Coronavirus deception now in plain view; UK Government imposes overt authoritarianism regardless

Yesterday, FBEL beat a good deal of corporate-media to reporting the backtracking by Neil Ferguson, the head of the Imperial College London team that prompted (or provided a pretext for) UK Government to introduce draconian measures for societal control. Yesterday’s article also featured a deduction from the data coming to light during Ferguson’s Commons Science and Technology Committee appearance, to wit: it was the NHS’s revised estimates for deaths with so-called Covid-19 that was responsible for Ferguson’s own lower new estimates, and not the lockdown that he is jointly directly culpable for. As of today, corporate-media is catching up and providing more detail that was not discoverable for inclusion in yesterday’s FBEL article, and is completing a fuller sense of what indeed was a narrative retreat.

The Telegraph is reporting that Ferguson believes that “up to two thirds of people who die from coronavirus in the next nine months are likely to have died this year from other causes” stipulated as being “old and seriously ill”. In other words, up to two thirds who ostensibly die from “Covid-19” would in fact have died anyway. While the concept of death with “Covid-19” being death as usual has now been firmly established as a truth away from corporate-media fearporn (with debate about the certainty of it limited to the question of the size of the overlap), to have confirmation from the man who has previously confidently suggested that 510,000 could die of an infection of SARS-COV-2 (the coronavirus that is said to cause Covid-19) is too huge a sign to be able to deny that there has been a definite change in the wind, and UK Government may well soon find itself overexposed.

As it happened, FBEL was also in the vanguard of bringing news of official recognition of the overrated potency, virality and danger of SARS-COV-2 when the article, UK Government’s chief science advisor reveals “Covid-19” deaths are deaths as normal; BBC admits it too, was published at the site on Sunday.  At that time it was noted that the BBC’s Health Correspondent, Nick Triggle, had explored the possibility that most, if not all Covid-19 deaths would have happened anyway. Incredibly, although the BBC piece in question was edited in an attempt to blunt the message, it has since been re-edited to restore its original impact. Now the BBC piece cites University of Cambridge statistician, David Spiegelhalter, who says

There will be substantial overlap in these two groups — many people who die of Covid [the disease caused by coronavirus] would have died anyway within a short period.

Moreover, and assuming that Covid-19 is real, Triggle now additionally posits that if it is “as deadly as flu”, then extra deaths from it will number just 1,400. On the other hand, if it was “more virulent than flu” (and Triggle carefully uses the word “believe” to describe how researchers think about the qualities of Covid-19), and in fact five times as deadly, (apparently a reasonable estimation), there could be 6,900 excess deaths. Even if the modelling that arrived at this figure is to be trusted (and there is reason not to), this is a paltry number for a nation of 60 million, and can never justify the installation of powers to suit a dictatorship.

The new edit.

Even though it is still not clear if SARS-COV-2 has been responsible for any illness (let alone whether it exists as a new coronavirus or not), if Neil Ferguson’s conservative idea for an overlap between death with “Covid-19” and death as usual is to be allowed for, it means that there has only in fact been 155 deaths in the UK directly attributable to Covid-19 thus far (since March 5th), and thus only 8 per day. This is something much less than the “reasonable” figure for excess deaths mentioned by Triggle (i.e. 19 a day).

That there is no danger from SARS-COV-2 that could ever justify the UK Government’s spurt of overt totalitarianism is perhaps not made any more clear than by the recent announcement on an official governmental website to declare that Covid-19 is “no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious diseases (HCID) in the UK”. Key information in the announcement includes the fact that “more information is available about mortality rates” which are described as “low overall”.

However, what is not so gratifying to read is this:

The need to have a national, coordinated response remains, but this is being met by the government’s COVID-19 response.

As discussed in yesterday’s FBEL article, even if it were true according to the modelling that the UK Government required a “COVID-19 response”, there would be a case to make for an urgent review and a downscaling so that a secondary contagion of Covid-19, as imagined by the ICL modellers, would not be so pronounced.

The reader should note well that the declaration demoting Covid-19 was published on the 19th March. It is surely to be counted amongst growing evidence that UK Government has rammed through its Coronavirus Bill in the knowledge that there is no need for it, and as such has exploited the situation in China (whatever that was) to bring in the capability to implement a police state with the flicking of a switch.

And while for all appearances it looks like the UK Government is not ready to relinquish its new powers for a good while into 2020, it must be remembered that there will be a good deal of bluff going on: the UK Government, through the corporate-media (with expertise in the area of psychological warfare on occupied peoples from Military Intelligence at the reins), will want to create the perception that the interlude of dictatorship was worthwhile. The reader will perhaps notice that there is no relenting of the fearporn, and this is felt by the author to be necessary, ahead of the lifting of the lockdown (for the time being), to obtain a high level of conviction about the perceived threat, and for obtaining the necessary levels of gratitude in the mind-controlled public when the lockdown is indeed lifted.

Obviously, while the lockdown continues (and the author feels that Government will not risk it too long in what is evidently supposed to be an acclimatising experience), there will be a good deal of anger about it from that section of the public (and we are given a skewed idea of how large this is when we look at corporate and social media) to whom it is an abhorrence. The author would suggest to these people that the best strategy at the moment would be to engage in convincing as many people as possible that they have been conned by UK Government, and to partake in and encourage civil disobedience (e.g. withholding monies from the State) both now, and of course in an extended way when the current lockdown has been lifted. Furthermore, people should challenge police powers where they can (and more will be written about this at FBEL explaining how to a great extent those powers are illusory), while avoiding being arrested at this time, but rather offer a fight by contesting fines in court.