# Checking Gov COVID Logic/Maths - How Many Years Will it Take Before COVID19 is Over In Britain?

in #covid192 months ago (edited)

The data and claims made in relation to COVID19 by many governments, including Britain's government, are often wildly inaccurate. Worse still, they are OBVIOUSLY wildly inaccurate. Currently, the government's agents are publicly claiming that they 'fear' that infections will rise to 50,000 per day and so are suggesting a second total lockdown. Can this be justified? Is any of this rational? What does basic maths show us?

Note: If an investment broker showed you such a graph and projected 'wild gains' 'just around the corner' you would likely view him with the utmost scepticism..* "but this is 'science' isn't it?"* - debatable. lol.

## FACTS!

FACT 1: We do not have a viable vaccine and despite the bravado from pharmaceutical companies, there has never been a successful vaccine for a coronavirus in human history. The current 'contenders' have not been tested and at least one has been halted due to causing serious injury in a recipient.

FACT 2: We have a natural immune system and experts seem to agree that lasting natural immunity to COVID19 is the outcome of an infection in people who are healthy enough to recover fully.

FACT 3: The vast majority (over 99%) of people will not even get sick due to COVID19 infection.

FACT 4: You cannot 'hide' from an airborn virus forever. Without a vaccine, it is essentially the case that just like most other viruses in recorded history, it will pass through the whole population and most will gain lasting natural immunity as a result.

## MATHS!

Setting aside the myriad of political and social points these facts raise, which have been discussed ad nauseam already, I want to focus on some of the basic maths involved.

How long will it take for the entire British population to get infected by COVID19 at the current rate and also at the rate the government are 'projecting' currently? Since there is no vaccine and since lockdowns are in place until 'something' changes, how long might lockdowns stay in effect if policies don't change?

Total British Population: 63182000
Total UK COVID19 Recorded Cases *: 394257
Top level of daily new cases recorded in Britain so far *: 6000 (ish)
Level of daily new cases 'projected' by UK government currently if 'nothing is done': 50000

So, the total number of British people who have NOT been infected, according to this data, is around: 62787743 (or 99.375%).

At the highest level of infection we have seen so far (around 6000 per day), we would need to take - wait for it - 28.67 YEARS to reach total infection.

At the rate the government are now (unreasonably) projecting (50k per day), this would take 3.4 years.

So..

What this shows is that in the absence of a vaccine (which we do not have and which has never been produced for such a virus and certainly not in such a short space of time), if the strategy doesn't change - then we will be in some kind of lockdown for between 3.4 and 28.6 YEARS!

Does this sound sane to you? It doesn't to me!

The vaccine manufacturers and gutless politicians continue to spout claims that vaccines are 'just around the corner', despite all evidence contradicting this and numerous specialists going as far as saying that these claims are totally irresponsible. So why would they make these claims? Perhaps so that we aren't forced to contend with the reality that lockdowns should probably end in order to tackle the issue in a more sensible way.

## Sweden - the land of normal virus response!

Let's talk about Sweden - they had some degree of restriction on liberty but no 'hard lockdown'. They currently have almost no deaths from COVID19 and almost no new cases..

Hmmm.. It's 'almost' as if the advice given by numerous epidemiologist and virologists all along, that lockdowns are an unscientific and nonsensical idea, are correct.

While I have said all along that no-one can truly say whether lockdowns are a good or bad idea UNTIL THE WHOLE THING IS OVER (because lockdowns only drag the process out and don't necessarily actually improve much), the increased speed that the virus passes through the population in the case of a minimal lockdown society allows us to be fairly clear about the likely outcome for that area long before the rest of the world has processed the virus in totality.

Finally, let's not forget that many of the deaths from this process were caused by inappropriate use of ventilators in hospitals - something that the MSM and politicians will rarely if ever recognise or comment on.

All of this, to me, only confirms the time old wisdom that to have health and balance means never relying on others to do your thinking for you.

Check the data for yourself.

Wishing you well,
Ura Soul

Sort:

The more they test the more they find.
The more they find the more they report.
The more they report the more people fear.
The more people fear the more justification there is for lockdowns, restrictions, societal change, and testing.
The more they test the more they find...

It's called a worst case scenario. Not a definite claim -

3,105 new cases on 15 September. If cases were to rise exponentially – leading to four “doublings” between now and mid-October – there would be 49,680 new cases on 13 October.

And your fact number 2, the fact is exactly the opposite. No one knows if there is a lasting immunity and the fear is that it doesn't last that long at all.

If there's no lasting immunity, nobody need worry about being pressured into taking an untested "Warp Speed" vaccine.
Strangely though, Canada has already preordered 3 doses of vaccines for every citizen.

I agree. I do not like the idea of trying out something that has been rushed

At any point in time, any data can be extrapolated out at exponential growth and then fed into the media to alarm people who don't question things enough. That is what is happening here.

Having studied the issue of lasting immunity to COVID19 for the last few weeks, it is clear that the consensus among specialists is that there is no reason at all to think that there will not be lasting immunity and many people have been tested to show that they do indeed have it as far can be told in the time available. The idea that there won't be lasting immunity, just like the idea that 'lockdowns are normal' is completely baseless.

Yes and when we extrapolate data we often give a best and/or a worst case scenario.

Often this is prefaced with the words in a worst case scenario...

This helps the reader see that it is not a proven fact but an extrapolation of the data in the worst case.

I didn't say anything about lockdowns being normal?

I am glad that your studies however have shown to you at least that there is consensus among specialists.

I am referring to the actions of the UK government specifically here, who are gradually dripping in more and more controls being justified by false claims and basically lies. I wasn't referring to you specifically when I mentioned lockdowns being 'normal', I brought it up as an example of the kind of twisting of reality that is going on in the mainstream to try to get unthinking people to give away their liberty and rights 'for their own good'.