Failed to prepare? You must be joking!

According to the completely useless UK Guardian—an alleged “newspaper”—having produced its first report, the so-called UK Covid-19 Independent Public Inquiry has found that the UK government “failed to prepare UK for pandemic.” Like the good state stenographers they are, the Guardian reported all this dross as if it were credible.

The monumental destruction of our economy, our society and our polity, wrought by the government, has all been attributed—by the government itself—to “mistakes.” Sure, it stuck rigidly to a clearly defined strategy but, according to Heather Hallett—who led the farcical inquiry—that actually amounted to a failure of preparedness.

All the people blamed—specifically the Conservative MPs Matt Hancock, Jeremy Hunt and George Osborn—are no longer part of the government. Though, in Hunt’s case, he was only ousted very recently. Therefore, now is a good time to publish the inquiry report because it is safe to criticise the government without actually criticising the current government who are free to blame it on the previous government. Despite the fact that the current Labour government wanted to make deeper and harder “mistakes” than the Tories.

*

Since the enactment of the 2005 Inquiries Act, the notion of the UK “independent public inquiry” has become a complete nonsense. Under that Act the government sets the inquiry’s terms of reference; the government appoints the chair and the therefore has control over appointments to the inquiry panel; the government can deny the submission of evidence; the government can withhold witness testimony and the government has the power to review and amend the “independent” inquiry’s findings before they are published.

There is simply no such thing as an “independent public inquiry” in the UK. The very term is what the state would call “disinformation.” They are government inquiries, full stop!

So any seemingly harsh “criticism” that comes out of a UK public inquiry is actually whatever the government wants you to believe. The legacy media, such as the state’s faithful Guardian, are then dispatched to sell this guff to the public.

Let’s get something straight: claims made about Covid deaths are unsubstantiated drivel. The diagnoses of a Covid death, in the overwhelming number of “cases,” was based upon a highly speculative, non-diagnostic test. The “case” numbers were the product of statistical sleights-of-hand combined with unscientific gibberish, such as “asymptomatic spread.” The age distribution of claimed Covid deaths was indistinguishable from normal all cause mortality. Age standardised mortality rates in 2020—the alleged height of the pandemic—were the ninth highest in the first two decades of the century.

In short: there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that a real pandemic “disease” ever struck the UK. If we add to this all the many problems with the claimed “science” of virology, then it is fair to say the whole pandemic story is nothing but a propaganda construct. I called it a “Pseudopandemic” at the time, because it was glaringly obvious that it was fake.

So, any catastrophes that sprung from the government’s policy response to the pseudopandemic were unnecessary, not to mention suspicious. As we shall see, there were no—or very few—policy “mistakes".” All of the carnage was the result of quite deliberate policy decisions made by the UK state—within which the UK government is a partner.

In her government report, Heather Hallett listed what she claimed were “mistakes:”

Research suggests that, in the UK, mortality rates were significantly higher among people with a physical or learning disability and people with pre-existing conditions, such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes. [. . .]

This wasn’t the result of a mistake. The policy decisions that ensured what can only be described as a cull included: discharging from hospitals tens of thousands of sick, elderly patients into poorly equipped care homes without assessing their health needs or possible infections; vastly reducing the number of hospital beds—during a pandemic; removing primary care from the most vulnerable in care homes; denying hospital admissions to the sick and elderly; removing community based primary care; cancelling vital screening; slapping do-not-resuscitate orders on people without their knowledge or consent—notably including people with learning difficulties, and encouraging the widespread use of a dangerous cocktail of respiratory suppressant drugs in official NHS treatment protocols for the said “respiratory illness”—a cocktail that was previously identified as the likely method used in a mass killing.

Hallett continued:

[. . .] the pandemic placed extraordinary levels of strain on the UK’s health, care, financial and educational systems, as well as on jobs and businesses.

No it didn’t. The government policy response to no-pandemic created all the identified “strain.”

Hallett added:

The life of the UK was severely curtailed as the majority of its citizens were confined to home. Almost every area of public life across all four nations was badly affected. The hospitality, retail, travel and tourism, arts and culture, and sport and leisure sectors effectively ceased to operate. Even places of worship closed.

The government, not a disease, locked everybody down, pushed small to medium size enterprises beyond breaking point and effectively smashed the UK’s functioning economy to pieces.

Hallett said:

Levels of mental illness, loneliness, deprivation and exposure to violence at home surged. Children missed out on academic learning and on precious social development.

The government heaped more life-limiting destruction and hardship on the people for no immediately discernible reason.

Hallett went on:

The cost, in human and financial terms, of bringing Covid-19 under control has been immense. Government borrowing and the cost of procurement and of the various job retention, income, loan, sick pay and other support schemes have severely impacted public finances and the UK’s financial health.

The central banks and their commercial bond-trading partners made an absolute fortune. Wealth has been transferred from the public purse into the hands of private-industry-partners, hedge funds—and private capital more broadly—on a scale never before imaginable. Not everyone loses in a “pandemic,” you see. Only us.

The people were increasingly forced into reliance upon the state and, thus, increasingly subject to state control. The “architecture” for a bio-security state-of-exception was rolled out with the vaccine passport preparatory work; the foundations for a system of Digital ID were laid and the financial disruption has pushed us closer to the alleged “need” for Central Bank Digital Currency and other models of digital slavery.

Struggling high street commerce was all but eradicated as we were forced to shop online—even for the most essential items. Globally, supply chains were “regionalised” setting the condition for a new “sustainable” global economy of multiple “poles.”

All of this—every single aspect of it—was, according to the state and members of its epistemic authorities, like Heather Hallett, the result of failings, errors and “mistakes.” How fortunate—for a select few—that those “mistakes” just happened to dovetail so seamlessly with the “build back better” reset ambitions of the global public-private partnership.

The idea, that everything was a “mistake,” becomes even harder to swallow, when we consider the findings and recommendations of the Cygnus report. Hallett noted that the government had failed to heed:

[. . .] the fundamental conclusion of Exercise Cygnus – that the UK’s pandemic plans, policies and response capabilities were not sufficient to cope with the extreme demands of a severe pandemic

In 2016 the UK government ran Exercise Cygnus. It simulated a pandemic flu outbreak and was a Command Post Exercise (CPX) designed to test the UK’s pandemic preparedness.

The Cygnus training scenario was prepared by Professor Neil Ferguson and his team at Imperial College London (ICL). The same team whose predictions of death and destruction for every “pandemic disease”—declared by the WHO—have been perfectly and consistently wrong for decades.

Hallett’s criticism of the government included her observation that it had failed to address many of the command post shortcomings highlighted during Exercise Cygnus. She focused her report on these mistakes.

But it is not true to say that the government ignored Cygnus, as Hallett suggested. Some of the Cygnus Report recommendations were implemented in response to Covid-19. For example, Cygnus recommended “legislative easements.” The Coronavirus Act 2020 certainly eased the legislation surrounding the death registration process and the NHS duty of care. The legal requirements for inquests, postmortems and cremations were also specifically “relaxed” for Covid-19.

Exercise Cygnus also highlighted a number of deficiencies that Hallett didn’t mention. The Cygnus report identified inadequate numbers of critical, general and acute care beds. In response to the “global pandemic” the government then proceeded to reduce them further.

Cygnus warned that whole sections of the NHS may have to be shut, which is exactly what the government did during the alleged pandemic. Cygnus highlighted that the most vulnerable could be denied care, just as they were, and that the health service would have to be set on a war footing just to be able to cope. Which is precisely what happened.

These were warnings not policy suggestions. The UK government’s adoption of some of the Cygnus recommendations and its determination not to address Gygnus alarms, appears to have formed, for all intents and purposes, a policy blueprint for the Covid-19 response.

Based upon the Cygnus conclusions, in September 2017, an NHS Surge and Triage briefing paper was published. It discussed so-called “population triage”:

The purpose of this paper is to provide an update to Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) on continuing refinement of the knowledge and understanding behind the potential decision that may be required in a future extreme pandemic influenza scenario to move to a state of population triage across the country.

“Population triage” effectively means the denial of healthcare. Again, based on Exercise Gygnus findings, in November 2017 Adult-social care and Community health care providers considered a pandemic briefing paper presented to them by the government:

The majority of the detail in this paper will not be replicated in any publicly available documentation. [. . .] Whilst demand will increase, capacity, which is already under pressure because of recruitment challenges, will also reduce because of staff absences. [. . .] Adult social care will have an increased role in supporting rapid discharge from hospital. [. . .] In a severe pandemic, only those services that are life-critical will be maintained. [. . .] More patients could be supported by a greater focus on telecare/tele-monitoring.

The move to “telecare/tele-monitoring,” as envisaged in 2017, was indeed introduced in response to Covid-19. NHS guidance was issued to GPs:

All patients should be triaged remotely. [. . .] Remote consultations should be used when possible. Consider the use of video consultations when appropriate.

In fact, every aspect of the 2017 preparedness “thinking”—evident in the Gygnus report —whether actual recommendations or flagged as “possible” scenarios to avoid, were implemented in the government’s alleged pandemic response. If all of the subsequent “strain” was due to a failure to prepare, as Hallett claims, those “failures” were exacting and precise, well understood and meticulously planned.

The UK government policy response to Covid-19 was largely based upon “population triage.” During the “first wave” approximately 25,000 vulnerable people were discharged into care homes to face the extremely high risk environment created for them by the UK government. At the same time the Health Service Journal reported record low levels of hospital bed occupancy. For the spring season, there were four times as many free beds as usual—37,500—in hospitals around the country. “The most vulnerable in society” were discharged from hospital for no evident reason and sent to their deaths.

Between 7th March and 8th May 2020, there were 47,243 excess deaths in England and Wales. According to the Cygnus’ 2016 predictions this was slightly higher than the numbers envisaged to result directly from the withdrawal of healthcare—"population triage."

Yet these deaths were attributed almost exclusively to Covid-19. We should ask where, in the claimed Covid-19 mortality figures, the planned deaths from the “population triage” reside.

Ultimately, having incorrectly identified every destructive policy decision as a mistake, Hallett concluded by offering the conclusion the government wants you to accept. Calling it a “new approach” Hallett—on behalf of the state—suggests that the solution to all the “mistakes” is to create a single, unified, all powerful pandemic preparedness technocracy.

This immensely powerful “statutory independent body for whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience” is necessary, the government claims, to take decision making power away from elected officials. It will oversee “pandemic preparedness” by liaising with a network of private and third sector providers. It will use the “whole of system” approach which, unsurprisingly, is the approach favoured by the UN and the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA). And it will oversee the full construction and roll-out of the bio-security state.

As we’ve already seen in the state propaganda published by the Guardian, the whole-of-system approach includes telling us what to think about the pseudopandemic. Sure, it may have felt like an assault on everything it is to be a free, human being but it was all unavoidable and, what’s more, the result of nothing but mistakes.