A COVID Perspective from Britain: Postscript
As a postscript to my Perspective series of articles here is a round up of intriguing data supporting the analysis that the pandemic has been a deliberate statistical fraud. Like me, you may be drawn to conclude that the lockdown measures not only lacked a compelling scientific basis, but have run counter to many scientific and medical norms.
I have complied information since the start of the year on how the new cases and deaths have plummeted after the World Health Organisation advised testing labs to reduce the cycling amplification time of swab tests.
The anonymous retired government scientist assisting my research commented that if the amplification cycles were reduced, we would see a sharp drop in new cases, and that is exactly what has happened, which proves many of those previously classed as positive, were in fact negative, and their forced self-isolation was completely unnecessary.
I have continued recording the number of new cases and deaths in Birmingham where I am, and Solihull where my parents live, since my last Perspective article, and these figures are as follows:
On January 1st in Birmingham, there were 54845 total cases. On 28th February, that had risen to 96176.
On January 1st in Solihull, there were 8073 total cases. On 28th February, that had risen to 13865.
On January 1st, there had been 1785 deaths attributed to the virus in Birmingham, and 312 attributed to it in Solihull.
The number of deaths attributed to the virus as of the 19th February (the latest data available) were 2757 in Birmingham, and 579 in Solihull.
As a comparison, the population of Birmingham is 1.14 million, and that of Solihull is 216,000, so the percentage of people who tested positive and died in both areas is very small.
Below is the chart for January. Birmingham is represented by the blue line, Solihull by the brown –
We can see that each peak, which is still caused by lack of reporting numbers of new cases on Saturdays (so Saturday numbers are lumped in with Sunday numbers), is lower than the previous one, and it continued during February, as you can see in the chart below.
The peak number of new cases on January 4th for Birmingham was 3740, and on February 28th was 362.
I also recorded from Worldometer, the number of people in critical condition in the whole of the UK. This number is not updated every day on Worldometer, but on January 3rd it stood at 1847. By January 23rd, it had risen to 4076. After that, it started to fall, slowly at first, then faster. On February 27th, it stood at 1971.
Below is the latest graph of new cases across the whole of the UK as of March 1st, taken from the BBC virus webpage. We can see the number of new cases has been dropping rapidly since Christmas.
Below is the latest graph of deaths across the whole of the UK up to March 1st, again taken from the BBC virus webpage. Deaths have also been dropping rapidly since Christmas.
Below is the latest chart for the number of people being treated in hospital for the virus up to February 25th, the latest data available. This is not the number in critical condition, but anyone who has tested positive before or after admission to hospital.
It also does not mean their only reason for being in hospital is because of the virus. This number has also been falling rapidly.
The R number
The R number began the year at 1.1-1.4, and as of the 19th February, the latest data available, was at 0.6-0.9, as shown below.
On February 26th, the Daily Mail was the first mainstream media outlet to report what many have been saying since last year, including here on PSI; that deaths are being recorded from the virus when they died of other causes.
It can be seen here:-
This is borne out by the graphic below, which is taken from the NHS England website here –
Click the most recent week, and it opens an Excel spreadsheet.
Click on Tab 3 – Deaths by condition. It should look like this:
Look at the column headed ‘NO’ in the cropped version below.
This shows a truer figure of how many deaths may more reasonably be attributed to the co-called COVID19 virus. All the other deaths were of people who had at least one underlying health condition, which many of them would probably have died of anyway.
There have been 4.19 million virus cases in the UK (out of a population of 68 million), with just over three million complete recoveries, and just under a million currently active cases.
Last year when the UK government changed the reporting rules to only include anyone who had died within 28 days of a positive test, they should have removed 75% of the deaths, but to save face, they actually removed only a token amount (11%) as I and others had predicted. The new rule means that if someone tests positive, then 27 days later gets run over by a bus, their death is still counted as having been caused by the virus.
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a university graduate in space science and British Principia Scientific International researcher, writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book, ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap‘
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
The mortality rate for 2020 is below the average for the past 20 years. Nothing else is needed to identify the statistical fraud. The government needs to justify its destruction of people’s lives and the economy and so it is changing the facts to suit.
Reply
Barry
| #
Totally agree Alan let’s see what the actual number over normal death rates are for the total year,then I think our govts have some explaining to do. Even if the total death rate is up a couple of percentage points as in a bad flu year,this would in no way justify the total demolition of our lives as we have seen it. The repercussions from this out of control spending that we have allowed will do far more harm than the flu itself. Thanks for this article Andy,good as always.
Cheers Barry
Reply
Andrew Rowlands
| #
Thanks for your kind words Barry 🙂
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Andy. Thank you for the summary.
I appreciate that I can read any of your articles without the need for cross referencing to audit generic veracity.
You also write with a clarity that is, at times, crystalline. I have only once had to reread part of one of your articles, digging for clarity. For comparison, I have never, not once, had to replay one of Tony Heller’s videos for clarity.
I note the nearby article on Fergusson’s qualifications. It says “, as it ONLY seemed to adversely affect the elderly with multiple chronic health conditions”.
If the word “mostly” or “significant proportion” was used instead of the word “only” I would consider the article less garbage. The article needs to be edited and as the article is laden with mangled English it stands to superficial reason the analysis is flawed.
It is probably uncouth of me to draw comparisons.
Anyway, keep up the good work.
The “Climate Change” issue is going to play out in the courtroom a lot more from this year onwards where warmists will take businesses, local government, and national governments to court for not doing enough to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Bodies like the Federated Farmers national groups have the resources to fight in the courts if they have the peer reviewed science to fight with.
One key issue is water vapour and clouds effect in the atmosphere, and everybody seems to state that this is poorly understood, including NOAA.
We had some insightful comments from “Carl” recently explaining how when water evaporates into vapour it causes cooling and when water vapour condenses into clouds that releases latent energy which explains why cloudy nights in winter are warmer than clear nights.
Some questions to be answered on this is the ratio of this release of latent energy with cloud formation from water vapour compared to absorption-emissivity of uwir (upwelling infrared radiation) effect of clouds if any.
Do clouds physically inhibit the vertical atmospheric convection currents that take warm near surface air to the colder higher atmosphere.
The albedo effect of clouds needs clear accurate explanation, high clouds. low clouds.
I have read numerous times that CO2 absorption emissivity frequency (Planck) is a frequency that equates to a temperature of -79 degrees C. (-80) Is there peer reviewed science literature explaining and confirming this.
David Legates was recently fired from NOAA for publishing 7 climate change fliers. One of the 7 fliers is an article by Dr. William Happer on absorption, emissivity of atmospheric gases.
I have been unable to “dig up” any of these fliers on the internet and I believe Dr Happer’s “flier” would be well worth an article and reference here on PSI and the other 6 fliers would be well worth being able to be accessed.
I note that anybody claiming sun cycles and their effect on galactic cosmic rays entering earths atmosphere and seeding cloud formation, thus effecting climate, is referred to as a climate denier, even by Wikipedia.
Yet I note that Wikipedia states that when coccolithophores create calcium carbonate shells one of the byproducts of this process is a gas released into the atmosphere that contributes to cloud formation. Good for the goose, not good for the gander.
Anyway, if you were to explore any or all of these issues in future articles there is a potential for it all to be condensed and referenced with the input of the PSI “family” to partially arm respondents in the upcoming climate change court cases.
Food for thought.
Kind Regards. Matt
Reply
Andrew Rowlands
| #
Thank you for your very kind words Matt, I appreciate that 🙂 Potential climate court cases is something that will probably start to appear here before long, as the anti-people lobby ramps up it’s efforts to send us back to the Dark Ages.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and Andy,
Too many words and too much data (numbers). Read the Very Old White Guy’s brief comment. John O’Sullivan was correct when he advised me to keep my essays brief. And too often I forget to do this with my comments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and everyone one else,
Must admit this old guy (me) got confused when MattH turned Andy’s medical article into one about climate change. So relative to this discussion there is no Very Old While Guy and Andy’s too many words and figures are not about weather, climate, and global warming Two clearly different topics.
Wanted to acknowledge my confusion. Will try to find the other old guys comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
Andy’s article is a postscript and I threw subtlety out the window in suggesting a focus and strategy for potential upcoming articles.
Andy obviously has skills in research and writing and I was re-introducing some concepts to keep Andy gainfully employed, if he chose to. (a hint of satire there Andy, and sincerity, if you read this.)
Cheers Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy and MattH,
“Very Old White Guy
March 7, 2021 at 10:47 am | #
when is flu not a flu? the answer, it is always a flu. had this been treated as a flu instead of running around with our hair on fire saying WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE, it would have diminished just like the seasonal flu and be a distant memory. Sure is amazing what continuous propaganda can do.”
So Andy, in my confusion the Very Old While Guy”s comments does by accident apply to your article here. Amazing what chaos can produce!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH, Andy, and PSI Readers,
This comment is not brief so I am doing an experiment in an attempt to keep its lines as on long as possible at the same time it is reasonably near your comments which it is about.
MattH, when you wrote: “Andy obviously has skills in research”, I questioned your conclusion (judgement). But your statement caused me to go to my dictionary to see what the definition of research was. “Research—2. Studious inquiry; usually critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation having for its aim the revision of accepted conclusions, the the light of newly discovered facts.” So it first seemed that I can agree with your judgement of Andy’s efforts. But I know my judgment hinges one the definitions of three words: investigation, experimentation, and facts.
Investigation: “To follow up or make research by patient inquiry and observation and examination of facts.” Experimentation: “Act of experimenting; practice by experiment.” Experiment: “A trial made to discover some unknown principle or effect, or to test some suggested truth, or to demonstrate some known truth”. Fact: “2. That which has actual existence; an event. 3. The quality of being actual; actuality; as, the realm of fact is distinct from that of fancy.”
Now a fact is that I have often described myself as being an experimentalist. By which I mean knowledgable about the problems of making reproducible quantitative measurements to a practical observed limit of reproducibility. But when I looked for the definition of experimentalist there was no such word in my dictionary. So it seems I am an experimenter.
As I read my dictionary, I cannot ignore the word: experience. “4a. The sum total of the conscious events which compose an individual life. 4b. Observed facts and events in contrast with what is supplied by thought; as knowledge originates in experience.” Who knew that I would find Einstein’s quote (The only source of knowledge is experience.) defined in the dictionary?
Now I am enjoying this self-assigned exercise. From experience I know I am a slow learner. Measurements are quantitative observations upon which, as an experimenter, I have focused much of my attention. However, near the end of my employment as an experimenter and an instructor of chemistry, I discovered the critical importance of simple qualitative observations. I did this when I finally read extensive portions of Galileo’s ‘Dialogues Of Two New Sciences”, Newton’s ‘The Mathematical Principles Of Natural Philosophy’ and Lane Cooper’s ‘Louis Agassiz As A Teacher’.
Unless one has read my references to the latter book, I doubt if anyone reading this is aware of the existence of this book even though some might be aware that Agassiz, a naturalist, observed boulders at the bases of melting glaciers in Alps and concluded these boulder had been moved by these glaciers. And since he was aware that erratic (bounders not common to the area in which they lay) had been observed in portions of northern Europe, where there were no longer any observed glaciers, concluded that glaciers had once covered these portions of Europe. Hence, geologists know that Agassiz successfully convinced their community, and the entire scientific community, that glaciers had covered considerable northern portions of not only Europe but also North America and Asia of this ‘observed’ fact..
Agassiz died in 1873, but Cooper’s book was not published until 1917. So. It might surprise any reader, that Cooper wrote in his ‘Introductory Note’: “When the question was put to Agassiz. ‘What to you regard as your greatest work?’ He replied: ‘I have taught men to observe.’ “ And by reading and pondering Cooper’s book in the early 1990s I finally learned to qualitatively try to observe everything that can be observed. For this was the requirement that his students learned that they must do to complete the first assignment he gave them without a hint of what it was that they should (could) observe about the preserved specimen he gave them to observe. It took one student of at least 10 days of eight hours to complete his first assignment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Binra
| #
I just wrote the following as one of ongoing daily summaries or oversights from a perspective that expands to include or embrace rather than polarise to further division of conflict and fragmentation.
https://willingness-to-listen.blogspot.com/2021/03/no-one-else-can-shut-down-your-mind.html
I am moved to share in the perspectives of freedom than within the baited narratives of coercions and deceits – which is partly the recognising of a lack of substance as the release of the attempt to escape a false flag. Fear denied, seeks a cover story of evasive manoeuvre – along with a target for the externalising of conflicts and toxic debts. This ‘runs’ the engine of consolidation of possession and control to its logical conclusion of insane premises that on re-evaluation are revealed to be without substance. But nor without immense investment that presents as too big to fail.
Hence everything and everyone else has to fail to save or support the mind and ‘system’ that is predicated to ‘make us safe’. Or maintain the masking protections from deeper and dissociated fears that may trigger psychotic reactions that cannot be ‘predicted and controlled’.
Regardless the appearances of bad actors and deceit agendas, I see the lack of responsibility for thought, word and resulting behaviour as the underlying context or terrain that the ‘pathogenic’ or psychopathic narratives are played out in fear, pain and grief of loss.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
The water cycle of planet earth which I was taught many years ago, cools the earth.
Water evaporates, [heat of vapourization], the WV rises when heated [like all gasses], and then gives up the heat at altitude[heat of condensation], forms clouds and precipitation.
That is what I call cooling.
The GHG Theory says the opposite.
CO2 and WV are radiative gasses [not GHGs. That is a misnomer].
If the water cycle is true, then the GHG hypothesis is false.
But, of course the AGW alarmists do not care about the science, as it is a political meme.
They have even said that if the science is wrong it does not matter, as wealth distribution is the right thing.
The Socialists are on a mission to rule the world with their “great reset” and
“covid scamdemic”, and to hell with the truth. IMO
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Allan.
You are spot on. GHG is part of the deception which is what Carl explained recently.
I will develop this communication at the end of the week. Gotta go. Tide and weather.
Regards Matt.
Reply
Barry
| #
So true Allan we are losing the war on climate change not because of science but in spite of it. If people would only look at where it originates from they would quickly understand that it was a political idea first and then made up some false scenarios to justify the one world govt. I understand the politicians doing this but there is no excuse for supposedly educated people trying to defend tha agw theory.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
MattH:
One key issue is water vapour and clouds effect in the atmosphere, and everybody seems to state that this is poorly understood, including NOAA.
We had some insightful comments from “Carl” recently explaining how when water evaporates into vapour it causes cooling and when water vapour condenses into clouds that releases latent energy which explains why cloudy nights in winter are warmer than clear nights.
Some questions to be answered on this is the ratio of this release of latent energy with cloud formation from water vapour compared to absorption-emissivity of uwir (upwelling infrared radiation) effect of clouds if any.
Do clouds physically inhibit the vertical atmospheric convection currents that take warm near surface air to the colder higher atmosphere.
The albedo effect of clouds needs clear accurate explanation, high clouds. low clouds.
James McGinn:
Ab initio is Latin. It means first principles. It is supposed to indicate principles and notions that are well understood–things that everybody knows and everybody understands. But it can also serve as a means to hide assumptions that are unresolved and that appear to be irresolvable. In other words, ab initio is supposed to delineate what is so well understood that it doesn’t need to be discussed. But it often ends up also functioning to conceal shortcomings of a paradigm that the insiders thereof don’t want the public to know about.
The way it works is very simple. Water is believed to be simple and well understood. Therefore water’s role in the various models of the various scientific disciplines has been adjusted to fit these beliefs. And these “adjustments” cannot be challenged because they are a part of the paradigms ab initio–first principles. Usually there is nothing nefarious about this. Usually researchers are mostly just trying to avoid boring or confusing their audience. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding all good intentions, including those on my part to not disparage people that are just trying to do their job in the manner they were trained, ab initio is not meant to be a means to avoid confusion or to achieve political ends.
There is a fundamental reason why ab initio shouldn’t be misused in the manner that it has come to be misused by so many factions of science. And this reason is to avoid what has actually happened: their confusion has become pathological. By this I mean that their confusion has evolved to where they are fundamentally incapable of recognizing they are confused and leaving them politically unmotivated to even consider it. And even if some of them might be somewhat aware of it they have become intellectually exhausted to the point where they genuinely believe that any unresolved issues are fundamentally irresolvable and therefore not worthy of bringing before the public who they correctly realize is only interested in simple, easily relatable, explanations. So they use models to pretend they are not confused. By way of inclusion in the ab initio of the model, the pretentiousness eventually (and inevitably) becomes incorporated into the greater narrative of the discipline. Then, from one generation to the next, the scientists themselves gradually lose track of the realization that they are pretending. Critical thinking is abandoned because critical thinking provides the “wrong answer”. For the same reason experimentation and reproducibility are abandoned and even shunned. Modeling and modelers come to the forefront and the models–unrestrained by empiricism–begin to evolve along the lines of whatever seems to match up with the look and feel of science. All in all, the discipline stops being about advancing knowledge and becomes more about making a contribution to the greater narrative that best matches up with the aesthetics of being simple and easily relatable. In other words, it evolves along the line of coinciding with the consensus of what most people want to believe.
So, to really understand the scope of the damage to the integrity of science that has resulted from this error–the “error” being what I call Pauling’s omission–and the ensuing comedy of errors that this error triggered we have to look beyond the study of water. In other words, the damage is not limited to the narrow scope of the study of water’s properties. By extension the same has happened in many other disciplines in which water plays a central role. For example, in meteorology it is normal for a meteorologists to assume–despite zero empirical support–that H2O can magically defy its known boiling temperature/pressure to thereby make moist air relatively more buoyant than dry air, powering uplift in storms and allowing for the emergence of another magical property, latent heat, that supposedly fills out the details of their delusional belief that they understand storms when quite obviously they are just confused and pretending to understand. And then there is climatology, a discipline that was created by politicians and that continues to hit the public over the head with egregious, scientifically spurious, propaganda in order to draw attention away from the fact that the temperature regulation on our planet is almost completely controlled by H2O–this being an inconvenient fact for pretend scientists who are trying to create a false emergency and link it to CO2 in order to pay their salaries.
And then there is epidemiology . . . enough said for now.
James McGinn / Genius
The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi James .
Your comments are very much appreciated and insightful.
I cannot take this concept further right now but will play catch up around Friday this week.
Best wishes. Matt
Reply