Are you fed up with social distancing, face masks, and stay-at-home orders – and all the other freedom-robbing laws that decided to piggy-back on the Wuhan coronavirus? Even though we know that the disease is about as serious as seasonal flu here in the U.S., the mainstream message is to continue cowering in fear.
In hindsight, doesn’t everything that has happened since mid-March seems somewhat contrived? Globalists and U.S. government agencies have been running mock scenarios of worldwide pandemics for years – and yet, the U.S. wasn’t prepared.
It’s starting to look like the People in Charge plan to make the rest of us put up with a long list of unending restrictions on our personal and societal freedoms. Are these really necessary or is the New World Order making a power play, as many observers warn?
The thin veil of the pandemic-that-never-was is unraveling rapidly across the United States. People forced into joblessness as “non-essential” contributors are realizing that it’s stupid to wage a war on a germ. For this, we crashed our national economy?
Something smells and it isn’t pretty.
In bombshell news, less than two weeks ago, a top health adviser in the United Kingdom revealed that the two-meter social distancing rule imposed there (equivalent to the six-foot separation in the United States) has no scientific basis. The idea was “conjured up out of nowhere.”
On April 24, 2020, Robert Dingwall of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) stated on British Radio 4 that there has “never been a scientific basis for two meters,” calling it, instead, a “rule of thumb.”
NERVTAG is a committee of experts under the UK’s Department of Health (DH) that provides information to the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), which is advising the government on how best to respond to the national coronavirus outbreak.
In Dingwall’s learned opinion, the whim that was adopted unquestioningly threatens to do more harm than good:
“We cannot sustain [social distancing measures] without causing serious damage to society, to the economy and to the physical and mental health of the population.”
As evidenced by U.S. anti-lockdown protesters, Dingwall predicted that people in democratic societies demand rules rooted in facts rather than emotion:
“I think it will be much harder to get compliance with some of the measures that really do not have an evidence base. I mean the two-meter rule was conjured up out of nowhere.”
Dingwall, a sociology professor at Nottingham Trent University, explained further how the idea of social distancing evolved during the health crisis:
“Well, there is a certain amount of scientific evidence for a one-meter distance which comes out of indoor studies in clinical and experimental settings. There’s never been a scientific basis for two meters. It’s kind of a rule of thumb. But it’s not like there is a whole kind of rigorous scientific literature that it is founded upon.”
NERVTAG researchers have found mounting evidence that coronavirus doesn’t transmit well in the air so transmission outdoors is not a significant threat. Dingwall thinks that enforcement police park patrols have gone too far:
“If it was entirely down to me, I would be calling the dogs off. I don’t think it is appropriate to harass sunbathers.”
The health expert also condemned the near-sighted attitude being adopted by his country’s leadership by closing all outdoor recreational areas as people shelter-in-place:
“It is an indictment of the political and scientific elite that they are not recognizing that people living in flats [apartments] and social housing do not have an alternative to going to parks.”
Relaxing the two-meter (or six-foot) rule by half could make many businesses more profitable, said Prof. Dingwall:
“Reducing social distancing to a meter [three feet] could mean restaurants opening with 80 percent capacity instead of 20.”
Dingwall said his country’s two-meter rule is virtually baseless and “over the top.” He explained additional advantages of acting on facts, not fear:
“However, there is a respectable body of work that shows one meter is enough not to increase transmission. And you are also unlikely to put yourself at increased risk if you pass someone in a transitory way who is less than a meter away, for example in a supermarket aisle. This could help us plan a way forward. Supermarkets could let more people in than they do at the moment.
“It also means we should be opening gardening centers in a couple of weeks – anywhere where there is open space. People should be allowed to go to the beach if we can put in infrastructure to stop overcrowding. Councils should be taking the tape off the benches. We could get things to a more normal level much more quickly.”
Many Americans are questioning the need for prolonging the agony of a well-intentioned but (fortunately) now-unnecessary draconian lockdown to flatten the coronavirus curve.
Is a “new normal” where everyone has to prove they are flu-free the direction We the People really want to go?
Or are you willing to chance coming down with a mild-to-severe case of the flu and put an end to this elaborate, questionable, and costly War on a Germ?
Feel free to share your thoughts with your elected officials – it’s the American way.