IT being the unhappy two-year anniversary of the first UK lockdown, what can we expect of the Covid Inquiry’s findings on the matter when some of the most influential advocates – both domestic and international – of such cruel and nonsensical stay-at-home orders to this day still refuse to rule out the strategy for future use, even as they acknowledge the immense suffering it causes?
Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock, for example, although no longer in the Government, conveyed in a recent piece he wrote for the Telegraph that heis sticking doggedly to the official narrative that they ‘got the big calls right’, whilst welcoming the Covid Inquiry as a chance to learn vital lessons all the same.
That the Milk Tray Man (kudos to the Daily Mail for that brilliant moniker) singularly failed to mention lockdowns, and that the ‘big calls right’ ideology appeared all too conveniently at the same time the Partygate scandal broke, means that the proponent-in-chief of all three of England’s lockdowns remains without any degree of remorse.
His successor Sajid Javid is barely capable of uttering the word lockdown, let alone offering any posthumous analysis on the collateral damage it causes. I use that word posthumous because for the last two years, both literally, ethically and ideologically, Britain has been – and in myriad ways still is – a nation stalked by lockdown-induced death.
At the Conservative Party Spring Conference on March 18, Javid had this to say: ‘We decided to open up last summer in the face of bitter opposition, and Keir Starmer’s campaign to keep our country under lockdown. This winter we rejected Labour’s demand for new restrictions,’ going on to state that it is critical ‘the radicalism of our solutions measure up to the urgency of this moment’.
Yes, Mr Health Secretary, lockdowns were indeed radical: their capacity for physical, psychological and social destruction measuring up nicely to both the militaristic radicalisation and digitisation of public health you so fervently champion.
Interesting words there from a man who spent virtually the whole of December 2021, and then the first half of January 2022, threatening the public with the ‘last resort’ of a circuit-breaker-style lockdown if they didn’t behave. And by behave he meant getting vaccinated, of course.
The bottom line is this: no matter what he says about England being the freest country in Europe, on all matters pandemic-related – his staunch advocacy of strangling non-pharmaceutical interventions in particular – the man is not to be trusted.
True to doomy form, equally untrustworthy Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, for the last two years England’s most downbeat man, in a dismissive reference to lockdowns recently said: ‘But we’re not doing the kind of things we had to do two years ago and none of us want to get back to the stage where we were in that position. But we could well end up with a new variant that produces worse problems than we’ve got with Omicron.’ (Emphases mine)
We’re now living with Covid, Sir Chris. Did you not get the memo? It’s we shall not, not none of us want, to re-experience the lockdowns you say had to be implemented. That’s no assurance at all that they have been unequivocally struck off the new, national behavioural-intervention list.
And what of his colleagues at the pro-lockdown body of ‘experts’ known as Sage; the hysterical advisers to Government most people had never heard of pre-pandemic, and who are now supposedly being stood down after getting away with it all?
Colleagues such as Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance, who has in fact not been stood down but promoted to chair of a new, more global version of Sage – the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust and WEF-backed Pandemic Preparedness Partnership – whose ‘100 Days Mission’ plan to tackle the next global outbreak they say already looms large on the horizon foresees only a shortening of lockdowns rather than their total eradication.
Like Whitty and Javid, we can also confidently rule out Vallance when it comes to offering the nation any rays of future hope, let alone any contrition for lockdowns-past, in the upcoming Covid Inquiry.
On March 20 the Guardian reported that lockdown-lunatic Jeremy Farrar – ex-Sage member and director of the aforementioned Wellcome Trust – thinks unsurprisingly that maintaining measures such as masks, mass testing and social distancing is key to any future pandemic response, and that ‘the single biggest lesson from this pandemic is to act early, decisively and globally to prevent problems becoming much bigger’.
Yet again no ruling out of lockdowns, only the opaque suggestion that they should in fact be implemented much sooner, and then more strictly enforced to keep them shorter.
And what of the pandemic-architects elite? After two years to have a good old think about the topic, what have they to say on national stay-at-home orders?
Addressing various press agencies at the recent Munich Security Conference, Bill Gates once again gave his backing to future lockdowns by proffering that if the world were to follow the gold standard in how to tackle a global outbreak – that exemplified by Australia, to be exact – then future such outbreaks needn’t achieve protracted pandemic status.
Talking to Politico, Gates touched upon something which no narrative-challenging entity other than TCW itself (as far as I am aware, and discussed here and here) dares speak of, so potentially dystopian are the implications: ‘In the future, we don’t want to use a needle. It may turn out that you take your first dose as a micro-patch and your second dose as an inhalation.’
Therefore in Gates’s eyes, and the eyes of the many nefarious health coalitions he funds, the world’s response to a future pandemic should look something more like this:
Declare global pandemic. Restrict freedom by implementing lockdowns of unspecified duration and severity whilst the world awaits production of a vaccine within 100 days. In pursuit of this goal, bypass the usual clinical trials protocols. Send out ‘shot one’ vaccine patches in the mail – user uploads confirmation of immune response to app or under-the-skin health pass chip (smart patches are already in development, and subcutaneous Covid passes in circulation in Sweden). User regains certain privileges. Send out ‘shot two’ inhalable vaccines some weeks later. User regains further privileges. Send out ‘booster shots’ (smart-suppositories? Scratch ’n’ sniff vaccines?). User regains ‘full’ privileges.
The parameters of personal responsibility thus shifted once again away from the public and toward the hands of the State – each time with a cute rebranding of what actually constitutes freedom – we await the next pandemic.
Go harder, go earlier; with ever more novel and freakish technology, ever more innocent casualties; and of course, ever more obscene profit.
At the World Health Organisation’s February 1 media briefing on Covid-19, Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said: ‘We’re concerned that a narrative has taken hold in some countries that because of vaccines, and because of Omicron’s high transmissibility and lower severity, preventing transmission is no longer possible, and no longer necessary. Nothing could be further from the truth. More transmission means more deaths. We are not calling for any country to return to so-called lockdown. But we are calling on all countries to protect their people using every tool in the toolkit, not vaccines alone.’ (Emphases mine)
A cast-iron assurance that the WHO no longer recommend lockdowns that most certainly isn’t.
We all know exactly what measures are in the pandemic toolkit, and if a government were to utilise them all at once they would have effectively implemented a lockdown nonetheless – a process especially easy to justify once having already banned all proven safe and effective therapeutics in favour of waiting 100 days for a novel, inhalable vaccine unlikely even to work, and yet which is marketed as the only way out regardless.
Anyone who has kept a close eye on the World Economic Forum website over the course of the last two years will know that the cult over which Klaus Schwab holds sway has always advocated lockdowns, as they are the vehicle by which their grand, global social changes may be implemented.
Collectively, these changes essentially amount to the transferral of daily life online, where it can be more easily monitored, controlled and manipulated to suit the various agendas of those now troughing on our brains and morals at the table of the new post-Covid International Order.
‘School shutdowns were vital’, and ‘lockdowns and mask mandates were effective . . . but only where people took the rules seriously’, they are still saying to this day (see here and here, for example).
The Covid narrative has not changed one bit.
No more than 60 hours before Putin invaded Ukraine, Boris Johnson lifted up the Covid rug and authorised both his cabinet and Sage to asweep the catastrophic lockdown-filth of the last two years underneath it, all but declaring the pandemic over in England.
There’s a slight problem with that tactic, though: it has left a giant bulge of unaddressed consequences.
The Covid Inquiry is nothing but an attempt to stamp that bulge flat.
