One of the driver’s behind the peoples motivation to protest against the Lockdowns, has been their disillusionment, and distrust of the government’s’ management of the ‘virus,’ and its seemingly lack of concern for the health of its citizens, both physical and mental, including: Children’s’ schooling, the isolation of their loved ones in care homes, and parents worrying about how they are going to feed their families, because they have lost their employment, and or, businesses.
There are three questions that come in to play here, the first being serious enough, but second and third fit in the category of ‘you could not make it up!’
Firstly, the medical evidence and the governments’ own data show that there is little justification for a further Lockdown, despite us having to listen to the government’s ‘mantra’ of “follow the data.” It is no wonder the people are asking the question ‘did we really have to lockdown in the first place?’
Now we turn to the second and third questions: How was the data compiled which the government claims justified the Lockdown policy, and how was it presented to the British people?
Quite simply, in many cases a medical test was used, which the government now admits was not always accurate. The test swabbed those with the flu like virus symptoms to confirm or negate whether the virus was present.
For example, even if a person presenting tested positive for the virus, but died of heart failure, or lung failure, or haemorrhaging pints of blood spurting from their every orifice, or even a stroke (a few examples and by no means an exhaustive list), the rules allowed that if a person died within 30 days of being tested for the virus, then the death could be registered as a virus death. And it does not stop there, because the 30-day period has now been extended to 60 days.
Now, this is where the government has played a blinder to justify ‘their’ Lockdown policy. When a person dies and is tested for the ‘virus’ post-death, and the test shows a positive result, regardless of the type of test used, then their death can be considered to have been a virus-related death, and again, the death can be registered as such.
And get this, if for example a person was killed instantly in a car accident, but later tested positive for the virus, then again, this could be registered as a virus death. The justification for this would be, that although the person died of an unrelated fatal illness, or injury, the person was asymptomatic i.e., did not show any virus symptoms.
At Red Brick, we too believe in artistic licence, albeit not on this scale.
At Red Brick we always try to save the best until last, so here it is: How have the virus death rates been presented to the public?
Well, pushing the colourful graphs, bar charts and power points with all their gobbledygook to one side, quite simply the British people were led up the garden path to believe that all deaths were because of the ‘virus.’
However, the obvious ambiguity or deception as some might consider it, is a ‘cat’ that is well and truly ‘out of the bag.’ The the Peoples Anti-Lockdown Protests have been a response to a growing belief that there is no justification for the Lockdown policy, or further Lockdowns, because they also have been following the data.
The fact that the data presented to the public has been flawed through false positives during testing, and is a virus that has an over 90 percent chance of full recovery, and almost negligible mortality rate for those aged below 70, we wonder when, if at all, the majority of the British public will finally open their eyes, begin to question the narrative, but more than that, demanding the answers, too?
There has now been over one and a half years of government (and global tyranny), and we at Red Brick have seen some excellent peaceful protesting throughout the United Kingdom, but it will require millions more Brits to get involved with the ‘pushback,’ if the inaccuracies of the data fed to us to justify the Lockdowns is to be exposed, and those responsible for that data are to be held accountable!
Red Brick.