A Covid-19 briefing; one thing is for damn sure: Government wants fear & maybe even panic

The one sure thing about the so-called Covid-19 outbreak is that the UK Government wants to elicit fear and even perhaps engineer a panic reaction to it. How else would one explain the completely disproportionate media coverage and scale of Government response to 80-odd supposed cases of the novel coronavirus (although these were even fewer when the fearporn began), of which none have been fatal?

In such cases of obvious psy-op, the policy at FBEL is to ignore so as not to add to the chatter. However, when Government says it has “emergency plans” based on projections of one fifth of the work force simultaneously being ill, and that the police will not deal with low grade crime [do not automatically assume that this would be due to attrition by illness on police numbers], and that the Army will be on standby, then in fact there is a duty to be the “curmudgeonly voice” (previously discussed here) that speaks to break the spell of the official narrative. The author was particularly concerned by a story in the Daily Mail that appeared this past week, headlined, Find the hidden virus carriers: Race is on to track down coronavirus sufferers who may NOT know they are infected. Nightmarish visions of police knocking on doors to take people to mobile testing centres inevitably present themselves (and perhaps this task is what would preoccupy not only the police, but also the Army).

If and when anything like this starts to look as if it is going to be executed, then FBEL will activate on this issue and take the sons of bitches down.

[And supermarkets should worry about their reputations should they decide to participate in any stunt that gives the false impression of the public indulging in “panic buying”, or indeed if they participate in Government rationing schemes].

For the time being, it will suffice to say that Covid-19, on its discovery in China, was probably in fact pneumonia, misrepresented for political purposes. A discussion on this between two giants of the Health Freedom movement, Jon Rappoport and Robert Scott Bell, can be heard here (please note, the author has not seen information regarding any effect of 5G on the lungs, and doesn’t support the notion by publishing this link).

A repercussion of the original Chinese fudge would be that Covid-19 might prove a nebulous target for testing (which is inadequate for purpose as it is), and we will get to the bottom of this in any future coverage. It probably explains why Italy has a death rate from “Covid-19” whereas Britain does not have one. Indeed, the convenient emergence of a second strain of Covid-19 to explain why people are not dying of it would presumably be a device to compensate for the impact of the (abovementioned) initial problem on testing, and knowing what exactly is being tested for.

The attention of the reader is also drawn, for the time being, to the fact that “as of 4 March,” according to the Government, “a total of 16,659 people have been tested in the UK, of which 16,574 were confirmed negative. 85 were confirmed as positive.” Presumably, candidates for this testing had symptoms that led a health official to suspect Covid-19. So, beware the time when the NHS starts to diagnose by symptoms alone for the sake of sparing resources. Also be aware that a so-called “surge” of incidents of Covid-19 reported yesterday occurred at the same time as an announcement was made that there would be testing of intensive care patients. The epidemic of Covid-19 in Britain is one that doesn’t materialise, and it looks for all the world like the Government is casting around amongst the immunosuppressed vulnerable to find indicators of Covid-19 so as to boost figures. If and when deaths do occur, we can well expect them to come from the hospitalised with pre-existing conditions [please see footnote †].

Lastly, a particular anti-viral drug that is being touted as a treatment has been identified as “remdesivir” and there will be coverage of that drug and other potential toxins that the British medical establishment will use in the name of medicine to “treat” “Covid-19”. We will watch out, of course, for any correlation between deaths and the form of NHS treatment.

Please also see:

Dr Strangelove: or how I learned to stop worrying about the sale of the NHS (link)

The beneficent NHS, where corporate-government makes a buck from population control (link)

† Update, 10pm, date as published: Right on cue, Britain has seen its first “Covid-19” death. Unsurprisingly, the woman in question was in her 70s, and had, according to the hospital where she died, “been in and out of hospital for non-coronavirus reasons”. Apparently she tested positive for the coronavirus on this occasion of being admitted to hospital – which happened yesterday (Wednesday 4th) – and died today.

Arguably, the process of this woman’s dying began before her admittance to hospital, and was related to her other illnesses. However, it would be politically convenient to put the death down to Covid-19. The patient is not alive to argue otherwise (and the family will probably not ask any searching questions).

Moreover, if this woman came into hospital on death’s door, we can probably assume that she became liable to Covid-19 testing (or even symptom-based diagnosis) as part of the dragnet applied to intensive care discussed in the body of this work. If this is true then Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading, the institution in question, has perhaps been incredibly cynical in its treatment of this particular patient.