Predicting the future, as someone once said, is a fool’s game; but in attempting to anticipate, at least, how the UK biosecurity state will develop and expand, I have one guiding premise. Given the political will, the technology to enable that will, and the lack of opposition to it — or, which amounts to the same thing, the financial and legislative power to overcome that opposition — how would those who have this will, dispose of this technology, face this lack of opposition or wield this power, use it and to what ends? What, in short, would those with power do if they could do it? I wasn’t alone in my fears that social-distancing, compulsory face coverings and digital tracking aps would lead to mandatory testing and ‘vaccination’ as a condition of citizenship.
It’s been nine months now since I analysed the statistics on official ‘COVID-19 deaths’ published by the institutions responsible for justifying the regulations and programmes of the UK biosecurity state. These include the Office for National Statistics, the National Health Service and Public Health England. Together with concerned reports from medical bodies, including Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and the Alzheimer’s Society, these statistics strongly suggested that at least half the 80,000 deaths attributed to COVID-19 in 2020 resulted from the withdrawal of medical diagnosis, treatment and care under lockdown restrictions. However, this is a conservative estimate, and doesn’t include the 20,000 excess deaths in care homes last year swept under the COVID-19 carpet.