A committee member approaches his MP (and finds helpless agreement with the following statements). What are your thoughts?

“A TBG Committee member sent the following letter on the coronavirus lockdown to his M.P.”

Dear Sir,

It is becoming increasingly clear that the lockdown is based on faulty science and erroneous theories.  The Government’s position does not withstand the lightest scrutiny.

1  Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), to 16 April 2020 reveal:

No one had died from coronavirus under the age of 15.  Total deaths amongst the working-age population (16 to 64 inclusive) were 1,704. At the end of 2019, 41.38 million people in the UK were of working-age population, between 16 and 64.

Thus, to 16 April 2020, 0.0041% of the working-age population died from coronavirus.

2  These statistics were similar to those from BBC Radio 4’s ‘More or Less’ programme on 22^nd April 2020 (which appear to have escaped the BBC’s censor).  18 minutes into the broadcast (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000hfqq ), it is revealed that of  42m people aged between 15-65, 2145 died in UK hospitals (up to the date of the recording, presumably).  This represents a death rate of 1 in 19,000 from the working age population, ie 0.005%.

In the NHS, the death toll is no higher.  There are around 1.5m NHS staff;  98% are under 65, ie 1,470,000.  The death toll for NHS staff, at the time of the programme, was 77.  By coincidence this is also exactly 1 in 19,000.

However, most virus patients in hospital have an underlying pre-existing health problem and so, are more likely to die and that is certainly the situation for those over 65 years of age. Unfortunately, those dying with the virus are often misrepresented as dying from the virus.

The BBC Radio 4 Programme, above, produced this comment from a local doctor (and constituent):  “A very honest and rational view of what the real facts are.  Having spent my working life as an epidemiologist I do despair, as time goes by, of some of the less than logical restrictions placed on the nation.”

Clearly, the overall death rate as a percentage of the population is tiny, but particularly amongst the working population, who have been forced out of work. What, therefore, is the purpose of this lockdown? It is evidently clear that the media and the Government have exaggerated the loss of life and, not least, the danger to NHS staff. 

This raises a number of questions:

a) Deaths on the road are not dissimilar to the aforementioned figures, in percentage terms.  Should the Government not therefore ban cars?

b) Deaths and disease from smoking have produced a greater number of victims.  Why has the Government not banned cigarettes?

c) Why is the media in lockstep with Government propaganda?  Where is the analysis and objectivity from both?

The Government, it seems, has relied for the most part on the advice generated by Imperial College.  However, there are countless experts of considerable achievement who dispute the opinions of those such as Professor Ferguson.  Not least, it is notable that Imperial College is closely aligned to ‘big pharma’ and the WHO.  80% of the WHO’s funding originates from ‘’big pharma’.  This represents a significant conflict of interest.

A Misleading Mantra

According to statistics last week, 2700 cancer appointments, per week, are being lost because patients are fearful of attending hospital. This is in addition to those with heart conditions, sepsis, symptoms of strokes and similar severe life threatening circumstances. It is evidently clear that the Orwellian statement “Protect the NHS; Save Lives” – clearly conceived by a slick PR company – has created an atmosphere of opprobrium, which is deterring many from seeking urgent medical attention. 

How many have already died, despite the mantra “Protect the NHS; Save Lives”, which has produced the opposite effect?

Then there are the suicides, now rising as a result of the ramifications of the lockdown.  Unemployment, salary cuts, house repossessions and the collapse of many SMEs will create a suicide wave over the next two years.

Summary

It is accepted that the elderly, with underlying and often fatal conditions, are more likely to become a victim of the virus.  However, this does not warrant placing the entire population under what is akin to house arrest.  It does not justify the destruction to the economy. It is also evident that the claimed high death toll in the NHS is not true and the media has created a condition of hysteria. In Sweden, which does not rely upon the opinions of Imperial Collage, there is no lockdown and Sweden is expected to reach herd immunity within weeks.  So far, the death rate per head of the population is lower than that in the UK.

I wish to know why, based upon the statistics quoted above, there can be any justification behind this lockdown and I hope you will answer this as an individual, rather than as an M.P. who feels he must defend his party and Government against the indefensible. Is it not understood that the economic damage – which in itself will create poor health, as  recessions and depressions always do – will cause irreparable damage to the economy, far out of any proportion in terms of what limited good can be done from following the flawed and disputable opinions of some medical advisors?

The damage wrought to the economy so far exceeds that inflicted by the Luftwaffe during the totality of WW2.  It would be difficult for an enemy of the realm to create the current damage during a war, unless by a nuclear strike. One really could not make this up.  Quite apart from the questionable science, there are also major issues relating to essential civil liberties.  Forbidding those who wish to work from doing so is oppression.  Not least, the closure of the churches is utterly unacceptable and without precedent (and is ridiculous when viewed alongside packed tubes in London).  One has to look to the aftermath of the Russian Revolution in 1917 (and the bloodshed that accompanied it) to discover a parallel.

The public will not tolerate this much longer, even with good reason. The reasoning, so far, does not withstand scrutiny.