I see that Hancock is still promoting the lie of asymptomatic transmission. Without that lie, the whole house of cards - anti-social distancing, masks, closing hospitality and restricting day to day life - would collapse. aier.org/article/asympt…
I made my submission to the @HLConstitution Committee yesterday. Here are some submissions about the WHO's pandemic advice from as recently as October 2019. In short, it does not remotely support anything approaching lockdowns. apps.who.int/iris/bitstream…
The report gave the following advice:
(1)‘Active contact tracing is not recommended in general because there is no obvious rationale for it in most Member States. This intervention could be considered in some locations and circumstances to collect information on the characteristics of the disease...
This is a quite disgraceful and shameful update from the @barcouncil. Not *one word* on the government's decision - pushed through Parliament days after it was announced - to strip - without reservation - cardinal democratic and fundamental rights. r1.dmtrk.net/4CGD-YDFW-0545…
Not so much as a whisper about the fact that the government has, by secondary legislation imposed under an Act that was before never envisaged to give such widespread powers:
- Removed wholesale the right to protest - something that even this government has said, in representations to *Zimbabwe* should not be done in response to this very virus;
It is a dangerous delusion to think we can 'wait' for a vaccine. There certainly won't be a safe one soon.
Meanwhile, we are approaching community immunity in the south of England and the peak of infections in the north in October (see government dashboard)...
...and the plateauing of deaths (suggesting peak infections leading to deaths three weeks before, well before the introduction of 'tiers') suggests we are moving to it there.
The shocking level of conflicts of interest in SAGE (see further below) and in other medical committees throughout the world, demonstrate how little one can rely on them to advise any measures disinterestedly.
I've seen this reported twice. It is nonsense & appears to have been pushed to the media to discourage ppl from driving. In short, absent the commission of other offences, driving in any circumstances is almost certainly covered. news.sky.com/story/coronavi…
First, the new lockdown 'No. 4' Regulations impose no restrictions on a person from driving.
Secondly, the list of 'reasonable excuses' for being outside 'the place where [you] live' is inclusive not exclusive&includes exercise and recreation with no geographical restriction on where that may be. There is no mention of 'essential' save in respect of shops that may open.
I have been sent this by a concerned parent of a sixth former at a boarding school, who was sent it in turn. It is atrocious and would appear to amount to false imprisonment. It is all too typical of schools and universities so I use it to illustrate the gravity of this problem.
This is without prejudice to the contention that the Regulations themselves amount to false arrest. Even if that is right, an institution may be guilty of the offence and tort of false imprisonment if the restrictions they impose go beyond (here, well beyond) the law.
Two initial points.
First, the children are told they 'must' abide by the restrictions.
Secondly, it has been indicated to them that these restrictions are because of the law, when most of the restrictions emphatically are not.