By now, the UK government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis has become one painful slow-motion train wreck. This week, it just got worse (as if that was even possible, but ineptitude and corruption always find a way confound even the worst skeptics).
Just last week, we learned that Public Health England (PHE) has been counting people who died of natural causes as “COVID deaths” simply because they had previously tested positive for the coronavirus at some point in the past (meaning you can’t ever ‘recover’ on paper). This is just one example of many administrative techniques used by governments to ‘cook the books’ in order to inflate their COVID numbers in order to drive increasingly aggressive emergency policies, masks and their vaccine agenda.
The real truth of the matter is that many more people already have died, and will continue suffer due to the government’s disastrous lockdown policies – many more than have ever (or will ever) die from COVID-19. This is no mere opinion, this is demonstrably true according to all available data.
What’s worse, the UK Government chose to ignore its own internal report from April which predicted massive deaths due to reactionary Lockdown policies. This can only mean we are witnessing a complete breakdown in competence and functioning of the apparatus of government.
In his piece entitled “The fatal cost of lockdown,” Rob Lyons from Spiked Online explains…
“This week, the Telegraph reported on a government study, published in April, which estimated both the short-term and long-term impacts of lockdown. In short, it concluded that while lockdown would reduce the number of cases of Covid-19, the collateral damage would be enormous. So was lockdown worth it? The report, produced by the Department of Health, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the government’s Actuary Department and the Home Office, concluded that the disease itself would kill 50,000, but delayed healthcare would kill 12,000 to 25,000 in the short term and 185,000 people in the long term. On top of that, recession could kill anywhere between 600 to 12,000 people, suicide would claim 500 lives, domestic violence about 20, and accidents at home would cause deaths in the ‘low tens’. In short, perhaps 200,000 people or more could die as a result of the lockdown, according to these estimates.”
So while Boris Johnson’s government was so eager early on to heed Imperial College and Prof. Neil Ferguson’s ‘worst case scenario’ of 500,000 COVID deaths, these same government experts completely ignored what turned out to be accurate (if not completely underestimated) prediction of 200,000 deaths directly due to lockdown policies. What’s worse, the lockdown death total will continue to rise while the UK government continues to keep its NHS closed to regular patients, still running the pantomime of a ‘COVID only’ health service.
Conversely, author also warned about the government’s over reliance on computer modelling to provide an illusion of certainty of likely outcomes:
“Moreover, these government estimates will have been produced using models, which must always be treated with caution. Not only are models based on a simplified version of how society works — they also make assumptions about fatality rates, speed of viral spread, the effectiveness of screening programmes for cancer and more that may or may not be particularly accurate.”
After four months, it is now easy to so that there are many fatal flaws in how the government and health officials began handling the coronavirus crisis – mistakes that continue to this day, and which will no doubt continue to be compounded so long as officials fail to acknowledge their own gross errors from the onset.
It’s never too late to admit you got it wrong, but it seems these days that’s the one thing politicians are not prepared to do. It would be too devastating to both their egos and lavish political careers.
Hence, the people will continue to suffer because of the corrupt vapidity of this political class.
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.