UK Government Covid Herd Immunity Policy


A policy of homicide


P3

Why a UK Covid Herd Immunity Policy and Why Not



SAGE's eminent doctors and scientists knew before SARS-Cov-2 spread from China that some of the most dangerous viruses in the world were kept in the Wuhan BSL4 laboratory and that dangerous experiments were conduced there.  A few minutes search would have brought up the two papers co-authored by Dr Zhengli-Li Shi (links in the appendices). They and the SAGE scientific advisory committee to the government should have known and I suggest did know all about it.  Nevertheless these men of science wanted a 'herd immunity' policy.  They took the view that the virus would come to the UK and kill people in any event, so why try to prevent infections?  It was like the ‘flu they said.  The population would gain immunity and the virus would weaken.  That is why they took no infection prevention measures from January 2020 or earlier, until public pressure forced the first lockdown on 23 March 2020 due to the out-of-contol virus.   It was certainly in their career interests to take that view which would ingratiate them with government and the pharmaceutical industry. 


I repeat, the job was to prevent deaths by preventing infections.  The country and the whole world knew this.  It was their personal and professional interests that confined their thinking to the homicidal ‘herd immunity’ theory and vaccines. 


To be clear, this homicidal policy did not commence when it was announced in March 2020.  It had been in operation from the beginning of the pandemic, December 2019, unannounced, which is why SAGE and the government did not take the simple public health measures adopted by Australia, New Zealand, many South East Asian countries and China itself.  Tens of thousands of lives would have been saved by doing so.  Why did they not?  These simple measures, masks, suitable PPE, test and trace, movement restrictions, etc were able to control the virus without vaccines.  That is the point.  Such measures do not require vaccines or mass vaccination.  The evidence is Australian and New Zealand outcomes.  Please see this video of Vietnam's response. At this date, 6 July 2020 Vietnam claimed zero deaths and everything open while on 30 June 2020 the the UK had 46,736 deaths attributed to Covid-19. I'm aware of the arguments that it's an authoritarian communist regime and they hide the true numbers etc.  Well, The WHO accepts Vietnam's figures.  It's hard to accept that our government is good at talk and not only useless in practice but knowingly has a policy that will kill its own citizens, but the evidence is plain.  These low technology measures do not make us dependent on pharmaceutical companies or channel enormous public funds to them.  The sole action the government and its advisors took in January 2020 was to order the vaccines on which part of their policy was based.  They failed to organize manufacturing of PPE or formulate practical plans to halt and extinguish the virus.

Such simple measures have not been taken in any effective manner to this day on the pretext that it would be impractical and no use. Eminent men, experts, said so on television. They were the wrong experts, egotistical men who did not know their own limitations and killed with their words.  This was a practical exercise in managing the country's resources and practices. The experts and politicians not only failed, they actually did great harm. The 'herd immunity' strategy was and still is a plan to allow widespread infection and for the weak to die while the strong survive whether with immunity or not. In March 2020 there was no evidence that infection gave immunity at all, much less how effective it might be over time.  With a terrified and exhausted population the virologists would prove the value of their science with the mass vaccination program a year later that we now have.  That is why the government constructed huge 'Nightingale' emergency treatment centres that are now said to have been an expensive over-reaction or public relations exercise.  That is not the case.  It was planned that they would be needed for the vast number of infections resulting from the 'herd immunity' policy, mass infections and deaths far greater than those we now have.  Boris Johnson and his collaborators did take fast and firm action.  They ensured that sufficient vaccines for a mass vaccination program were ordered, financed and developed at public expense.  But they locked down only on public demand and took wholly inadequate non-pharmaceutical infection prevention action. The public knew better than SAGE and the government what to do.

We may now identify, not a public health plan by the government, but a corporate plan based on mass infections and mass vaccinations.  This was a fantastic opportunity for the pharmaceutical companies.  There is little corporate money to be had from producing masks, PPE, distance learning student education, public health education, border controls and quarantine.  The production of vaccines is a never-ending source of corporate profit because immunity will fade, the virus will mutate and new vaccines will always be needed.  This is what we see and it would be unbelievably naive to think that the expert SAGE committee did not know that in January 2020. Government Covid-19 policy is not about saving our lives.  It's about the pharmaceutical companies making money.  Call me a conspiracy theorist - I don't care.  It's a real well-known conspiracy called the 'revolving door'.  No other explanation can account for the government's 'herd immunity' policy.  It's not the first conspiracy that has used public money for private gain.  Our former Prime Minister Tony Blair would not have been rewarded with his current wealth if he had refused to employ UK government lives and treasure to invade Iraq and had concentrated on the UK economy instead.   Boris Johnson, Patrick Vallance and everyone in SAGE know the value to the pharmaceutical industry of their part in creating a market for vaccines, rather than organizing simple non-pharmaceutical measures as Australia, New Zealand, China and other SE Asian countries did. That's how the government-industrial revolving door system works.  Favours for jobs and cash.


Our SAGE experts as physicians, geneticists and virologists also knew an important characteristic of coronaviruses such as SARS-Cov-2, whether of laboratory origin or otherwise.  They are of a different type and behaviour from the ‘flu virus to which the experts likened them in their assumptions and public statements because they mutate differently.  The following are extracts (my brackets) from the virology literature:
Unlike other viruses that have emerged in the past two decades, coronaviruses are highly recombinogenic. Influenza viruses reassort (exchange whole RNA/DNA segments from similar viruses) but they do not undergo homologous recombination (acquisition of small sequences from variants) within RNA segments.

Recombination is a pervasive process generating diversity in most viruses. It joins variants that arise independently within the same molecule, creating new opportunities for viruses to overcome selective pressures and to adapt to new environments and hosts…


Recombination... can have a major impact on their (coronaviruses’) evolution. Indeed, recombination has been associated with the expansion of viral host ranges, the emergence of new viruses, the alteration of transmission vector specificities, increases in virulence and pathogenesis, the modification of tissue tropisms, the evasion of host immunity, and the evolution of resistance to antivirals.
These characteristics mean that SARS-Cov-2 can be predicted to create new variants quickly and would readily adapt in means of transmission, increases in lethality, change to infect different body tissues, evade immunity and develop resistance to vaccines.  The experts knew this.  SARS-Cov-2 was already killing people.  Its potential was therefore to adapt to killing not only the elderly and already vulnerable but also to become more lethal, kill and injure other age groups as well as adapt to vaccines.  Knowing this from their basic knowledge of coronaviruses, the SAGE experts nevertheless adopted a ‘herd immunity’ policy.  This policy and even a mass vaccination policy could have been predicted to fail and for the widespread currently existing variants to develop.

The reason why a coronavirus ‘herd immunity’ policy is far more dangerous than an infection prevention policy is not only the immediate deaths that it causes.  ‘Herd immunity’ depends on infecting most of the population.  Each infection is an opportunity for the virus to mutate.  For example, if the probability of a mutation occurring is one per year in a population of 1,000, in a population of 100,000 one can predict, x100 = 100 mutations per year.  The higher the infected population number the greater the number of variants, some of which will be more dangerous.  As vaccines are not 100% effective, this applies to resistance as well.  The adoption of  the ‘herd immunity’ policy by SAGE must therefore have an explanation other than that of saving lives because it can easily be predicted not to save lives.  It will kill people in the short term and permit high numbers of mutations of unknown properties to develop in the long term.  An infection-prevention policy has the opposite effect on viral mutations.  Even if imperfect, it keeps infection numbers low and therefore deaths and the numbers of variants low.  The virus is therefore more manageable so that locally focussed action to eliminate it becomes practical.  This was the approach adopted in the SE Asian countries, NZ and Australia. 


I know no virology but do know what these characteristics mean.  SAGE and the government were making assumptions about the new virus’s behaviour that were unjustified due lack of data as I said in my first emails of 16 March 2020 to my MP.  They also made false assumptions despite the knowledge that they actually possessed about coronaviruses generally.  Their ‘herd immunity’ strategy combined with failure to take aggressive public health measures using all means available was a disastrously lethal policy for the country.  The only credible explanation is that they were focussed on vaccines and creating a market for them.  ‘Herd immunity’ was a predictably disastrous policy that once implemented needed the extreme infection-prevention measures of three lockdowns to control infections and deaths.  Its effects are still with us.


More p4...

Page 3
.
.
.
.