Perhaps it is my training as an auditor, or my experience with depression, or simply human nature to focus on what can be seen that has driven the fact that almost all the writing I have done on the broad topic of Government intervention on COVID-19 has been rooted in analysing what has come before, trying to understand what has happened thus far. The problem with this approach, however, has been that each time I write something new, it is almost immediately outdated by some other action or event that makes equally little sense; and so, in order to establish a more robust framework by which to analyse events, it is also worth looking forward to try to establish what the end game might be.
The reason I have avoided this up to now is because there are too many variables, too many unknowns, that one finds themselves either deep down a rabbit hole, or so deeply bedded in speculation that the analysis becomes largely useless – confidence intervals of 100% in either direction, if you like.
Nonetheless, there are only a handful of more prominent theories, so, rather than produce my own speculation, it might be more informative to analyse these. To do this, let us place four on a scale of conspiratorialism (see above).
Starting with the conspiratorial extreme, what evidence is there in favour of this theory? From what I can see, there is zero hard evidence; however, what we can see is that, first, there are those within institutions who are exerting their influence (for example, the Davos lot) who subscribe to the idea that the ideal population size of the world is half a billion. Second, there is suggestive evidence that the spike proteins produced by the body after taking the mRNA jabs travel through the entire body and congregate where there is a proliferation of ACE2 receptors, which includes the reproductive organs, potentially impacting fertility. Third, there is suggestive evidence that Antibody Dependent Enhancement could become a significant and life-threatening medium-term issue with the mRNA jabs. And fourth, the death toll arising from the measures implemented by Governments globally (such as lockdowns, a shutting down of healthcare, the absence of treatments for known diseases in the developing world (e.g., TB), the shutdown of supply chains to rural areas in the developing world (e.g., Maharashtra’s shortage of drinking water) has already been vast and is set to continue.
However. Those exerting influence can only push so far. Fertility issues with the jabs appear to only impact a small number of those injected. There have been example cases of individuals producing such large numbers of antibodies post-vaccination that the test scales cannot measure them and who have yet been physically fine. And, while the death toll of these measures is sickening, it is likely to number in the tens of millions in total, not in the billions. So, there is no hard evidence for this theory, and, while there is circumstantial evidence in favour, it is weak and largely falls apart under scrutiny.
Rather than proceed up the scale, let’s look at the other extreme: Health. The idea that the end game to all of this is to ensure the safety and health of the global population.
Sadly, this theory is probably less founded in evidence than the previously examined theory; as mentioned, the death toll arising from the measures taken is vast, will in all likelihood exceed even pessimistic forecasts of COVID-19 deaths without “mitigation”, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that Governments around the world were aware of this fact prior to “mitigation” measures being implemented (with the discovery that the Dutch cost-benefit analysis estimated “lockdown costs” would exceed “lockdown benefits” by six times, and of course the PHE paper that estimated the death toll of the initial 2020 lockdown would number around 200,000).
Further, if it were about health, gyms would not have closed, social interaction outdoors would never have been banned, dementia sufferers would never have been denied visitors, children would never have been taken out of school, vitamin D would have been recommended as a supplement during the winter months, more focus would have been placed on improving the obesity crisis this country faces, alternative treatments and prophylaxes would not have been suppressed, funding would have been provided for T-cell immunity testing, those who had received a placebo on a vaccine trial would not be getting access to a “COVID pass”, those with T-cell immunity would be, “COVID passes” would ultimately not be offered to those who have been jabbed with something that cannot prevent infection and cannot entirely prevent transmission, the NHS waiting list would not have been allowed to climb to 12,000,000+, and there are many, many other example I could offer up here.
Could those in power, however, be so deluded to think that their actions now are preventing a catastrophic outcome from COVID and that they could “pick up the pieces” later? Some, perhaps, but not all, and certainly not all across the entire globe. So, let us put this fanciful notion to bed, because, even if it is the explanation, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Which leaves two potentially plausible explanations: cover-up; and control; with the practical difference between the two largely being limited to permanence.
“Cover-up” (i.e., Governments are aware of the costs and are seeking a way out without what would be justifiable criminal charges) makes sense: as human beings, we are all fallible; we all fall foul of the sunk-cost fallacy; the vast majority of us are ultimately self-serving – particularly those who end up in politics; the costs are so massive that any admission of their knowledge could be catastrophic; the population has been so brainwashed and frightened that any rapid retraction of “mitigations” would likely be unwelcomed by most, and could risk the emergence of evidence of the uselessness of those “mitigations” (as we are seeing now with “cases” yet again plummeting, but this time without a well-timed lockdown to credit for it); and the “COVID Industry” has become such a money-making machine that there is more influence than ever to maintain it – whether that’s mass-testing, Big Pharma vaccine profits, advertising income, PPE contracts, and so on – meaning that an unwinding of the industry will have to be both slow and carefully managed.
The big question mark that hangs over this theory though is the incessant push for jabs and the threat of vaccine passports. But even this can be explained in a way that fits the “cover-up” theory. The vaccines have the potential to be the escape hatch from this immense policy disaster for Governments across the world, despite the fact that they were almost certainly an unnecessary mitigation, with levels of population immunity more likely than not at a level where the COVID threat was no longer a public health threat when the mass-vaccination program began, but more an individual threat to those who were elderly and unwell – whose decision to take one of these jabs I fully support. But then Governments pushed harder: “15 MILLION JABS TO FREEDOM” became “Students will not be allowed to attend lectures unless double-jabbed”; which, unfortunately, was an inevitability when the vaccine uptake was so high. Nothing can highlight the pointlessness of jabbing the majority of a population as well as a control group of unjabbed within that population. Take Israel, for example, where in a recent paper it was shown that in all age groups, the proportion of cases identified within the vaccinated cohort has no statistically significant deviation from the proportion of the population age-group vaccinated. Further, if the purpose of these jabs is an amelioration of symptoms, and yet for a very significant majority of all those under 70 with no underlying conditions the symptoms are incredibly mild anyway, what benefit could possibly be seen?
And so, if you reach a level of adult population vaccination around 75%, that 25% who have not taken the jab risk becoming the reason the Government’s escape hatch gets shut before they can climb through it. With that in mind, threats of vaccination passports, of discrimination, of an inability to engage in society and life without taking the jab, of ostracization and being “othered”, can operate as the perceived necessary coercion to keep that hatch open.
But is this all there is to it? And I do use the word “all” ironically, because blackmailing young people into unnecessary medical interventions is, in and of itself, nothing short of criminal. But is it nothing more than a threat? Will it be temporary? Will it just be this COVID jab? This is where we move into the territory of the final theory.
Friedman famously said that “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary Government program.” And, even if the intention here is simply to threaten vaccine passports, should they be implemented in any way, how can they possibly be rolled back when their illogicality can only push them forward into expansion? Why deny entry to a lecture hall but not a train? Why deny someone without a COVID jab entry to a nightclub but not an individual unvaccinated against all forms of Hepatitis or other STIs? What happens when a new wonder-drug that can cure morning sickness is discovered, and it’s mandated through the app when Thalidomide recommendation was sufficient in the mid-twentieth century to lead to an estimated 80,000 infant fatalities? Why discriminate against a healthy 20-year-old who will never be a “burden on the NHS” for the one disease they are not vaccinated for, but not discriminate against the morbidly obese? In the hunt for a semblance of logic, these things will have to be expanded to fill the vacuums around them, whether that is the Government’s intention or not.
But with stories such as the one the Times published recently about a Government plan for an app where exercise and food consumption could be tracked and those who do well would be offered discounts and freebies, or of certain Government ministers reportedly praising China’s social credit system, or talk of how more Government control will be required to combat threats such as Climate Change or future pandemics, or every other step towards totalitarianism countries across the world makes, such as the Police Bill or jail time for journalists who publish stories that “embarrass the Government”, it is no wonder it is such a widely-held belief that it is indeed the Government’s intention to expand the “COVID pass” into something so deeply authoritarian and dystopian that even Huxley would baulk.
I cannot conclude, therefore, whether we are facing a situation where the truth lies in the Control or the Cover-up theory, although I lean towards the latter because of Occam’s Razor; but as the use of “COVID passes” looks more and more likely, if these things are rolled out, it ultimately won’t matter as we will end up in the same place, and it is not a place worth visiting. Make no mistake, this is not just a fight for democracy, or for freedom, it is a fight for life worth living.