Facts and data have debunked coronavirus and the lockdown.
The Daily Mail has been relatively good throughout the hoax, despite the obvious fact that hyping up hysteria tends to be the bread and butter of British tabloids.
They’ve found yet another study disproving the idiotic claims of the government.
Britain’s coronavirus outbreak may have been under control before lockdown was enforced, according to a study that throws into question whether the draconian measures were ever needed.
Data modelling by a mathematician at Bristol University suggests the spread of Covid-19 throughout the UK had peaked days before Boris Johnson introduced the unprecedented curbs.
The calculation is based on a growing body of data that indicates the average Covid-19 victim dies 23 days after being infected.
The darkest days in the UK’s outbreak were on April 8 and 9, when more than 2,000 people passed away from the virus, official figures show.
Professor Simon Wood believes most of these patients were infected between March 18 and 19 – 23 days earlier – and five days before the country locked down.
He claims that banning large gatherings and telling people to keep two metres apart would have been sufficient to keep the virus under control.
The study throws into question whether Britain’s lockdown was needed amid claims social distancing policies announced on March 16 curbed the crisis on their own.
It comes after similar research in Norway also found the spread of the virus fell fairly quickly there by the time people were ordered to stay at home.
Camille Stoltenberg, head of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH), even admitted last month that locking down was unnecessary.
Professor Wood said: ‘The most notable feature of the results is that fatal infections are inferred to be in substantial decline before lockdown.’
He said it was possible that social distancing ‘might have done the trick’ in bringing down Covid-19 cases and deaths without heavy-handed measures.
Professor Wood said if a second wave hits Britain then ministers should consider ‘ethical issues’ of locking down again and whether it would claim more life than it saves.
Writing in the study, which is published on the open access research site arXiv but not yet scrutinised by other scientists, said a second lockdown could be disastrous for the nation’s wellbeing.
Commenting on the findings, Professor Carl Heneghan – a leading expert at the University of Oxford and staunch critic of the lockdown – said Professor Wood’s analysis was in line with data from the Royal College of GPs (RCGP).
Professor Heneghan said RCGP figures show infection rates halved in the week beginning March 15 – at the time when social distancing was enforced.
We have yet to find an epidemiologist or virologist not getting paid by the government and with no ties to the WHO or Bill Gates who agrees with the government response to the virus. We’ve seen a renowned epidemiologist and successful doctors being censored in social media for stating their informed opinions, we’ve already seen studies claiming that the lockdown is useless, and we’ve even seen studies showing that infections actually decrease after lifting the lockdown.
We’ve also seen studies putting coronavirus at the same threat level as the flu.
But what studies is the government even seeing?
We do not know.
Considering the wide array of research and data exposing coronavirus as something only as dangerous as the flu and the lockdown as completely useless, shouldn’t the government officials show people the studies that they’re using to back their actions up?
Of course, they won’t do that, because they’re literally not using anything other than projections — and by projections, I mean graphs they pulled out of their asses — to back these insane house arrest and social distancing mandates up.
All of this is part of some kind of plan to radically change normal life, and to impose what they call “the New Normal.”
At least people can quote real studies to fight back against the brainwashing.