Eradicating a virus. 'Protecting the Hoard, not the Herd': a political economic choice, not a health and medical choice.

By slowing down rather than stopping the spread of infection the UK government are guaranteeing that the bulk of the population will become infected and the mortality rate for vulnerable people will stay the same, it will just happen more slowly.

The 'shut-down' policy was sold as an attempt to ensure NHS and other health services do not collapse under a 'short term' burden.  They ordered the isolation of all elderly people and known cases of immune compromised chronic conditions, without any provision to protect them from the spread.

That theory was destroyed by the lack of PPE, shortages of trained staff, lack of other supplies, kit and logistical support which the Government was warned about, in detail, from Operation Cygnus in 2016 and throughout January 2020. All deliberate choices by this Government and it's predecessors.

The UK Government had time to prepare, they had the time to stop and check and quarantine the inflow of infected people from abroad,  via air travel and cruises, and land be they immigrants, returning holiday makers or business travellers.

Merely slowing down the spread of infection is exactly what the Chinese, Koreans , Singaporeans and Taiwanese did NOT contemplate - they went for eradication - find every case, quarantine all contacts, treat everyone who is symptomatic in isolation hospitals, maintain vigilance, deal with outbreaks rapidly until no new cases emerge after two months.

This is an imperfect method, in that it cannot find every single case in one swoop. It is a method that takes time and resources, and importantly must be very well understood by the population that is infected and engaged with as such. Communication must be clear, exact, honest and 100% evidence based. Support for everyone affected must be provided by the State, in terms of resources, living wage income protection, treatment facilities and social welfare. It includes maintaining vigilance, so that even after a two month period of no new infection, the readiness to respond to a new infection remains active and agile. When we know the virus has no new hosts, say after 6 months, then we know that that particular virus has been eradicated. This is entirely possible. The only barrier is economic or political will."

Then we know the virus has no new hosts, and is eradicated.

Maintain vigilance, and maintain capacity to respond rapidly to every new outbreak to isolate it and eradicate that infection spread in that locality.

Slowing down was merely always a staging step towards eradication. It should never be set as a move on it's own.

The UK Government has no intent or policy of eradication of the virus in the population - this is insane, especially on an island.

Their decision is not based on epidemiology or public health - it is a purely economic political decision. Slowing down the spread, and what it means. Data modelling and behavioural sciences!

Slowly is ten thousand preventable, horrific deaths in two weeks and rising.

Slowly is grinding on in spite of avoidable shortages of PPE for front line health workers, and the attrition rate that has on frontline staff.

Slowly is interminable when there is no contact tracing, and no testing happening in the UK.

This is eugenics by default, straight up.

It is not intentional eugenics. They are not that evil.

It is not that they want us dead, it is that in order to protect their status and their material power and wealth (their assets) they will abandon the most vulnerable. (everybody else).

As in The Vatican hiding away abusers to protect their status. This is a well known pattern of behaviour.

The 'wanting us dead'  narrative is hype, beloved of conspiracy theories and it tends to undermine effective understanding of the situation.

The reality is much worse, far more chaotic and random, and thus more tractable because the illusion of total control is an illusion - a theory if you will.

What does slowly mean, in a conservative estimate?

In the UK 10% of known immune compromised people  (about 5 million) still means potentially 500,000 horrific deaths. slowly over a year. 10, 000 a week, sustained.

Is that acceptable?

No.

Is this a viable long term solution?

No.

Stopping the spread dead where ever it emerges, rapidly, is the correct protocol, at every stage of the spread of the infection - chase down every infection, trace and quarantine all contacts, offer treatment away from home, in isolation hospitals ,etc. until there are no new cases, and the virus cannot find any new hosts and it dies out.

THAT is the only viable solution - it will demand that full logistical and resource commitment to do that.

Is it worth a years GDP to do this?

I say it is.

Easily, It's worth ten years GDP.

Everybody's life matters.

Eradicate the virus by robbing it of new human hosts.

The PM, and the entire Cabinet needs to be arrested for malfeasance in public office and held on remand for the duration. Fired.

We need a government that will pursue stopping the spread, eradicating the infection from these islands, by robbing it of new human hosts, informed by epidemiology, public health practice, social welfare and trauma informed approaches. And that must exclude Keir Starmer, for obvious reasons.

We do not need a government operating on the basis of data modelling and behavioural sciences.

We need a Government that will pay the people to stay at home, no questions asked, for the duration. A government that will give the people clear, accurate, scientifically grounded information that the citizens can engage with as equals, as adults who are working together.

There is no vaccine. It is not on any horizon.

The infection and disease cannot be allowed to slow spread - in the UK there are 5,000,000 people with known immune compromised health conditions, the cost to those people is intolerable - if it costs three years GDP it would still be cheap by comparison.

It doesn't have to cost that much.

Eradication, if fully resourced, will take approximatley three months - the slow spread will take much, much longer.

Eradication is better for the people and the economy by all measures.

Ensure that in future outbreaks of a novel virus similar to this, the protocols to stop the spread, and
eradicate the virus by depriving it of new hosts, are implemented at pace, from the start.

I do not oppose Vaccines, and I do not accept that they are anything but a very last resort in cases such as the SARS and SARSCOV2 viruses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eradication_of_infectious_diseases

Selection of infectious diseases for eradication is based on rigorous criteria, as both biological and technical features determine whether a pathogenic organism is (at least potentially) eradicable.

The targeted organism must not have a non-human reservoir (or, in the case of animal diseases, the infection reservoir must be an easily identifiable species, as in the case of rinderpest), and/or amplify in the environment. SARS and SARSCOV-2 fit into this criteria.

This short paper discuss's the success of the shutting down of the SARS 2002-3 epidemic.

https://biomedgrid.com/pdf/AJBSR.MS.ID.001017.pdf

To not do it is a political /economic decision, not an epidemiology clinical practice decision.

Let the Herd take it on the chin, protect the Hoard, or deploy the Hoard to protect the Herd?

That is the basic honest question here.

Kindest Regards,

Corneilius

"Do what you love, it's Your Gift to Universe"

Thank you for reading this blog.

All we need to do is be really honest, responsive to the evidence we find,and ready to reassess when new evidence emerges.

The rest is easy.

Elite Virus : Alluenza

Some of my most profound insights have come during the process of bowel evacuation. I have this theory that letting go, relaxing with the flow, opens one to new information, making room for new nourishment. My favourite place for that is the outdoors compost loos at festivals that are smart enough to have them installed... outdoors, airy and free from toxic chemicals!

Here's an insight I had recently..... on my own loo at home (too cold for outdoors!)..

The elite, who as people, on a personal level, gain great psychic satisfaction and ego stimulation from ‘owning’ or ‘possessing’ great wealth, fine goods and land, ‘good wives’ and a lineage of ‘good breeding,’ and see all that as ‘really good’ have, by controlling education, media, religion, advertising, commerce and war, infected ‘ordinary’ people with their psychology. By imposing it. By indoctrination.

They also believe, and it is a belief, a false myth or dysfunctional fairy tale if you will, that they are elite, more intelligent and more beautiful than the majority of other people, because their genes are superior to those of poor, coloured and female human beings……… and that their great wealth etc etc is proof positive that this must be so.

This also explains their willingness to murder, poison and otherwise harm, at whim, all those who hold opposing views or get in the way of a good profit.

What turds they be! lol!

Only it's no laughing matter.

For example, here's an email from 1991, sent by Larry Summers, an economist, and currently a primo candidate for Obamas' Cabinet, as Treasury Secretary, an individual clearly infected with this deathly virus :

A controversial 1991 World Bank memo signed by
Chief Economist Larry Summers reads as follows (excerpts):

THE MEMO

DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution 
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP

"'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Less Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:

1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable."

"The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization."

This is hatred, racism rationalised as economics, pure and simple.

These kinds of people are the most toxic of all. Wealthy, emotionally blind, and psychotically driven.

There is a great need for this dynamic to be understood, by us folk, us ordinary vulnerable folk, and we must come to terms with the the ways in which they manipulate us; we must understand this at both the personal and societal level.


Kindest regards

Corneilius

Do what you love, it's your gift to universe