Will we next have to dress like that when going shopping?

 

They’re actually going to do it: make us wear muzzles if we want to visit shops. The reason? Because we still must be afraid, very afraid: there might-could-will be (possibly!) a 2nd wave of CV-19 and it’s our duty still to protect “Our Sacred Cow”, just in case. ‘Our MSM’ are already in full swing to nudge us into accepting this latest covidiocy – “you don’t want to kill innocent people, do you?” – while, as usual and thanks to Ofcom ‘guidance’, reasons for not wearing a muzzle are not being published. More on that below.

Firstly, here’s how government is going to do it: by amending the existing Public Health 1984 Act:

“The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 will be amended to allow police to issue fines of up to £100 to people who fail to wear a face covering in shops and supermarkets. Children under 11 years old and those with “certain disabilities” will be exempt.” (link)

We’ll have to wait and see what these ‘certain disabilities’ are. One point I can confidentially predict: people will need a ‘certificate’ from their GPs whom they cannot visit in surgeries because of CV-19, but never mind that. ‘Self-identification’ of exempting illnesses won’t be sufficient, not when government can fine us for non-compliance.

Moreover, this latest horse-bolted-stable-door exercise is yet another step towards a country where Ministers, on the advice of their Mandarins, can impose restrictions to our liberties. Here’s how this amendment will be made to pass. First, there’s the Coronavirus 2020 Act – explained here – which was passed on March 25th 2020. According to that legislation, Government must report on the effect of the legislation every two months. You can read the first report here. It was published on May 29th 2020. The next report would be due at the end of this month. 

Government in the form of Mr Hancock will apparently use this Coronavirus 2020 Act to amend the Public Health 1984 Act to make us wear masks. It all sounds so reasonable when one struggles through  the legalese, even the ‘explained’ legalese – see here  – but the fact remains: thanks to Fear & Hysteria which led to the passing of that Coronavirus 2020 Act, government can restrict our liberties any way they like, for the next 2 years. ‘Tis only sensible, after all: you don’t want to die and you don’t want to kill innocent people and you do want to protect “Our NHS”, correct?

The government and the ever so helpful MSM are already fully into making the wearing of muzzles palatable, with articles about how to wear those masks correctly (paywalled link) while others report on ‘public opinion’, with an apparent 50-50 split of Ayes or Noes to mask-wearing (link, paywalled). Then there’s an anonymous (of course!) government ‘adviser’ who came out with this:

“The Queen and Sir David Attenborough should be encouraged to pose in masks to help to normalise them, a government adviser has suggested.” (link, paywalled)

Yes, that will definitely work! I’m gonna dig out my faux-pearl necklace and wear it because the Queen wears pearls all the time, fersure! Of course, the reason for making us wear face diapers is ‘teh science’:

“Leading scientists have swung behind the importance of masks, after months of controversy over their use. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) was deeply divided over the evidence for masks, resulting in lukewarm endorsement of their use indoors in May. Government guidance for shops says only that face coverings may be “marginally beneficial” but that the evidence is weak.” (link, paywalled).

Thanks to the WHO, ‘scientists’ are now rethinking their former ‘lukewarm endorsement’:

“Scientific studies have shown that wearing face coverings over the mouth and nose may reduce the risk of an infected person passing the virus on to someone else. Last week, the World Health Organisation said there was “emerging evidence” that Covid-19 could be spread through particles in the air, […]” (link)

That woolly statement form the WHO, with the operative word “could”, not “does”, is sufficient for Johnson to make us into mask-wearers:

“Johnson said […] that scientific evidence was “growing” on the potential of masks to stop people spreading the droplets that cause infection. “In a confined space you’re protecting other people from the transmission that you might be giving off and they in turn are protecting you”. (link, paywalled)

Leaving aside the fact that this ‘evidence’ is only growing when one listens to the government-approved ‘scientists’ while any actual evidence to the contrary is being deleted from public discourse, especially when the mighty WHO has made a shilly-shallying pronouncement, I wonder why no-one in our beloved MSM asks how come that mask-wearing isn’t made compulsory in other ‘confined spaces’, such as offices. After all, any asymptomatic person could or might spread that virus in their office, no?

Yet again, it’s only in LockdownSceptics latest newsletter where you’ll find all the counter-arguments for mask-wearing. In that Newsletter Toby Young reports on a Newsnight item from last Friday, quoting the reporter verbatim:

“The debate is deeply political. Newsnight understands that the World Health Organisation committee that reviewed the evidence for the use of face coverings in public didn’t back them. But after political lobbying, the WHO now recommends them.” (link)

Yes – this is ‘teh science’ today: based on political lobbying. Toby Young also quotes this statement from the Newsnight report which shows in a nutshell why this mask-wearing covidiocy is being made compulsory:

“Robert Dingwall [professor at Nottingham Uni] was even more scathing: “It doesn’t matter whether the evidence is effective or not. The demand is that governments do something and what we’re seeing here I think is the latching on to the idea that masks are something that a government could do which is cheap, which is symbolic, but which is probably not particularly effective.” (link)

Just so! This is about politics, not about science. It’s about Johnson trying to make himself look good. It’s a public relations exercise, and never mind that this will not make people flock to High Street shops, to the contrary. You might like to take a look at this excellent compilation of scientific – not politicised-scientific – articles on mask wearing, also published by the now invaluable LockdownSceptics.

To round up today’s reports on CV-19, illustrating the idiocy and compliance pervading ‘Our MSM’, here are, in ascending order of inanity, three items:

Item # 1: According to a study by the ‘Academy of Medical Sciences’ (who that? No, me neither!), produced at the request of Sir Patrick Vallance (we know him):

“There could be 120,000 Covid-19 deaths in hospitals between September and June if transmission rates rise in combination with cold weather and a bad flu season, the government has been warned. The figure is given as the “reasonable worst-case scenario” in a report on what a “challenging” winter might look like.” (link, paywalled)

Therefore, “we” must be prepared and must prepare. Apologies when I regard mask-wearing akin to that famous elephant repellent joke.

Item # 2: Air pollution might raise Covid-death risks, according to a report in The Times. It’s not what you think – this is about air pollution caused by ‘intensive pig and chicken farming’. The numbers they produced are staggering:

“If concentrations in the most polluted municipality fell to the level of the least polluted, our results suggest this would lead to 82 fewer disease cases, 24 fewer hospital admissions and 19 fewer deaths, purely as a result of the change in pollution.” (link, paywalled)

By using the conditional ‘if — would’ these findings are hedged about, as usual. Never mind that we don’t know how, despite Lockdown, people close to such farms might have become infected. 

Item # 3: this is hilarious, or would be if it weren’t seriously affecting industries and economies around the globe: China is now banning food imports from international companies:

“China has banned the import of food from several international companies, including a British one, after samples tested positive for the coronavirus.Products from 23 companies have been barred after a packet of frozen shrimp from Ecuador was found to be carrying the virus.” (link, paywalled)

While I can understand that a British meat producer (pork, we’re told) has suspended their shipments after some employees tested positive for CV-19, this Chinese statement baffles me:

“Bi Kexin, director of food safety at China’s General Administration of Customs, told a press conference last week that customs officials had tested more than 200,000 samples of imported food, six of which, all related to the shrimp from Ecuador, tested positive for the virus.” (link, paywalled)

Why would the Chinese test so many imported food samples in the first place? Was the virus found on the packet or in the shrimps? We’re not told. Never mind though – the ‘solution’ is this:

“Public hygiene officials in Beijing urged residents to wear gloves while shopping and handling vegetables, fruit and seafood.”  (link, paywalled)

I expect the WHO will next endorse that ‘advice’ with politicised science, thus our government’s next  ‘measure’ will be making the wearing of gloves compulsory because it’s ‘teh science’. Doesn’t the Queen wear gloves all the time? Hm ….

Perhaps we should all stay at home, in permanent Lockdown, in permanent fear. That’s bound to decrease the ‘risk of CV-19 death’! Never mind that we might well die of all other medical conditions which cannot be treated by “Our NHS” because of CV-19. Above all, never mind giving up our freedom, our civil liberties – that’s such small price to pay for saving “Our NHS”!  

Why are we so compliant, putting up with government measures based on politicised ‘science’ which destroy our society? Is permanent exposure to Fear & Hysteria working, after all?

 

KBO!

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email