I have no idea what reason they would have to do that, but I know if you die within 28 days of a positive test it’s booked as Covid so we no the figures are totally flawed.
Well of course, Thats how all viruses spread I don't know why they are putting deaths from heart attacks, cancer etc down as covid if positive within 28 days. You tell me. You can't tell me they aren't as its a fact, and the only explanation is to balance figures for those who don't test. Which is bollocks . We've lost many human rights due to this pandemic and more people will lose lives through poverty etc. But most are in a frenzy and calling everyone out without question. Read this from the British medical journal. People are waiting for the virus to end but the shìt is really about to begin. The WHO has stated that they, ”do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus…. it seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition”(i). The consequences of ‘lockdown’ may therefore include loss of life, contravening Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states, “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law”. Part I: Article 3: ”No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Detaining old people in care homes against their will and prohibiting them from seeing or touching their loved ones, amounts to inhuman treatment and psychological torture. Social isolation is well documented to cause psychological damage (ii). The same applies to hospitalised patients who are kept apart from those whose presence would otherwise contribute to their recovery. Withholding medical services from patients suffering from cancer and other serious diseases also constitutes inhuman treatment. Terrifying the population with ever-changing death narratives via the mainstream media inevitably predisposes to mental ill-health problems amongst those of the general public who believe what they see and hear (iii). Article 5: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty….except for the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases”. This clearly presupposes that the detained individual is sick with an infectious disease as opposed to healthy and asymptomatic, from whom transmission has been described by the WHO as, “very rare” (iv) (v). Healthy individuals have been kept under house arrest despite showing no evidence of a transmissible disease and having committed no crime. Article 8: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. Preventing family members from meeting each other is a breach of their human rights, since where is the conclusive evidence that healthy individuals pose a threat to each other and society? And where are the risk assessments as to both consequences and proportionality? Article 9: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”. The enforced closure of places of worship, and rules prohibiting singing and gathering in community, contravene these rights, whilst other venues such as supermarkets and pet shops are not subject to the same rules. Article 10: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”. The censoring of views, especially views of respected medical experts and discussion of legitimate and relevant matters pertaining to ‘covid’ treatments and vaccination, in the mainstream media, social media and in public places, infringes this right (vi). Article 11: “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others”. In the absence of clear scientific evidence, the unprecedented quarantining of healthy individuals infringes their rights, particularly when the government stated that, “As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK” (vii). Article 12: “Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family”. ‘Lockdown’ prevents men and women meeting each other and forming normal relationships thereby infringing their right to found a family (viii). Article 14: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground”. Individuals with serious illnesses have had their treatments postponed or denied in favour of filling hospital beds with ‘covid’ patients. This is discrimination on the grounds of diagnosis. An unreliable PCR test is therefore being used as a tool to discriminate between those who are entitled to treatment and those who are not, regardless of the consequences for their health (ix). Article 17: “Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein”. The government, therefore, abuses the rights of individuals by arbitrarily establishing rules which infringe the Articles described. Part II, Article 2: “No person shall be denied the right to education”. Closing schools when children are not at risk from the virus denies them the right to education, especially since some parents may not be equipped to provide the conditions or skills for home schooling. This includes discrimination in favour of the children of so-called ‘key workers’ who alone were permitted to attend school. Part III: Article 1 of the Thirteenth Protocol: “Abolition of the death penalty”. If ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ (DNR) notices are attached to patients without their informed consent or following the coerced consent of their next of kin or carer, this may be interpreted as a death sentence without appeal (x). Similarly, if elderly patients are returned to care homes before their hospital inpatient treatment is complete in order to make way for younger ‘covid’ patients, or, if there was a refusal by doctors to admit elderly patients to hospital, that may effectively amount to a death sentence for some very sick individuals. Euthanasia is illegal in the UK. The author is not a lawyer. There may be nuances of statute law which offer a different interpretation. However, from the standpoint of living men and women, and according to Natural Law, “Every child born is endowed with unalienable liberties that no authority, law, government or religion can diminish or abolish. Any power that attempts to do so is tyrannical and illegitimate, even if it operates under its own laws”. And, similarly, “Under Common Law, all citizens, including the highest-ranking officials of the government, are subject to the same set of laws, and the exercise of government power is limited by those laws (xi).
Its actually done to try and avoid flaws in the counting. Its explained here. https://publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/12/behind-the-headlines-counting-covid-19-deaths/
im English and proud of it i live in Germany who havent got a clue ive not had the first jab yet, and not expected to till November. So are you saying i should go permanent isolation when i go back home
Its quite easy to find out why Covid deaths are being reported the way they are. Interesting that point about everyone having the right to security of person. That means that their lives won't be put in danger. People's lives are being put in danger by being exposed to a novel coronavirus that until very recently there was no known cure for. Lets take just one example. "Everyone has a right to an education". Children weren't denied an education. Lessons moved online and the most vulnerable children were offered places in school during lockdowns. Interestingly, a lot of those 'vulnerable' children declined to accept those places. Nonetheless, teachers still taught face to face with children, who despite being less at risk can still carry the virus, and had to meet with their adult colleagues. Thereby their right to "security of person" was compromised. The point is, that these were extraordinary circumstances in which everyone was required to make a sacrifice for the benefits of everyone in society. Its not been fun and it has been hard on a lot of people but thats why people have been trying to find a variety of measures to help each other through.
The WHO has stated that they, ”do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control. Detaining old people in care homes against their will and prohibiting them from seeing or touching their loved ones, amounts to inhuman treatment and psychological torture. Individuals with serious illnesses have had their treatments postponed or denied in favour of filling hospital beds with ‘covid’ patients. This is discrimination on the grounds of diagnosis. An unreliable PCR test is therefore being used as a tool to discriminate between those who are entitled to treatment and those who are not, regardless of the consequences for their health. it seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition”(i). The consequences of ‘lockdown’ may therefore include loss of life, contravening Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states, “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law”. You picked out a couple of points and used them to suit your own agenda.
No, I picked out a couple of points to demonstrate that your agenda is contradictory. Also contradictory is this waffle about care homes. Care homes were shut down because their residents are amongst the most vulnerable to the virus. This was done to protect them. It hasn't been easy on them or their relatives but I'm sure their relatives would rather they survived. It is not discriminatory for seriously ill people to have missed their treatment. They too are amongst the most vulnerable to the virus and they were told to isolate and not to come to hospitals where large groups of people carrying the virus were congregated. Having had a family member in that situation I find this line of argument offensive. Yes, the pandemic has had an impact on the world's economy. That has been unavoidable because measures had to be taken to save lives. That's why governments have had to offer some easing of lockdowns and why the rules have often not seemed consistent- to provide some relief to the economy. Of course the WHO don't advocate lockdowns. That's why we've got a vaccine programme. What did you want us to do while we were waiting for that? Just let all those vulnerable people die? Your argument makes no sense.
What would you rather: "We've got a system for estimating how many people have died from the virus but its flawed" Or "We don't know how many people have died" ?
It states it is against human rights. I don't give two shìts if you find it offensive. It's my opinion and plenty of others and also contravenes human rights ffs. So you agree that pensioners who were positive were shipped from hospitals back to care homes and locked away to die and spread it ? You also must agree that cancer patients etc were left to suffer and die with no treatment but your offended. Wow. Waffle and my agenda. Protecting them in care homes. Get a grip. You'll be telling me the experts and MP's always get it right next ffs
Well I am now wortied. 130,000 extra people died than we normally expect to die in the last year. If they didn't die from Covid or complications caused by Covid what did they die from?
Yes. People have died because they didn't get treatment. Why do you think I'm offended? Read between the lines. People have made sacrifices and suffered because we were in an unprecedented situation. They did this for the good of everyone and all you can bleat on about is "rights". What about responsibility to your fellow man? I'm disgusted.
So what about those rights to people with cancer etc ? Don't they count ? It states if you read it. People were getting treatment for corona even if none life threatening etc. Are those the sacrifices you talk about ?
You don't understand nuance do you? Its as clear as day if you look for it but I'm not going to ****ing spell it out for you.
Well in the US of A, apparently the truth about UFOs is starting to come out.... perhaps the 130,000 are subject to alien abduction...stranger than fiction perhaps.. Or perhaps the 130,000 are victims of the worldwide pandemic? Not sure myself which option is more likely.
