Here is what the government’s SPI-M modelling group says about the next step to ending lockdown:
It is highly likely that there will be a further resurgence in hospitalisations and
deaths after the later steps of the Roadmap. The scale, shape, and timing of any
resurgence remain highly uncertain; in most scenarios modelled, any peak is smaller
than the wave seen in January 2021, however, scenarios with little transmission reduction
after Step 4 or with pessimistic but plausible vaccine efficacy assumptions can result in
resurgences in hospitalisations of a similar scale to January 2021.
Maintaining baseline measures to reduce transmission once restrictions are lifted
is almost certain to save many lives and minimise the threat to hospital capacity.
Even accounting for some seasonal variation in transmission, the peak could occur in
either summer or late summer/autumn. It is possible that seasonality could delay or
flatten the resurgence but is highly unlikely to prevent it altogether.
So, a third resurgence, according to the government’s modellers, is almost certain to occur, if not in summer, then in autumn, and it will be bad, unless we all behave ourselves by complying with ongoing restrictions.
So, what was the point of the ‘vaccines’ you ask. Well, Pol Pot Belly has already informed us that it is the lockdowns which are mainly responsible for the observed decline in deaths, hospitalisations and infections, not the vackseens. So there. You got jabbed for nothing. Naturally, there has been a huge outcry and the terminally stupid have been very effectively ‘nudged’ into defending the mass vaccination program on the basis that it has demonstrably reduced deaths and hospitalisations. Those who got the ‘vaccine’ in order to return to normal just can’t believe they were suckered into getting the jab for nowt and that it had nothing to do with the observed decline in deaths and hospitalisations, so they’ve angrily reacted to the suggestion on Twitter:
It’s science, innit. The ‘vaccines’ must have caused the decline. Even the Telegraph says so. They’ve identified the ‘vaccine effect’:
Let’s just forget about the fact that the ‘vaccines’ caused ‘Covid outbreaks’ in the over 80s shall we and let’s just forget about seasonality and the very high possibility that herd immunity has been achieved in the UK, even before the rollout of the ‘vaccines’. Let’s just conveniently forget that they are not demonstrated to reduce the severity of symptoms in the over 80s or reduce the rates of transmission or infection. Let’s forget all that and just say ‘the vaccines worked; they must have worked otherwise I am going to look like a complete idiot for having been conned into getting jabbed when I’m not personally at risk’.
But the bad news is Johnson was right; they don’t work, or at least they don’t work very well. SPI-M-O confirms it:
The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have
received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60% and 70% of the wave
respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age
groups, such that immunisation failures account for more serious illness than unvaccinated individuals.
This is discussed further in paragraphs 55 and 56.
‘Immunisation failures’ leading to the vulnerable getting infected, hospitalised and dying. Just like the 1st and second waves then, without the life saving ‘vaccines’. That’s a lot of ‘immunisation failures’ for 95% effective ‘vaccines’.
Who becomes seriously ill in a resurgence?
Figure 11 illustrates the age and vaccination status of those hospitalised (left) and dying
(right) over time in Warwick ’s central scenario for the whole Roadmap (equivalent to Figure
4). The top plots are absolute numbers and the bottom plots are as a proportion of those
admitted or dying.
This shows that most deaths and admissions in a post-Roadmap resurgence are in
people who have received two vaccine doses, even without vaccine protection
waning or a variant emerging that escapes vaccines. This is because vaccine uptake
has been so high in the oldest age groups (modelled here at 95% in the over 50-year olds).
There are therefore 5% of over 50-year olds who have not been vaccinated, and 95% x
10% = 9.5% of over 50-year olds who are vaccinated but, nevertheless, not protected
against death. This is not the result of vaccines being ineffective, merely uptake
being so high.
Oh right, so because so many vulnerable people got jabbed, this means that a resurgence of deaths and hospitalisations will inevitably involve mainly the ‘vaccinated’, but this doesn’t mean that the ‘vaccines’ are not effective, just not perfect. We must therefore presume that lots more people would otherwise get sick and die in a third (Or is it fourth? I’m losing count) wave if they hadn’t been ‘vaccinated’. This is bullshit because it assumes that vaccination is far more effective than infection-acquired or prior natural immunity, not just in the vulnerable, but in those people getting infected and thus transmitting the virus to others in a new resurgence.
An alternative, deeply unsettling explanation for why the government considers a resurgence of hospitalisations and deaths among the ‘vaccinated’ to be likely is that the ‘vaccines’ may indeed make the ‘vaccinated’ more susceptible to infection and serious disease than had they not been ‘vaccinated’ at all. It’s not like this is beyond the realms of possibility. ‘Vaccine’ trials for SARS-CoV-1 (which is 80% genetically the same as SARS-CoV-2) were halted because all the ferrets injected with the ‘vaccine’ died when they were subsequently exposed to the wild type virus. This is called antibody dependent enhancement. It’s also a matter of fact that those recently jabbed are more likely to get infected than those who are not ‘vaccinated’ (see my previous posts). Even after two doses, an Israeli study found that the ‘vaccinated’ were eight times more likely to get infected with the South African variant B.1.351. So, if this variant starts spreading in the UK this summer, what do you think is going to happen?
Here’s an interesting article with lots of graphs showing Covid ‘outbreaks’ in many countries worldwide, alongside vaccine rollouts. Here is what the author says (my bold):
But what is very clear looking at data worldwide, is that vaccinations are certainly not associated with a reliable fall in covid cases in any predictable timeframe. This, alongside the observations in the trial, surely must be addressed. What is happening here? Is it just that vaccinations are coincidentally being rolled out at the same time as outbreaks are due? In very many places?
Or is the vaccine not working immediately? If not, why not? How long does it take to see an effect of infection reduction at a population and individual level?
Or is the vaccine making people more susceptible to infection? If this is the case (which is biologically plausible according to many we are in touch with), is this a temporary effect? What causes it? Should we mitigate against it? Should we ensure people are vaccinated in a low covid environment? Do vaccinated people need extra protection immediately following vaccination?
How long does it take for any increased susceptibility to diminish?
We must know the answers to these questions. Vaccinations are intended to be offered to every man, woman and child in the country, even though many people simply are not susceptible to covid, or have seen off an infection easily. We must understand what the benefit to the community is before we can assess the risk of vaccination properly to the individual if most individuals are only to be vaccinated for the benefit of the community.
We are told that everyone must be vaccinated. But then that restrictions still can’t end even after that has happened. Why is that? Is it because the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission? How can free informed consent be given under these conditions?