Briefly Noted: UK Lockdown Hoax?

About a week and a half ago I ran a piece that featured a lengthy interview with a medical expert, Dr. Theresa Deisher, who has over 30 years' experience in the field of commercial biotechnology. The interview largely focused on Deisher's skeptical views regarding the new Covid vaccines. Deisher expressed serious reservations not only about the lack of transparency in the hasty development of the vaccine but also, very pertinently, about whether such vaccines are actually needed or desirable. Let me quote that pertinent part from the blog (Briefly Noted: Covid Vaccine Hoax?):

She also doesn't believe the vaccine is necessary to begin with. Fairly early in the interview she makes the point that, while initially we were unsure how this virus would behave, the intervening months have shown that it's behaving much like other similar respiratory viruses. What she means is--and she explains this--these viruses come in "waves", with each succeeding wave yielding a virus that is more contagious than the previous wave, but also less virulent. The result we're seeing fits that pattern: more infections, but fewer serious outcomes. In other words, she adds, it's on its way to being a common cold or flu type of phenomenon: Endemic, but something we can readily deal with.

And so she states, in effect, that there's really no point to this vaccine. No point, because why would you give a vaccine that has serious side effects to perfectly healthy people who are unlikely to suffer great harm?

Commenting on the need for a vaccine, Deisher laid out that “this virus to date has less than a 0.03% fatality rate and most of those people, I believe it's 92% or above, have other health problems; we're making a vaccine at warp speed for a virus that doesn't look like it's going to need a vaccine.”She added that “[i]t is possible, but I don’t believe it is desirable, nor do I believe that it’s safe,” with as much as “15% of the very healthy young volunteers [experiencing] significant side effects.”

There's much more about vaccines in general and these Covid vaccines in particular. Deisher isn't an anti-vaxxer by any means, but she is a skeptic with regard to this one. 

The reason I'm reviewing this has to do with the news you may have heard about a new and severe UK lockdown. Note how I phrased that. The lockdown is new and severe. Listening to the mainstream news might lead you to believe that the mutation of Covid that is supposedly causing this extreme response is some new monster virus. However, there are skeptics within the UK medical establishment, and they are demanding that the government produce some, well, real data to justify their extreme policy decisions. You can read about this at PJ Media, but the point I want to make is that what these very mainstream medical experts are saying directly supports what Dr. Deisher was also saying not long ago--maybe more transmissible, but apparently less severe:

New Strain of COVID-19, Fears of Increased Transmissibility Have U.K. Health Experts Asking Questions

To read this account of what's going on in the UK is to realize how sketchy much of the policy making is in the public health field--at least with regard to Covid.

First they quote some bozo name Boris--no, not a Russian, so don't worry that I'm off into pandemic conspiracy la la land. Note the admission Boris makes. More transmissible, less serious--maybe:

... the new strain could increase the R rate by “0.4 or greater” and might be “up to 70% more transmissible”.

“While we are fairly certain the variant is transmitted more quickly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is more lethal or causes more severe illness,” ...

Therefore, lock it all down?

Understandably, actual medical people are up in arms. 

Carl Heneghan, professor of Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Primary Care, is skeptical. Following Johnson’s announcement, Heneghan made a call for the government to release the data it relied on to make such severe restrictions. 

What a concept--release the evidence! Let a thousand data points bloom, so to speak! Except that, increasingly, transparency in decision making is not the model according to which "representative" governments conduct their affairs. It's increasingly along the lines of what Rand Paul recently said:

“If Fauci has his way, you’ll never give up on the mask,” warned Paul. “It’s all about submission. They want you to submit to their will, whether there’s any science. In fact, like on schools, I’ve been telling Fauci for six months, the evidence is that if you open schools, you will not get a surge. The whole world accepts it, except for Dr. Fauci. He finally accepted it last week, six months after I started showing him the evidence.”

Right. It's almost as if they're thinking, If we can get people to submit to masking up for no scientific reason, submit to closure of schools and businesses for no scientific reasons, well then maybe we can get them to accept an Election Hoax, too! It's like that Pavlov's dog thing--just say "settled science" and get instant submission. No questions asked.

Meanwhile, back in the UK, Dr. Heneghan is persisting in trying to rock the boat:

In any case, he and his colleagues are calling for evidence that this new strain is truly more transmissible, especially since the government agency is only moderately confident in the assertion regarding transmissibility:

I would want to have very clear evidence rather than “we think it’s more transmissible” so we can see if it is or not. It has massive implications, it’s causing fear and panic, but we should not be in this situation when the Government is putting out data that is unquantifiable.

And maybe, just maybe, that's the point.