COVID: The Case Against the UK Government

Has the U.K. Government acted in good faith over the COVID-19 crisis?

In this post, we'll examine the UK Government's actions around the COVID crisis alongside various data published by official sources. The goal is to get insight into whether the Government has acted honestly and in good faith.

For now let's put aside the science around whether the disease known as COVID-19 is caused by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and focus on the evidence as it emerged.

Let's keep two alternative possibilities in mind as we look at the facts.


The first, "Case A" is that the UK Government has conducted itself in good faith, in the genuine belief that this is a pandemic, and has done all it can to reverse it, so that the country can safely return to normal as soon as possible.


The second possibility, which we'll call "Case B", is the possibility that the UK Government knows that the pandemic is no longer present, but does not wish a swift return to normal, and is therefore continuing to push the pandemic narrative for some other reason.

As we work through the various statistics, we will also pose eight key questions that expose the most fundamental problems.

Let's start by looking at the trends in the media of some key phrases over recent months.

"Second Wave" mentioned extremely early

Here is the Google Trends graph for the phrase "second wave". You can see that interest in the term was comparatively very low until around March 18th.

Now compare the official UK-wide graph of COVID-linked deaths (i.e. where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate). Here we have highlighted the date March 18th.

You can see that the public started discussing the possibility of a second wave at the same time that the very first deaths started to occur. Surely that is very early.


Why did "second wave" start to trend before the first wave had even begun? 

If Case A (the Government is acting in good faith), this really does not make sense. The public did not suddenly starting talking about it for no reason. Why would the key influencers (WHO, Government, and media) seed the idea of a second wave so soon?

It only makes any sense in Case B (the Government is knowingly rolling out a prepared agenda), where it could be argued that the idea of "second wave" is being implanted into the public's consciousness. Why? Is it to set expectations of a second wave that is already planned?

Here's another search term that jumped up in popularity. The line shows the trend of the term "vaccine". Considering that the public's interest is guided by the media narrative, it is interesting that the public's attention was guided to terms like "second wave" and "vaccine" so early in the lifecycle of this pandemic.

"Flatten the Curve" quickly dropped as priority

Early in the COVID crisis, the Government implemented a nationwide lockdown, which has resulted in the closure of a huge number of businesses, the loss of huge numbers of jobs, and an economic recession that has seen the UK economy shrink by one third (at the time of writing). The speed and scale of the sudden recession has already dwarfed the 2008 financial crisis (source).

The justification presented to the public for these extreme measures was that we had to "flatten the curve".

The next graph shows the UK official COVID-related daily death figures (blue bars) together with the Google Trends graph for interest in the term "flatten the curve" (orange line). You can see that, again, interest in the phrase peaked even before the curve actually started to appear, and then dropped to less than half of its peak interest by the time the curve reached its maximum in mid-April.


Why was "flatten the curve" hailed as the nation's priority in March, but then swiftly dropped even before the fatality curve peaked?

Furthermore (and this is a recurring theme), if flattening the curve was ever truly the goal, we would now be celebrating the fact that the curve has been flat for nearly two months. We are not. Neither the Government nor mainstream media have been cheering the fact that the COVID wave has, to all extents and purposes, ended and that the country can return to normal.

Here are the daily deaths in hospital, according to the latest NHS data, for the whole of the UK, by age group. Even in the hardest-hit groups (60 years and 80-plus), the curve is now objectively flat. Why are we not partying in the streets? (When it comes to younger age groups, the picture is even more ridiculous. The official NHS numbers show that only two people aged under forty have died in hospital in the past month related to COVID.)

If Case A were true, you would expect that the Government would be proudly announcing its success in halting COVID mortality. However, there have been no such announcements. On the contrary, the narrative from both Government and state news sources continue to stress the threat of another wave. Case A makes no sense.

It does all fit with the Case B scenario. If the Government's purpose involves perpetuating the fear level thus justifying continuing the increased level of control over the population's freedoms, then you can see why they would choose to ignore the simple fact that today there is no epidemic in the UK.

Mortality now lower than flu

In the beginning we were all scared into thinking that that the disease caused by this new virus was extremely dangerous. We saw videos of people dropping dead in the streets in Wuhan. The media reported shocking warnings that the UK might see half a million dead.

We can now see that, even accepting the official mortality figures (which in fact do not represent people who have died "of" COVID-19, but only with a mention on the death certificate or following a positive test result), the mortality rate is far lower than the public was led to believe.

Let's compare the deaths so far in 2020 that have been attributed to COVID-19 with those from influenza and pneumonia.

You can see that, following a tremendous spike in death rates, since mid-June deaths linked to COVID have been significantly lower than flu/pneumonia deaths.

Unless we experience another huge spike later in the year then it looks as though total deaths linked to COVID will certainly be lower than regular flu. Consider that Government has never seen fit to implement nationwide lockdown in response to a bad flu season. For example, the winter from 2015 to 2016 saw an estimated 27,000 extra deaths, also mainly among the elderly. And yet no lockdown, no social distancing, no wearing of face masks was implemented. Why now?

Again, if Case A were true, the Government would be wasting no time in announcing the end of the epidemic and delivering the good news that everything can now return to normal. Considering the incredible damage that has already been inflicted on the UK economy, you would imagine that the party in power would be anxious to lift the restrictions.

As none of that has happened, we must consider Case B. Not only has the Government resisted the clear opportunity to end all the restrictions, they have actually implemented new rules, including the requirement to wear face coverings in enclosed public spaces, backed up with the threat of a £100+ fine, since July 24th.

For clarity, we have highlighted that date of July 24th on the chart of daily COVID-related deaths below. Why impose new restrictions on freedom after the fatality curve flattened and all but disappeared?


If mortality is now so low, why are the restrictions still in place, and why have new ones been implemented?

COVID deaths been eliminated, but flu unaffected

However, the graph above leads to a far more worrying question.

We have been told repeatedly that the restrictive measures were necessary to slow the spread of this deadly virus.

But if that is the case, and seeing that this policy has apparently been extremely effective as deaths have now been practically eliminated... why can we not see a similar impact on flu deaths?

Let's consider that all four of the following statements are true.

  1. Influenza and COVID-19 are both caused by a pathogenic virus.
  2. Both viruses are communicable (through interpersonal contact, possibly from surfaces, and possibly through the air).
  3. The extreme measures that have been implemented on the UK population were necessary to slow the spread of the virus that causes COVID-19.
  4. And that they have been extremely successful, helping to bring mortality to near-zero.

Now, if all those are true, you have to ask...


Why have the measures that have halted COVID-19 not also eliminated flu deaths?

Think it through. If both diseases are the result of similar, communicable viruses, why are more people now dying every day from flu than from COVID-19?

One possible explanation that has been suggested could be that the virus that causes COVID-19 is far more contagious than the influenza virus. If that were the case, it would suggest the novel coronavirus spread like wildfire through the UK population, but killing the elderly almost exclusively. And if that were true, it would mean that we have already reached the fabled "herd immunity", suggesting that you could make an argument that the elderly and infirm should still be protected, but that the rest of the UK public could return to normal immediately.

So we must conclude that we have either achieved "herd immunity", which means there is no more pandemic and that the virus is no longer a high consequence infectious disease (which Public Health England in fact published back in March), or one or more of the above assertions are incorrect, suggesting that COVID-19 may not be caused by a communicable pathogen, in which case there is also no pandemic.

Deaths in care homes have dropped back to normal

Next, let's turn our attention to the number of deaths that have occurred in care homes. The chart below shows all the available data on deaths reported in the care sector in England and Wales.

  • The orange line shows the deaths in 2020.
  • Grey = deaths in 2019.
  • Blue = deaths attributed to COVID-19.
  • Yellow = 2019 deaths added to COVID deaths.

This raises a few interesting questions, not least the question of what caused the excess deaths among care home residents that have not been attributed to COVID-19 (i.e. the excess gap between the orange and yellow lines).

But the simplest and most obvious question is...


How have deaths in care homes returned to below normal levels?

If COVID-19 was indeed killing up to five hundred care home residents daily in April 2020, how come the death rate has practically come to a halt, resulting in slightly fewer deaths in this high-risk group in mid-June than the previous year?

In April, we had already had several weeks' warning of the pandemic, so it would be fair to assume that the people who run care homes will have been able to implement the necessary changes in policy to protect their residents. Nevertheless, throughout the whole month of April, at least twice as many elderly care home residents died as the year before.

But the deaths have now returned to normal levels, with almost zero COVID-related deaths. If practices and policies in care homes are similar now to what they were in April and May 2020, how can this be possible? Remember that old people in care homes spend most of their time indoors anyway, so changes in weather are very unlikely to have much effect.

One logical explanation could be that most or even all the extra deaths were a result not of COVID-19, but a result of some other policy. We know that, at this time, care home residents were routinely issued with do not resuscitate (DNR) orders, in order to "protect the NHS", and that many were denied access to care on hospital wards, which could have prolonged their lives.

This leads us uncomfortably on to the next question.


Why have no deaths in care homes been reported since June 12th?

That's right. If you check the official page on the Office of National Statistics website, the last update was on the 12th of June, 2020. If care home residents are among the most at-risk of COVID-19, why did official reporting of deaths stop over two months ago, as confirmed in this screenshot?

If the Government believes there is a pandemic and is committed to helping us to get through it safely and quickly (Case A), why would they suppress the reporting the deaths in care homes? Surely this is more good news.

Again, this bizarre pattern of behaviour only makes sense if Case B is true. If the deaths have returned to lower-than-normal levels, and the Government wishes to perpetuate fear by continuing to promote the idea that there is still a pandemic caused by a virulent pathogen, you can imagine why they would wish to suppress facts that indicate otherwise.

The switch from "deaths" to "cases"

At the start of the alleged pandemic, the Government and state media stressed the fearful mortality rates of COVID-19, but the narrative soon changed from talking about "deaths" to "cases". Why? (We might also wonder why other governments around the world have taken the same change of direction at a similar time.)

To the average person, at any point in history prior to 2020, the word "case" in a medical context would signify a sick individual. If I said, "I had a case of the flu" you would understand that I had been ill with the flu. However, it now seems that the term "cases" has been subtly redefined for us so that it now includes positive tests. Of course, many will still hear it and think, "sick people".

The graph below shows the popularity of the phrases "COVID deaths" (blue line) and "COVID cases" (red line) in news-related searches in the UK, via Google Trends. You can see that, while more people searched for "deaths" up until the past few weeks, "cases" is now more common, suggesting that the public's consciousness has now been successfully re-framed to focus on the "case" paradigm.

In the media, the switch to "cases" has been even more pronounced and obvious. In fact, doing a search on returns almost three times more results that mention "COVID cases" than "COVID deaths".

A clue may lie in the fact that death numbers are pretty absolute. There is not much the Government can do to massage that data point. Of course, its primary job is to bring the number down as low as possible as fast as possible, which makes it all the more surprising that they are not shouting their success from the rooftops. But the "cases" figure is something that they can influence, simply by running more and more tests.

If Case A is true, and the UK Government's priority is to protect the population and get through the COVID crisis as swiftly and as safely as possible, why would they stop talking about deaths and start talking "cases" as the death rate dropped towards zero?

Cases simply refer to positive test results. They do not mean that someone is sick, or at risk of dying. Yet testing has continued to grow week-on-week, now averaging over 150,000 tests being processed daily. Why would a Government whose priority is a rapid and safe return to normal keep increasing its efforts to find more "cases", instead of applauding the vanishing mortality numbers?

Again, only Case B makes logical sense. The Government's own actions show that it is continually pouring more resources into the search for "cases", which could have the effect of spreading fear and panic, and choosing not to report the good news that now almost nobody is dying of COVID-19, which of course would have the opposite effect.

The following chart shows the extent of the Government's efforts to find ever more "cases" to report. It shows tests carried out (blue line) and number of positive "cases" found (red line) up to August 2nd, 2020. Is the only reason that "cases" are on the rise because even more resources have been poured into testing?


Why is the country investing so much in the search for "cases" instead of reporting on the plummeting death rate?

Mis-reported statistics

As if all the previous questions were not enough to condemn this Government's actions, all you need to do is consider its complete failure to report the correct numbers of cases and deaths related to COVID-19.

Matt Hancock, the Minister who holds the title of Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, is the person primarily responsible for helping the country to get through the COVID crisis. With that in mind, you could say that the single most important factor to enable him to do his job is to get the right numbers about the extent of the alleged pandemic, so that the Government can make the best decisions most effectively.

However, he has comprehensively failed in this most basic task. The Government admitted several weeks ago that the death toll had been inflated by at least 5000 via the action of counting deaths from any cause as COVID-related, if the person had ever had a positive test result.

It later emerged that many thousands of cases had been double-counted.

Furthermore, just in the past few days, it has also emerged that a similar mistake was made with the reporting of hospital admissions.

Let us be clear. In the middle of a global disease pandemic, the Government's number one priority must be to evaluate the danger accurately. The responsibility falls on the Health Secretary, who completely failed to deliver. He had ONE JOB.


How did the Health Secretary and Government manage to fail to get accurate figures on the spread of COVID?

If Case A is true, the Government has exhibited incompetence to a degree that is simply unimaginable. If that is true, it should be subject to an immediate vote of no confidence and a new Government should be formed as soon as possible to help take control of the reins.

But that is not what the evidence suggests. The idea that so many highly educated, powerful politicians can manage to fail so spectacularly in the most fundamental task, and then seek to blame others, is unthinkable. The only logical conclusion the thinking person can possible make is that the UK Government has conspired to inflate the death and infection figures by any means necessary.



It is now clear, from observing its own actions, that the UK Government does not wish a timely return to normal life. If it did, it would be going to lengths to celebrate the practical eradication of the COVID pandemic in this country, and moving to reverse the extreme measures that limit the population's freedoms that have resulted in such catastrophic outcomes.

Instead, the sum of this Government's actions appear only to support the hypothesis that they wish to prolong the present restrictions by giving the impression that the pandemic is ongoing and far more serious than the data suggest.

The UK Government has some very, very serious questions to answer. This establishment must take responsibility for conspiring to extend the appearance of the alleged COVID pandemic, leading to disastrous economic outcomes for the country, but - even more importantly - the unimaginable health and emotional damage on the population of this country.

For more...

Join The Human Unleashed

Discover how to take control of your health and performance.
Try it out with 30 days' free membership

About the author

The Human Unleashed Team

The Human Unleashed exists to promote true health, healing, and freedom by sharing the latest evidence-based knowledge with our members.

  • Gary says:

    Awesome breakdown!

  • Carol Robson says:

    Thank you for putting together this information.
    I think most of us who are awake know everything you have addressed to be true. The problem is the people who believe the government and the media. Out of my 10 friends there are only 2 of them think the same as me. The others believe the government etc. We don’t comply but feel helpless as to what else to do?
    Thank you guys for the great stuff you put out.

  • Chris Hill says:

    Thank you so much for this brilliant breakdown, and explanation of the figures.
    I have watched the entire Covid-19 series, and your plain asking ‘What do we know?’ questions, and the ensuing discussions, which have not only questioned, but practically predicted the upcoming ‘events’ have convinced me (Not that I needed a lot of convincing!) that our politicians are nothing better than self serving, ‘I’m alright Jack’ people. They have no interest in the very people who elect them, who they are actually elected to serve, thus making them hypocrites of the highest order.
    I have guided people to those video discussions, which to be fair, would as a one time sitting, would take a while to go through, but I always point them towards the first one so they can see, if they choose to look, how everything is time lined, and predicted as I said earlier.
    Now I have this in text, and people can read through themselves, again, if they choose to, but see the actual numbers for themselves in black and white. Or red and blue, but you get my drift!
    Thank you again so much. Now I’m off to do quite a bit of sharing!! 🙂

    • The Human Unleashed Team says:

      Thank you Chris, we really appreciate your feedback.

      One thing that really stands out is that one of the key points we identified very early in our video series was that if the lockdown measures would be effective against COVID-19, they should be similarly effective against flu. The results are now in, of course, and it has highlighted beyond doubt that there is a serious error somewhere in the case for lockdown.

      Either flu is not caused by a contagious virus, or COVID isn’t, or both, and/or the lockdown policy has been a waste of time, effectively causing more deaths than it has prevented.

      • Chris Hill says:

        I think my own frustration, partly, comes from the fact that I am still furloughed, which started April 1st (I don’t know if there’s a message there!) , and the people that are so blinkered, and believe everything they get through the mainstream media.
        Yet they won’t take the time to look for anything else, which proves t me that the Government and media have convinced them that anything other than what they say is lies.
        People won’t watch some Youtube videos, because they don’t want to give them any more hits! For goodness sake!! And that is my own brother! I despair, yet I live in hope.

  • john says:

    Having just had the virus/flu , and still of work I have had plenty of time to watch the fiasco.
    The adverts interested me from the start. The black and red/death and blood to the later milder clours of green and
    yellow. Could there have been a subliminal message in first adverts. the publics mind seems to have been set from
    that point. Second is the cost of all this advertising from NHS, Goverment and private industry put together very
    quickly. Lastly when I was tested for the allclear of the Flu a nurse let slip the fact the test were only 38% correct.


    • The Human Unleashed Team says:

      Great points John. The inaccuracy rates of the tests throw up another conundrum, which is that we don’t have any control to compare against the tests. The PCR tests can only detect the presence of any amount of a certain RNA sequence, which doesn’t mean you’re going to die, doesn’t mean you’re sick or even going to get sick. Then, if someone goes on to develop pneumonia, how do we know if that’s COVID-19 or viral or bacterial pneumonia? We don’t know! It creates a kind of circular reasoning that it seems is only helpful to those who wish to perpetuate the idea of a pandemic.

  • Steve says:

    Love what the H U team have done and continue to do.. we all know something isn’t right and we are being lied to on a grand scale…please organise a march protest rally…anything..stop the madness

  • Sarah says:

    Absolutely fantastic article that makes it clear that covid is not the enemy here.

  • Alex Gilmour says:

    A superb, well written breakdown which technically could easily stand up in a court of law but of course it will never go that far and rarely does – ‘welcome to the layer cake’.
    However nice to see accurate analysis and data collection for the figures and statistics that confirm what many have considered already.

    Many thanks.

  • Neil says:

    You have made a case which must be fully investigated. Ensure the Labour leader, a Lawyer, gets it. A firm of barristers could organise judicial review.

    • juliej says:

      Do you honestly believe that labour would have made any difference, they are all for more control and nanny state. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, who is in power, look at the evidence, things never get better for the general public and the gap between the richest and poorest grows.

      • The Human Unleashed Team says:

        Hi Julie.. No, I’m not sure Labour would have done any differently. The fact that the same kind of narrative is being rolled out in sync in multiple countries suggests that there is some kind of control being exercised at international level.

  • Lyn says:

    Brilliant analysis. Such a pity that I can only share it with a handful of people. The others would have me locked up!

  • Carol says:

    Thanks for this! A thoroughly excellent breakdown and analysis of the situation. We’d love to use it on our blog with your permission. We’ve been calling out the numbers from the beginning, they have never made sense from day one. And the recent shift from ‘deaths’ to ‘cases’ in the MSM was so blatant.
    Our blog is designed to help those with cognitive dissonance shift to a better understanding of why the official narrative does not make sense. In order to stay true to our original intention we limit ourselves to only those topics that can be sourced from official sources so that we can avoid the “conspiracy theory” label.
    It might help some of the commentator’s friends and relatives – if you find it has merit, please share. You can find it here:

  • eca says:

    Fantastic reportage, thank you.

  • Alex says:

    Is human unleashed or any other organisation engaging lawyers to formally present a legal case against the government? This is pretty serious because, as you say, it involves millions of lives, their mental health, their livelihoods and the repercussions that this will have on their children in terms of trauma and future prospects in life.

    • The Human Unleashed Team says:

      That’s a good question Alex. I’m sure plenty of suits will follow, and I really don’t know how the Government will be able to defend them. It is not our focus, however. We’re here primarily to help people to regain their health by taking personal responsibility. So the actions of Government are not of primary importance.

  • Lesley Shurlock says:

    Many thanks. This needs to be top news and broadcast on TV.
    I am particularly glad you have made comparisons with flu. Especially “Why have the measures that have halted COVID-19 not also eliminated flu deaths?”

    I find it very difficult to cope with people who believe that their mask is needed and that their children will die if they return to school. The terror-mode instilled in the public has driven out all common sense.

    The time has come to make all the above important points more loudly and publicly. I would prefer them to be on television. People tend to regard street demonstrations as the ‘extreme view’ and disassociate themselves from them.

    What our government have done to us is so enormous with so many breaches of our human rights, loss of access to NHS care and to education, hitting the family business, the small high-street business and ruining so many… The list is endless. The government needs to be held to account for each single piece of dishonest behaviour that has been detrimental to the health or business of every person affected. Every single person damaged by this regime must be recompensed by the people responsible, who must be punished for their unlawful behaviour and lies.

    I’m begging you, Human Unleashed, to take a lead in this.

    Thank you.

  • Dr Ron says:

    I can fully concur with all this. But why ? What is the purpose of this continual lockdown?

  • Ged says:

    Population control in full effect. Stay away from the vaccine people.


  • Tony mckenna says:

    Thank you for this.
    I think that the comparison with flu is particularly powerful.
    It is very important to be able to defend all statements and there are a lot of people out there who would like to “rubbish” your analysis, so I am going to suggest you re-look at your last point.
    I may be wrong, but I think that the percentage increases are a natural result of the flawed policy, not a sign of increased manipulation.
    As I see it, as each day goes by there is an exponentially increasing number of person days available as more people are added to the list of recovered. (No one is removed from it). So, (making up the numbers for illustration) in month three there may be 200 recovered cases and in month four 250 cases. So there is more chance each month of someone being hit by a bus and being wrongly added to the statistics.

    • The Human Unleashed Team says:

      Thanks Tony, you make a really good point. I will put some time aside to review that example over the coming days.

  • Thanks.
    A clear, logical and well structured critique of the UK government using its OWN numbers.
    I wrote an article published on Principia Scientific analysing the Scottish governments testing fiasco using their own numbers.
    Without even going into the efficacy of the RT-PCR test, it is apparent that the probability of testing positive and actually being infected is around 10%.
    This is widely known in medical diagnosis as PPV (Positive Predictive Value). It’s really just applying Bayes theorem to the data.
    The general public are essentially told by the government that if they test positive they are now infected. There is only a 10% chance of this being true. Option B as per your analysis.
    RT-PCR tests are expensive. Why are governments spending millions on this wild goose chase?
    Consider that every person who submits to a test has willingly given a free sample of DNA to the government.
    I find that thought quite chilling.

  • […] Team posted an excellent article about two possible strategies the Government has. Excerpts from ‘COVID: The Case Against the UK Government’ follow, emphases in purple […]

  • […] Initially the State said the purpose of it’s Lockdowm measures were to flatten the curve. The claim being this would stop the NHS being overrun from the projected surge of cases. However, this story was only deployed before the statistical shenanigans began in earnest. As the reported number of deaths hit the headlines “flatten the curve” was discarded. […]

  • nate says:

    Awesome write-up thx

  • […] Au départ, l’État a déclaré que le but de ses mesures de confinement était d’aplatir la courbe. L’affirmation étant que cela empêcherait le NHS d’être débordé par l’augmentation prévue du nombre de cas. Cependant, cette histoire n’a été déployée qu’avant que les manigances statistiques ne commencent sérieusement. Lorsque le nombre de décès déclarés a fait la une des journaux, l’argument « aplatir la courbe » a été écarté. […]

  • […] de décès déclarés a fait la une des journaux, l’argument « aplatir la courbe » a été écarté.L’augmentation prévue ne s’est jamais produite parce que les modèles prédictifs sur lesquels […]

  • […] Gdy zgłoszona liczba zgonów dotarła do wiadomości, nagłówki „spłaszczają krzywą” zostały odrzucone. Oczekiwany wzrost nigdy nie nastąpił, ponieważ modele predykcyjne na których rzekomo został […]

  • Thank you guys for taking so much time to really break down the numbers. As I would like to share this widely with my audience, may I request; where did some of the graphs come from? As you know people will request resources so it would be a good answer to have. Many Thanks for your tireless work to save the UK population from a tyrannical and unethical government! As a doctor, seeing what is happening is nothing short of heart breaking and worse so as a mother to a young child.

    • The Human Unleashed Team says:

      Thank you for your kind words. Unless indicated otherwise (where the graphics were taken from online newspapers), all the graphs are either from the official Government stats or from our own spreadsheets. You are free to copy and re-use anything we have made, of course.

  • […] Aanvankelijk zei de staat dat het doel van zijn Lockdown-maatregelen was om de curve af te vlakken. De bewering dat dit zou zijn, om te voorkomen dat de NHS wordt overschreden door de verwachte toename van gevallen. Dit verhaal werd echter pas ingezet voordat de statistische bedrog serieus begonnen. Toen het gerapporteerde aantal doden de krantenkoppen haalde, werd “flatten the curve” weggegooid. […]

  • […] Initially the State said the purpose of it’s Lockdowm measures were to flatten the curve. The claim being this would stop the NHS being overrun from the projected surge of cases. However, this story was only deployed before the statistical shenanigans began in earnest. As the reported number of deaths hit the headlines “flatten the curve” was discarded. […]

  • >