Thursday, October 28, 2021
HomeCOVID-19Why did the Government bin its own pandemic plan?

Why did the Government bin its own pandemic plan?

-

WE have been subjected to appalling levels of propaganda and emotional blackmail for a year. The Government, it would seem, knows no bounds to its manipulation, keeping, it would seem, to a script formulated not just by the World Health Organisation (WHO) but by the World Economic Forum (WEF) as well.

The fact is that the pandemic narrative was taking shape long before the Chinese Covid crisis went live. According to Robert F Kennedy Jr a planning exercise involving Bill Gates, the WEF and others was held in October 2019. It was known as Event 201. Critical to the exercise was a discussion about how to manage information in case of a pandemic. Notes afterwards recommended: ‘Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response. Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation’. 

Among others at the exercise were representatives of the Chinese government. No Brits appear to have been present.

The first inkling of the subservience of Britain to a global dictation was Boris Johnson’s decision, in March 2020, to jettison its own pandemic planning dating from 2011 that followed a tried and tested methodology (as was also the WHO’s advice until 2019). Panicked by Neil Ferguson’s hyperbolic modelling, he decided to climb on board an experiment in mass social control with much of the rest of Europe.

A re-reading of the original 2011 UK government pandemic advice document makes the choice of the lockdown route seem quite incredible. It states, for example, that ‘there is very limited evidence that restrictions on mass gatherings will have any significant effect on influenza virus transmission’ and that allowing normal gatherings ‘may help maintain public morale during a pandemic’.

The document reports furthermore a ‘lack of scientific evidence on the impact of internal travel restrictions on transmission’ and advises that ‘attempts to impose such restrictions would have wide-reaching implications for business and welfare’. It therefore presumed that ‘Government will notimpose any such restrictions’. Likewise, it advised that schools should not close because of ‘substantial economic and social consequences, and . . . a disproportionately large effect on health and social care’. Also proposed in the 2011 advice, as an integral part of the response to a pandemic, were clinical countermeasures such as antiviral medicines to ease pressure on intensive care services. 

In other words, when the pandemic struck in 2020, the UK Government entirely ignored its own advice: it had no consideration for public morale, no concern over ‘substantial’ economic or social consequences and made no attempt to promote countermeasures such as antivirals. Yet it could hardly claim ignorance of the damaging effects its contrary decisions from March 2020 would have since such policy responses were specifically rejected, on those grounds, in the 2011 strategy. 

The Government has not deviated from that position in over a year, even though there is little evidence that at any point in 2020 the NHS would have struggled to cope any more than in previous years once it achieved the requisite ICU capacity, which it did quite early on.

So what happened? Why did the Government change from being more than just usually incompetent to being cruel, irrational and incompetent, a government without care and compassion? Aware that its actions would not save lives, but destroy them?

Why did the Government need to instil such fear and anxiety? Was it to protect us from a pandemic that would overwhelm us or was it, wittingly or unwittingly, to create the illusion of a ‘PCR testing’ pandemic?

One single paper, entitled ‘Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR’ published in Eurosurveillance in January 2020, influenced the worldwide PCR testing response to CovidAt best, the paper by Christian Drosten and others is criticised as the root of the most expensive blunder in history. At worst it has been condemned as fraudulent. 

The core scientific accusation is that Drosten and his colleagues failed to prove that PCR testing can identify the SARS-Co-V-2 virus. This, along with their failure to retract the paper, has allegedly resulted in a ‘worldwide misdiagnosis of infections attributed to SARS-CoV-2 and associated with the disease COVID-19’.

A full account of this hastily published, non-peer-reviewed paper and the conflicting interests of the authors can be read here. A review submitted to the Eurosurveillance editorial board on November 27 by an international consortium of scientists demanded its retraction. It is also the subject of law suits. 

In January 2021 the WHO ‘reminded’ laboratories on the correct use of the PCR test, because it could not on its own determine Covid infection.  

Sir Patrick Vallance, chief government scientist, has now publicly acknowledged the well-established problem of false positives: ‘You’ll get more positives with PCR because PCR is very, very sensitive and they pick up very low levels of virus which may not even be infectious,’ he said at a Downing Street press briefing on February 10 2021. Yet even the Lancet’s statement that ‘In our view, current PCR testing is therefore not the appropriate gold standard for evaluating a SARS-CoV-2 public health test’ has not persuaded  the Government to deviate from its PCR testing-based lockdown policy.

Nor of course has it acknowledged that we have suffered almost a year of lockdowns, social isolation, destruction of businesses, depression, suicides on the basis of false science.  

Whether inflating the numbers testing positive and attributing the virus as the cause of death has helped to reinforce the narrative for other purposes or whether Hanlon’s razor applies is moot. 

Fear, as the Nazis knew, is an efficient way of controlling large numbers of people using minimal resources. How else could we have been made so supine as uncritically to accept the Government’s ‘Build Back Better’ agenda, aka the Great Reset, and what looks to be WEF’s fascistic vision of the future for us all?

One truth is certain: if the UK Government had decided not to abandon the 2011 pandemic plan, thus abdicating its duty of care of us, the citizens who vote for it, maybe we might still have a functioning economy and young people might feel they have a future worth living for.

- Advertisement -

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.

Lucy Wyatt
Lucy Wyatt is an author based in Somerset. Her book Approaching Chaos: Could an ancient archetype save C21st civilisation? is available on Amazon. She has farming interests in the West Country and is developing a 'farm to fork' cafe outlet in a market town.

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.