by Iain Davis
Having built Nightingales when they weren't needed, then dismantling them in preparation for when they could be, the State franchise then promised to reopen them too late. This even prompted consternation in the MSM [31] as they struggled to make the required pseudopandemic propaganda out of preposterous State policies.
Once again, the Nightingales weren't actually used [32] during the second wave either. They remained largely unusable [33] anyway, as they had no staff, and only treated a tiny number of patients, mainly non COVID 19 patients in Exeter.
Rather than doing anything useful to address the predicted crisis in the NHS, perhaps by utilising all the redundant hospital capacity, the UK State franchise instead focused upon spending millions on white elephants they couldn't staff and never used. The value of this to the NHS was nothing, in terms of the pseudopandemic narrative it was priceless. Not only did it allow informed influencers to claim they were taking action, it reinforced the public perception of an unprecedented crisis.
This perception was not born out by the evidence. Despite the never ending stream of MSM reports claiming COVID 19 had thrown the NHS into a crisis of unimaginable proportions [34], as usual, the propaganda didn't remotely reflect reality [35].
COVID 19 hospital admissions in the winter of 2020/2021 peaked on the 12th January. There were 5691 NHS England critical care beds available, of which 4905 were occupied. This represented an 82.3 % critical care bed occupancy rate. On January 12th 2020, before the pseudopandemic, there were 3652 available and 2996 occupied, representing an 82% occupancy rate. In 2019 the occupancy rate was 83.3%, it was 86.3% in 2018, 86.2% in 2017 and in 2015 it was 89.5%.
While critical care capacity had been expanded to treat COVID 19 patients there was no unusual pressure on critical care in England. The situation was identical in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The figures for general and acute admissions did show unusual demand. In fact we only need look at NHS Scotland's figures for outpatient attendances [36] to see what appears to be a massive reduction in healthcare, corresponding precisely with the first lockdown. Up to the end of September 2020 the NHS Scotland hospital bed occupancy rate was just 77%. A remarkably low figure.
Similarly in England, if we again take the peak admission date during the pseudopandemic "second wave" (January 12th 2021) there were 92,270 general and acute beds available of which 82,118 were occupied. This represented a bed occupancy rate of 89%. Taking the same date in 2020 (prior to the pseudopandemic) there were 98,399 available beds with 93,497 occupied. There were more beds and the occupancy rate was higher at 95%.
If we look at previous years, higher bed availability and occupancy rates are consistently observed. For example on 12th January 2015 there were 102,171 beds with 97,444 occupied. This represented a 95.4% occupancy rate. As we have discussed, there is no evidence of any unprecedented mortality during the pseudopandemic. This was the first pandemic (or epidemic) in human history to be characterised by fewer patients using less healthcare.
The addition of a few thousand critical care beds, at the cost of many more thousands of general and acute beds, meant that the NHS could potentially have been overwhelmed if it had continued to treat other conditions and provide public health services as normal. However, this risk was "managed," not by adding much needed usable capacity, but by severely restricting access to health services.
The key reason why so called "lockdown sceptics" were so heavily critical of the State franchise response to the pseudopandemic, particularly with regard to the NHS, was the terrible impact it would obviously inflict upon people suffering from every other condition. Regardless of the fact that lockdowns were known to be useless, it was the health impact of effectively shutting the NHS to everything but COVID 19 that worried people the most.
Again if we look at the statistics it seems clear that the lockdown itself was responsible for a huge number of unnecessary deaths. The core conspirators and their informed influencers could be confident that normal respiratory illness would account for significant winter mortality. The systems created for testing and mortality attribution more or less guaranteed that the bulk of normal ILI mortality would be called COVID 19.
Thus the reporting of a "second wave" of the pseudopandemic was secured. As the expected winter ILI's took their toll the resultant mortality was appended to the genuine COVID 19 statistics.
The situation was very different in March 2020. High ILI mortality was unlikely. Therefore it seems the lockdown was used as a policy weapon to exacerbate the scale of the mortality spike we saw. Office of National Statistics [37] data indicates how this was done.
In 2020 the five-year April average (calculated from the previous five years) for people dying in their own home was 9,384.6. However, in April 2020 that figure increased by more than 80% to 16,909. In the same month, deaths in care homes increased by more than 300% above the four-year average of 8,691 as 26,541 vulnerable older people died in care homes. An unseasonable spike in mortality of just over 25,000 people. A high proportion of those deaths were attributed to COVID 19.
On 17th March 2020 all NHS trusts and foundation trusts received a directive from the NHS Chief Executive [38] Simon Stevens instructing them on how to prepare for the pseudopandemic. Part of this orientation to a COVID only service included the immediate discharge of patients wherever possible. The was soon followed with the State franchises Coronavirus enabling Act which removed the duty of the NHS to make an assessment of the patient’s eligibility for NHS healthcare. In other words, the NHS could discharge patients without formerly assessing their ongoing healthcare needs.
Between the 17th March and 15th April 2020 [39] more than 25,000 vulnerable patients were discharged into chaotic, understaffed, PPE deprived care setting or back into their own homes. Not only did this happen regardless of their COVID 19 status, which was unknown in a significant proportion of patients, it was also absent ongoing healthcare assessment. The almost direct correlation between this practice and the April rise in COVID 19 mortality is stark.
The NHS directive issued by Simon Stevens also initiated GP video consultations and the practical withdrawal of primary healthcare. Not just from care homes but from family homes too. This coincided with a 57% decline in A&E presentations, as people were terrified by the MSM and the State, and obeyed the diktat to stay home and save the NHS.
There weren't fewer people suffering strokes or heart attacks, they just couldn't access primary healthcare and didn't go to hospital. Even if they called an ambulance, thanks to the restrictions placed upon ambulance services, ambulance response times soared [40] across the country. The average waiting time for a suspected stroke or heart attack rose to more than 32 minutes.
These factors all coalesced precisely with the sharp rise in mortality among people living in their own homes. To simply claim these were COVID 19 deaths, or attributable to the crisis, without a proper investigation is unconscionable.
The circumstantial evidence suggests that a great number of these deaths were hastened by lockdown and NHS policy, not COVID 19. Researchers at the Universities of Loughborough and Sheffield [41] considered the additional drivers of mortality. For the week of the 17th to 24th of April they estimated that likely mortality from COVID 19 was between 54% - 63% lower than the official record claimed.
In every year we see seasonal variations in mortality as the winter months account for more deaths than warmer periods. This variation is also typically seen in excess deaths in the home. Yet, throughout the pseudopandemic, excess deaths in the home were not only higher than average, they were consistently much higher.
While the April peak and normal winter increase is still observable, excess mortality in our own homes has never dropped close to, let alone below, the five-year average. Mortality from all other causes immediately increased [42] as soon as access to health service was denied. Corresponding precisely to the start of the first lockdown.
As early as May 2020 scientists, statisticians and public
health experts were expressing alarm about the increase in so called non-COVID deaths. The chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University David Spiegelhalter observed [43]:
"As soon as the pandemic started we saw a huge immediate spike in non-covid deaths in [private] homes that occurred close to the time hospitals were minimising the service they were providing....Over the seven weeks up to 15 May, as the NHS focused on covid, around 8800 fewer non-covid deaths than normal occurred in hospitals."
Either too afraid or unable to access health services, the UK public were dying in their own homes in increasing numbers. While most people would prefer to end their days at home, it is by no means clear how many of these deaths could have been prevented if there had been a fully functioning health service.
By July 2020 the ONS reported that the number of people dying in their own homes exceeded the total number from COVID 19 [44]. Remarkably the MSM managed to report this as the pseudopandemic "hastening some deaths." While acknowledging that deaths from COVID 19 were below the 5 years summertime average for ILI's, noting that deaths in the home were more than 12,000 above the average, Greg Seely from the ONS stated:
"Some of the causes involved in these deaths are conditions which can be quickly fatal without treatment if earlier symptoms aren’t treated. These include the heart and circulatory-related conditions, diabetes, appendicitis etc, most of which occurred at above average levels."
The MSM didn't report why more people were suddenly dying from non-communicable diseases at home. There was no suggestion that policy had anything to do with it. Although they did report that Mr Seely also said:
"Another explanation for these non-Covid increases is undiagnosed Covid."
COVID 19 wasn't mentioned on any of these people's death certificates. Why Mr Seely thought they might be due to COVID 19, and why the MSM reported it, is mystifying. Equally they might have been caused by tuberculosis or plane debris falling on their houses. But seeing as those causes weren't mentioned on their death certificates, there is no reason to think these were "undiagnosed" either.
The health costs of the effective withdrawal of significant parts of the health services were both predictable and known. In their report As If Expendable [45], the international human rights NGO Amnesty International highlighted the impact of the State franchises policies on the most vulnerable:
"The UK government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic violated the human rights of older people in care homes in England.....A full independent public inquiry should be established without further delay....Crucially, the inquiry should ...examine....key policies and decisions that have impacted the human rights of older people living in care homes in England, notably their rights to life, to health, to non-discrimination, to private and family life and to not be subjected to inhuman treatment."
While this acknowledgement of the devastation caused by the pseudopandemic policy response was welcome, once again we see the careful framing of the issue to be limited solely to errors, mistakes and the lessons to be learned:
"Lessons must be learned; remedial action must be taken without delay to ensure that mistakes are not repeated; flawed decision-making processes must be reviewed and rectified, and those responsible for negligent decisions must be held to account."
This prepares the ground for the extent of the debate when the inevitable public backlash arrives. As the magnitude of the disaster becomes apparent the discussions will be limited to "what more could have been done." The whole issues will be tied down in endless committees and long awaited reports that won't find any individual culpability but will blame a series of misjudgements made under extraordinary pressure.
Thanks to the 2005 Inquiries Act [46], the State franchise will have extensive control over any pseudopandemic public inquiries. At the behest of the core conspirators, the informed influencers will be able to deny the submission of evidence, withhold witness statements, and will have the power to edit findings before they are published. The whole sorry mess will take years, cost millions and, by the time it reports its findings, most people will have been distracted by the next crisis.
In 2019 The WHO stated that non communicable diseases [47], such as heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes and strokes were the world’s biggest killers. Yet these health conditions were largely pushed aside during the pseudopandemic. A resultant health crisis, orders of magnitude worse than COVID 19, was created. The impacts will be long lasting and take years to fully unfold, but there is no doubt, the lockdown cure was indeed much worse than the disease.
During the pseudopandemic, cancer screening and treatment [48] was put on hold in the UK and elsewhere. By June 2020 Cancer Research UK [49] estimate that 290,000 people had missed cancer follow ups, indicating that around 20,000 cancer sufferers, who would otherwise have been detected, remained without a diagnosis in the UK. They also found that 2.1 million people had missed screening appointment.
As early as February 2021 there had already been an 18.2% decrease in cancer diagnosis, corresponding to a 6.8% increase in Stage 4 cancers [50]. We are yet to see how extensive the impact of the cessation of cancer screening will be on cancer survival rates, but the early indications are worrying.
Researchers from Oxford University looked at the impact of first global lockdown and other restrictions on cancer treatment. Their finding made sombre reading [51]:
"In the US, large reductions in cancer registrations were observed for breast (-48%); prostate (-49%); melanoma (-48%); lung (-39%); colorectal (-40%), and hematologic cancers (-39%).. numbers of ICD codes for six cancers combined (breast, colorectal, lung, pancreatic, gastric, and oesophagal) fell by 46%.. At the largest cancer centre in southern Brazil, a 42% reduction in first-time appointments was reported during the pandemic.. In the Netherlands.. there was a 26% reduction in all cancers registered.. In India, the number of radiotherapy treatments dropped by almost 40%.. and operations by 80%.. In Italy, cancer diagnoses [fell] by 39% compared with the average in 2018 and 2019. Prostate cancer (75%), bladder cancer (66%) and colorectal cancer (62%) had the most significant decreases."
Every time a lockdown was imposed the situation deteriorated. The impact of the psychological manipulation of the UK public has already started to emerge. Male suicide hit a two decade high [52] in September 2020 and by early 2021 senior paediatricians warned that the number of children admitted to hospital for psychological reasons had surpassed those admitted [53] due to physical illness.
The closure of schools and living in isolated households with terrified parents had a sickening impact on children's mental health. The NHS survey [54] of the deterioration in the mental health of young people is distressing:
"In 2020, one in six (16.0%) children aged 5 to 16 years were identified as having a probable mental disorder, increasing from one in nine (10.8%) in 2017.....for the older age group (17 to 22 years); 27.2% of young women and 13.3% of young men were identified as having a probable mental disorder in 2020....Children aged 5 to 16 years with a probable mental disorder were more than twice as likely to live in a household that had fallen behind with payments (16.3%) than children unlikely to have a mental disorder (6.4%)"
The detrimental impact of poor mental health on life expectancy and health outcomes is well established. A study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association [55] demonstrated that mental health issues in early life are particularly damaging, finding that they reduce life expectancy by between 10-20 years.
It is deplorable that so many young people, who faced no risk at all from COVID 19, which almost exclusively affected people nearing or in end-of life care, have had their lives permanently blighted and shortened by the State franchise's pseudopandemic. The MSM insistence that children are still victims of the virus is a disgusting propagandist lie [56].
They are victims of the core conspirators determination to terrorise the public. It was MSM propaganda that convinced people to accept completely unnecessary sch
ool closures and reject the pleas of those trying to highlight the folly of this course. In terms of years of life lost [57] (YLL) the impact on young people's mental health alone will far exceed the years lost to COVID 19.
Unable to deny the obvious, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) published a report in July 2020 [58] that gave estimates of the projected non COVID 19 mortality. SAGE stated that these deaths were unavoidable due to the necessity of the suppression NPIs modelled by ICL. Although other scientists were pointing out that their models were junk science based on junk data [59].
SAGE suggested that 16,000 deaths would result in care homes, over a 12-month period; 6,000 deaths would occur due to a lack of emergency medicine, with 12,500 lives lost due to delays in healthcare and they predicted 30,000 deaths from undetected cancers, cancelled operations and the impacts of poverty over the next 5 years.
In December 2020 SAGE updated their predictions and estimated a possible 222,000 UK deaths, due to the pandemic [60]. They claimed 54% of these would be attributable to COVID 19 with just over 102,000 caused by "changes to health and social care made in order to respond to COVID-19."
Other researchers suggested these numbers utterly failed to grasp the scale of the health disaster caused by the pseudopandemic NPI response. Professor Philip Thomas from the University of Bristol calculated that the economic impact of lockdown policies could result in 560,000 non-COVID deaths [61]. This calculation assumed an average life lost of a few months, but given the age distribution of COVID 19 this comparison isn't unreasonable.
In January 2020 there were an estimated 1,649 people who had been waiting more than a year for NHS treatment. By January 2021 this figure stood at 304,044 [62]. The overall waiting list for non-urgent treatment stood at 4.59 million. Other than COVID 19 patients, the total number of people treated in the NHS for all remaining conditions dropped by 54% in one year. In February 2020, 2 million sought emergency hospital treatment, in February 2021 that figure was 1.3 million.