COVID Inquiry findings

Lockdown worked quite well for New Zealand.

Not as much as it's hyped.....Lockdown didn't last as long as some think either.

There are geographic reasons why New Zealand initially did well.

Far less densely populated for one.

Regardless, the whole concept of lockdowns for an illness that has a five percent chance of killing the elderly is economic madness.

Sweden chose the least damaging route and the silence by the media and establishment since speaks volumes.

It was said by a few at the time and they weren't lying.
 
Not as much as it's hyped.....Lockdown didn't last as long as some think either.

There are geographic reasons why New Zealand initially did well.

Far less densely populated for one.

Regardless, the whole concept of lockdowns for an illness that has a five percent chance of killing the elderly is economic madness.

Sweden chose the least damaging route and the silence by the media and establishment since speaks volumes.

It was said by a few at the time and they weren't lying.
If there is any hyping being done it’s not over New Zealand, but over Sweden.

Sweden has roughly twice as many people as New Zealand but saw around four times as many deaths from Covid.

One aggressively locked down. The other didn’t.

What is conveniently forgotten by the anti lockdown, let it do it’s worst, hypocrites is that every country was facing a new disease, with no known cure, but with symptoms requiring hospitalisation for many and a significant mortality rate. Or so it seemed at the time.

Only as the ways to limit its spread became better understood and practiced and experience was gained could more accurate judgments be made. Until then extreme caution was needed, and taken.

Every country had to decide, given their demographics and the behaviour characteristics of the people, what was going to be the best management strategy. To apply one country’s strategy elsewhere attempts to ignore that. Sweden thought social distancing would be enough for them. Others, New Zealand included didn’t. Which proved the wisest decision depends on how you value life against the cost of preserving it.

The game changer were the vaccines, which alongside the greater understanding, allowed us to slowly push Covid into the same category as the flu.

Of course those opposing lockdowns also seemed to be the group who decided to oppose the vaccines.

Why is this? I think it’s much more to do with a general antipathy to authority than to anything else. They don’t like being told what to do.
 
A friend of mine was visiting his son in New Zealand when they locked down. He was there for several months as a consequence, but in a warm climate with family, so not too discomforted. Arranging the flights home when it was relaxed wasn’t easy though.

They went early and hard. It paid dividends.
Although not early in terms of the vaccine, late in fact.
 
If there is any hyping being done it’s not over New Zealand, but over Sweden.

Sweden has roughly twice as many people as New Zealand but saw around four times as many deaths from Covid.

One aggressively locked down. The other didn’t.

What is conveniently forgotten by the anti lockdown, let it do it’s worst, hypocrites is that every country was facing a new disease, with no known cure, but with symptoms requiring hospitalisation for many and a significant mortality rate. Or so it seemed at the time.

Only as the ways to limit its spread became better understood and practiced and experience was gained could more accurate judgments be made. Until then extreme caution was needed, and taken.

Every country had to decide, given their demographics and the behaviour characteristics of the people, what was going to be the best management strategy. To apply one country’s strategy elsewhere attempts to ignore that. Sweden thought social distancing would be enough for them. Others, New Zealand included didn’t. Which proved the wisest decision depends on how you value life against the cost of preserving it.

The game changer were the vaccines, which alongside the greater understanding, allowed us to slowly push Covid into the same category as the flu.

Of course those opposing lockdowns also seemed to be the group who decided to oppose the vaccines.

Why is this? I think it’s much more to do with a general antipathy to authority than to anything else. They don’t like being told what to do.


The demographic and behavioural characteristics of a population are always going to shape how effective any strategy is. The trouble is that the strategy only works if people actually follow it.

I still remember driving through Leicester during the local lockdown. Groups in the area had put out statements saying COVID was disproportionately affecting the local Asian community and that the restrictions were unfair because they punished larger families who needed to support each other. Fair enough in theory. Then you drove through in June 2020 and there was basically no social distancing happening anywhere. That’s the issue in a nutshell. You can design the perfect rules, but none of it matters if people don’t comply.

New Zealand gets held up as the ideal case, but it’s an island with a completely different demographic and geography. The UK is a patchwork of communities with wildly different living situations, population densities, and cultural habits. Predictably, some areas were hit much harder than others.

I lost a parent to COVID. They were isolating, went out a couple of times, caught it, and that was that. At the same time, I was running a business and watching the financial side collapse around me and my clients. So I’ve had both sides of this fall on my head. Hindsight is flawless, but only once the dust has settled and all the data is neatly arranged in a report no one wants to read.

Lockdowns only work if people follow them. If not, you either police it or accept it won’t hold. And the demographic mix determines how realistic either option is. Whoever was in power was stuck with a thankless, lose-lose job.

The debate has now become two immovable camps. One side says everything should have shut down to save lives. The other insists freedom should trump everything and the weak would have to get through it. Neither group will concede anything.

Did lockdowns save lives? Yes. Did they cause long-term damage? Also yes. I’ve got someone working for me whose child missed nursery because of restrictions and now struggles with social interaction and anger. On the other hand, my parent died. How is anyone supposed to weigh that? You can’t make those choices cleanly when you’re living through it, not reading about it twenty years later with perfect clarity.

Every group, whether cultural, age-related, disability-related, anti-immigration, pro-freedom, whatever, believes their rights should come first. Someone in government had to make a decision anyway. Were all of those decisions right? No. Were they made with the intention of doing harm? Also no.

We shouldn’t compare the UK to anywhere else. The conditions aren’t the same, the people aren’t the same, and pretending they are just creates more shouting. What we can do is learn from it. But the core remains the same: rules, regulations, guidelines, lockdowns, whatever you call them, only work if people are actually prepared to follow them.

Using that same logic with other arguments: you’ve often claimed Britain should have held another referendum to rejoin the EU because the outcome affects younger people more than older voters like yourself. But follow that reasoning through. By that standard, we shouldn’t have had lockdowns either, because younger people were far more likely to survive COVID than elderly pensioners such as you. Yet nobody seriously argued that pensioners should be written off for the sake of the under-30s.

Once you start ranking one group’s interests above another’s, the whole thing collapses. People dig in, become entrenched, and stay utterly convinced they’re right, no matter how messy the reality actually is.

Take World War II as an example. People were conscripted, sent to fight, and many never came home. It was devastating for the families involved, but the wider reality was that the country had to survive what was happening across Europe. A government made one decision in the present that carried horrible immediate consequences, yet was judged necessary for long-term survival.

And likewise, a single decision can delay pain today and cause far greater damage tomorrow. That’s the uncomfortable truth behind all of this: you never know the full impact of a decision until long after it’s been made. Judging those choices with hindsight ignores what it was actually like to make them in real time, under pressure, with incomplete information.

And that leads to the final point. The people in power had to make decisions, just as you say they should. Hindsight is always 20-20. Anyone in government at that point, regardless of party, would have got some things right and some things wrong. There’s no scenario where any leader navigates that perfectly. Throwing blame around now doesn’t bring anyone back and doesn’t fix the damage done. I certainly don’t hold them personally responsible for what happened to my family. COVID was bigger than any one politician, and decisions were made with the information available at the time but lockdowns undoubtedly have caused some issues, that everyone is going to be paying for for years
 
An unpopular view, maybe, but.....

Why does everything have to be someones fault?

It was an unprecedented situation handled by a group of people unprepared for it, who had to juggle the needs of many shouting voices (many of which uneducated/unprepared also) and I charge any other group of people to have fared different/better in the circumstances.

Decisions were made based on advice from advisors and mistakes were made. Different people will do different things and make different mistakes.

I understand many people died, and it's a massive deal, but it's conjecture to say that a different/better/worse outcome would have resulted had the findings made in hindsight been followed at the time.

They did what they thought best at the time for the people and the country. If I was in BJ's position, and tried to navigate the country through this sh*tstorm, then found out that someone wanted to put me in prison for Manslaughter for it...sheesh.
 
Last edited:
An article from the reliable BBC in February 2020:


"The UK government's scientific advisers believe that the chances of dying from a coronavirus infection are between 0.5% and 1%."

Absolutely ridiculous to close down society over a virus that the chances of dying were between 0.5 and 1 percent. Was paralysing the world economy, education systems, and daily life truly worth it?

As far as I know the seasonal flu, kills around 0.1 percent yet we don't shut down schools or businesses or the rest of society over it.

It's insanity when you think about it. Lockdowns didn't just "flatten the curve" they destroyed global economy, mental health collapsed and suicide attempts among young people soared. Kids also lost years of schooling.

A 0.5 - 1 percent average risk did not justify any of it.
 
An unpopular view, maybe, but.....

Why does everything have to be someones fault?

It was an unprecedented situation dealt handled by a group of people unprepared for it, who had to juggle the needs of many shouting voices (many of which uneducated/unprepared also) and I charge any other group of people to have fared different/better in the circumstances.

Decisions were made based on advice from advisors and mistakes were made. Different people will do different things and make different mistakes.

I understand many people died, and it's a massive deal, but it's conjecture to say that a different/better/worse outcome would have resulted had the findings made in hindsight been followed at the time.

They did what they thought best at the time for the people and the country. If I was in BJ's position, and tried to navigate the country through this sh*tstorm, then found out that someone wanted to put me in prison for Manslaughter for it...sheesh.
The UK was at the front of the vaccine development which must have saved immeasurable lives worldwide
 
If there is any hyping being done it’s not over New Zealand, but over Sweden.

Sweden has roughly twice as many people as New Zealand but saw around four times as many deaths from Covid.

One aggressively locked down. The other didn’t.

What is conveniently forgotten by the anti lockdown, let it do it’s worst, hypocrites is that every country was facing a new disease, with no known cure, but with symptoms requiring hospitalisation for many and a significant mortality rate. Or so it seemed at the time.

Only as the ways to limit its spread became better understood and practiced and experience was gained could more accurate judgments be made. Until then extreme caution was needed, and taken.

Every country had to decide, given their demographics and the behaviour characteristics of the people, what was going to be the best management strategy. To apply one country’s strategy elsewhere attempts to ignore that. Sweden thought social distancing would be enough for them. Others, New Zealand included didn’t. Which proved the wisest decision depends on how you value life against the cost of preserving it.

The game changer were the vaccines, which alongside the greater understanding, allowed us to slowly push Covid into the same category as the flu.

Of course those opposing lockdowns also seemed to be the group who decided to oppose the vaccines.

Why is this? I think it’s much more to do with a general antipathy to authority than to anything else. They don’t like being told what to do.

Of course those opposing lockdowns also seemed to be the group who decided to oppose the vaccines.

And they are probably the same people who couldn’t understand why the hundreds of undocumented individuals turning up on our southern shores were allowed in. Presumably COVID didn’t affect uninvited ‘travelers’…
 
An unpopular view, maybe, but.....

Why does everything have to be someones fault?

It was an unprecedented situation handled by a group of people unprepared for it, who had to juggle the needs of many shouting voices (many of which uneducated/unprepared also) and I charge any other group of people to have fared different/better in the circumstances.

Decisions were made based on advice from advisors and mistakes were made. Different people will do different things and make different mistakes.

I understand many people died, and it's a massive deal, but it's conjecture to say that a different/better/worse outcome would have resulted had the findings made in hindsight been followed at the time.

They did what they thought best at the time for the people and the country. If I was in BJ's position, and tried to navigate the country through this sh*tstorm, then found out that someone wanted to put me in prison for Manslaughter for it...sheesh.
I had to reply. An objective analysis that I agree with totally. The world was caught offside and it did not matter who was in control there would have been mistakes and misjudgements. As Dick Cheyenne once memorably said - s*** happens! I lost my Mum right at the outset- she had dementia but that care home had Covid within so the death certificate said Covid. Not she didn’t die of Covid but of dementia and she was 90! Don’t eternally point the finger - move on people!
 
I had to reply. An objective analysis that I agree with totally. The world was caught offside and it did not matter who was in control there would have been mistakes and misjudgements. As Dick Cheyenne once memorably said - s*** happens! I lost my Mum right at the outset- she had dementia but that care home had Covid within so the death certificate said Covid. Not she didn’t die of Covid but of dementia and she was 90! Don’t eternally point the finger - move on people!
Sorry for your loss, mate. You’ve highlighted a potential problem that over emphasised COVID deaths; namely, if you had anything else and you had COVID then the latter was given as the cause. It may have contributed (I don’t know) but I am not sure how many truly healthy people COVID took.
 
An article from the reliable BBC in February 2020:


"The UK government's scientific advisers believe that the chances of dying from a coronavirus infection are between 0.5% and 1%."

Absolutely ridiculous to close down society over a virus that the chances of dying were between 0.5 and 1 percent. Was paralysing the world economy, education systems, and daily life truly worth it?

As far as I know the seasonal flu, kills around 0.1 percent yet we don't shut down schools or businesses or the rest of society over it.

It's insanity when you think about it. Lockdowns didn't just "flatten the curve" they destroyed global economy, mental health collapsed and suicide attempts among young people soared. Kids also lost years of schooling.

A 0.5 - 1 percent average risk did not justify any of it.
I agree with all that.

The average age of death with "covid" was 82 or 84 i can't remember exactly. So why schools were shut down, makes no sense. Unless we realise it was done for other reasons.

So with all the admitted numbers from your bbc report. The public still fell for it. A master class in mind control I have to admit


I'm also of the belief that there was no new novel disease. The real disease was the fake vaccine which has caused untold death and injury.

The reasons for not believing it was a new disease is simple. Firstly the "virus" was never isolated and didn't go through the correct processes to claim to be new.

The flu disappeared for the duration of the "pandemic". According to the world health organisation - no new cases of flu happened.

The Pcr test which is crucial to the scam, was not a test but a dna amplification tool.

Run the pcr test over a certain amount of cycles and you will always get a positive. Even tony fauci admitted this. The pcr test inventor kacy mullis is on record as saying, that if the test is used over a certain amount of cycles you will find anything.

So the government's of the world could either make the tests higher or lower; depending on how much they felt was necessary for the public to react in fear and be controlled.

My feelings on new Zealand having lower positive tests are probably down to them testing at a lower amplification. This enabled New Zealand to become the poster child for lockdowns. That women forcing many to take an experimental medical procedure to keep their jobs.

Most people fell for the scam. The fact that some still do is incredibly sad and are lost causes

The enquiry suggesting an earlier lockdown is just preparing the people for the next lockdown.
 
I agree with all that.

The average age of death with "covid" was 82 or 84 i can't remember exactly. So why schools were shut down, makes no sense. Unless we realise it was done for other reasons.

So with all the admitted numbers from your bbc report. The public still fell for it. A master class in mind control I have to admit


I'm also of the belief that there was no new novel disease. The real disease was the fake vaccine which has caused untold death and injury.

The reasons for not believing it was a new disease is simple. Firstly the "virus" was never isolated and didn't go through the correct processes to claim to be new.

The flu disappeared for the duration of the "pandemic". According to the world health organisation - no new cases of flu happened.

The Pcr test which is crucial to the scam, was not a test but a dna amplification tool.

Run the pcr test over a certain amount of cycles and you will always get a positive. Even tony fauci admitted this. The pcr test inventor kacy mullis is on record as saying, that if the test is used over a certain amount of cycles you will find anything.

So the government's of the world could either make the tests higher or lower; depending on how much they felt was necessary for the public to react in fear and be controlled.

My feelings on new Zealand having lower positive tests are probably down to them testing at a lower amplification. This enabled New Zealand to become the poster child for lockdowns. That women forcing many to take an experimental medical procedure to keep their jobs.

Most people fell for the scam. The fact that some still do is incredibly sad and are lost causes

The enquiry suggesting an earlier lockdown is just preparing the people for the next lockdown.
Just get on with living. Vaccine might just be the reason you are still here!
 
Just get on with living. Vaccine might just be the reason you are still here!
Do you honestly think after all I've just written , I'd be stupid enough to take an unproven experimental procedure.

Please feel free to debate what I have written. Otherwise good luck with trying to patronise me.

Unfortunately there are many not "living" because of the "vaccine"

I'll put you down with the lost causes.
 
Do you honestly think after all I've just written , I'd be stupid enough to take an unproven experimental procedure.

Please feel free to debate what I have written. Otherwise good luck with trying to patronise me.

Unfortunately there are many not "living" because of the "vaccine"

I'll put you down with the lost causes.
I will debate with an open mind - but not with those that are closed. I am now going to enjoy a glass of wine. I recommend you do the same.
 
Just out of interest - did you have a smallpox or polio vaccine? Vaccine eradicated those awful diseases. And as regards Covid - you might have exercised your right not to have it but millions did which might have had a beneficial effect for everyone. Wine is very good by the way!
 
Just out of interest - did you have a smallpox or polio vaccine? Vaccine eradicated those awful diseases. And as regards Covid - you might have exercised your right not to have it but millions did which might have had a beneficial effect for everyone. Wine is very good by the way!
And as a result of replying to you I missed what happened in the Man U game resulting in the sending off!!!!!!!!!
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top