The Covid-19 death toll is for abusing the deranged masses; it’s the other data that’s important

As from today the daily “Covid-19” death toll will include data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) regarding deaths that occur external to hospital. Basically, anyone who dies and is not being treated in a hospital at the time, but nevertheless has “Covid-19” registered on the associated death certificate, will be counted in the official toll. Those of us who are not prone to become unhinged at the slightest nudging towards it by Government psychological manipulation will have the sense to realise that this development will not be wholly unrelated to the arrival of the Coronavirus Bill, and how it has created an environment where there is potential for a good deal of abuse in order to create the impression of copious amounts of death by “Covid-19” (there is a bit more of a discussion about this to be found here).

That being said, however, it is genuinely surprising that corporate-media is preliminarily reporting that the additional ONS figures would inflate the death tally by a quarter, or make the current one bigger by a mere 300 (or so) deaths (and, actually, even that operation is not statistically secure). Even so, whether the number of deaths (from what had been billed as being the worst thing since the Black Death) continue to underwhelm, or whether they skyrocket, they are up until a certain point wholly irrelevant, except for UK Government in its efforts to stoke fear (and there can be no denying that this is exactly what it has been doing).

Instead, the data to look out for is with regards the excess death, if any, that happens during this so-called pandemic. Off-Guardian has been reporting that the situation across Europe (where there is data) has not been coming close to anything that would indicate an exploded death rate that could be down to so-called Covid-19.

The reason why excess death is a crucial way of getting a handle on the issue should be well understood by an FBEL reader, but to explain briefly: it has been the tendency by the medical establishment to attribute death by other causes to so-called Covid-19 (and now, if the reader examines the corporate-media reportage carefully, coronavirus)†. As such, we should expect to see no great deal of excess death (or more death than usual), but instead numbers under one column on a ledger shifted across to another headed “Covid-19”.

The other figures that are eminently more useful than a death toll are those for admittance to hospital, and those for critical care bed occupancy. Of the former, on Monday the Chief Executive of NHS England, Simon Stevens, was reported by Sky News as saying “More than 9,000 people who have coronavirus are now being treated in hospitals across England”. Again, note the use of “coronavirus” in this sentence (and see the footnote). What this is in fact saying is that more than 9,000 people have been tested positive by the unreliable PCR test‡ (which, as Jon Rappoport reveals, is considered in the USA to be “for research use only, [and] not for use in diagnostic procedures”), or by presumptive diagnosis (by symptoms). It doesn’t meant that they have an illness due to coronavirus.‡

Even so, when the Chief Executive says that n-thousand people are hospitalised, it might sound scary to the psychologically damaged masses that would be intensely following the “war reports” of the sort that Stevens was holding. However, one should consider how there are 100,000 “general and acute” beds in NHS England, and how, in the year 2018-19, the institution saw 626,000 admissions for “influenza, pneumonia”. The source for this data is the House of Commons briefing paper, Number 7281, 20 February 2020, “NHS Key Statistics: England, February 2020”, which is online for anyone who isn’t deranged to find.

So, in fact the number of admissions isn’t relevant at this stage either; instead it is the rate of admissions. Of this matter, on Monday, the UK Government’s chief scientific sdvisor, Patrick Vallance, said:

I expect people coming every day to be about… [1,000 admissions a day], it may go up a little bit. And in two or three weeks you would expect that to stabilise and to start to go down a bit.

‘That is not a rapid acceleration number. It is an important number, it is a difficult number to deal with and it is a number that NHS staff are clearly coping with in terms of what they are doing at the moment.

While Stevens clearly put a spin on admissions (“only going to increase”) that was alarmist, Vallance has revealed that admissions have more or less peaked. Vallance also said “the measures we are taking will stop the transmission, delay the transmission, reduce the amount of transmission in the community”, so inevitably linked the stabilisation to the UK Government’s response. However, it could alternatively be posited that people who approach the NHS with common or garden cold, or flu symptoms, or who were already exposed to the institution by residing in hospital, caught SARS-COV-2 because of that encounter. As there has been no testing to prove or disprove the range of SARS-COV-2 in the general populationǂ, but only modelling that has been shown to be flawed, there is no evidence to prove that the lockdown has had any effect, and none to disprove the hypothesis that the NHS gives people SARS-COV-2.

In fact, there is a kernel of truth to the idea that the NHS creates the phenomenon when the diagnosis is flawed. Without “Covid-19”, there is mostly severe comorbidity (primary illness, in fact), or flu or cold that has been designated “Covid-19”, or sickness by medication and treatment. The idea of the “Covid-19” as a standalone illness, and the extent to which it has caused death, has perhaps never as yet been established, and herein lies the reason for the rebranding to “death with/from coronavirus”.

Finally, turn our attention to critical care beds. In the previous FBEL article, it was demonstrated that data from ICNARC suggested that pressure on critical care beds might not be being sustained by admissions to hospital. Another piece of information that could be ascertained from the diagram that was inserted into that article was that, across the week 14th to 21st March, there was something like 400 admissions to critical care units in the UK. If the author is understanding the tables correctly, this rate is linked in the Imperial College modelling, in the best case scenario, to 26,000 deaths (over two years), and peak critical care unit occupancy of 2,700. By the way, the peak critical care unit surge capacity, says the annotation to this particular diagram, “is approximately 5000 beds”. One supposes that the weekly rate of admissions is something that would have been expected over an extended period of time. Now, as best as can be understood, the ICNARC reports on all critical care occupancy in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. According to the last report the organisation produced, there were 609 patients known to be occupying these units. The death toll is standing at 1,651.

Maybe there’s something awfully wrong with the Imperial College model?

† This has been discussed hereabouts before. The trick of semantics to replace “Covid-19” with “death with coronavirus” represents a retreat from the concept of a SARS-COV-2 infection in a host being solely responsible for a death. With “death with coronavirus”, or even “death from coronavirus”, all kinds of fatality can be attributed to the SARS-COV-2, even though without antibody tests there can be no means of proving an infection with SARS-COV-2 (meaning a state in the host where the coronavirus has replicated and could be related to illness, rather than a mere presence). Moreover, as the antibody tests are prone to contamination, as reportage is now suggesting, they cannot be trusted to reveal an infection with SARS-COV-2 either.

‡ We can deduce that the tests that have detected coronavirus are the PCR tests because i) this sort of test is the only one that has, up until very recently, been available, and even then the new antibody test has been restricted for use by NHS staff, and ii) according to Sky, “Sir Simon used his hospital visit to promise the number of Covid-19 tests for NHS staff will be doubled by the end of this week” and also that, “the tests are being offered first to critical care nurses, A&E staff and ambulance personnel” – all indicating that, indeed, antibody tests (which will test for Covid-19, the infection and ailment related to SARS-COV-2), are for NHS usage.

ǂ And then there is this (from today):

NHS England medical director Prof Stephen Powis said there were still some “green shoots”.

He said there was a “bit of a plateau” in the number of new cases despite the total rising to more than 25,000 cases overall.

Earlier in the epidemic the number of cases was doubling every three days, but the rate of increase is lower than that now. These are largely just the cases diagnosed in hospital as people with mild illnesses in the community are not being tested.