Between Imperial College and Oxford the British Gov’t Chose to Rely on the Institution With Poorer Record
There is no scientific consensus for a lockdown
Much of what we are getting from on high at the moment is illogical or with yawning gaps. Are they deliberate, and if so why? Could the real situation be more optimistic than we are being told? Clearly the Prime Minister is not sitting up there inventing things, nor is he doing his own research. He relies wholly on his surrounding officialdom. But the template he has been advised to accept as gospel truth is the ultra-gloomy prognosis of Imperial College London, with its talk of hundreds of thousands of deaths from millions of infections.
But Imperial College has a track record of disaster scenarios, none of which came true. (And yes, we recall the economic gurus telling us of the disaster that would wreck our economy if we split from the EU. All turned out to be bunkum. Until coronavirus the reverse occurred.) We all know that every year we are assailed by seasonal winter flu.
And to this are attributed about 15,000 deaths among those who did not survive. But the overwhelming majority of those had a severe pre-existing condition (PEC) which grievously weakened the constitution. It seems the same is applying to coronavirus.
But how many of the dead and the infected had or have an already damaged health system and what are the percentages? These are being withheld from us but we have a right to know.
It is clear that many hale-and-hearties have had a dose of corona and recovered without fuss. But how many? We are not being told.
But sitting in the Commons, right as rain, is Nadine Dorries who was laid low for a few days and quickly got over it. More to the point, it looks as if the “recovered” then achieve immunity and can return to work with no risk to themselves or others. Is that true? And if so why are they being isolated like the not-so-far-affected? Every day we are shown figures and pictures of desperately gasping unfortunates on hospital beds.
But a picture of someone beaming away and raising a thumb in triumph is not a story. (After 60 years I do know the media pretty well.)
Meanwhile, out of Oxford comes a scenario based on intensive research which contradicts the Imperial College model. According to the Oxford research it would have been better to isolate the PEC sufferers immediately but let the hale-and-hearties carry on.
A minority would have had a bad dose, but the majority would have shrugged off a mild dose as we all do with winter’s annual flu.
There is now a fast and simple testing kit – it can be self-administered at home or in a brief visit to outpatients – which could be made available en masse.
We do not know how many have already had a mild dose, recovered and with their new immunity could face the world again and be a danger to nobody. The new kit could tell us that in minutes.
So did a panicky government accept the most luridly violent prognosis from Imperial College of a national holocaust and on that basis destroy the economy? We shall certainly know in the end. [But they will never admit it.]
If two million eventually catch it and 30,000 die? That would be 15,000 more than the winter flu toll – tragic but not a national crisis. And 15,000 as a percentage of our national population of 67 million is a small fraction of one percent. Too optimistic? Maybe but if Oxford is right and Imperial College wrong, government figures are haywire.
And a last salvo at official forecasting. During the foot-and-mouth epidemic we were told to slaughter six million beasts in the national herd – and did so. Later it was confirmed not one of them need have died. It was all rubbish.
Source: The Daily Express