HART (Health Advisory and Recovery Team) recently reviewed the Big Boris reversal out of Freedom into Lockdown, and concluded that the credibility of his position was not even paper thin.
As they point out, the numbers hospitalised "with Covid" were below every one of the previous SAGE predictions upon which their advice is supposedly based.
But what about the Delta Variant (I rhetorically hear you ask) which threatens us all with Covid Calamity? Well, Ivor Cummins dealt with that one very convincingly.
This is part of an enduring pattern of obfuscation on all matters Covid.
And as HART point out:
"It is not possible to meet the requirements of the four tests. They were designed to be unattainable"
Back to the PCR test and its rate of false positive results, which the Government claims not to be able to pin-point, but as the WHO clearly states, a positive PCR test is not sufficient to identify a case in the absence of clinical symptoms.
And this is the crux of the matter; the PCR test enjoys no consensus in the medical community and yet the whole pandemic narrative collapses like a pack of cards if it is not reliable.
Everyone entering hospital is tested regularly - as soon as a positive result is obtained they become statistically a "Covid case" according to Public Health England.
And if a positive result is obtained, what need is there for further tests for other causes? Flu for example? Flu which has coincidentally disappeared since the arrival of Covid.
Everyone in the community who takes a Covid test (and the pressures are enormous, symptomatic or otherwise) is also statistically a "Covid case" to PHE.
If these positive results are false then the "pandemic" evaporates along with all these "Covid cases". Pouff, gone!
Think about it.
The PCR test is based upon amplifying a genetic signal (from a sample taken from the "patient") until it is large enough to be detected - every amplification cycle doubles the signal. The sensitivity of the test is such that if enough cycles are run it is possible to detect almost anything, so clearly the number of cycles to be used is critical to establish an accurate and reliable test for the presence of enough material to indicate possible infectiousness - it is a critical parameter. Yet the published specification for the original PCR test as relied on by the WHO omits this parameter entirely, leaving it up to the laboratory concerned. Without the proper level of standardisation, the test is unfit for purpose.
The CDC has recently advised that for vaccinated people being tested for Covid the test should not be run at more than 28 cycles. For the unvaccinated the cycle threshold is apparently left unchanged, (rumoured to be somewhere between 35 and 45 cycles depending on the lab - that's between 128 and 131072 times as sensitive as 28 cycles - you get the picture).
Does this make sense? Only if the objective is to reduce the number of "cases" found among the vaccinated as compared with the unvaccinated.
Concerned? We should be.