The CoronaDoom Fetishists claimed that if we didn’t do x, y and z then a zillion beings throughout the Milky Way would have died of covid1.
Team WTF (or Team Reality) had a similar problem in trying to say how things “would’ve” been different, but in the other direction.
We can’t change history - but we really should try to figure out what might have happened had things been done differently.
We can’t change the fact that some supposedly beneficial gunk got squirted into people’s bodies, nor can we undo the damage it has caused, to some.
In general, I’m of the school of thought that would posit the following
If X has a significant effect then it should be bloody obvious
It is hard to imagine something described as having a significant effect that, erm, requires complicated models, data fudging, and the burial of data for up to 75 years, in order to ‘prove’ its efficacy, its significance.
No models, no fudging, no hiding of data, are required if something has a real, significant, effect. The Great Foot Of Real-World Data, verily would it riseth at speed, and give your gonads an effect that can’t be overlooked.
Part of the problem when it comes to the CoronaDoom is that, for some inexplicable reason, ‘we’ chose to label any death within 28 days of a positive PCR test as a ‘covid’ death. It wasn’t just us here in the UK, but across the globe lots of previously sane and level-headed rational beings thought this was a jolly good idea. It was ludicrous and dumb. But it was also deliberate.
Lots of speculation abounds around the reasons for things like this. Our politicians, not wanting things (like their electability) to slip out of their greasy fingers, had to do something, to be seen to be in control. And so the great ship SS CoronaDoom was launched. That’s one theory.
But I have my doubts that this fully explains everything. We had (and still do), for example, Tony Blair, the ex-PM of the UK doing his best Ming the Merciless impression and arguing for blanket totalitarian measures because, erm, dunno - you tell me. That’s what we “should” do when faced with a virus that is broadly on a par with flu in terms of overall lethality, perhaps?
But until operation CoronaDoom had firmly established itself with military-grade propaganda nobody in their right minds would have considered what we did as appropriate or proportionate. Even up to 2019 all of the best scientific advice was to do almost the opposite of what we actually did in the event of a pandemic2.
So, when trying to figure out what the ‘vaccines’ did for us, it’s all a bit murky - and that’s before we consider all of the various statistical manipulations, attempts to hide data, outright refusal to release data, and obfuscation by complexity that the modelers indulged in.
But I’m going to stick with my principles and go with “it should be bloody obvious” as a decent yardstick - and one that doesn’t require a lot of fancy sounding terminology, or more degrees than a rectal thermometer3, to pontificate with.
Has the efficacy of the vaccines been obvious?
No it hasn’t. Not by a long shot.
You’d kind of think that the effect of something that is claimed to be 95% effective would be as obvious as the plot of your weekly soap.
If anything, by now, it seems more obvious, that the ‘vaccines’ have made things worse4. And getting your missus up the duff seems to have suddenly got a bit harder to do, too.
The “scientists” weep and wail and gnash their teeth and strut their expertise - you’re all thick, you need to stop doing your own research, the internet can’t be trusted - and yet they have to “explain” everything to us by pointing to obscure shit that few can properly understand.
Where’s the obvious, guys?
If you’ve got an appealing bulge, wear your skinny jeans proudly, and don’t try to hide it with cargo pants that were made for a hippo.
In one of my recent pieces I argued that, despite their recent appalling rep, models and modelling can be very useful. I illustrated this with a very simple ‘model’. I’m going to pick up on that a bit here.
In that piece I looked at cumulative ‘covid’ death and modelled each outbreak as a kind of ‘box’ function. I’m going to use that picture again here to illustrate some broad expectations. Here’s the cumulative ‘covid’ death curve for a few select countries according to OWID
One of the things that is obvious, at least pre-vaccines, is that the virus is seasonal and affected by climate. If you split countries into the various standard climate classifications there are striking patterns. I only did a very cursory squint at this for Europe (some time ago) - but the patterns were noticeable5.
The ‘flat bit’ in the cumulative death curves (not seen in the US which encompasses very different climate regions) is when the virus, like seasonal coronaviruses do, essentially disappeared for a bit.
So we’re going to represent each ‘wave’ as box - and squash them together (in reality the two boxes are some months apart). Here’s what we expect, broadly speaking
The first graph is our (broad) expectation for the ‘severity’ of a successive wave where everything stays the same. Even this is a bit debatable because the first wave might ‘take out’ the vulnerable and by the time the 2nd wave comes along there aren’t as many vulnerable people left. So we might expect to see a reduction even in this case (the ‘dry tinder’ effect).
The second graph illustrates what we might normally expect to see if we admit acquired immunity is a ‘thing’ (which those awfully clever and degreed to the hilt government ‘scientists’ managed not to admit). After the 1st wave, people who have been exposed or survived now have a degree of acquired immunity which affords protection against the outbreak’s 2nd wave.
The third graph illustrates what those who claim the vaccines “saved millions of lives” are, effectively, saying. The claim that there “would have been” an order of magnitude more death in covid’s 2nd year without the vaccines is implicitly making the claim that, for some reason, covid became something like 10 times more deadly (and even more deadly than this if you take into account disease acquired immunity).
But what’s our expectation for a really effective vaccine? I mean a normal expectation and not an ‘expectation’ driven by the Fantasy Modelers of Doom. Here’s what we expect from a good vaccine, that does what (pre-covid) vaccines are supposed to do.
We don’t understand seasonality of viruses properly, nor do we understand what ‘triggers’ them. It’s clear that the CoronaDoom was circulating well before the outbreaks around March/April went doo-lally. Why did it all suddenly take off then, and not before? Dunno. There are, clearly, pieces of the puzzle we’re missing.
But what’s really, really clear is that in the absence of vaccines, in temperate climes - Summer squashed it. To all intents and purposes the virus went away (folks, this is what an effective vaccine is supposed to do, but more permanently). What the ‘vaccines’ appear to have gifted us with is a viral family that no longer fully respects seasonality. Thankfully, the severity has diminished significantly (variant specific) - probably more by luck than anything else - but we have witnessed some very unnatural disease dynamics since the ‘vaccines’ were introduced. Unprecedented, one might say.
In terms of answering the question are we better, or worse, off for having undergone pretty much Pforced vaccination? - then I think we’re worse off. I could be wrong, of course, but it sure as shit ain’t obvious to me that we’re significantly better off. And it should be, if this Godawful Goo was half-decent at its job.
It is possible I’m exaggerating here, but only slightly. The virus was so friggin deadly in some people’s eyes that it could travel through firewalls and infect you over the internet - they even wore masks on Zoom calls to protect themselves, or others. Even Wolverine was worried that his recorded broadcast spreading the Gospel of Corona (a selfie) might infect others, and so he wore a mask (What a fucking wuss. Superhero my arse).
The UK’s own pandemic preparedness plans explicitly considered a scenario in which there was an outbreak of a novel coronavirus that was MORE lethal than the one we actually faced. Still didn’t recommend lockdowns or masks etc.
You have degrees, you say? So does a rectal thermometer, and you know what you can do with one of those
The persistent elevation of excess death (and in the ‘wrong’ demographics), for example, is either due to the vaccines or some new pathogen which we might call CoincidentaRona.
I stupidly forgot to include the y-axis labelling here when I did this, and I’ve forgotten now - so these graphs could be cases or deaths. I think they might be cases per million.
Let’s not forget event 201 at the Johns Hopkins university sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Mengala foundation ( I’m sure I spelled that wrong) where the entire Plandemic was war gamed out and broadcast for all to see only months before the exact scenario, in detail as if an amazing Time Machine had been utilised in the staging of said event, came true. Coincidence? Not a chance.
Lots of speculation abounds around the reasons for things like this.
…………
My children used to say to me, “but dad that’s so obvious” and I, a trial lawyer, would reply, “ I am well paid to state the obvious”. So let me state the obvious here as best I can.
The reason for the obvious misfeasance described in this article, including unreliable PCR tests, was the desire to save peoplekind from being wiped out by persuading everyone to get “vaccinated”.
Alternatively, the purpose of this obvious malfeasance was to fill the coffers of Pfizer and other Big Pharma evildoers with gazillions of all sorts and kinds of filthy lucre.