End the Lockdown
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Boris No Balls 
“Lockdown For Years” Says SAGE 
Enough Already!!!
How much more can we take? The figures are undeniable
AwakenedOutlaw on Gab: 'People (many) need to go to prison over this. An…'
AwakenedOutlaw on Gab: 'People (many) need to go to prison over this. And I suspect they will. #CDC Exposed: Inflated #Covid Deaths By 1600% Throughout The Election, "Violated Multiple Federal Laws" Peer-Reviewed Study Finds...State, Local Governments Must Act...
Lockdown is "thoroughly inhumane" and it's inflicting "utter misery" on millions of healthy people, Lord Sumption tells LBC. Lord Jonathan Sumption told LBC's Nick Ferrari that the lockdown became worse than the virus "quite a long time ago."
Nick posited the suggestion that "goalposts are being moved" for the justification and reasoning for lockdown: "First we had to save the NHS, then we had to get the number of deaths down. Jeremy Hunt would now say he wants cases below 1000."
Lord Sumption responded: "That seems to me to be an absurdity. We can't have zero Covid. WHO says there's only been two cases an infectious disease has been eradicated entirely.
"Smallpox took two centuries after the invention of a totally effective vaccine to disappear. Simply saying we want to eliminate the virus altogether or reduce it below 1000 cases I think is a completely unbalanced and fanatical approach."
He continued that the "cost" of lockdown must be remembered, not just economically but in "human" terms.
"The policy of lockdown is a thoroughly inhumane policy which is due to one track minds that can only think about deaths but not about life."
Nick countered that many would argue lockdown has saved lives and ensured the NHS was not overwhelmed.
Lord Sumption responded, "It has probably saved some lives in the last three months. I don't believe it saved any last year. I think it simply deferred them to the later period.
"I don't think that the lives that have been saved weren't the staggering collateral damage and utter misery inflicted on millions and millions of healthy people."
The former UK Supreme Court justice also commented that the UK must "live with" the new variants, as viruses always mutate.
His remarks came after a mutation of the more transmissible Kent variant was detected in Manchester, leading to surge testing in the city.
Last edited:
Fine Mum & Baby 
LIVE BBC 
Glad to see C.D.C. has finally got around to updating their figure! I never realized they had figures on Covid 19 17 years ago.AwakenedOutlaw on Gab: 'People (many) need to go to prison over this. An…'
AwakenedOutlaw on Gab: 'People (many) need to go to prison over this. And I suspect they will. #CDC Exposed: Inflated #Covid Deaths By 1600% Throughout The Election, "Violated Multiple Federal Laws" Peer-Reviewed Study Finds...State, Local Governments Must Act...gab.com
PETER HITCHENS: We DID have a sensible Covid plan... but copied a police state instead
By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday13 Feb 2021
Supporters of strangling the country always demand ‘What would you have done?’ if I dare to criticise the Government’s wild, unprecedented policy for dealing with Covid.
They assume, as backers of crazy policies always do, that there is no alternative to mass house arrest, enormous police powers, Maoist travel bans and the crippling of large parts of the economy.
Well, there is an alternative. Sitting in the Government archives is a 70-page document called UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011. Don’t be put off by that ‘influenza’. The plan could easily be adapted to deal with a coronavirus or any similar threat.
Agreed by all four governments of the UK, it was revised after the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. It is typical of careful, commonsense UK state planning before the hysteria outbreak of March 23, 2020.
But it was ditched in a moment of madness. As the noted Government adviser Neil Ferguson explained, the spectacle of a health crisis in Italy persuaded British authorities to follow the Chinese model instead.
He described how Sage, the Government’s scientific advisory group, had watched as China’s despots embarked on an unheard-of form of disease control by shutting down an entire province.
‘They claimed to have flattened the curve. I was sceptical at first. I thought it was a massive cover-up by the Chinese. But as the data accrued, it became clear it was an effective policy.’
As the noted Government adviser Neil Ferguson explained, the spectacle of a health crisis in Italy persuaded British authorities to follow the Chinese model instead
Then, observing the crisis in Italy, Sage asked itself whether such ferocious methods could be applied here.
‘It’s a Communist one-party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… And then Italy did it. And we realised we could.’
What he meant by ‘get away with it’, I am not quite sure. But the document, which can be found on the internet, to which I provide a link on the Peter Hitchens Blog and on my Twitter feed @ClarkeMicah, has many interesting things to say.
It is very concerned with maintaining freedom and keeping society open, listing as objectives: ‘Minimise the potential impact of a pandemic on society and the economy by: Supporting the continuity of essential services, including the supply of medicines and protecting critical national infrastructure as far as possible. Supporting the continuation of everyday activities as far as practicable. Upholding the rule of law and the democratic process. Preparing to cope with the possibility of significant numbers of additional deaths. Promoting a return to normality and the restoration of disrupted services at the earliest opportunity.’ It stresses ‘Proportionality: the response to a pandemic should be no more and no less than that necessary in relation to the known risks.’
It relies on centuries of experience and good practice, planning to quarantine the sick rather than the healthy. It recommends simple hygiene. It supports school closures in some circumstances but this is because influenza seriously affects the young and is known to be spread through schools.
And it has interesting things to say about masks: ‘Although there is a perception that the wearing of facemasks by the public in the community and household setting may be beneficial, there is in fact very little evidence of widespread benefit from their use in this setting.’
On the closing of borders and restricting travel, it says: ‘Modelling suggests imposing a 90 per cent restriction on all air travel to the UK at the point a pandemic emerges would only delay the peak of a pandemic wave by one to two weeks. Even a 99.9 per cent travel restriction might delay a pandemic wave by only two months.
‘During 2009 it became clear the pandemic virus had already spread widely before international authorities were alerted, suggesting that in any case the point of pandemic emergence had been missed by several weeks. The economic, political and social consequences of border closures would also be very substantial.’
On the banning of public gatherings, it says: ‘There is very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings will have any significant effect on influenza virus transmission. Large public gatherings or crowded events where people may be in close proximity are an important indicator of “normality” and may help maintain public morale during a pandemic.’
It adds: ‘There is also a lack of scientific evidence on the impact of internal travel restrictions on transmission, and attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare. For these reasons, the working presumption will be that Government will not impose any such restrictions. The emphasis will instead be on encouraging all those who have symptoms to follow the advice to stay at home and avoid spreading their illness.’
These thoughtful plans existed and were over-ridden. Instead we copied the Chinese police state which silences dissent, imprisons ethnic minorities in tyrannical labour camps and has recently insulted us by vaporising the freedoms we left behind in Hong Kong and which it promised to maintain at least until 2047.
There was an alternative. There still is. It can hardly be claimed that the repressive panic policy which we have followed has been a great success.
PETER HITCHENS: We DID have a sensible plan but copied a police state
PETER HITCHENS: As Government adviser Neil Ferguson explained, the spectacle of a health crisis in Italy persuaded British authorities to follow the Chinese model instead.
The
Lots of disturbing democratic and civil rights abuses being perpetrated around the West at the moment.
What the likes of Ardern seem to forget, in their zeal to force lockdowns on populaces, even when it's just ONE case of coronavirus, is that coronavirus is NOT going away. It is here to stay, like cold, flu and myriad other viruses. Only twice in human history have we completely eradicated a virus, and it took us 200 years to get rid of one of those (smallpox).
So there is one of two possibilities here that we are going to face, either:
1) Perpetually being placed into lockdown whenever there is one or more cases of coronavirus, which is going to always be the case because coronavirus isn't going away, so we're going to continuously be put into devastating lockdowns forevermore periodically; or...
2) Governments and others who are keen to use lockdowns to fight this virus will eventually admit they were wrong, lockdowns cannot defeat it, and will take us out of lockdown for good and just let us live our lives with the virus as they should have done from the start.
So which one is it going to be? I sure hope it's not the first one.
Lots of disturbing democratic and civil rights abuses being perpetrated around the West at the moment.
What the likes of Ardern seem to forget, in their zeal to force lockdowns on populaces, even when it's just ONE case of coronavirus, is that coronavirus is NOT going away. It is here to stay, like cold, flu and myriad other viruses. Only twice in human history have we completely eradicated a virus, and it took us 200 years to get rid of one of those (smallpox).
So there is one of two possibilities here that we are going to face, either:
1) Perpetually being placed into lockdown whenever there is one or more cases of coronavirus, which is going to always be the case because coronavirus isn't going away, so we're going to continuously be put into devastating lockdowns forevermore periodically; or...
2) Governments and others who are keen to use lockdowns to fight this virus will eventually admit they were wrong, lockdowns cannot defeat it, and will take us out of lockdown for good and just let us live our lives with the virus as they should have done from the start.
So which one is it going to be? I sure hope it's not the first one.
Why Are We STILL In Lockdown? Stats Undeniable 
Facts MSM, BBC & Piers Won’t Tell You
Even 117 year old women are surviving it.
Some jackass on this site posted a video of Fauci from 3-4 years ago where he says "there will be a pandemic at the end of Trump's term..."