Tag: Forced vaccines

2022 So Far: The Collapse of the Official Covid Narrative in the UK?

Cartoon depicting a fictional board game advert for 'Road Outta Lockdown. The board game from Johnson and Hancock, Can you navigate the way out?" New, Price the British Economy. Board is a infinity symbol shape.

Introduction

The Official Covid Narrative – the idea that Covid-19 is such a deadly disease that we all need to change our lives – has always been absurd to anyone who has been paying attention. However, a large number of people in Britain have agreed with the Covid Narrative (to differing degrees), supporting mandatory masks, lockdowns and (voluntary) Covid injections. This article will discuss to what degree the Official Covid Narrative has been stretched to breaking point in the UK and whether the idea of a ‘collapsing narrative’ is realistic.

The Boris Johnson Party Story

The first news story worthy of our attention in this discussion is the ‘scandal’ of Boris Johnson having a party during lockdown restrictions. This story has been simmering since December 2021. Mainstream coverage has put a lot of emphasis on this story over the past two months. For example, we can examine the coverage of the lockdown-loving middle class rag The Guardian on this issue.

In December 2021 they reported that:

Johnson’s appearance at PMQs on Wednesday was his first response to the video, uncovered by ITV, in which his then-press secretary, Allegra Stratton, and other No 10 staff talked jokingly on 22 December last year about a staff party four days earlier, and how media questions about it could be countered.

Another party later emerged, that took place on the eve of the funeral of Prince Philip. Boris Johnson has come out and ‘apologised’ for that party as well. Meanwhile the Guardian is running articles with analysis by “a member of the Sage subcommittee advising on behavioural science”. No, seriously.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it can be convincingly argued that is Boris Johnson incident heralds the collapse of the Covid Narrative. We have already seen this before, first with Dominic Cummings and Neil Ferguson and then with Matt Hancock. Furthermore, the media is still focusing on the same discredited angle with the Johnson story as they were with the Cummings story from over 18 months ago:

The press divided between the lockdown enthusiasts defending him, or the anti-lockdowners eagerly calling him a hypocrite.

Both, again, were missing the point.

[…]

We’re all meant to be “sheltering in place” and “protecting the NHS” and “saving lives” because there is a “deadly virus”. We’re being told this is for our own safety. Because the virus is allegedly dangerous.

When the people giving us these orders do not follow them themselves, they are not showing themselves to be “hypocrites”. They are showing themselves to be liars. They are admitting they don’t really believe what they’re saying.

This particularly vile example from the Labour Party is a good example of this mentality. I have screenshotted it below in case they try to backtrack later:

Labour is trying to portray this inhumane ‘NHS Nurse’ (whether the story is real or not is beside the point) as virtuous because she ‘followed the rules’ and this is meant to rebuke Boris Johnson for not ‘following the rules’. They didn’t get the response they were looking for in the comments, with multiple tweets calling them out for being even more fanatical lockdowners than the Tories.

We must not forget the moral of the ‘Matt Hancock affair’ story when discussing this case. Matt Hancock had become unpopular with the public and so it conveniently came out that he had been having an affair, with photos of him snogging his mistress being slapped all over The Sun. Hancock was a ‘sacrifice’ from within the narrative to save the narrative, by projecting all of the narrative failures on to him as designated scapegoat. Meanwhile his successor, Sajid Javid, has amped up the ‘vaccine’ program with the roll out of jabs to children and the forcing of jabs onto NHS staff.

Just because Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister does not mean that the same forces cannot be at work here, and indeed, this is the most plausible explanation for the ‘Party Scandal’.

The Dr. Steve James/Sajid Javid Story

But what about more substantive issues relating to the Official Covid Narrative? In particular, the forced jabs for NHS staff?

The government passed legislation in December 2021, and published it this month, stating that ‘frontline’ NHS staff (frontline being defined extremely broadly) have to have 2 Covid-19 jabs by April. There has been a campaign opposing this legislation from NHS100K, the Together Campaign and the Workers of England Union.

However, recently a video was released of a doctor, Steve James, directly challenging Sajid Javid on the jab mandate. The doctor himself is unvaccinated and has natural immunity against Sars-Cov-2 according to his own account:

Furthermore, he has been invited on to other news channels to discuss the reasons why he won’t be vaccinated in more depth:

I do find this story quite interesting, I must say. The initial video was released by Sky News, i.e. the mainstream media. Not some random undercover phone video. If the mainstream media released this video, rather than pretending none of the doctors challenged Javid, there must be some sort of function within the mainstream narrative for that to happen. (We could further ask why Javid was even in the earshot of an unvaccinated doctor as HR, etc. in the NHS know who is vaccinated).

So why has this video been released to the public?

I don’t have all the answers on this question. The most favourable interpretation for the anti-lockdown/vaxpass/mandate people is that the government knows that they cannot get away with the NHS mandate. On this interpretation, this is a soft walk back in the narrative, priming the public for when the mandate is dropped.

Personally I think they are more likely to try and go through with the mandate although I don’t think them dropping it is impossible if a large number of NHS staff remain uninjected (more likely some sort of fudge option will be taken rather than outright dropping it).

If they are not going to drop the mandate there are other possible reasons that could be considered for the release of this clip to the public. For example, the creation of a hate figure, represented by James himself as the ‘selfish unjabbed doctor’. The aim in this scenario (regardless of whether this strategy is effective) is to target the public’s ire at James to distract from the likely devastation to NHS services that will be inflicted by the mandate.

The Daily Mail, which is highly schizophrenic when it comes to the Covid Narrative, has published an article attacking Dr. Steve James. After having a dig at James’s religious beliefs, the article spouts claims about how he is ‘enabling anti-vaxxers’ (none of the media ever define the term ‘anti-vaxxer’). The article then goes on to attack him for mentioning NHS100K, with the usual assertions that James is citing a ‘conspiracy theorist’ organisation. This is achieved through the notion that both right wingers and NHS100K use Telegram.

They also state that the mandate is popular, without providing any evidence of that claim (not even a manipulated YouGov poll!) There is a bunch of other nonsense in the article that to address it all would get off topic.

The Scrapping Vaccine Passports Story

The UK government introduced vaccine passports at the same time that they passed the vote forcing NHS staff to be jabbed. The vaccine passport applies to (in England):

  • nightclubs
  • indoor unseated venues with more than 500 people
  • unseated outdoor venues with more than 4,000 people
  • any venue with more than 10,000 people

There has been speculation that Boris Johnson is to drop the requirement for vaccine passports from January 26th in the mainstream media. The original passports had a ‘review’ built in to them on this date where the extension can be rubber stamped – now the media is saying it will not be.

I am very sceptical of such a narrative for a number of reasons. The government now have the infrastructure for such a scheme in place. Even if it is scrapped due to the unpopularity of the passport, it can be brought back in at any time with the reactivation of the NHS Covid pass. Any event – such as a ‘spike in cases’ caused by false positives – can be used to either not scrap the legislation or bring it back in at any time.

We must also bear in mind that there have been multiple other times where the narrative has been temporarily weakened in order to drive it forward, such as the ‘scrapping’ of vaccine passports in September only to bring them back via ‘Plan B’.

Conclusion

Narrative weaknesses in the official Covid-19 account are becoming more obvious to the British public. Because of this, the government and media have been soft pedalling the narrative, but these are not unequivocal signs of victory. The Covid Narrative is far from defeated – and we must not forget that Covid itself is just the means to the end of digital identity and transhumanism.

Government Not Scrapping Vaccine Passports: New ‘Plan B’ for ‘Mandatory COVID Certification’

Cartoon depicting a fictional board game advert for 'Road Outta Lockdown. The board game from Johnson and Hancock, Can you navigate the way out?" New, Price the British Economy. Board is a infinity symbol shape.

Introduction

A few weeks ago the government announced that they would not be going ahead with a plan for vaccine passports over the winter period. As vaccine passports are the most important aspect of this whole Covid agenda (in the short term at least) this was a setback for the government. However, they are now planning another way to get ‘COVID Certification’ through the door – the idea of the ‘winter emergency’.

A New Government Consultation

I said the following in my previous article:

[V]accine passports will be back, perhaps in October or November when the flu season hits. When the issue of antibody dependent enhancement – vaccination worsening clinical disease due to non neutralising antibodies – hits the vaccinated (or simply (un)known side effects from MRNA jabs), this will be the next opportunity for another vaccine passport push. Lockdowns will inevitably be introduced to combat the ‘new variant’ of vaccine induced disease, with Johnson stating that the only way out is vaccine passports.

Lo and behold, the government has announced a new consultation called “Proposal for mandatory COVID certification in a Plan B scenario: call for evidence”. This outlines an alleged ’emergency’ scenario implemented if ‘the NHS is likely to come under unsustainable pressure’. Of course, being as the NHS comes under significant pressure every flu season, combined with the massive backlog of medical issues the NHS refused to treat because they aren’t Covid, the NHS will be under ‘unsustainable pressure’ by definition. As previously mentioned, antibody dependent enhancement and vaccine side effects will come into play as well, meaning a much worse flu season than normal.

This will give them their excuse to ‘reluctantly’ introduce ‘temporary’ ‘Covid Certification’ to ‘protect the NHS’ from patients.

This Plan B means that:

Under Plan B, in certain settings:

mandatory vaccine-only certification could be introduced for all visitors aged 18 or over

members of the workforce aged 18 or over in these settings could then be required to test regularly, if they are not fully vaccinated

This document specifies what precisely the government plan is. In this document, the government is trying to sell the vaccine passport via blackmail, essentially telling buisness owners that their choices are to accept vaccine passports or be plunged back into lockdown.

These are the venues that the government wishes to force the vaccine passport upon:

all nightclubs and other venues open after 1am with alcohol, music and dancing

indoor events with 500 or more attendees where those attendees are likely to stand and mix to a significant degree, or move around during the event, such as music venues or large receptions

outdoor, crowded settings with 4,000 or more attendees where those attendees are likely to stand, or move around during the event, such as outdoor festivals

any settings with 10,000 or more attendees, such as large sports and music stadia

In other words, this is essentially the same plan that Sajid Javid said was not going to be introduced over the winter, repackaged as a new ’emergency’ plan. Of course the government then adds that it may be expanded beyond these settings.

They also add this further comment which is worthy of note:

At present, the NHS COVID Pass displays an individual’s COVID status on the basis of vaccine, test or natural immunity status. If mandatory certification were introduced, the NHS COVID Pass would switch so that it certified individuals based on vaccine status only.

In other words, natural immunity is irrelevant according to this government. This scientifically illiterate argument is basically stating that Sars-Cov-2 is a unique virus where natural immunity does not apply – obviously demonstrating that this plan is not about ‘the science’ but about ‘the politics’.

Filling out the Consultation

If you want to fill out the consultation, you only have until the 11th October to do so.

The consultation asks for information about you and who you are including age, ‘gender’ (in a biology denial sense) etc.

It then asks if you think the list of settings is too broad or too narrow. If you click ‘too broad’ it then asks you which settings should be excluded (150 words). Obviously just say all of them and bring up the usual arguments against vaccine passports:

  • Authoritarian
  • Abrogate informed consent by applying coercion
  • create a two tier society
  • are scientifically illiterate as ‘the vaccinated’ can still spread Covid

Then it asks you if you would prefer if people going to events are vaccinated or not, similar to the question on the forced jabs for NHS staff consultation.

The questions then ask whether you think people (first visitors and then staff) should be forced to take an injection. Obviously you can tick strongly disagree to both. However the next two questions assume that you already support the policy in their framing, and are ridiculously biased. The first asks whether ‘unvaccinated’ staff members should be supervised while taking Covid tests, and the second asks whether only customer facing roles should be forced to jab/test or all roles. There’s no option for ‘no-one should be forced to jab/test’. The last bit on the page then asks for your further comments.

  • Staff would be pressured by bosses to get the jabs to avoid testing and having to self-isolate/not being able to work at these events. This means they would not be taking a vaccine under free and informed consent should they get vaccinated to stop the pressure
  • Side effects of the jab & liability for these side effects
  • Increased chance of workplace harassment due to jabbed staff having to deal with unjabbed staff not being able to work due to false positives.
  • Jab status would have to be disclosed to the employer
  • Do not work as you can get Covid off a fully vaccinated person
  • Ignore natural immunity

It then asks you if you think more groups should be exempt. According to their list children and people with a relevant medical conditions are exempt. I mean technically, yes, as I think everyone should be exempt. I stated as such and also that the policy breaches the Equality Act 2010 by ignoring religion, belief, and pregnancy protected classes.

The consultation then asks if any protected classes will benefit and if any will be disadvantaged.

  • No-one will benefit from an authoritarian ‘papers please’ dystopia.
  • You can still get Sars-Cov-2 from the ‘fully vaccinated’ so claiming that this policy benefits elderly or disabled people by decreasing their risk is wrong.
  • It will disadvantage disabled people due to forcing them to prove a medical exemption that may not be granted due to the climate of ‘vaccine good no matter what’.
  • It will disadvantage pregnant women who may not want the vaccine due to effect on the child.
  • It will disadvantage those with a religion/belief exemption.
  • All these groups will be treated as second class employees/citizens.

It then asks for any final thoughts on the consultation, and following this, how you felt about the consultation process and how they could improve, so I told them to ditch the loaded questions.

Conclusion

As predicted, the government is not scrapping the idea of vaccine passports, but merely attempting to bring them in via the inevitable ‘NHS winter emergency’ and they have already created the basis for this with a new consultation on the policy.

Vaccine Passports ‘Scrapped’ and Forced Jab for NHS Staff Consultation – Outlining the Plan

Cartoon panel on left: 2020 nurse in mask reading #clapforcarers, heroes, saviours, panel on right 2021 Image of jobcentre

Introduction

The UK Government announced on the 12 September that vaccine passports will not currently be going ahead, contradicting previous statements that they would be introduced for nightclubs and big events this month. Instead, on the 9th September, a consultation was launched regarding forcing frontline NHS staff to have the Covid injection. This article will discuss both aspects, and possible linkages between the two.

The Vaccine Passport

Let’s begin with the vaccine passport. I have put a lot of emphasis on the vaccine passport in previous articles, arguing that the vaccine passport is the key short term aim of the entire Covid Narrative. On the surface, the decision to scrap vaccine passports disproves my arguments. In reality, however, it does not contradict my argument for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that the government has been forced to backtrack. Vaccine passports are extremely unpopular with the British public. While polling organisations such as Yougov claim that a large percentage of the public support vaccine passports, these polls are more about manufacturing consent for the policy than recording facts. All indications, both in my personal life and on social media, as well as among many affected business owners, indicate vaccine passports are unpopular. The issue of vaccine passports has also angered many people who supported or were neutral towards lockdowns, and/or have had the jabs.

There have also been large demonstrations against vaccine passports. The monthly events in London – although focusing on all aspects of the Covid Narrative – have recently been advertised primarily as anti vaccine passport. There have also been massive demonstrations in countries that have already introduced the vaccine passport, such as France. Australia – one of the most draconian countries when it comes to restrictions allegedly to ‘control the pandemic’ – is also starting to kick off.

All of this makes it much harder for the British government to introduce the passport.

The second point demonstrating that passports are still essential to the government’s thinking is that the policy is not being abandoned. They have been forced into retreat by resistance to the policy but have explicitly said that it is not being ruled out. Sajid Javid stated that:

We’ve looked at it properly and, whilst we should keep it in reserve as a potential option, I’m pleased to say that we will not be going ahead with plans for vaccine passports.

To translate from government speak, this means that vaccine passports will be back, perhaps in October or November when the flu season hits. When the issue of antibody dependent enhancement – vaccination worsening clinical disease due to non neutralising antibodies – hits the vaccinated (or simply (un)known side effects from MRNA jabs), this will be the next opportunity for another vaccine passport push. Lockdowns will inevitably be introduced to combat the ‘new variant’ of vaccine induced disease, with Johnson stating that the only way out is vaccine passports.

Forcing NHS Staff to Get ‘Vaccinated’: The Next Step

A few months ago, the government announced that people working in care homes have to be ‘fully vaccinated’ (both shots of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine) or face being sacked. Staff have to have had their first vaccine by September 16. The next step for the government is to try and force NHS staff to have the jab, but this will be a harder nut to crack than care home staff, which explians why care home staff were forced first.

According to the Skills for Care website, care home staff were paid an average of £8.50 an hour during 2019/20 and 73% were paid below the Living Wage. The gross income of this wage (assuming a 37.5 hour work week) is £16,575. However, even the lowest ranked NHS staff (a Band 2 member of staff who has worked in the NHS for less than 2 years) recieved a gross income of £17,652 in 2019/20 for the 37.5 hours a week. When you start to get into the higher pay bands you start seeing people who have significant economic resources to oppose forced vaccines. Again using the 2019/20 data for comparison, experienced Band 7 staff take home £43,772, whereas Band 8 staff take home between £44,606 and £86,687 depending on whether they are in subgroup a, b, c or d and their level of experience.

Relatively high unionisation in the NHS may also be a factor in the government’s thinking, although I would not trust the unions to fight the forced vaccines given their complicity in the Covid Narrative.

There are still a non-negligible number of staff that haven’t been jabbed:

According to the DHSC, around 92% of NHS trust staff have received one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, with 88% of staff having received both doses.

However, the DHSC says new data shows uptake rates between NHS trusts can vary from around 78% to 94% for both doses.

Gievn how many people the NHS employs this is a lot of people and statistically some of them are likely to have economic resources. NHS staff can also serve as a test case for future vaccine mandates for this reason.

There is currently a degree of ambiguity about the government’s plan, as to whether it will be just for frontline staff, or for all NHS staff including clerical and management. The consultation on forced jabs seems to imply the plan is only for clinical staff (if this is the case, I believe that the plan will be for two stages, perhaps to avoid taking on too many staff at once) but the media seem to imply that the jabs will be forced on all staff.

Forced jabs will help the government achieve its vaccine passport goals. While some people who are injected oppose vaccine passports, every person who gets jabbed makes it easier for the government to introduce the policy. ‘The unvaccinated’ have no choice but to resist a vaccine passport policy through boycotting and subversion, but ‘the vaccinated’ can choose to comply. Many people – even if formally opposed to vaccine passports – may buckle if they are actually introduced.

Conclusion

The government cannot tolerate more than a very small number opting out of the vaccine passport digital control matrix. Some people will buckle and get the injection if they are threatened with not being able to feed their family. This increases the percentage of the population who are injected. Some people will hold the line and lose their jobs, becoming the excluded in the new medical apartheid.

Appendix: Filling out the Consultation

If you want to fill out the government consultation it can be found here. It closes on the 22nd of October 2021. As you cannot see the questions in advance as it is a click through consultation rather than one where all the questions are up front. I will outline the questions that are asked and the parameters of the responses.

The consultation asks if you would prefer if a doctor or nurse treating you has the Covid 19 and flu vaccines. Then it asks if you think healthcare staff should be forced to have the vaccines for Covid and flu and to justify your answers. You are limited to 500 words for the justification which makes it a bit difficult as there isn’t enough words to quote from scientific studies on the dangers of the jabs. The same question is then asked for those under 18 in the sector. The study asks about possible negative effects on protected classes and then how the government can encourage uptake in non regulated roles.

Here are some key points you could raise if you decide to fill in the consultation:

In terms of staff being forced:

  • The jabs don’t stop people catching or spreading Sars-Cov-2 (according to the manufacturers themselves), so staff having the jab cannot protect patients. Patients can still catch the virus from a ‘fully vaccinated’ member of staff.
  • Sacking NHS staff for not taking the jab will put patients more at risk through causing/increasing understaffing, meaning overworked doctors and nurses making preventable errors and patients not being seen.
  • Forced jabs ignore the issue of natural immunity. Many NHS staff will have had the virus and recovered giving them extremely potent antibodies against Sars-Cov-2 and these antibodies protect against ‘variants’ according to the scientific evidence. Making them have a vaccine is medically irrational.
  • The horrific side effects of the jab. I personally cited the titles of two articles on myocarditis due to space limitations, as well as the massive amount of reports to Yellow Card and VAERS.
  • It’s still in clinical trials.
  • It violates already existing NHS contracts.

In terms of protected classes:

  • This refers to the Equality Act 2010. There are three protected classes negatively affected.
  • Disability: although the consultation allows medical exemptions, forced jabs will cause unnecessary stress for disabled staff. Due to the obsession with jabbing the entire population and GPs being entirely focused on Covid, it will likely be extremely difficult for those with even a legitimate reason for exemption (such as someone with a history of blood clots when they admit the jabs can cause blood clots) to obtain an exemption in practise.
  • Pregnancy and Maternity: Women will be concerned about the lack of studies on pregnancy and the jab, especially given that the Yellow Card system and VAERS have multiple miscarriages reported after the injections.
  • Religion and Belief: There is no provision made in the proposals for religious exemptions. This is discrimination based on religion if someone declined the vaccine due to religious beliefs, for example a belief that genetic engineering is morally wrong due to ‘playing God’. THere may be other beliefs that could be protected, for example, some have argued that ethical vegans would have to be classed as exempt due to the fact that the vaccine has had some animal trials.

Edited to add: Lo and Behold, the government have proven me correct once again. They have just launched a new consultation on “Proposal for mandatory COVID certification in a Plan B scenario: call for evidence”.

The document says:

We are asking for responses by 11 October, although we encourage stakeholders to submit views as quickly as possible in case there is need to introduce certification, as part of Plan B, at short notice.

The COVID-19 Response: Autumn and Winter Plan 2021, published on 14 September, sets out the government’s aims to sustain the progress made and prepare the country for future challenges, while ensuring the National Health Service (NHS) does not come under unsustainable pressure during this period. If the data suggests the NHS is likely to come under unsustainable pressure, the government has prepared a Plan B for England.

So, in other words, they will cook up some nonsense Neil Ferguson model as an excuse to bring this in.