We need to get this message out.
We have average levels of triage for respiratory infections, below average hospital admissions for and deaths from acute respiratory infections. The focus on statistics derived from flawed PCR tests are causing destructive fear and policies.
The Grounds and the witness statement (containing the evidential basis of the claim) by @mikegardner_wb in the new judicial review against the Rule of Six and other recent regulations have now been published (see below).
Ground One argues that the use of the emergency procedure (under s 45R of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (as amended) was unlawful in the absence of any rational basis for considering these regulations to be urgent or (further and alternatively) necessary.
Ground Two mirrors the first ground in the Dolan (No. 1), the challenge to the original 'lockdown' regulations that is to be heard in the Court of Appeal on 29th October. It argues that the use of the 1984 Act for regulations as far reaching as these is unlawful.
Very interesting on the government’s assessment of the efficacy of community mask wearing, by Jen who has been challenging the face covering regulations.
This is obvious and has been said from the start. Mask wearing in the community inevitably increases the likelihood of spread through touch *if* a person has the virus and is symptomatic (they are otherwise v unlikely to spread it).
This will always be done given the way in which masks are and it was known would be worn. And it is particularly likely in circumstances where people put on and take off masks...
Not just following a positive test, following ‘close contact’ with someone who has had one.
This is a deprivation of liberty that does not fall within the exception to Article 5 of the ECHR (Enhorn v Sweden). It is also false imprisonment.
There is no empirical basis for saying that *anyone* in close proximity with one individual who *might* have been infectious (and the PCR test is a deeply inaccurate test of whether they are) is ‘potentially infectious’.
To suggest that would be to enlarge the category to the extent that it was meaningless. It would include anyone who had shared a train carriage, And, where deprivation of the most fundamental of rights is concerned, any exceptions must be carefully constrained.
I hope that anyone waking up to reflect that riot police broke up peaceful political protests at two of the world centres of freedom of speech - Trafalgar Square and Speakers Corner - feels ashamed of what this once great country has become.
It also appears that the police acted unlawfully in breaking up the protest. The two relevant parts of reg. 5 of the No. 2 Regs (as amended) are below. If the risk assessment was undertaken and the organiser took reasonable steps to limit transmission, the protest was lawful.
It doesn’t cease to be so by virtue of the behaviour of the protesters if (which is not established) they didn’t comply with the risk assessment.