Saturday, May 18, 2024
HomeCOVID-19What lessons have they learned from lockdown? None

What lessons have they learned from lockdown? None


ACCOMPANYING the many damning indictments made against the Johnson Government and a host of other pandemic actors both domestic and international (submitted to the International Criminal Court by lawyer Hannah Rose et al) was the applicants’ assertion that pre-Covid pandemic ‘simulation exercises’ such as Clade X and Event 201have since proved so prophetic as to qualify as concrete plans.

Indeed the latter of the two, hosted in October 2019 by the shady triumvirate of the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, the World Economic Forum and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, centred around the leap of a SARS-esque bat coronavirus into humans, via pigs, highly transmissible in community settings by people with mild symptoms.

The parallels between Event 201’s predictions and the unfolding of the Covid-19 narrative which followed it by a mere matter of months are irresistible. An informative presentation on the subject by German journalist Paul Schreyer can be found here.

Unsurprisingly, considering the infamy of their hosts, exercises such as Event 201 had little to do with any pre-existing pandemic strategies already in place among the governments involved in those simulations.

The overall case fatality risk (CFR) upon which Event 201 was modelled was a whopping 7 per cent (14 per cent in those hospitalised): enormous compared with the 2.5 per cent upon which the UK’s own pre-Covid Pandemic Preparedness Strategy was modelled, in which border closures, school closures, restrictions upon mass gatherings, masks and the confinement of the healthy were roundly advised against.   

Taking into consideration that all such non-pharmaceutical interventions as these were implemented regardless, based upon the spread of a virus with a fatality rate generally considered to be well below 1 per cent (depending on where you look); and in light of the fact that Event 201 posited novel lockdowns as a counter-measure to a pandemic with a modelled death toll of 65million over 18 months, but which according to the WHO has only just surpassed 5.6million deaths in two years (the malfeasance surrounding what exactly constitutes a Covid death notwithstanding), it is therefore no small act of self-preservation to ask what we might expect from the pandemic preparedness strategies of the future.

To help answer this we can look to such international collaborations as the ‘100 Days Mission’ of June 2021: an ambitious, somewhat foreboding report to the G7 outlining methods by which the impact of future pandemics may be reduced by drastically cutting the time it takes to rollout Diagnostics, Therapeutics and Vaccines (DTVs).

It was drawn up by the Pandemic Preparedness Partnership, a UK Government-led, ‘independent’ entity launched in April 2021 to tie together contributions from various such members of the WHO, the Gates Foundation, GAVI, and the major players of the pharmaceutical industry. It is chaired by none other than the UK’s Chief Scientific Adviser and conflict-of-interest king Sir Patrick Vallance. The report is a sure sign that the pandemic narrative we have been trained to follow may well endure long into the future.

From Chapter One:

‘The first 100 days when faced with a pandemic or epidemic threat are crucial to changing its course. In those 100 days, non-medical public health interventions like social distancing, isolation, contact tracing and personal protective equipment (PPE) are essential.’

‘Imagine a scenario where Covid-19 had hit, but the world was ready [and] could have deployed safe and effective DTVs in May 2020, and lockdowns would have been shortened.’ (Both emphases mine.)

More of the same, then.

At the time of the report’s publication, the utterly needless and catastrophic human and societal collateral damage of multiple UK lockdowns had long-since been identified – albeit rubbished, if not ignored altogether by Government, and glossed over, if not censored altogether by the mainstream press – but it seems that Vallance and the myriad other architects of fate still saw no reason to do away with such an abhorrent public health-control measure when designing their more unified pandemic response of the future.

Indeed, as we can see, even in the more immediate post-Freedom Day landscape, the needless confinement of the healthy still remains a threat as evidenced by the re-implementation of the destructive stratagem throughout the EU, and the domestic re-introduction this winter of some of the similarly egregious regulations which have historically proved to be stepping-stones to full-scale lockdowns.

So it appears that the proposed joint global pandemic response of the future will not exclude periods of mass confinement, but with a faux-benevolence merely shorten them; which leads me to suspect that the term ‘lockdown’ will be retired from our new public health-based lexicon in favour of the more innocuous-sounding ‘circuit breaker’ – ten days of incarceration a breeze for the generations who cut the teeth of their subservience on multi-month sentences.

As its title suggests, there is a heavy emphasis in the report on the ‘rapid deployment’ of DTVs, but with the negligent Chief Executive of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Dame June Raine, the only name to be found within the Annex as responsible for regulation, one cannot help but feel that ‘rapid deployment’ of DTVs and the consequences thereof simply means: inadequately tested for both safety and efficacy, hurriedly rolled-out before fear evaporates, and all subsequent fatalities dismissed.

‘We recommend transforming the approach to clinical trial regulation, shortening the time to authorise trials . . . [thus enabling them to] move as pandemics or epidemics do.’

More of the same injurious malpractice, then.

It’s worth noting that in terms of therapeutics, only dexamethasone is mentioned in the 100 Days Mission report, yet not one of those listed within Hannah Rose’s charge to the ICC as having been identified early on in the pandemic as safe and effective to treat Covid-19; by such renowned experts as Dr Peter McCullough, for example, talking here about his August 2020, peer reviewed collaborative study on the proven efficacy of using hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, favipiravir, colchicine and corticosteroids to help drastically reduce hospitalisations and deaths. 

Little wonder then, that Rose makes a charge of crimes against humanity directly against such pro-lockdown, anti-therapeutic zealots as Chris Whitty, Matt Hancock, Sajid Javid and of course June Raine – people who must fervently believe in the 100 Days Mission stance that: ‘Covid-19 has demonstrated the importance of entering into vaccine purchase agreements as early as possible, long before the product gains regulatory approval.’

The report identifies the need to keep the pandemic pharmaceuticals market ‘warm’ to retain the increased capacity quickly to design, test, mass-manufacture and distribute DTVs in response to future threats: ‘Governments and international organisations should also consider expanding mass adult vaccination campaigns for common diseases – both to respond to very real and pressing public health needs and to create regular demand for expanded capacity’, alongside normalising the use of mass-diagnostics to ‘stimulate and maintain the market’.

In other words, retain the capacity to engineer public health casedemics, off the backs of which populations can be peddled the latest unstable miracle cure – plucked from an ever-expanding ‘prototype vaccine library’ (quote) – and all at an obscene profit to the new rule-makers-elite of microscopic threats, in whose pockets we will for ever remain.

More of the same, then.

From Chapter 5 – Rules of The Road:

‘Covid-19 showed that countries having their own separate responses hindered the speed and coordination of the global response’ (I thought it was a pretty slick operation myself) . . .  ‘Governments, industry and international organisations should be able to draw from a set of agreed rules of the road on how to respond in a pandemic.’

Well, if the last two years of tyranny was not virtually all Governments reading from the same public health script, we should expect the execution of the pandemic preparedness plans of the future to be an outright symphony of ruination, orchestrated to micromanage the day-to-day affairs of humanity.

‘While there is no clear deadline by which we need to be ready for the next major health threat, we believe we should aim to be ready within five years.’

One cannot help but wonder if buried within such a statement lurks a sinister Event 201-style ‘prophecy’ of the future.

So tune back in around 2025 for yet more seemingly futile discussion: on Event 202, the ambitious vision for pandemic preparedness by 2030, why we didn’t just stick to the original 100 Days Mission plan, and how Boris Johnson was knighted for domestic crimes against humanity.     

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.