes of PHE, mendacious self serving scientists, cowardly naive politicians and the likes of militant teachers unionists baying to send children home are worthy only of our total contempt. And on the separate Brexit front, it appears you genuinely do not understand what NMIs are and how they have impacted on the operation of power. If you seriously believe that the civil service and the Technocracy is politically neutral and not wedded to Remainia/hostile to the Brexit Government you really should go away and read more – or stay unheard.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Well done. At least you gave it go. You have completely failed to answer my questions or explain the miracle of reason returning you allude to. I don’t have a problem with the view that the technocracy or civil service is not neutral, like I said, been on this stuff a long time, I object to the way you are delivering it. I object to your repeated attacks on NHS workers that resisted mandatory vaccination. You are attacking people I see as very important allies in the fight against a biostate. I object to you constantly imbuing this stuff with assumptions about remainers, teachers, nurses, the left etcetc. That is my problem. Also in doing so you are missing the bigger picture. That’s OK, I just hope any others reading your ridiculous speal will ‘think again’ before lapping it up.
I’ll leave you in peace, for now.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Well done. At least you gave it go. You have completely failed to answer my questions or explain the miracle of reason returning you allude to. I don’t have a problem with the view that the technocracy or civil service is not neutral, like I said, been on this stuff a long time, I object to the way you are delivering it. I object to your repeated attacks on NHS workers that resisted mandatory vaccination. You are attacking people I see as very important allies in the fight against a biostate. I object to you constantly imbuing this stuff with assumptions about remainers, teachers, nurses, the left etcetc. That is my problem. Also in doing so you are missing the bigger picture. That’s OK, I just hope any others reading your ridiculous speal will ‘think again’ before lapping it up.
I’ll leave you in peace, for now.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Watch out with the “your comments are dangerous
” remark. Reminds me too much of those who seek to quash free speech. It’s an easy mindset to fall into.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Betsy Arehart

He is peddling a right load of trollop, describes public sector workers as enemies in the fog, so for that, I have been as scathing as possible to make my point. I definitely over egged it, but it was fun.
I have the freedom to say I believe his comments are dangerous, we are entering difficult times, the last thing we need is people inciting partisan lunacy, I take exception to it. As you can see. Do you think nurses should be described as enemies in the fog? Do you think it is reasonable to peddle miracles as explanations? Do you not think that actually, that’s pretty unhelpful to society in general?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Betsy Arehart

He is peddling a right load of trollop, describes public sector workers as enemies in the fog, so for that, I have been as scathing as possible to make my point. I definitely over egged it, but it was fun.
I have the freedom to say I believe his comments are dangerous, we are entering difficult times, the last thing we need is people inciting partisan lunacy, I take exception to it. As you can see. Do you think nurses should be described as enemies in the fog? Do you think it is reasonable to peddle miracles as explanations? Do you not think that actually, that’s pretty unhelpful to society in general?

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

What on earth! I have replied to you at length at least twice. You do not acknowledge amy of my points and just insult my opinion. So whats the point? As others have tried to argue with you too, we do not affirm some simplistic Grand Conspiracy in relation to Covid. But there a set of awkward brutal facts you alone find problematic. Ergo- the BBC did trash its Charter obligation to truth and independence in the reporting of Covid and knowingly induced a national hysteria. After the initial lockdown panic was over, the British State in the form of an emergency bio state acted in a near tyrannical and arbirtary fashion, casually smashing the enterprise sector, suffocating our liberties, sacrificed the welfare of the poor and children and ultimately breaking the State finances when it realised belatedly that the magic money tree policy was not going to work – all in the name of protecting a broken State Health monolith, not the people. They were insulated from the pain they unleashed and many enriched themselves (see savings data). The behaviour of the likes of PHE, mendacious self serving scientists, cowardly naive politicians and the likes of militant teachers unionists baying to send children home are worthy only of our total contempt. And on the separate Brexit front, it appears you genuinely do not understand what NMIs are and how they have impacted on the operation of power. If you seriously believe that the civil service and the Technocracy is politically neutral and not wedded to Remainia/hostile to the Brexit Government you really should go away and read more – or stay unheard.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Watch out with the “your comments are dangerous
” remark. Reminds me too much of those who seek to quash free speech. It’s an easy mindset to fall into.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Seriously mate, re read his part about them miraculously relinquishing the levers of power edit sorry reason miraculously prevailing and tell me everything he has posted is plausible, intelligently presented, devoid of bias and objective, does not reach illogical conclusions or condemn people who have demonstrated in real life they don’t fit what he is saying.
When I say conspiracy theory I simply refer to a theory that stands outside the set, mainstream narrative of events. I don’t mean in a derogatory way, normally a theory that sits outside the mainstream narrative, that’s what you call it.
Now, you will find I’m an Alex jones kid, I’ve been on these circuits for a long time, long before covid, I’m a millennial, I been trawling this stuff for like 15 years. I know there is a lot of weird stuff going on. I know the BBC is biased, I know that lockdown was promoted, that lockdown sceptics, anti vaxers were dragged through the shit, the figures were dodgy, etc. Etc. OK. What I’m looking for is the real reason that happened. I’m not looking for a trope that includes remainics, enemies in the fog or miracles. That is the worst kind of conspiracy theory. No evidence, steeped in political bias, illogical, dangerous.
And that is my problem with it.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Just stunned silence and a down vote. Lol.
Don’t be such a pu**y Walter Marvel, I’m calling you out, your comments are dangerous and getting too many up ticks for my liking. I’m pi**Ed off. I’ve took the time. Where are you.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It’s not a conspiracy; many institutions like the BBC, the teachers’ unions, the NHS, the news media, and the education establishment have pretty much been co-opted by a ‘narrative’ for lack of a better word. They’re all reading from the same script. I think what’s causing this is funding structures e.g. you need to meet such and such diversity targets to receive x amount of funding from the public purse. Moreover failure to comply can result in loss of funding or even fines.
As we saw during lockdowns any individual, expert or otherwise who went against the script was publicly excoriated and risked loss of livelihood and reputation. This is no conspiracy theory. We all saw this actually happening. We are in a grave situation in which institutions that were once built to serve the public interest have become psychopathic and predatory. We need to clean them out and rebuild them from the ground up.

Last edited 1 year ago by Julian Farrows
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I’m sorry you find the discussion tiresome. You have simply regurgitated your narrative and proven my point that your narrative is steeped in political bias. Your rhetoric is frequently over the top and you frequently draw conclusions with no evidence what so ever then spew it as a legitimate chain if events without ever questioning yourself or the ability to recognise you frequently mix up what is known with what MIGHT have happened. I take exception to your repeated attacks on NHS workers, they were the front line in stopping mandatory vaccination. Remember the campaign, they all wore ribbons? Their resistance and the courage of some in speaking out against the vaccines and lockdowns was of paramount importance in stopping the slide into mandatory vaccination. No one ever credits them for this, you repeatedly attack them and describe them as enemies of the people. Everyone knows the BBC has its own agenda and bias, from Saville, to the Diana interview you are not having a realisation that no one else has thought of. My point in reminding you of the ACTUAL chain of events that unfolded in China at the start was to demonstrate that initially, the pictures, press, videos, data, virus samples, all came from China. Fact. Not the BBC. In ignoring the chain of events previous to our own lockdown you immediately skew your theory to fit your narrative, if you want to go with your theory that’s fine, but could we have delivered without your own bias imposed upon it and without making sweeping assumptions about whole sectors of our society. Do you run an SME by the way?
This part ‘ But the nightmare lasted two long years and the all powerful Bio State was set to argue for even more before reason miraculously took hold again’
So what? The remaniacs and bbc and bio state just relinquished the levers of power, miraculously. Wow. Its a good job we still have miracles, you might want to let the pope know, I think he missed the memo.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

This is tiresome. I do not believe in crude catch all conspiracy. It is what you are doing now in reverse. The point you quote relates to a separate debate about class – on Virtuals v Materials. Yes – I argue that Covid witnessed the State and public sector acting against the interests of our public liberties health children and economy. Our economy and sme sector is shattered now after the madness of a two year suffocation of enterprise. Public sector workers (many doing laudable brave work of course)
were collectively insulated by taxpayer cash from the worst effects. No one lost a job. A new deeper divide has opened up between them and the stressed enterprise sector. It could only work if the Left’s Money Tree Theory worked. Well it hasnt worked so now the public sector must pay a heavy price too. If you think that the BBC and MSM told the truth about covid (death data – hello) or openly interrogated ideas like Great Barrington you are naive. They actively nurtured a national hysteria to help enforce lockdown and the idea that WE should protect the NHS – not the other way round. I always accept there was panic and confusion at the outset and despise Johnson for lapping up the positive polling for his supposed Churchillian leadership. But the nightmare lasted two long years and the all powerful Bio State was set to argue for even more before reason miraculously took hold again. The Brexit Remainer/Leftist animus issue is a separate one. Covid more broadly has seen the public sector detach itself from the people. So many areas are failing (DVLA Passport, FCO Police) and the retreat of GPS and upcoming strikes within NHS and teachers are clear signs of this rupture. When will all realise that mass support for and clapping pots for lockdown is linked to the inflation crisis we now suffer? There were warnings aplenty about the money tree, about poor childrens education, about inflation, about the consequences of forgetting cancer and focusing on one disease only – but they were only heard here. In the MSM/BBC they were dismissed as eugenic and Trumpian. Read the good Judge Sumption is you do not believe me. Now we are living through the Reckoning. I find it strange that you cannot comprehend that what unites the many different causes of the Covid catastrophe is a monstrous casual failure of our over mighty technocracy and British State.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

All we have are theories, I am objecting to simplistic theories that suggest a massive alliance between the BBC, the NHS, teachers unions etc. Being responsible for lockdown. He then suggests that nurses rmt unions etc will ally with wholly authoritarian powers like its a forgone conclusion and says we must seek enemies in the fog. Screams crazy to me. You make of it what you like, it’s just my humble opinion.
Edit: understand that you know, I’m here for alternative opinions, I’m happy to argue it out and concede defeat, but people need to understand some of these theories are bordering on crazy, we need to be really careful in what we are saying and reading and believing. I’m trying to demonstrate that there are so many conflicting ideas we can’t start jumping on remainiacs and stuff it’s just, not smart.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

I welcome criticism. But this is ridiculous. I never mentioned nurses. I wrote about teachers UNIONS and institutions. I said lockdown began in panic – not conspiracy and pointed to Johnson’s abject complicity. I said not all Remainers were pro lock. And that the anti government impulse/animus may even have been subconscious amongst some of the lockers. (Though not perhaps other experts and unionists we all can think of). I stand by what I actually wrote. You are welcome to your belief that the British State is not hostile to Brexit. If you do not see danger in the State’s erasure of both our liberties and free speech to protect the monolithic NHS – fine. History will have its say…

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It doesn’t have to be a conspiracy. That is every bit as lazy as what you’re accusing Walter of.
Events are often, if not always, emergent. Typically the result of mutual interest and serendipitous association.
There is no reason to assume this is a choice between conspiracy and happenstance. Elements of both can be seen, but it is not purely one thing or the other.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Hi again. I’m sorry but I hate, hate, hate these simplistic theories you keep peddling. Tonight I have time, I going to try and take you to task properly. Probably badly this writing business isn’t my strongest skill. But. I’m willing to try. They are doing us no favours, these easy theories. Some people like to put things in neat boxes and catalogue a nice neat chain of events while simultaneously projecting there own biases onto a story. You are one of those people. The world is not neat, or tidy, one event leads to a multitude of other outcomes, a multitude of different possibilities. The world is a massive raging pot of conflicting interests and wars. There is never one person, one power, or even one country in COMPLETE control. Its all big games and power plays. Now.
You are saying that the NHS, the teachers, the nurses, the BBC all worked together to enforce lockdown. Every post you particularly point to public sector workers as the problem. You also make a point that lockdown was enforced or encouraged by remainiacs. That spews political bias. I’m a brexit beleiver but I can’t stomach a theory that is entrenched in someone elses own biases, it is immediately in danger of becoming illogical, as yours frequently do.
Reminder first of the timeline: Wuhan outbreak, lots of press, escalating to China on shutdown,( I don’t know also if anyone else noticed at the time if you like it was part of the decoupling process theory Google and that pulled all their people out quietly on pretence of escaping the virus.) Just interesting point that’s all. Next we get massive press from Italy, parts of the Indo Pacific, people laying all over hospitals, looks really bad china are apparently building hospitals at the rate of a couple a week or what ever, people start getting really twitchy. Then it blows up massive, day after day there’s more and more information, more and more pictures, videos, people supposedly dropping dead in the street in China, people throwing there dogs out of windows in China remember that? Cos they thought they could carry covid? Remember how crazy the press got? Off the back of this, governments have to be seen to do something. The people are getting worried, the government has no control of the global media narrative spewed its way. Now at this point, there’s an important question. That I don’t know the answer to either. Or all the right questions even. What did our governments know at this point? How bad, how dangerous, was it the Chinese playing biological warfare, was it all part of a bigger game, what. Until you can answer that, you cannot go on to say that our government did not act in the interest of the people or assume it had much choice. You cannot sweepingly accuse the people you are accusing of conspiracy. If it was hyped by the press, it was global, way beyond the scope of the BBC. If it was a Chinese bio weapon, and they used who the WEF and whoever they could buy, bearing in mind russia situation they could potentially have had russian help too, then the original stuff, data, virus samples etc. they had to go on, came from China. If you remember we held out, until we could get further samples from OUTSIDE China, implying that they didn’t entirely trust them perhaps. By which point it had snowballed and gone crazy anyway. We get (probably definitely dubious now, but no one could say at the time) figures from imperial saying the NHS is about to implode itself. The press obviously only pick up the scariest ones cos that’s what tabloids do. So now, your leading a country, the whole of Europe is in or entering lockdown as is china, trump is flapping like boris they know they’re voters are not for lockdowns they aren’t idiots they understand that much, in the end what else could they do? It was massive daily escalation in the press your trying to fight. If they hadn’t they’d have done them anyway, saying they were killing people, remember that? And in having to concede, you then have to follow it through, stuffed. Now who did the stuffing, why, and who helped are the important questions, that no one can categorically answer.
I have to say this was a good article, I’m starting to put a bit more money on it was a stitch up, maybe even with china and Russia working together, now we have inflation from bottlenecked shipping, china can close down the Western multinationals factories in China at will, we only get what they let out. And massive energy price inflation cos Russia went into Ukraine. If this is the case, we’re in big trouble, cos they have obviously planned this as a long game to kill the influence of the west.
I honestly don’t know, but can we please, have less of the simplistic bbc, nurses remainiacs conspiracy. Please. On the basis of your theory, where the left remainiacs control everything, brexit vote would have been rigged remain in the first place or would never have happened.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Totally!! If the BBC had not been an active lead agent in the lockdown tyranny -first generating hysteria then suppressing truth- then they would be calling the current socio economic crisis – the Lockdown Reckoning. But they will not. Nor will the politicians whose hands are also bloodied So the BBC call it a ‘cost of living’ crisis instead and join the other guilty parties – Tories Labour all – in blaming Putin & Brexit for all our woes. Pathetic. Insidious. The Blob have not even begun to free us from the oppressive risk averse heavy handed EU legislation. We are in law a de facto EU province still. And Brexiteers will not even exist in Parliament after 2025 and the Tory rout. Brexit is and will only be a belief held by a majority of the British people – all outside the British State. Democracy? Ha! Go figure…

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I believe you are very close to the mark with that comment

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

That might explain why some people are all too eager to blame Brexit for economic woes rather than lockdowns.

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

I am completely against lockdowns but was pro remain, mostly because of the work abroad opportunities that freedom of movement provide. So there is likely an overlap but it is far from perfect

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Dalton

There is a link. It is just too ugly and scary to contemplate. Not all pro lockers were Remainiac. It was the fool Johnson who surrendered to them after all (then lapped up like Sturgeon the positive opinion polls for his supposed vigorous Churchillian leadership) . But History will prove that – consciously or even sub consciously – many of the pro lockdown advocates were driven by their maniacal hatred of the Brexit State. Covid arrived at the very peak of the pyschotic rage or derangement which possesses the entirety of the British State/Technocracy. The gift of power to override an empty Parliament and suffocate the entire economy was way too tempting for the authoritarians of the Left. It is good old fashioned Leninism. Destroy and strangle the rogue Brexit State at birth. It is naive and dangerous to pretend this did not happen.

Roger Irwin
Roger Irwin
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It’s called International rule of law; the concept that we should be run by a big rule book enforced by magistrates rather than sovereign democracies that make laws on an ad hoc, as needs basis.

Roger Irwin
Roger Irwin
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Irwin

BTW, that’s the theory…I don’t agree with it one bit!

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Irwin

It’s also accurately called neoliberal globalism.

Roger Irwin
Roger Irwin
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Irwin

BTW, that’s the theory…I don’t agree with it one bit!

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Irwin

It’s also accurately called neoliberal globalism.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

“Am I the only one who has noticed the congruence between Remain and lockdown fanaticism?”
Not by any means.

Andrew Dalton
Andrew Dalton
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It’s been observed on the daily sceptic/lockdown sceptics.
It’s not a perfect relationship but the venn diagram of remainers and lockdowners has a healthy overlap. For the most part, I think it’s a desire for technocratic bureaucracy.
I’m sort of neutral on the EU (at least our membership) but have been extremely opposed to lockdowns.

Roger Irwin
Roger Irwin
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It’s called International rule of law; the concept that we should be run by a big rule book enforced by magistrates rather than sovereign democracies that make laws on an ad hoc, as needs basis.

Richard Craven
Richard Craven
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

“Am I the only one who has noticed the congruence between Remain and lockdown fanaticism?”
Not by any means.

Fiona Everitt
Fiona Everitt
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Yes interesting because Boris advocated the herd immunity idea in the beginning. When the Swedish model seemed to be doing well the press whipped up a storm of how it was all going wrong. I initially I thought herd immunity was the sensible route. Then early on a 40 year old family friend ended up in a Covid coma so then I felt more nervous. However as things went along I lost track of the different ‘regulations’ as they changed so often. I was disillusioned when the lockdown laws were used to punish, blame and control rather than help.

Last edited 1 year ago by Fiona Everitt
Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago
Reply to  Fiona Everitt

I wonder if your friend was put in an induced coma so as to accept the ventilators that were at first thought to be the essential solution but turned out to be anything but.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Fiona Everitt

So how did the friend do?

Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago
Reply to  Fiona Everitt

I wonder if your friend was put in an induced coma so as to accept the ventilators that were at first thought to be the essential solution but turned out to be anything but.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Fiona Everitt

So how did the friend do?

jmo
jmo
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Journalists too, salivating at the headlines. Weasels.

Hilary Arundale
Hilary Arundale
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell


. And not to forget, intersecting the others in the venn diagram 
. Extinction Rebellion and co.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Yet Lord Jonathan Sumption KS, to his eternal credit (and despite being a high profile ‘remainer’,) was absolutely vociferous in his condemnation of the whole disgraceful LOCKDOWN HYSTERIA, and the dreadful constitutional precedents it was setting.

The wretched BBC even wheeled out there star performer Evan Davis to opposes him, predictably to no avail.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Am I the only one who has noticed the congruence between Remain and lockdown fanaticism? There’s some kind of psychosis at work there, I think.

Fiona Everitt
Fiona Everitt
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Yes interesting because Boris advocated the herd immunity idea in the beginning. When the Swedish model seemed to be doing well the press whipped up a storm of how it was all going wrong. I initially I thought herd immunity was the sensible route. Then early on a 40 year old family friend ended up in a Covid coma so then I felt more nervous. However as things went along I lost track of the different ‘regulations’ as they changed so often. I was disillusioned when the lockdown laws were used to punish, blame and control rather than help.

Last edited 1 year ago by Fiona Everitt
jmo
jmo
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Journalists too, salivating at the headlines. Weasels.

Hilary Arundale
Hilary Arundale
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell


. And not to forget, intersecting the others in the venn diagram 
. Extinction Rebellion and co.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Yet Lord Jonathan Sumption KS, to his eternal credit (and despite being a high profile ‘remainer’,) was absolutely vociferous in his condemnation of the whole disgraceful LOCKDOWN HYSTERIA, and the dreadful constitutional precedents it was setting.

The wretched BBC even wheeled out there star performer Evan Davis to opposes him, predictably to no avail.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The entire COVID saga has revealed China to be exactly what it always was, a totalitarian state with minimal regard for individual rights or the rule of law. The protesters are, unfortunately, likely to share the same fate as the Tiananmen Square protesters in 1989. Trudeau’s about-face, disgusting and hypocritical act that it is, does reflect a basic truth. In countries like Canada and America, the elites still have to pretend to respect the will of the people. We should fear the day when, as in China, they no longer have to keep up even a pretense of respect for the people they rule.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Superb. There were three types responsible for the horror of the Lockdown in the UK. Ignorant bewildered cowardly politicos (Johnsons Executive) who panicked & surrendered power to a second cadre of leftist authoritarians within the State apparatus; the armies of public health officialdom, academics, scientists PHE NHS etc. These people – drunk on power – determined to enforce a Xi like tyranny over us. They were joined by the likes of the teachers union who were determined to quit the schools and children be damned. Many were driven by the knowledge that the suffocation of the enterprise culture and need for magic mondy tree were powerful weapons which would destroy the brand new despised Brexit State. They were fully protected by the no show silence of our legal system and human rights laws (ha) and the base self serving propaganda of a BBC bent on inducing national hysteria by suppressing all truth. All these parties profited from lockdown and have blood on their hands. This is why articles like this are only aired here. The Bio State is still there waiting because its crimes have not been exposed.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

The entire COVID saga has revealed China to be exactly what it always was, a totalitarian state with minimal regard for individual rights or the rule of law. The protesters are, unfortunately, likely to share the same fate as the Tiananmen Square protesters in 1989. Trudeau’s about-face, disgusting and hypocritical act that it is, does reflect a basic truth. In countries like Canada and America, the elites still have to pretend to respect the will of the people. We should fear the day when, as in China, they no longer have to keep up even a pretense of respect for the people they rule.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Excellent article. I love this comment in particular;

“The pandemic has helped to shatter the image of modern China as a bastion of effective technocratic governance: a country run by sensible engineering PhDs, and possessing the enviable authoritarian “state capacity” to build marvellous mega-projects. Gone are the days when New York Times columnists and Canadian prime ministers daydreamed about what could be accomplished if their countries were but “China for a day”.

I choked on my coffee the other day when reading about Trudeau’s support for the Chinese protestors. This vomit-inducing actor playing the role of a politician is the poster child of authoritarian overreach. Like his comrades in China, Trudeau will never be held accountable for his despicable treatment of people.

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago

Please offer this author the opportunity to contribute regularly.

As with all his/her other work, the analysis is thorough, lucid and highly entertaining – albeit in a bleak sort of way.

If only we had individuals with such intelligence and insight as our leaders.

Vesselina Zaitzeva
Vesselina Zaitzeva
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

Hear! Hear!
This is an outstanding article, indeed.
I, too, would be happy to read more contributions by N.S. Lyons.

Buena Vista
Buena Vista
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

And he did it without mentioning Donald Trump!

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Buena Vista

That IS quite an achievement.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Buena Vista

That IS quite an achievement.

Vesselina Zaitzeva
Vesselina Zaitzeva
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

Hear! Hear!
This is an outstanding article, indeed.
I, too, would be happy to read more contributions by N.S. Lyons.

Buena Vista
Buena Vista
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

And he did it without mentioning Donald Trump!

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago

Please offer this author the opportunity to contribute regularly.

As with all his/her other work, the analysis is thorough, lucid and highly entertaining – albeit in a bleak sort of way.

If only we had individuals with such intelligence and insight as our leaders.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

An excellent essay and a comprehensive evisceration of the revolting CCP. Thank you for also for mentioning this undeniable FACT:-

“Ultimately SARS-CoV-2 is a virus with a greater than 99.9% overall pre-vaccine infection survival rate for those under the age of 69, and above 99.5% even if the most elderly are included.”

Why is this NOT better known?

Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago

Because it didn’t serve the vaccine roll out which was clearly seized as a way of introducing global bio-information passports on populations around the world. They didn’t quite pull it off but they made serious headway and are still developing the tech for this to happen.
Personally, when I see the brutal oppression of the Chinese people I can’t help but wonder how far off that is for us all. We are moving very fast in that direction and there needs to be far greater pushback than we are seeing now.

Glyn R
Glyn R
1 year ago

Because it didn’t serve the vaccine roll out which was clearly seized as a way of introducing global bio-information passports on populations around the world. They didn’t quite pull it off but they made serious headway and are still developing the tech for this to happen.
Personally, when I see the brutal oppression of the Chinese people I can’t help but wonder how far off that is for us all. We are moving very fast in that direction and there needs to be far greater pushback than we are seeing now.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

An excellent essay and a comprehensive evisceration of the revolting CCP. Thank you for also for mentioning this undeniable FACT:-

“Ultimately SARS-CoV-2 is a virus with a greater than 99.9% overall pre-vaccine infection survival rate for those under the age of 69, and above 99.5% even if the most elderly are included.”

Why is this NOT better known?

Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
1 year ago

That’s more like it! Finally a voice willing to speak some plain unvarnished truths. The CCP-inspired Western “lockdowns” were always all about entrenching the communists’ domestic power, tricking the West into tyrannical actions to suffocate any criticism of their authoritarianism that might find its way into domestic discourse. If you can’t beat ‘em, con them into joining you.

The interests of the CCP converged with those of a buck-passing Western politicians desperate not to have to take responsibility for tough unpopular decisions; a pharma/tech industry interested in ramping up fear to make people desperate for their miracle cure and more dependent on their digital products; and a dazed and confused populace emerging blinking into the post-Christian, atomised present, desperate for a way to find meaning and to be good.

I have sensed a shift in the last couple of weeks as people start to come to terms with what happened and what is still going on. What now needs to happen is a pause for breath, and a reckoning: a calm, steady accounting of what went wrong, where did incentives get misaligned, and how did our institutions – public, private, and in-between, and at the local, national, and global levels – fail so badly to cope with such a wicked convergence of otherwise disparate interests.

Yet as we speak, the WHO’s International Negotiating Board is preparing to meet next Monday to discuss a “conceptual zero draft” of a legally binding treaty that the WHO’s CCP-backed leader has described as a “game changing 
 great stride forward” that could allow him wide discretion to require sovereign states to take the “whole-of-government, whole-of-society” measures that are failing so badly in China and which have caused so much suffering in the West. This follows “informal, focused consultations” in October 2022 with member states and “stakeholders” – including of course the all the usual philanthrocapitalist and big pharma faces, as well, of course, as the Beijing communists.

This needs to be stopped so that we may have a decent, grown-up, calm, sensible conversation at national level about how we want to live and relate to each other in the twenty-first century, and how we balance multiple, competing interests, and how we tackle the threat of authoritarian states in what amounts amounts to a cold information war.

This would require real courageous leadership. Maybe our PM can find it in himself to step out of his fear, to perhaps upset his wealthy friends and backers, and act boldly to make this happen? It is in his gift to do so. If the UK were (“temporarily”, perhaps) to withdraw from the negotiations on the treaty others would follow and the whole thing would collapse, alongside the CCP’s collapsing Narrative. If Rishi is ready to lead he could go down in history as a visionary statesman – and maybe he would even save his party’s bacon at the next election. After all, he has got little to lose.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Fat chance, I’m afraid.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

I will never “come to terms” with what happened..

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

Fat chance, I’m afraid.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Horsman

I will never “come to terms” with what happened..

Andrew Horsman
Andrew Horsman
1 year ago

That’s more like it! Finally a voice willing to speak some plain unvarnished truths. The CCP-inspired Western “lockdowns” were always all about entrenching the communists’ domestic power, tricking the West into tyrannical actions to suffocate any criticism of their authoritarianism that might find its way into domestic discourse. If you can’t beat ‘em, con them into joining you.

The interests of the CCP converged with those of a buck-passing Western politicians desperate not to have to take responsibility for tough unpopular decisions; a pharma/tech industry interested in ramping up fear to make people desperate for their miracle cure and more dependent on their digital products; and a dazed and confused populace emerging blinking into the post-Christian, atomised present, desperate for a way to find meaning and to be good.

I have sensed a shift in the last couple of weeks as people start to come to terms with what happened and what is still going on. What now needs to happen is a pause for breath, and a reckoning: a calm, steady accounting of what went wrong, where did incentives get misaligned, and how did our institutions – public, private, and in-between, and at the local, national, and global levels – fail so badly to cope with such a wicked convergence of otherwise disparate interests.

Yet as we speak, the WHO’s International Negotiating Board is preparing to meet next Monday to discuss a “conceptual zero draft” of a legally binding treaty that the WHO’s CCP-backed leader has described as a “game changing 
 great stride forward” that could allow him wide discretion to require sovereign states to take the “whole-of-government, whole-of-society” measures that are failing so badly in China and which have caused so much suffering in the West. This follows “informal, focused consultations” in October 2022 with member states and “stakeholders” – including of course the all the usual philanthrocapitalist and big pharma faces, as well, of course, as the Beijing communists.

This needs to be stopped so that we may have a decent, grown-up, calm, sensible conversation at national level about how we want to live and relate to each other in the twenty-first century, and how we balance multiple, competing interests, and how we tackle the threat of authoritarian states in what amounts amounts to a cold information war.

This would require real courageous leadership. Maybe our PM can find it in himself to step out of his fear, to perhaps upset his wealthy friends and backers, and act boldly to make this happen? It is in his gift to do so. If the UK were (“temporarily”, perhaps) to withdraw from the negotiations on the treaty others would follow and the whole thing would collapse, alongside the CCP’s collapsing Narrative. If Rishi is ready to lead he could go down in history as a visionary statesman – and maybe he would even save his party’s bacon at the next election. After all, he has got little to lose.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

Fantastic article. Whenever countries have finally opened up, their healthcare systems have been overwhelmed, not by Covid, but by the backlog of other conditions neglected during lockdowns. Freddie Sayers’s article on Unherd “Inside the Zero Covid campaign” (February 2021) is an important record of what the progressive left had in store for us all at that time.

Stephen Walsh
Stephen Walsh
1 year ago

Fantastic article. Whenever countries have finally opened up, their healthcare systems have been overwhelmed, not by Covid, but by the backlog of other conditions neglected during lockdowns. Freddie Sayers’s article on Unherd “Inside the Zero Covid campaign” (February 2021) is an important record of what the progressive left had in store for us all at that time.

Russell David
Russell David
1 year ago

I wish everyone I know would read this. But they won’t. They’ll keep reading and trusting the BBC and the Guardian, and it will never become widely accepted how catastrophic and appalling the response to covid was.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Russell David

This perhaps the most staggering and disturbing revelation of the whole Covid response fiasco. That a majority of ostensibly intelligent, well-educated people was unable apply sufficient critical thinking to see through the propaganda being peddled by the BBC and other MSM outlets.
The sheep-like consent to loss of liberty, without even asking the basic question ‘does this make sense?”, does not bode well for the next instalments of the WEF agenda coming our way shortly – Net Zero, CBDCs, social credit scores etc. I suspect that the populace of our crumbling Western democracies will put up even less resistance than the Chinese to the CCP.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rocky Martiano
Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

It seems most people prefer safety to freedom. At least it seems to have become that way in a woman-dominated society like ours. And yes, I am making an observation about I believe to be the general tendency of women regarding risk v security.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  Rocky Martiano

It seems most people prefer safety to freedom. At least it seems to have become that way in a woman-dominated society like ours. And yes, I am making an observation about I believe to be the general tendency of women regarding risk v security.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Russell David

This perhaps the most staggering and disturbing revelation of the whole Covid response fiasco. That a majority of ostensibly intelligent, well-educated people was unable apply sufficient critical thinking to see through the propaganda being peddled by the BBC and other MSM outlets.
The sheep-like consent to loss of liberty, without even asking the basic question ‘does this make sense?”, does not bode well for the next instalments of the WEF agenda coming our way shortly – Net Zero, CBDCs, social credit scores etc. I suspect that the populace of our crumbling Western democracies will put up even less resistance than the Chinese to the CCP.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rocky Martiano
Russell David
Russell David
1 year ago

I wish everyone I know would read this. But they won’t. They’ll keep reading and trusting the BBC and the Guardian, and it will never become widely accepted how catastrophic and appalling the response to covid was.

Michael Daniele
Michael Daniele
1 year ago

“every “expert” model … was consistently proved wrong.
Just like global cooling, warming, climate change. Spectacularly, laughably wrong. But the religious fervor is magnitudes larger than the Covidians.

Michael Daniele
Michael Daniele
1 year ago

“every “expert” model … was consistently proved wrong.
Just like global cooling, warming, climate change. Spectacularly, laughably wrong. But the religious fervor is magnitudes larger than the Covidians.

Howard Gleave
Howard Gleave
1 year ago

“every “expert” model predicting mass death in the dangerous event of freedom was consistently proved wrong.
Yes, Professor Ferguson, architect of so many wildly inaccurate models. And Professor Graham Medley of SAGE. Fraser Nelson of the Spectator concluded from an almost surreal exchange on Twitter that Medley, acting on instructed scenarios handed down by government, was guilty of policy-based evidence making as opposed to evidence-based policy-making to justify continuing lockdowns and other disgraceful suspensions of our most basic civil liberties.

Howard Gleave
Howard Gleave
1 year ago

“every “expert” model predicting mass death in the dangerous event of freedom was consistently proved wrong.
Yes, Professor Ferguson, architect of so many wildly inaccurate models. And Professor Graham Medley of SAGE. Fraser Nelson of the Spectator concluded from an almost surreal exchange on Twitter that Medley, acting on instructed scenarios handed down by government, was guilty of policy-based evidence making as opposed to evidence-based policy-making to justify continuing lockdowns and other disgraceful suspensions of our most basic civil liberties.

Marc H
Marc H
1 year ago

Even if the general lockdowns were logical at the very start when little was known about the disease, just a few months after that initial panic a different road could and should have been taken based on scientific knowledge about the kind of disease we were dealing with. China’s policy is simply anti-science and goes against everything we know about this kind of disease. It may have its logic with other kinds of diseases, but definitely not with this kind that spreads like the flu and largely has the same fatality rate among the same risk group.
The only logical action with this kind of disease is to first of all aim for early treatment protocols which were already available at the end of the summer of 2020. Of course, you a fast track for vaccines cannot be approved when people can be cured with other medicines ready available. Additionally, you can apply some specific measures to offer extra protection to the risk groups for two or three flu seasons. And last but not least, with the young(er) and healthy you will want to reach natural immunity as fast as possible.
How come I knew this back in 2020 when I am not even a doctor or a scientist, while many doctors and scientist seemed to have forgotten how this works? Because we have an international system-problem that negatively affects the world of science, health, medicine, official organizations, and governments. If you can not guess what it is, even just more or less, there is no use in me telling you.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Marc H

Quite the ;point. Leaders failed apparently from group think following the US who decided the “Chinese approach” was best. There was the Great Barrington Declaration reflecting typical ways of pandemic response. That was trashed by the experts in favor of the Event 201 “Trusted News Initiative” which was for a pandemic with a IFR much greater than the SARs-2 pandemic. We now will deal with the awful economic effects just as we must deal with the effects of a rushed vaccine found to be quite leaky and poorly designed.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago
Reply to  Marc H

Quite the ;point. Leaders failed apparently from group think following the US who decided the “Chinese approach” was best. There was the Great Barrington Declaration reflecting typical ways of pandemic response. That was trashed by the experts in favor of the Event 201 “Trusted News Initiative” which was for a pandemic with a IFR much greater than the SARs-2 pandemic. We now will deal with the awful economic effects just as we must deal with the effects of a rushed vaccine found to be quite leaky and poorly designed.

Marc H
Marc H
1 year ago

Even if the general lockdowns were logical at the very start when little was known about the disease, just a few months after that initial panic a different road could and should have been taken based on scientific knowledge about the kind of disease we were dealing with. China’s policy is simply anti-science and goes against everything we know about this kind of disease. It may have its logic with other kinds of diseases, but definitely not with this kind that spreads like the flu and largely has the same fatality rate among the same risk group.
The only logical action with this kind of disease is to first of all aim for early treatment protocols which were already available at the end of the summer of 2020. Of course, you a fast track for vaccines cannot be approved when people can be cured with other medicines ready available. Additionally, you can apply some specific measures to offer extra protection to the risk groups for two or three flu seasons. And last but not least, with the young(er) and healthy you will want to reach natural immunity as fast as possible.
How come I knew this back in 2020 when I am not even a doctor or a scientist, while many doctors and scientist seemed to have forgotten how this works? Because we have an international system-problem that negatively affects the world of science, health, medicine, official organizations, and governments. If you can not guess what it is, even just more or less, there is no use in me telling you.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago

As I was reading I wasn’t sure what point you were trying to make and was about to leave some nasty comment before reading the rest.
Well, I am glad I carried on because this was certainly worth reading till the end. You make an important point indeed that is worth repeating endlessly.
Even Cindy Yu in the spectator just the other day was decrying the situation in China, but she had to add the big “but” when she herself acknowledged that China couldn’t possibly open up
Anyway, bravo!

Eddie Swales
Eddie Swales
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

I noticed that as well. They were suggesting that China can’t open up because their Chinese vaccines are rubbish and they stubbornly refuse to use western ones. Ignoring the fact that many countries have low vaccination rates but have been fine after opening up.

Eddie Swales
Eddie Swales
1 year ago
Reply to  Arkadian X

I noticed that as well. They were suggesting that China can’t open up because their Chinese vaccines are rubbish and they stubbornly refuse to use western ones. Ignoring the fact that many countries have low vaccination rates but have been fine after opening up.

Arkadian X
Arkadian X
1 year ago

As I was reading I wasn’t sure what point you were trying to make and was about to leave some nasty comment before reading the rest.
Well, I am glad I carried on because this was certainly worth reading till the end. You make an important point indeed that is worth repeating endlessly.
Even Cindy Yu in the spectator just the other day was decrying the situation in China, but she had to add the big “but” when she herself acknowledged that China couldn’t possibly open up
Anyway, bravo!

Hendrik Mentz
Hendrik Mentz
1 year ago

Indeed. And let’s not dwell too hard or too long on the fate of the protesters now tagged by the machine.

Last edited 1 year ago by Hendrik Mentz
Hendrik Mentz
Hendrik Mentz
1 year ago

Indeed. And let’s not dwell too hard or too long on the fate of the protesters now tagged by the machine.

Last edited 1 year ago by Hendrik Mentz
Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

The hypocrisy of western politicians criticising
the vile CCP is disgusting.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

The hypocrisy of western politicians criticising
the vile CCP is disgusting.

Jonny S
Jonny S
1 year ago

Couldn’t agree more. Hope the article gets wider distribution.

Jonny S
Jonny S
1 year ago

Couldn’t agree more. Hope the article gets wider distribution.

Devonshire Dozer
Devonshire Dozer
1 year ago

Great article, but what’s all this “we” stuff?
Quite a few of us have ranted about Chinese outrages & the”Climate Change” racket well before resisting the covid con that has been perpetrated for the past 3 years. Does the fact that we have had zero representation in the corridors of power mean that non-appeasers don’t exist?

Devonshire Dozer
Devonshire Dozer
1 year ago

Great article, but what’s all this “we” stuff?
Quite a few of us have ranted about Chinese outrages & the”Climate Change” racket well before resisting the covid con that has been perpetrated for the past 3 years. Does the fact that we have had zero representation in the corridors of power mean that non-appeasers don’t exist?

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

I suggest that we each name just one guilty party and see how the list goes.
I start with Kit Yates

Ethniciodo Rodenydo
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
1 year ago

I suggest that we each name just one guilty party and see how the list goes.
I start with Kit Yates

pete wright
pete wright
1 year ago

I doubt the fact Covid waves “reversed themselves and diminished” is due entirely to herd immunity (these flawed vaccines have a problem offering that), but more probably a big reason is that it’s now mutated to be a much less dangerous virus. Good article though, thanks

pete wright
pete wright
1 year ago

I doubt the fact Covid waves “reversed themselves and diminished” is due entirely to herd immunity (these flawed vaccines have a problem offering that), but more probably a big reason is that it’s now mutated to be a much less dangerous virus. Good article though, thanks

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago

interesting article and interesting discussions by the readers. Only one comment correctly mentioned that not herd immunity but typical rapid mutating corona-virus characteristics are more likely the reason why the waves eased in severity. This was predicted very early by sound scientists… .
It is in the medical science that the author fails in this article but I will not blame him. The research data of pfizer and co showed there were more dead people in the vaccinated than in the control groups. I am not sure the case is made that the vaccines did anything in relation to mortality apart from the placebo effect it had on the population. (which is at least as affective if not more effective than many modern medicines). Vaccines are sadly still a religion not to be touched…
Vaccines are part of the modern medicine religion which, as been well explained in the BMJ, is the result of investment decision for financial gain starting in the mid 20th century. The models we use to explain and reason in modern medicine (and most of all believe to be entirely correct and satisfying) cannot stand up to the conclusions of research (physics, biology, etc) for the last 70 years.
Only parts of modern medicine that stand up to scrutiny are acute medicine/interventions which are the results of Real World Data research and clinical experience shared (and rely less on reasoning). When it comes to chronic illness/conditions, things tend to fall apart: Yes, we are in a pickle. There have never been so many chronically ill people in the world, ever in human history. (of course this is also due to intensive farming and big-agro industry lobby)
conclusion: journalists who want to use medical claims should start by examining medicine more thoroughly before falling in the current medical narrative trap. (there is more and more well researched literature available on this matter nowadays) This trap is mostly the results of investment by the ‘health’ (but better termed ‘illness’) industry who has spend zillions in advertising of all manner. (I have been a vet for 30+ years and can now look back how I have fallen for it soooo many times)
Other conclusion: our CCP is the pharma and agro- industry and its financial tentacles.. stop buying their products…..
Interesting: I had a discussion with a current British MP (not woke, not green etc) on this a few weeks ago. This person told me she/he could not speak about this in parliament because they would think that he/she is fluffy. He/she then asked me (me? just and ordinary citizen…???) to suggest policy proposals that other members of the parliament would find acceptable to obtain change in the health policy. We are indeed in a pickle…

Edward De Beukelaer
Edward De Beukelaer
1 year ago

interesting article and interesting discussions by the readers. Only one comment correctly mentioned that not herd immunity but typical rapid mutating corona-virus characteristics are more likely the reason why the waves eased in severity. This was predicted very early by sound scientists… .
It is in the medical science that the author fails in this article but I will not blame him. The research data of pfizer and co showed there were more dead people in the vaccinated than in the control groups. I am not sure the case is made that the vaccines did anything in relation to mortality apart from the placebo effect it had on the population. (which is at least as affective if not more effective than many modern medicines). Vaccines are sadly still a religion not to be touched…
Vaccines are part of the modern medicine religion which, as been well explained in the BMJ, is the result of investment decision for financial gain starting in the mid 20th century. The models we use to explain and reason in modern medicine (and most of all believe to be entirely correct and satisfying) cannot stand up to the conclusions of research (physics, biology, etc) for the last 70 years.
Only parts of modern medicine that stand up to scrutiny are acute medicine/interventions which are the results of Real World Data research and clinical experience shared (and rely less on reasoning). When it comes to chronic illness/conditions, things tend to fall apart: Yes, we are in a pickle. There have never been so many chronically ill people in the world, ever in human history. (of course this is also due to intensive farming and big-agro industry lobby)
conclusion: journalists who want to use medical claims should start by examining medicine more thoroughly before falling in the current medical narrative trap. (there is more and more well researched literature available on this matter nowadays) This trap is mostly the results of investment by the ‘health’ (but better termed ‘illness’) industry who has spend zillions in advertising of all manner. (I have been a vet for 30+ years and can now look back how I have fallen for it soooo many times)
Other conclusion: our CCP is the pharma and agro- industry and its financial tentacles.. stop buying their products…..
Interesting: I had a discussion with a current British MP (not woke, not green etc) on this a few weeks ago. This person told me she/he could not speak about this in parliament because they would think that he/she is fluffy. He/she then asked me (me? just and ordinary citizen…???) to suggest policy proposals that other members of the parliament would find acceptable to obtain change in the health policy. We are indeed in a pickle…

El Uro
El Uro
1 year ago

There is no difference between Zero Covid policy and Zero Net policy.
It’s just a little surprising that most people don’t understand this.
We are all – Chinese killing sparrows

Last edited 1 year ago by El Uro
El Uro
El Uro
1 year ago

There is no difference between Zero Covid policy and Zero Net policy.
It’s just a little surprising that most people don’t understand this.
We are all – Chinese killing sparrows

Last edited 1 year ago by El Uro
Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

So this – person – knows for certain that ‘herd Immunity Works!’. Unfortunately even a quick look shows that he does not even understand his own references. For instance his reference for ‘Lockdowns do not work’ says:

“Results suggest that countries with a longer duration of national lockdown have a higher fatality rate of COVID-19 and the causes can be explained with a lower average level of healthcare expenditure and an older structure of population (i.e., demographic structure has a higher median age in years) as indicated in Table 8 . Hence, many countries with lower investments in healthcare sector and older population were almost obliged to apply a longer duration of national lockdown aimed at delaying and reducing the height of epidemic peak, affording healthcare system more time to expand and respond to this emergency and, as a result, reducing the expected negative impact of COVID-19 pandemic in society.”

They find that longer lockdowns correlate with a worse economy and a clearly higher death rate from COVID. The first makes sense, the second clearly does not. And indeed the article says it: The countries with longer lockdowns are those with an older population and a weaker health system, who therefore could could expect more deaths if COVID spread in the population. What we are looking at is not the effect of lockdowns, but the fact that weak health systems *cause* countries to go for lockdowns. You could make a similar argument if you observed that people who got chemotherapy were more likely to die of cancer than those who do not. That is not because chemotherapy causes people to die – it is because the people who get chemotherapy are4 those who have cancer already. The article – by its own admission – has *nothing* to say about whether lockdowns work.

The best way to deal with COVID or other pandemics is not necessarily that obvious to determine. But we would clearly do well to disregard anything this author has to say about it.

Christopher Lander
Christopher Lander
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

We would do even better to discard anything fans of copying the filthy, bloodstained Chinese Communist Party have to say about it, lunatics who had the state regulating park benches. Scum of the earth.

Christopher Lander
Christopher Lander
1 year ago
Reply to  Rasmus Fogh

We would do even better to discard anything fans of copying the filthy, bloodstained Chinese Communist Party have to say about it, lunatics who had the state regulating park benches. Scum of the earth.

Rasmus Fogh
Rasmus Fogh
1 year ago

So this – person – knows for certain that ‘herd Immunity Works!’. Unfortunately even a quick look shows that he does not even understand his own references. For instance his reference for ‘Lockdowns do not work’ says:

“Results suggest that countries with a longer duration of national lockdown have a higher fatality rate of COVID-19 and the causes can be explained with a lower average level of healthcare expenditure and an older structure of population (i.e., demographic structure has a higher median age in years) as indicated in Table 8 . Hence, many countries with lower investments in healthcare sector and older population were almost obliged to apply a longer duration of national lockdown aimed at delaying and reducing the height of epidemic peak, affording healthcare system more time to expand and respond to this emergency and, as a result, reducing the expected negative impact of COVID-19 pandemic in society.”

They find that longer lockdowns correlate with a worse economy and a clearly higher death rate from COVID. The first makes sense, the second clearly does not. And indeed the article says it: The countries with longer lockdowns are those with an older population and a weaker health system, who therefore could could expect more deaths if COVID spread in the population. What we are looking at is not the effect of lockdowns, but the fact that weak health systems *cause* countries to go for lockdowns. You could make a similar argument if you observed that people who got chemotherapy were more likely to die of cancer than those who do not. That is not because chemotherapy causes people to die – it is because the people who get chemotherapy are4 those who have cancer already. The article – by its own admission – has *nothing* to say about whether lockdowns work.

The best way to deal with COVID or other pandemics is not necessarily that obvious to determine. But we would clearly do well to disregard anything this author has to say about it.

Chiem Vu
Chiem Vu
1 year ago

Great article.

I have a question: Does anyone have a scientific paper or article that might correlate the effectiveness of herd immunity and the popular vaccines, i.e. Pfizer, AZ, etc.?

Because, in China, from what I know, they don’t have those vaccines, and it may be the case that the Chinese vaccines are not very effective in preventing serious symptoms of the disease after being contracted, and also affect reaching herd immunity? Could that also be one of the reasons why the CCP refuse to back down on Zero Covid? Because their healthcare system wouldn’t be able to handle that many serious cases.

Just a thought.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chiem Vu
J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Chiem Vu

If you’re asking whether herd immunity is now a significant factor protecting people from serious covid disease, John Campbell reviewed a preprint (not yet peer reviewed) of a paper addressing that question in Italy. The answer appears to be that herd immunity is likely now providing more protection than Moderna or Pfizer vaccines.
As your question suggests, if the Italian findings are correct, China will likely face a large number of deaths, if/when it reopens its society, because there is little herd immunity due to the overuse of lockdowns.
Here’s a link to the preprint:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.01.22277137v1
Here’s a link to John Campbell’s video discussing these data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMT7i7wmq14

Chiem Vu
Chiem Vu
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Thank you for the links! I’ll check them out.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

But isn’t the survival rate overall at least 99.5 without regard to herd immunity? Or am I missing something? Perhaps a person can survive but become very ill and require hospital intervention, at least when effective prophylactics are not available?

Chiem Vu
Chiem Vu
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Thank you for the links! I’ll check them out.

Betsy Arehart
Betsy Arehart
1 year ago
Reply to  J Bryant

But isn’t the survival rate overall at least 99.5 without regard to herd immunity? Or am I missing something? Perhaps a person can survive but become very ill and require hospital intervention, at least when effective prophylactics are not available?

J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Chiem Vu

If you’re asking whether herd immunity is now a significant factor protecting people from serious covid disease, John Campbell reviewed a preprint (not yet peer reviewed) of a paper addressing that question in Italy. The answer appears to be that herd immunity is likely now providing more protection than Moderna or Pfizer vaccines.
As your question suggests, if the Italian findings are correct, China will likely face a large number of deaths, if/when it reopens its society, because there is little herd immunity due to the overuse of lockdowns.
Here’s a link to the preprint:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.01.22277137v1
Here’s a link to John Campbell’s video discussing these data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMT7i7wmq14

Chiem Vu
Chiem Vu
1 year ago

Great article.

I have a question: Does anyone have a scientific paper or article that might correlate the effectiveness of herd immunity and the popular vaccines, i.e. Pfizer, AZ, etc.?

Because, in China, from what I know, they don’t have those vaccines, and it may be the case that the Chinese vaccines are not very effective in preventing serious symptoms of the disease after being contracted, and also affect reaching herd immunity? Could that also be one of the reasons why the CCP refuse to back down on Zero Covid? Because their healthcare system wouldn’t be able to handle that many serious cases.

Just a thought.

Last edited 1 year ago by Chiem Vu
ryan simpson
ryan simpson
1 year ago

well penned article and food for thought, indeed. Somewhat insensitive though when referring to our own, at least initial, lockdown to be draconian on par with China. I think of a colleague whose mother was in a care home in the first wave and died from it.

jmo
jmo
1 year ago
Reply to  ryan simpson

We knew that people such as your colleague’s mother were most vulnerable from very early on. Locking down an entire population when risk levels were so wildly is disproportionate and therefore draconian. We have to be blunt now and have the truth acknowledged, because the apologists want an amnesty with no reckoning!

I firmly believe that if partygate hadn’t happened we’d still be in lockdown lite. It’s only our figleaf of liberal values that embarrassed the establishment into freeing us.

jmo
jmo
1 year ago
Reply to  ryan simpson

We knew that people such as your colleague’s mother were most vulnerable from very early on. Locking down an entire population when risk levels were so wildly is disproportionate and therefore draconian. We have to be blunt now and have the truth acknowledged, because the apologists want an amnesty with no reckoning!

I firmly believe that if partygate hadn’t happened we’d still be in lockdown lite. It’s only our figleaf of liberal values that embarrassed the establishment into freeing us.

ryan simpson
ryan simpson
1 year ago

well penned article and food for thought, indeed. Somewhat insensitive though when referring to our own, at least initial, lockdown to be draconian on par with China. I think of a colleague whose mother was in a care home in the first wave and died from it.

Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart
1 year ago

Yes, I can’t understand why our governments and MSM have allowed us to see mass protests in China

Bernard Stewart
Bernard Stewart
1 year ago

Yes, I can’t understand why our governments and MSM have allowed us to see mass protests in China

tom reed
tom reed
1 year ago

NSLyons is undeniably clever but conflating Zero Covid and ‘western liberalism’ is cheap hyperbole. I preferred the earlier NS Lyons— the one that wasn’t so manic

tom reed
tom reed
1 year ago

NSLyons is undeniably clever but conflating Zero Covid and ‘western liberalism’ is cheap hyperbole. I preferred the earlier NS Lyons— the one that wasn’t so manic

glyn harries
glyn harries
1 year ago

“Western liberals cheered on Xi’s authoritarian measures”. Nonsense and as expected not a single quote re China and covid. Western liberals admired NZ, were concerned at the authoritarianism in Australia and condemned the Chinese lockdowns.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  glyn harries

No, they did not.
Just look at Piers Morgan, Nick Ferrari and almost ALL of the MSM.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  glyn harries

I suspect the subhead was written by an editor at UnHerd, rather than by N.S. Lyons. Lyons has an article on his Substack which argues that the West has abandoned liberal values completely. I doubt he would characterize the cheerleaders of lockdowns as “liberals” and I’m not sure why the editor would take the American misusage of the word, unless of course he or she is a Yank. (I’m fond of reminding other Americans that in Australia, the center-right party is called the Liberal Party, because there the word still has its original meaning — supporting free speech, freedom of religion, free press, freedom of conscience, and free markets — rather than having been stolen by the Left as it was on my side of the Pond.) What most American carelessly call “liberals”, many of whom have abandoned the word in favor of “progressives”, certainly were generally pro-Zero-COVID, but actual liberals (add the modifier “classical” if you must to understand my meaning)? I think we were mostly Great Barrington Declaration supporters.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Yetter
Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  glyn harries

No, they did not.
Just look at Piers Morgan, Nick Ferrari and almost ALL of the MSM.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  glyn harries

I suspect the subhead was written by an editor at UnHerd, rather than by N.S. Lyons. Lyons has an article on his Substack which argues that the West has abandoned liberal values completely. I doubt he would characterize the cheerleaders of lockdowns as “liberals” and I’m not sure why the editor would take the American misusage of the word, unless of course he or she is a Yank. (I’m fond of reminding other Americans that in Australia, the center-right party is called the Liberal Party, because there the word still has its original meaning — supporting free speech, freedom of religion, free press, freedom of conscience, and free markets — rather than having been stolen by the Left as it was on my side of the Pond.) What most American carelessly call “liberals”, many of whom have abandoned the word in favor of “progressives”, certainly were generally pro-Zero-COVID, but actual liberals (add the modifier “classical” if you must to understand my meaning)? I think we were mostly Great Barrington Declaration supporters.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Yetter
glyn harries
glyn harries
1 year ago

“Western liberals cheered on Xi’s authoritarian measures”. Nonsense and as expected not a single quote re China and covid. Western liberals admired NZ, were concerned at the authoritarianism in Australia and condemned the Chinese lockdowns.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

It is understandable that the predicament for the CCP unsettles the western anti Lockdown/Pandemic management critics. It’s there in stark contrast – ‘maybe we didn’t get it all wrong’. (We did get some things wrong and no doubt the Public Enquiries will provide further crucial insight and learning)
The author struggles for a counter narrative. He falls back on Herd immunity works and just wasn’t given the chance, coupled with contention health services wouldn’t have imploded. Clearly he was a long way from the front line and had no first-hand experience of how frightening and overwhelming things were until measures were taken to slow transmission.

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Here’s some reading for you today
https://unherd.com/2022/11/nicaraguas-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Covid comes and goes in waves. If you have been paying attention since “freedom day” you would know that is a fact. We now know that falls that were once attributed to “measures” were actually predominantly the ebb and flow of the virus. To deny this is to deny science but it seems many continue to have their heads in the sand.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I think that an initial lockdown was a reasonable strategy until the impact had become clear. Then we should have found was of protecting the old as best we could and the rest of us go back somewhat to normal.
The costs have been too high and mostly cruelly imposed on the young.

Phil Richardson
Phil Richardson
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I don’t understand the downvotes here. In the earliest days there was a genuine sense of fear of the virus rightly or wrongly (I’m not going conspiratorially into the extent that this was engendered). I remember being afraid not of the virus, but of supply chain and hence social collapse and kept an eye on websites showing the movement of commercial aircraft. Lockdowns have been an utter disaster but given our mimetic nature they seem in retrospect inevitable *at that time*. Given our politics it is hardly surprising that they continued to be the only policy tool available. I know there were a good number opposed from the start but again that is to miss this point: lockdowns seemed to be appallingly popular.

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago

The downvotes are related to the persistent unscientific view that measures were required to slow transmission. Voluntary measures and the ebb and flow of the virus was sufficient. Failure to understand this point leaves us open to the whims of authoritarians in the future.

Phil Richardson
Phil Richardson
1 year ago
Reply to  D Oliver

I agree. My main contention is that such a calmly rational position was politically impossible in a democracy in March-April 2020. And I’m not sure how possible it would be now, even after what we are supposed to have learned. Lockdown was popular.

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago

Well, that’s seems true for the UK but we have to ask ourselves why Sweden was able to remain calm. Political leadership?Public health leadership? A more functional media? I don’t know the answer but I know that a proper post mortem is badly needed.

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago

Well, that’s seems true for the UK but we have to ask ourselves why Sweden was able to remain calm. Political leadership?Public health leadership? A more functional media? I don’t know the answer but I know that a proper post mortem is badly needed.

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago
Reply to  D Oliver

We know for sure that voluntary measures did not work in the UK in the winter of 2020.
In early December 2020 while the UK was recovering from its September / October wave there was plenty of messaging about “think carefully about what you are going to do this Christmas” – very Swedish style before Boris became circumspect and laid out firmer guidelines for meeting up over the holidays and put swathes of the UK into Tier 2 /3 restrictions.
Clearly, very few people took this on board because the NHS almost but didn’t quite fall over on January 11th 2021, even with all its surge capacity in place and a year’s worth of experience of dealing with the virus.
Lots of people chose to meet up for Christmas and New Year, gambling that little or no meaningful transmission would occur and thousands of them lost that gamble – 16,500 + excess deaths according to ONS.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

“16,500 + excess deaths according to ONS”

The vast majority of whom were old and decrepit and ‘ready for the chop’ as we used to say when we were made of sterner stuff.
Perhaps Darwinian self-selection might be a better description for the faint hearted?

Either way the collateral damage has been disproportionate and soon “we shall reap the whirlwind “ as ‘ we’ jolly well deserve.

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago

“Ready for the chop” Not according to the Actuaries (you know those people who deal with death and destruction every day) as I have tried to explain to you before (yawn).
Collateral damage – you betcha – whatever millions on NHS waiting lists now because of all those hospitals being bunged up with pesky Covid patients in 2020/21.
So by your reasoning, for the next pandemic an edict needs to go out beforehand “Anyone carrying this X virus who gets ill needs to manage themselves at home and if you venture anywhere towards a hospital or GP practice or Pharmacy you will be arrested”

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago

“Ready for the chop” Not according to the Actuaries (you know those people who deal with death and destruction every day) as I have tried to explain to you before (yawn).
Collateral damage – you betcha – whatever millions on NHS waiting lists now because of all those hospitals being bunged up with pesky Covid patients in 2020/21.
So by your reasoning, for the next pandemic an edict needs to go out beforehand “Anyone carrying this X virus who gets ill needs to manage themselves at home and if you venture anywhere towards a hospital or GP practice or Pharmacy you will be arrested”

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago

Yes, lots of people chose to meet up because we have one life to live and choosing to spend that life avoiding meaningful activities, particularly when you have very few left (Covid or not), does not strike many people as a good idea.

Covid is a nasty virus. Excess deaths were an inevitability. Blaming a lack of political will for the impact of a virus shows a deep lack of awareness of the power of Mother Nature.

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago
Reply to  D Oliver

And yet the Swedes allegedly managed the power of Mother Nature very well as did the Norwegians, Finlanders, Icelandics, New Zealanders, Australians, South Koreans, and Taiwanese.

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago

Not sure what your point is. The Swedes never brought in movement restrictions. If they did ok, why do you blame the lack of lockdowns for January 2021? The virus largely does what the virus will do.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  D Oliver

EG-L like most of the NHS is in a state of deep DENIAL!
Nothing can be done, sadly.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  D Oliver

EG-L like most of the NHS is in a state of deep DENIAL!
Nothing can be done, sadly.

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago

Not sure what your point is. The Swedes never brought in movement restrictions. If they did ok, why do you blame the lack of lockdowns for January 2021? The virus largely does what the virus will do.

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago
Reply to  D Oliver

And yet the Swedes allegedly managed the power of Mother Nature very well as did the Norwegians, Finlanders, Icelandics, New Zealanders, Australians, South Koreans, and Taiwanese.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

“16,500 + excess deaths according to ONS”

The vast majority of whom were old and decrepit and ‘ready for the chop’ as we used to say when we were made of sterner stuff.
Perhaps Darwinian self-selection might be a better description for the faint hearted?

Either way the collateral damage has been disproportionate and soon “we shall reap the whirlwind “ as ‘ we’ jolly well deserve.

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago

Yes, lots of people chose to meet up because we have one life to live and choosing to spend that life avoiding meaningful activities, particularly when you have very few left (Covid or not), does not strike many people as a good idea.

Covid is a nasty virus. Excess deaths were an inevitability. Blaming a lack of political will for the impact of a virus shows a deep lack of awareness of the power of Mother Nature.

Phil Richardson
Phil Richardson
1 year ago
Reply to  D Oliver

I agree. My main contention is that such a calmly rational position was politically impossible in a democracy in March-April 2020. And I’m not sure how possible it would be now, even after what we are supposed to have learned. Lockdown was popular.

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago
Reply to  D Oliver

We know for sure that voluntary measures did not work in the UK in the winter of 2020.
In early December 2020 while the UK was recovering from its September / October wave there was plenty of messaging about “think carefully about what you are going to do this Christmas” – very Swedish style before Boris became circumspect and laid out firmer guidelines for meeting up over the holidays and put swathes of the UK into Tier 2 /3 restrictions.
Clearly, very few people took this on board because the NHS almost but didn’t quite fall over on January 11th 2021, even with all its surge capacity in place and a year’s worth of experience of dealing with the virus.
Lots of people chose to meet up for Christmas and New Year, gambling that little or no meaningful transmission would occur and thousands of them lost that gamble – 16,500 + excess deaths according to ONS.

Mary Bruels
Mary Bruels
1 year ago

While it’s true that in the “early” days, our reactions were really driven by what we didn’t know. Now we have a much better understanding of Covid yet there are still governmental and non governmental (i.e. teachers unions) that still long for lockdowns and masking. They refuse to acknowledge the new reality and don’t understand why we aren’t in the mood to “forgive and move on”. I will consider doing that when they acknowledge the pain that lockdowns and masking brought upon us.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago

“a genuine sense of fear” – much of that fear was apparently inspired propaganda. Chinese falling dead in the streets. NY hospitals with overflowing mortuaries. A press responding to the Event 201 “Trusted News Initiative” to disallow any disagreement with officials. The fear was a planned thing. We were nudged.

Sally Owen
Sally Owen
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

Yes! The ‘ Don’t kill your granny!’ propaganda
.absolutely evil!

Sally Owen
Sally Owen
1 year ago
Reply to  Hardee Hodges

Yes! The ‘ Don’t kill your granny!’ propaganda
.absolutely evil!

Simon Tavanyar
Simon Tavanyar
1 year ago

… a tribute to the power of the Nanny State in 2020 to compel surrender of our autonomy because “Science”. The big lie is that the State can keep you safe from disease, from poverty, from bad choices. That is not their role. It’s entirely yours..

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago

The downvotes are related to the persistent unscientific view that measures were required to slow transmission. Voluntary measures and the ebb and flow of the virus was sufficient. Failure to understand this point leaves us open to the whims of authoritarians in the future.

Mary Bruels
Mary Bruels
1 year ago

While it’s true that in the “early” days, our reactions were really driven by what we didn’t know. Now we have a much better understanding of Covid yet there are still governmental and non governmental (i.e. teachers unions) that still long for lockdowns and masking. They refuse to acknowledge the new reality and don’t understand why we aren’t in the mood to “forgive and move on”. I will consider doing that when they acknowledge the pain that lockdowns and masking brought upon us.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
1 year ago

“a genuine sense of fear” – much of that fear was apparently inspired propaganda. Chinese falling dead in the streets. NY hospitals with overflowing mortuaries. A press responding to the Event 201 “Trusted News Initiative” to disallow any disagreement with officials. The fear was a planned thing. We were nudged.

Simon Tavanyar
Simon Tavanyar
1 year ago

… a tribute to the power of the Nanny State in 2020 to compel surrender of our autonomy because “Science”. The big lie is that the State can keep you safe from disease, from poverty, from bad choices. That is not their role. It’s entirely yours..

David Giles
David Giles
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

You are a bot

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Things were not overwhelming or frightening. All I saw were people I once liked and respected losing their heads to a virus that was slightly more serious than the common cold. What alarmed me was not how quickly they had given in to fear, but how eager they were to condemn others who dared question the narrative. I can’t count how many times I was asked if I took the vaccine by nosy do-gooders. I’m afraid my faith in humanity is a little shaken and will take a lot to build back.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

JF they were overwhelming and frightening. It is v clear you were not close to the front line. We had staff dropping, insufficient PPE, ran out of ITU capacity and O2, no real understanding of the virus etc in the early days. The PM himself of course soon got it and only survived with significant medical intervention.
Subsequently we also vaccinated faster and more effectively driving herd immunity.
Many mistakes were made over the subsequent period with consequences. That cannot be denied.

Sweden is a useful comparator and let’s hope the Inquiries draw out the lessons. There are some marked differences. And of course it’s not like the CCP aren’t aware of the Swedish experience yet have not replicated. Population density and health services capacity may be factors but let’s see

Last edited 1 year ago by j watson
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

“…slightly more serious than the common cold”
Errr .. No
Influenza — Veterans Health Administration, United States, October 1, 2018–May 31, 2020.
“The risk for respiratory complications was high, consistent with current knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pathogenesis (1,6).
Notably, compared with patients with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had two times the risk for pneumonia, 1.7 times the risk for respiratory failure, 19 times the risk for ARDS, and 3.5 times the risk for pneumothorax, underscoring the severity of COVID-19 respiratory illness relative to that of influenza.”
and
“The percentage of COVID-19 patients admitted to an ICU (36.5%) was more than twice that of influenza patients (17.6%); the percentage of COVID-19 patients who died while hospitalized (21.0%) was more than five times that of influenza patients (3.8%); and the duration of hospitalization was almost three times longer for COVID-19 patients (median 8.6 days; IQR = 3.9–18.6 days) than that for influenza patients (3.0 days; 1.8–6.5 days) (p<0.001 for all).”
As jw has pointed out you have clearly experienced a very sheltered 3 years. Lucky you.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

JF they were overwhelming and frightening. It is v clear you were not close to the front line. We had staff dropping, insufficient PPE, ran out of ITU capacity and O2, no real understanding of the virus etc in the early days. The PM himself of course soon got it and only survived with significant medical intervention.
Subsequently we also vaccinated faster and more effectively driving herd immunity.
Many mistakes were made over the subsequent period with consequences. That cannot be denied.

Sweden is a useful comparator and let’s hope the Inquiries draw out the lessons. There are some marked differences. And of course it’s not like the CCP aren’t aware of the Swedish experience yet have not replicated. Population density and health services capacity may be factors but let’s see

Last edited 1 year ago by j watson
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

“…slightly more serious than the common cold”
Errr .. No
Influenza — Veterans Health Administration, United States, October 1, 2018–May 31, 2020.
“The risk for respiratory complications was high, consistent with current knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza pathogenesis (1,6).
Notably, compared with patients with influenza, patients with COVID-19 had two times the risk for pneumonia, 1.7 times the risk for respiratory failure, 19 times the risk for ARDS, and 3.5 times the risk for pneumothorax, underscoring the severity of COVID-19 respiratory illness relative to that of influenza.”
and
“The percentage of COVID-19 patients admitted to an ICU (36.5%) was more than twice that of influenza patients (17.6%); the percentage of COVID-19 patients who died while hospitalized (21.0%) was more than five times that of influenza patients (3.8%); and the duration of hospitalization was almost three times longer for COVID-19 patients (median 8.6 days; IQR = 3.9–18.6 days) than that for influenza patients (3.0 days; 1.8–6.5 days) (p<0.001 for all).”
As jw has pointed out you have clearly experienced a very sheltered 3 years. Lucky you.

D Oliver
D Oliver
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Here’s some reading for you today
https://unherd.com/2022/11/nicaraguas-inconvenient-covid-victory/
Covid comes and goes in waves. If you have been paying attention since “freedom day” you would know that is a fact. We now know that falls that were once attributed to “measures” were actually predominantly the ebb and flow of the virus. To deny this is to deny science but it seems many continue to have their heads in the sand.

Jonathan Andrews
Jonathan Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I think that an initial lockdown was a reasonable strategy until the impact had become clear. Then we should have found was of protecting the old as best we could and the rest of us go back somewhat to normal.
The costs have been too high and mostly cruelly imposed on the young.

Phil Richardson
Phil Richardson
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

I don’t understand the downvotes here. In the earliest days there was a genuine sense of fear of the virus rightly or wrongly (I’m not going conspiratorially into the extent that this was engendered). I remember being afraid not of the virus, but of supply chain and hence social collapse and kept an eye on websites showing the movement of commercial aircraft. Lockdowns have been an utter disaster but given our mimetic nature they seem in retrospect inevitable *at that time*. Given our politics it is hardly surprising that they continued to be the only policy tool available. I know there were a good number opposed from the start but again that is to miss this point: lockdowns seemed to be appallingly popular.

David Giles
David Giles
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

You are a bot

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  j watson

Things were not overwhelming or frightening. All I saw were people I once liked and respected losing their heads to a virus that was slightly more serious than the common cold. What alarmed me was not how quickly they had given in to fear, but how eager they were to condemn others who dared question the narrative. I can’t count how many times I was asked if I took the vaccine by nosy do-gooders. I’m afraid my faith in humanity is a little shaken and will take a lot to build back.

j watson
j watson
1 year ago

It is understandable that the predicament for the CCP unsettles the western anti Lockdown/Pandemic management critics. It’s there in stark contrast – ‘maybe we didn’t get it all wrong’. (We did get some things wrong and no doubt the Public Enquiries will provide further crucial insight and learning)
The author struggles for a counter narrative. He falls back on Herd immunity works and just wasn’t given the chance, coupled with contention health services wouldn’t have imploded. Clearly he was a long way from the front line and had no first-hand experience of how frightening and overwhelming things were until measures were taken to slow transmission.