rigorousintuition.ca

Again, I can understand 70+-year-olds wanting to take their chance with an experimental vaccine that bypassed animal safety testing over a taking their chances with COVID-19, assuming that they first tested themselves for previous exposure to COVID-19 and the test returned negative.

But I can't for the life of me understand why a healthy relatively young person would make an informed decision do so. And I especially do not understand why anybody who ever contracted COVID-19 would submit to a potentially deadly experimental vaccine that has not been shown to confer those previously infected whit COVID-19 with any additional benefit. Nor can I understand how any practicing physician with any training in immunology would ever allow his or her patients to do this. Can somebody please explain this to me?

Yes. The answer is Public Relations. It can turn theatre into deadly peril and deadly peril into theatre.

I note that a fact checking industry has sprung up to assure us that Amish do contract Covid, despite not having TV's. By itself it's pretty funny BigEverythingᵀᴹ spokesmen feel the intense need to do so.

Proof of vaccination will be required for international travel. I had the virus. I lost work abroad over the past year. I won't be permitted to travel without documentation. This is how it'll be, common sense objections aside. This isn't quite coercion or propaganda, but more a simple reshuffling of facts, or a demonstration of how facts become so despite being based in factuality or not.

Did you read that article past the headline?

Yes, I did, I thought it was complete bullshit from m5m ... more mockinbird shit.

B.S. that “Reasons Why I’m Not Getting the Vaccine” list was elite level Facebook-cringe. Starts off with reasonable hesitations about not trusting Big Pharma etc and concludes with your more Trumpist/nee QAnon talk about inflated death counts and Covid being “a bad cold for two days” that has since provided “beautiful, life-long immunity” to the author of the list. I laughed into my mac and cheese.

this post moved to Year Zero - CJ Hopkins thread: http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/ ... 45#p694195

Consent Factory
(embedded links)

The “Unvaccinated” Question
CJ Hopkins
March 29, 2021

comments

So, the New Normals are discussing the Unvaccinated Question. What is to be done with us? No, not those who haven’t been “vaccinated” yet. Us. The “Covidiots.” The “Covid deniers.” The “science deniers.” The “reality deniers.” Those who refuse to get “vaccinated,” ever.

.

thankyouberrymuch » Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:41 am wrote:B.S. that “Reasons Why I’m Not Getting the Vaccine” list was elite level Facebook-cringe. Starts off with reasonable hesitations about not trusting Big Pharma etc and concludes with your more Trumpist/nee QAnon talk about inflated death counts and Covid being “a bad cold for two days” that has since provided “beautiful, life-long immunity” to the author of the list. I laughed into my mac and cheese.

'Inflated death counts' is NOT "QAnon talk", FFS. This comment alone exposes your passive acceptance of lazy attempted brush-offs (you even resorted to the eye-rolling allusion to "Trump" for anything that strays from "accepted" talking points. Good job mimicking/appropriating the standard response by the pseudo-left).

Here's another source, with some pointed excerpts. If you choose to disagree, at least endeavor to provide substance to your disagreements rather than strawman and/or trite, cliched responses.

https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/22/syn ... -analysis/

Synthetic mRNA Covid vaccines: A Risk-Benefit Analysis With a “vaccine” based on untested technology, and safety trials still ongoing, is it safe to take the shot? And does it even work? And does a disease with an IFR of 0.2% even justify that risk?

...

Incidentally, all Covid death stats are inflated: under direction of the WHO, deaths ‘from” and incidentally “with” Covid are not distinguished. Death coding has changed compared to Influenza/Pneumonia (https://www.who.int/classifications/icd ... 9.pdf?ua=1). According to one published analysis, this has resulted in over 16 times inflation of death stats, as supported by CDC data.



Furthermore, Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) stats based on seroprevalence antibody studies are also inflated since T-cell immunity, is not measured in these studies. This may result in a 3-5X lower IFR for Covid. Regardless, the general IFR is on order of the seasonal influenza, approx. 0.2%.

Covid mortality is a reflection of increased mortality with age, more so than influenza/pneumonia of previous years. The median age of Covid deaths (86) exceeds average life expectancy in Canada. Tragically, 70% of the deaths in the province of Ontario took place in care homes. The mortality rate from Covid in Canada under 59 years of age is 0.0017%.

According to the CDC, the survival from Covid (with inflated stats) is as follows: (under 20) 99.997%, (29-49) 99.98%, (50-69) 99.5% and (over 70), 94.6%.

The Covid synthetic gene therapy injections employ synthetic, thermostable nucleotide sequences which are wrapped in a PEG (polyethylene glycol)-lipid nanoparticles to protect from destruction in the bloodstream and facilitate entry into the cells. The claim is that the cellular machinery will engage with these synthetic sequences and produce segments which code for the SarsCov2 S1 spike protein. It is believed that the immune system will mount a sufficient antibody response.
..

The trials do not test for reduction in transmission. These therapies do not prevent infection, merely reduction in one or more symptoms.

More via this cross-post:

Belligerent Savant » Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:19 pm wrote:.

...

Interestingly, Moderna describes its technology as the “software of life,” not a vaccine.


Media outlets, politicians, and public health officials have blared the 95% efficacy for both formulations. To the casual observer, this would denote 95% reduction in hospitalizations or deaths. When in fact the 95% is calculated, based upon the “Primary Efficacy Endpoints.”

In the trial literature these endpoints are described by both companies as non-severe cold/flu SYMPTOMS coupled with a positive PCR.

Pfizer has reported:

For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was the presence of at least one of the following symptoms and a positive SARS-CoV-2 NAAT within 4 days of the symptomatic period: Fever; New or increased cough; New or increased shortness of breath; Chills; New or increased muscle pain; New loss of taste or smell; Sore throat; Diarrhea; Vomiting.”

Moderna reported in likeness:

For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was defined as: At least TWO of the following systemic symptoms: Fever (≥38ºC), chills, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s), OR At least ONE of the following respiratory signs/ symptoms: cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, OR clinical or radiographical evidence of pneumonia; and NP swab, nasal swab, or saliva sample (or respiratory sample, if hospitalized) positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR.”

To reiterate, in both trials, once one/two symptoms appeared in a participant, it was designated a “case” or “event” when coupled with a positive PCR “test”. Once 170 “cases” occurred in Pfizer/BioNtech trial, and 196 “cases” occurred in Moderna trial, this data was used to calculate efficacy. Shockingly, only under 200 cases for a novel therapy which is being deployed/subjected on millions of people around the world.

Furthermore, people are not being informed that “95%” or so efficacy, is calculated based on a useless metric of relative efficacy and is therefore very misleading.

Eg.Pfizer/BioNtech:

8 “cases” in vaccine group
162 “cases” in placebo group

8/162 = 5%
100%-5%= 95%

Therefore, they are claiming that the synthetic gene therapy injections are 95% efficacious. What they are not factoring in is the size of the denominator. If it is large, then with 8 vs 162, the difference becomes less significant. It matters how many people were in each group, for example, whether this be 200, 2,000, or 20,000.

This is the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer/BioNtech, each group had over 18,000 people!

Injection Group: 8/18,198 = 0.04%
Placebo Group: 162/18,325= 0.88%

Therefore, the absolute risk reduction for Primary Efficacy Endpoint is 0.84%. (ie. 0.88-0.04)

This means, that someone who takes the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, has less than 1% chance of reducing at least one symptom of non-severe “Covid” for a period of 2 months. This means that someone who takes this injection has over 99% chance that it won’t work, regarding the efficacy. Over 100 people have to be injected for it to “work” in one person.


The actual efficacy of Pfizer/BioNtech Synthetic Gene Therapy


The actual efficacy of Moderna Synthetic Gene Therapy

There are many issues with the trial data, and design. It must be noted that PCR tests are not fit for purpose and without Sanger sequencing we have no idea how many of these people actually had “Covid” vs another respiratory virus or something else. This is a preeminent reason why Dr Yeadon and Dr Wodarg filed a Stay of Action on the vaccine trials.

As Dr Peter Doshi, Associate Editor of BMJ highlighted, access to the raw data is required to further elucidate the areas of concern:

With 20 times more suspected covid-19 than confirmed covid-19, and trials not designed to assess whether the vaccines can interrupt viral transmission, an analysis of severe disease irrespective of etiologic agent—namely, rates of hospitalizations, ICU cases, and deaths amongst trial participants—seems warranted, and is the only way to assess the vaccines’ real ability to take the edge off the pandemic.”

Approximately 5-6 symptoms listed as “side effects” are the same as Covid symptoms. Pfizer/BioNtech only started counting “cases” one week after the second dose, and Moderna, 2 weeks after the second dose. Therefore, if these side effects were labelled as “Covid” symptoms instead, even the paltry efficacy of about 1% would be relegated into the negative integers.

In others words, the injected group may have been sicker with “Covid” more than the placebo group.

...

To convey informed consent, the side effect profile must also be considered. Up to 80% of injected trial recipients experienced side effects, in a setting for a nebulous syndrome where 80% of people are asymptomatic.

The incidences of immediate side effects in both trials were significant and dwarfed the absolute risk reduction in both the primary efficacy endpoints, as well as for “severe” Covid.

For example, for Moderna 81.9% experienced any systemic reaction. Grade 3 reactions (considered severe) were experienced by 17.4%. This is 79X more likely than the incidence of severe Covid in the Moderna group. (17.4/.22=79X) Based on preliminary reports of adverse events [emphasis added]:

This is an injury rate of 1 in every 40 jabs. This means that the 150 shots necessary to avert one mild case of COVID will cause serious injury to at least three people.“

The safety data for both companies is approximately only two months before receiving emergency use authorization status. Therefore, there is no data for mid-long term side effects, as the trials are ongoing.

The estimated completion date for Pfizer/BioNtech trials is Jan 31, 2023. The estimate completion date for Moderna trials is October 27, 2022.

According to the data, and elaborated by Tal Zaks (CMO of Moderna) the trials are not designed to demonstrate a reduction in transmission, due to “operational realities”. It is therefore baffling how medical doctors and public health officials are proclaiming these SGTs will promote herd immunity.

The manufacturers have also made it clear that efficacy beyond 2 months or so is unknown. Therefore, the 1% absolute risk reduction in mild/moderate, cold/flu symptoms may not last more than a few months.

Tragically, there is no pervasive data-centred discourse, only excessive fear-mongering. Without addressing the data people cannot make an informed choice about experimental SGTs.

Many are not aware any SGT recipient who participates in this therapy is now a part of an unprecedented experiment. When Health Canada shockingly agreed to interim authorization of the Pfizer/BioNtech injection, it came alongside a caveat: The company must submit 6 months of trial data when it is available.

To underscore: Health Canada approved this experimental SGT on the populace without even 6 months of trial data.

It is difficult to embark on a comprehensive risk-benefit analysis, as there is no safety data beyond a couple of months. New vaccines typically take about 7 to 20 years of research and trials before going to market. Pfizer/Moderna ran all of their trials simultaneously, including their animal trials, instead of sequentially. As retired Health Canada research scientist Dr Qureshi elaborated, it is during proper animal trials that meaningful toxicology data is obtained.

The anaphylactic reactions observed in some people is also worrisome, worthy of analysis. Children’s Health Defense submitted a request to the FDA to address PEG allergies, as up to 70% of the populace has antibodies to these compounds. PEG has never been a component in a vaccine before.

It must also be noted that according to an internal Health Human Services and Harvard study, less than 1% of vaccine side effects are reported. At this juncture, based on: paltry efficacy, issues with data transparency and trial design, high level of immediate side effects, and low IFR for Covid, there is already enough reason for concern.

Yet, the more disconcerting side effects are the potential mid-long term effects.

Many doctors and researchers around the world have promulgated concerns about the well-documented phenomena referred to as Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) seen in some viruses such as coronaviruses.

In previous SARS, MERS, Dengue fever and RSV virus vaccine trials the exposure of wild viruses to vaccine recipients resulted in severe disease, cytokine storms, and deaths in some animal and human trials. The phenomenon of ADE did not present initially in vaccine recipients, rather it presented after vaccine recipients were exposed to wild viruses.

This is the reason we do not have a vaccine for the common cold, MERS and SARS which is 78% homologous with SarsCov2 (based on analysis of the digital genome). Immunology Professor Dolores Cahill warned that this disease enhancement may cause many vaccine recipients to die months or years down the road. Esteemed German infectious disease specialist, Dr Sucharit Bhakdi opined:

This vaccine will lead you to your doom.”

Researchers in The International Journal of Clinical Practice stated:

The absence of ADE evidence in COVID-19 vaccine data so far does not absolve investigators from disclosing the risk of enhanced disease to vaccine trial participants, and it remains a realistic, non-theoretical risk to the subjects. Unfortunately, no vaccines for any of the known human CoVs have been licensed, although several potential SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV vaccines have advanced into human clinical trials for years, suggesting the development of effective vaccines against human CoVs has always been challenging.”

Traditional vaccines involve injection of the pathogen/toxin in whole/part to elicit an immune reaction. For the first time in history, the recipients’ cells will manufacture the pathogen, the S1 spike protein of SarsCov2 virus.

In a presentation for Emergency Use Authorization to the FDA, Moderna reps explained that the mRNA stays in the cytoplasm of the cells, manufactures the S1 Spike Protein and then is destroyed. As Dr Sucharit Bhakdi and others have queried:

Where else do these packages go?”

Also, based on a couple of months of safety data, we do not know that these mRNAs last long enough to manufacture the protein but not long enough to exert deleterious effects. This nascent technology is risky.

Firstly, the RNA sequences are synthetic. Therefore, we do not know how long they will last in the cells. Dr Judy Mikovits has expressed concerns in that they may not be degraded immediately, and perhaps linger for days, months, years.

More at link: https://off-guardian.org/2021/02/22/syn ... -analysis/

kelley » 11 Apr 2021 23:39 wrote:Proof of vaccination will be required for international travel. I had the virus. I lost work abroad over the past year. I won't be permitted to travel without documentation. This is how it'll be, common sense objections aside. This isn't quite coercion or propaganda, but more a simple reshuffling of facts, or a demonstration of how facts become so despite being based in factuality or not.

Anecdotal accounts of the unexplained deaths of seemingly healthy young adults right after vaccination suggest that most of the people who die right after vaccination are those who already had or currently have COVID-19. Basic immunological science suggests that it is dangerous to vaccinate anyone who currently has or recently had COVID-19. But for some reason our medical professionals have chosen to forget basic immunology with respect to their recommendations that we all rush to inject ourselves with experimental emergency vaccines to protect ourselves from a seasonal virus that is currently not in season.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... s/faq.html

If I have already had COVID-19 and recovered, do I still need to get vacinnated?

Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19. That’s because experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19. Even if you have already recovered from COVID-19, it is possible—although rare—that you could be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 again. Learn more about why getting vaccinated is a safer way to build protection than getting infected.

If you were treated for COVID-19 with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, you should wait 90 days before getting a COVID-19 vaccine. Talk to your doctor if you are unsure what treatments you received or if you have more questions about getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

Experts are still learning more about how long vaccines protect against COVID-19 in real-world conditions. CDC will keep the public informed as new evidence becomes available.

Let's investigate what this recommendation is based on:

1) "Experts do not yet know how long you are protected from getting sick again after recovering from COVID-19."

2) Experts do not yet know how long you are protected by COVID-19 vaccines.

Finally, the CDC adds in the totally irrelevant claim, "getting vaccinated is a safer way to build protection than getting infected."

How is that questionable conjecture supposed to be relevant to anybody who has already been infected with COVID-19?

Can the CDC (or anybody here) supply one shred of empirical evidence that demonstrates that any COVID-19 vaccine confers additional statistically significant protection to those who have already recovered from COVID-19?

Can anybody reading this explain to me why the CDC does not instead advise anyone considering getting a COVID-19 vaccination to first get tested to make sure that they don't currently have COVID-19? It's almost as if the CDC doesn't care one whit about the health of individual patients, but only about promoting vaccination at any cost, even immediate death.

thankyouberrymuch » 12 Apr 2021 08:41 wrote:B.S. that “Reasons Why I’m Not Getting the Vaccine” list was elite level Facebook-cringe. Starts off with reasonable hesitations about not trusting Big Pharma etc and concludes with your more Trumpist/nee QAnon talk about inflated death counts and Covid being “a bad cold for two days” that has since provided “beautiful, life-long immunity” to the author of the list. I laughed into my mac and cheese.

Do you recommend vaccination for those currently or recently infected with COVID-19? If so, on what possible scientific basis can you make this recommendation?

I believe the “vaccines” are sketch and I won’t be getting one any time soon. That list is still mostly bunk tho. If anything I think deaths from Covid have been undercounted (plenty of historical precedent, no state wants to admit any public problem that slipped under their control mechanisms is really as bad as it is, China for example still claims something like only 8k have died from a pandemic that really got roaring in their own country. Mexico just admitted a 60% higher death toll than their previous numbers claimed, I’m sure that similar is true in places like Russia and in countries where public health systems/testing aren’t up to modern standards).

As for recommending that those who’ve already had the virus still need to get vaccinated, I don’t really understand the logic and I would be extremely hesitant. Still, the fact-free notion that infection confers “beautiful life-long immunity” is absurd when re-infection has been documented and it’s only been a year and change since this all started. It reads as the perspective of someone who believes that everyone getting this is fine and “natural,” which disturbs me as I’m still partially on board with the gain of function experiment lab-leak theory.

Fair enough. I basically agree with all of that.

.

If anything I think deaths from Covid have been undercounted

Specific to the U.S., what's your case for this?

Given that in March 2020, the CDC changed their criteria for how to define a COVID death (to essentially list 'COVID' on the death certificate for anyone that tested positive, or -- in certain regions in the U.S. -- merely SHOWED SYMPTOMS on or near the time of death, REGARDLESS of the presence of other serious illness, such as terminal cancer, at the time of death), the numbers will indeed be inflated.

Excess Mortality will also rise when factoring in deaths due to the lockdowns themselves, unrelated to COVID (care not provided for serious illness due to individuals FEARING hospitals; early mistreatment of ill patients; suicides labeled as 'covid' deaths, etc).

In addition, PCR tests are known to be prone to false-positive results, especially if the cycle thresholds are set too high (which is more common than not) -- a NY Times article covered this explicitly, so this is not a 'QAnon' ruse -- so a positive result for those that are asymptomatic means there's a probable chance the individual does not have COVID, or perhaps had a coronavirus at some point, but at the time of the test is not symptomatic.

Here's a few other noteworthy points:

Dr. Ngozi Ezike | How COVID Deaths are Classified:

"...of the definition of people dying of COVID, so the case definition is is very simplistic. It means at the time of death it was a COVID positive diagnosis so that means that if you were in hospice and had already been given, you know, a few weeks to live and then you also were found to have COVID that would be counted as a COVID death; it means that if, technically, even if you died of a clear alternate cause but you had COVID at the same time it is still listed as a COVID death, so everyone who's listed as a COVID death doesn't mean that it was the cause of the death, but they had
COVID at the time of death. I hope that's helpful."

Taking the above into account, keep in mind that the vast majority of COVID deaths are those that are well into their 70-80s, and/or in Long-Term Care.


A posting from back in January:

Belligerent Savant » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:24 pm wrote:.




https://twitter.com/EWoodhouse7/status/ ... 2074350594

Here is a zoomed-in view of the spreadsheet/chart referenced in the above tweet. Look at the PRIMARY CAUSE column. These deaths were all labeled as COVID virus deaths, despite clear indications otherwise. This M.O. is NOT the "exception", but apparently, the NORM.

...



Also:

https://www.coronababble.com/post/the-e ... society-ii

The ethics of using covert strategies - a letter to the British Psychological Society (II)

In an earlier blogpost, I described how psychologists working in the Government's 'Behavioural Insight Team' had recommended the use of covert psychological strategies - or 'nudges' - to promote people's compliance with the draconian coronavirus restrictions. In particular, I proposed that the deliberate use of fear inflation, peer pressure, and feelings of self-virtue as ways of ensuring the general public's acquiescence with lockdowns and mask mandates was ethically dubious.

As previously stated, it was decided to write to the British Psychological Society (the lead organisation for practising psychologists in the UK) to raise our ethical concerns. I am now pleased to report that the letter – supported by 47 co-signatories – was forwarded to the British Psychological Society on the 6th January 2021.

The letter is copied below.

When I receive a response from the British Psychological Society I will share it here - so watch this space!

LETTER TO BPS

Re: Ethical issues arising from the role of psychologists in the development of the Government’s communication campaign in regards to coronavirus


We are writing to you as a group of psychological specialists to raise ethical concerns about the activities of the government-employed psychologists working in the ‘Behavioural Insights Team’ (BIT) (1) in their mission to gain the public’s mass compliance with the ongoing coronavirus restrictions. Our view is that the use of covert psychological strategies - that operate below the level of people’s awareness – to ‘nudge’ citizens to conform to a contentious and unprecedented public health policy raises profound ethical questions. As the professional body overseeing the work of psychologists in the UK, we would welcome your perspective on this important issue.

Background

The British public’s widespread compliance with the Government’s restrictions has arguably been the most remarkable aspect of the coronavirus crisis. The unprecedented limits imposed on our basic freedoms – in the form of lockdowns, travel bans and mandatory mask wearing – have been passively accepted by the large majority of people, despite the lack of evidence for the efficacy of these measures. A major contributor to the mass obedience of British citizens is likely to have been the activities of government-employed psychologists working as part of the BIT.

The BIT was conceived in the Prime Minister’s office in 2010 as ‘the world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy’ (2). According to the BIT website (3), their team has rapidly expanded from a seven person unit working with the UK government to a ‘social purpose company’ operating in many countries around the world. It may seem beneficial to use any method, even techniques impacting subconsciously on behaviour, to attempt to preserve life and the publicised aims of the BIT are clearly altruistic; for example, ‘to improve people’s lives and communities’. However, the use of these techniques during the coronavirus crisis raises key ethical concerns. Arguably, health decisions should take place consciously, based on transparent information, including fully informed consent. Additionally, the moral integrity of the use of these techniques within current contexts is even more questionable given the major disagreement amongst specialists about whether the measures are, overall, helpful or harmful.

The strategies used by BIT psychologists

A comprehensive account of the psychological approaches deployed by the BIT is provided in the document, MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy (Dolan et al., 2010) (4). The authors of MINDSPACE describe how their behavioural strategies provide ‘low cost, low pain ways of “nudging” citizens … … into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act’ (p7) (Our emphasis). By expressing the process of change in this way, this statement reveals a key difference between the BIT interventions and traditional government efforts to shape our behaviour: their reliance on tools that often impact on us subconsciously, below our awareness.

Historically, Governments have used information provision and rational argument in their efforts to alter the behaviour of their citizens, thereby encouraging people to logically (and consciously) weigh up the pros and cons of each of their options and consider changing their behaviour accordingly. By contrast, many of the nudges developed and put forward by the BIT psychologists are, to various degrees, acting upon us automatically, below the level of conscious thought and reason. Although we accept there may be legitimate ways of utilising covert psychological strategies within our communities – perhaps as a marketing tool to shape opinion about a consumer product or as part of, for example, Government campaigns to discourage vandalism or to prevent young men stabbing each other – in the sphere of individual health decisions we believe transparency is required.

To inform and direct the Government’s communication strategy aimed at achieving the public’s compliance with coronavirus restrictions, it is apparent that the BIT psychologists have promoted a range of covert psychological interventions (see blogpost (5) by Dr Sidley for further details). For example, our inherent need to preserve a positive self-image has been exploited as revealed by the incessant slogans and mantras insisting that compliance with the Government’s coronavirus diktats is akin to the altruism of helping others – a focus on ‘ego’, to use the MINDSPACE terminology. Another example has been the use of peer pressure (‘norms’) on the non-compliers by casting these supposed miscreants in the uncomfortable bracket of a deviant minority. But the most potent, and most ethically dubious, strategy has been the inflation of fear (‘affect’) as a means of coercing people into obedience.

Fear elevation

The decision to inflate the fear levels of the British public was a strategic one, as indicated by the minutes of the meeting of the Government’s expert advisors (SAGE) on the 22nd March 2020 (6). Clearly, the BIT psychologists recommended scaring people as an effective way of maximising compliance with the coronavirus restrictions, as indicated by the following statements in the minutes:

‘A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened’.

‘The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent using hard-hitting emotional messaging’.

‘Use media to increase sense of personal threat’.

Consequently, the general population has had to endure a media onslaught primarily aimed at inflating perceived threat levels that has included: the daily announcement of coronavirus-death statistics, displayed without context (such as the fact that 1600 people die in the UK each day under ordinary circumstances); repeated footage of people dying in Intensive Care Units; scary slogans, such as ‘IF YOU GO OUT, YOU CAN SPREAD IT. PEOPLE WILL DIE’; and the promotion of face coverings – a potent symbol of danger – despite there being little evidence for their effectiveness in reducing viral spread.

The strategic decision to inflate fear levels has had unintended consequences, resulting in many people being too scared to leave their houses or to let anybody in, thereby exacerbating loneliness and isolation which – in turn – have detrimental impacts on physical and mental health. Persistent fear compromises the immune system and works against the objective of keeping us safe and healthy. Eight months on, the population remain in a state of heightened anxiety; surveys show (7) that, by July, UK citizens believed that coronavirus had killed 7% of the population, a total – if true – of 4,500,000 people (the official figure at the time was around 45,000). Tragically, there is accumulating evidence that inflated fear levels will be responsible for the ‘collateral’ deaths of many thousands of people with non-COVID illnesses who, too frightened to attend hospital, are dying in their own homes (8) at a rate of around 100 each day (9). There is also evidence that parents have been too scared to take their ill children to Accident & Emergency departments (10). Furthermore, the damage inflicted on the mental health of the nation, particularly on our young people (11) is as yet difficult to quantify but is likely to be substantial.

Ethical questions

Back in 2010, the authors of the MINDSPACE document recognised the significant ethical dilemmas arising from the use of influencing strategies that impact subconsciously on the country’s citizens. They acknowledged that the deployment of covert methods to change behaviour ‘has implications for consent and freedom of choice’ and offers people ‘little opportunity to opt out’ (p66 – 67). Furthermore, it is conceded that ‘policymakers wishing to use these tools … … need the approval of the public to do so’ (p74). So have the British people been consulted about whether they agree to Government using covert psychological techniques to promote compliance with contentious public health policies? We suspect not. It seems the BIT psychologists are operating in ethically-murky waters in implementing their nudges, without our consent, to promote mass acceptance of infringements on basic human freedoms.

In the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics & Conduct (2018) (12), one of the ‘Statement of Values’ is:

3.1 ‘Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, with sensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence over persons and peoples and with particular regard to people’s rights.

In applying these values, Psychologists should consider: … consent … self-determination.

3.3 ‘Psychologists value their responsibilities … to the general public … including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contribution to society.’ [Our emphasis].


We believe that the BIT psychologists - in their deployment of covert strategies to achieve compliance with unprecedented lockdowns, travel restrictions and mask mandates – have blatantly failed to practice in a way that is consistent with your stated ethical values.

Based on the above concerns, we respectfully request that the British Psychological Society (BPS) respond to the following questions:

1. Does the BPS believe that the use of covert behavioural strategies, without explicit public consent, to ‘nudge’ people to comply with Government policies is a legitimate use of psychological skills and knowledge?

2. Is it ethically acceptable to use covert psychological strategies to increase compliance with contentious public health policies, such as the Government’s coronavirus responses?

3. Does the BPS agree that BIT psychologists who recommended that the Government’s coronavirus campaign use covert strategies, that purposefully increase fear and encourage the scapegoating of the non-compliant minority, are practising in a way that infringes the BPS Code of Ethics?

4. Assuming that the BPS recognises that there are some ethical issues arising from the use of covert psychological techniques in the ways described, what does the BPS propose to do to address these issues?

5. To minimise the likelihood of psychologists acting in an unethical way in the future, and to thereby prevent a repeat of the widespread ‘collateral damage’ associated with applying covert psychological strategies to win compliance with contentious public health policies, would the BPS publicly condemn the use of psychological skills and knowledge for this purpose?
...

So, this is where I'll dive in. Jeff recently tweeted (I'm very newly on to that platform, too; I otherwise have avoided social media for almost a decade now) that he's not a single issue guy, but this is the issue right now. That feels right to me, if only because it touches on so much. It's a psychological experience within each of us, as well as something that is happening around us and - of course - to us. Of course, much as this could be an experience that unites us, it is also dividing us - politically, of course, but also experientially: it's not been so much fun in an urban high rise without access to a private vehicle (trusty bicycle aside) looking after small, frustrated children, whereas a childless rural existence seems idyllic from this vantage point. Though of course those who have only themselves to take care of suffer in different ways - from loneliness and boredom, perhaps.

Anyhow, it's big, is my point. And it's so multidimensional that I'm not sure any of us can hold it all in our heads (I think this is what I have a tendency to try and do), which is where the collaborative investigative method makes a lot of sense. The personal is political, I guess, so I'll start there. Sliding back 14 months or so, I find my reaction both shameful and instructive. I was an early spotter of 'news from China', and from what I was reading, this coming to the West was an inevitability. So, I was fully primed to be fearful, and fearful I became. I worried about myself and my family, stocked up food, encouraged older relatives to take it seriously - all that stuff. (On the plus side, I also focused on self-care, and that has certainly yielded dividends.)

I realise now that I was playing a role - that of the well-informed, metropolitan-minded liberal - just as I had on 9/11 when I 'knew' that Bin Laden was the main suspect. Feeling like a bit of an insider and feeling ahead of the curve is a great psychological mechanism for investing a person in the official narrative, and so it went for me for a little while. There was the nagging voice all along that some fundamental things (about which I've always been pretty complacent, I guess) were being trampled upon, but fear triumphed. I'm in the UK, and - intentional or not - that week when our government said it was going to 'do a Sweden' pushed many of us into the 'lock us up, please' camp. I'm inclined to believe it was a genuine change of direction (with pressure from who-knows-where), but if it was by design, it was brilliant.

I think I was wrong - which I came to realise belatedly over the summer - but I also think an extreme precautionary principle was just about justifiable on the basis of the evidence presented. (This, though, now seems so partial as to look a lot like deliberate doctoring from the outset.) So, I changed my mind. But for a good liberal, there was plenty to keep you invested, while flexing your principles. Our government did fuck up on its own terms, and there were and are numerous examples of shameless corruption - bigger and more shameless, I think, even than what had gone before. There were countless inequities, more so (I believe) in the US than here. And, of course, most of the opposition was coming from the right (again, probably more pronounced in the US: the political discourse model we are imitating is clearly more developed there, albeit the gap is closing), and no-one wants to leave their tribe. I'm aware of the risks of both the zeal and the presumed wisdom of converts, but I do think my experiences give me some insight.

So to intuition. Generally, I am not afforded much if any privileged access to information. So I only have narratives to observe. And as soon as the weight of fear was lifted, what I read (I read, not watch) was so jarring that I felt a gap opening up between me and believers. I've felt it before with the build-up to the Iraq war, and with the construction of the austerity narrative - a sense that opinion is being shaped in a way that is really very obviously at odds with reality. I saw it particularly with austerity, when my work life intersected a bit with what was happening - that most of the work is done by useful idiots, who genuinely believe what they're saying, and who say it with non-malign intentions. I don't know what the ratio of complete bastard psychopath to useful idiot is, but I expect it is one to the tens of thousands, and among the tens of thousands are the bulk of the political/media/journalistic class. This time, it's different, as it's pervaded more deeply into - I suppose - my side. Demonstrably good people who have bought into the narrative completely. Is it because the lie is bigger? Is it because it's closer to home? Perhaps it's because social, collectivist tendencies have been channelled rhetorically, even as they've been destroyed materially.

That said, I wish to try and hold on to the possibility that I am wrong again. It would require new evidence to convince me that lockdowns are a wise policy, that mandated masks make sense, or that this virus is a unique and terrifying threat that demands unique and terrifying responses. But it is plausible that governments, having over-reacted for broadly benign reasons, are now locked into their approach, and looking for a face-saving exit strategy. (Meanwhile, the usual candidates are engaging in disaster capitalism; this is neutral as to the realness of the crisis acting as their host.) Vaccination (towards which these ramblings are meandering) was the obvious candidate. But as it becomes apparent that it isn't being used as such (here at least), the likelihood increases that something (or things) darker is at play.

Why, someone asked, would the not-at-risk be vaccinated? Public relations, someone else answered. Which is essentially my thinking, too. (Albeit I think propaganda has been rebranded once more, as behavioural science, for the age of the technocrat.) In people I know, it manifests positively as personal fear (both rational and not), and a desire to protect others; and it manifests negatively as a fear of exclusion - from travel, mainly, but also (I suppose) from current social mores. I briefly weighed things up a while ago and concluded that it was illogical for me to be vaccinated. I thought not much of this, but when casually mentioning it to a couple of (I thought) open-minded, liberal, left-wing, etc., etc. friends, I was pretty taken aback by how strongly they were taken aback. And, moreover, I received only emotional and not rational responses. So I believe something very deeply psychological has taken place, and I think it links to that idea that our humanity has been used against us.

The thing that has scared me most of all has been the emergence of vaccine passports as a serious possibility (probability now, I guess, in the UK; reality already elsewhere). The apparent levels of support are terrifying, and yet this is something that looks very much like it's been planted into our discourse from above, not demanded from below. I know reasonably well the political cycle here: policies are proposed by 'outriders' or leaked deniably to the press. Reaction is gauged, the policy is apparently but not actually disavowed (e.g 'we have no current plans'). Depending on how that process goes, it is abandoned/saved for later, re-presented in an apparently softer form, or simply re-presented. That has happened at staggering speed with vaccine passports. Maybe it's today's sunshine, but I feel a little optimistic for the first time. This seems like a promising issue for regaining some of the good liberals. You really don't need to question any of the things you've bought into to object. You can say that basic freedoms and privacy are more important even than this terrifically deadly and scary virus. More likely, you can note (as many have) that they don't really work on their own terms - because the vaccine is leaky; because they damage rather than increase trust; because they're not necessary now we're at herd immunity (albeit the latest apparent ruse is that we're going to have them temporarily until herd immunity is reached). You can be vaccinated and yet refuse the vaccine passport (the more of those allies the better). These arguments will require government responses that stray further and further from rationality and reality. Perhaps this will cause a shift within some of those who have started to question something of the narrative. (Other possibilities are available, of course.) Anyhow, if coronavirus/lockdown/etc. is the issue right now, then I think that digital health IDs are the issue within that issue.

Anyhow, this is by no means everything to say about all this, but it feels like where things and/or my thinking are at this moment. There are so many different angles, and it's really interesting to me the different entry points everyone uses for this. I'm not sure that any is more or less valid or valuable than any other.

Another dimension: anxiety. I feel this palpably on the streets. Indeed, the symptoms of coronavirus policy are not so different from the symptoms of neoliberalism: an increasingly anxious population, destruction of social bonds, upward redistribution of wealth. Perhaps coronavirus is simply acute and/or late stage neoliberalism?

Everything here became seriously edgy when Boris Johnson cancelled Christmas. And then again when the schools went back (again) a month or so ago, there was a real edginess to the late-teen population. But then, I live in an extremely edgy area anyhow, so it could just be normality reasserting itself. (I also frequented nicer neighbourhoods around the same time, and it was better there.) There have definitely been connections between government policy and the mental state of the population, though - borne out in lived experience. It's looked different here to what I understand of much of the North American experience - outdoor face masks have always been a minority, but they became a bigger one on that December day, and have remained present at maybe 10%. That's helpful, I think, for seeing them as a symptom of anxiety, and also for seeing changes. (It also leaves me with enough energy to try and be extra-nice to the more scared people.)

I'd be interested in others' lived experiences. I recall reading on here some years ago a discussion on what looked different in the world compared with the previous decade, and the answer came back: smartphones. And that really resonated, partly because it's true, but also because of the truth that we live our lives physically in the places we live, rather than in the abstract. (Even if that fundament of life is under threat right now.) Visibly or palpably different environments are also useful for imagining things being different. I don't know about anyone else, but my imagination is pretty fragile (every summer, I can't imagine winter, and vice versa). I think this makes us vulnerable to hopelessness, and to enforced paradigm shifts (like the one we're experiencing right now).