Covid help and advice Archives - Covid Tests Kit

Was Government-Mandated Fear Ethical during the COVID Pandemic?

Damning evidence has surfaced, showing that Downing Street engaged in a knowing strategy to increase the “perceived level of personal threat” amongst people who were “complacent” on the subject of COVID-19.

Part of this 14-point strategy was to “use media to increase sense of personal threat”.

The document recommending the strategy was prepared for SAGE (the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) by its subgroup SPI-B, or the “Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours”.

Minutes from a 25 February 2020 meeting reveal that the SPI-B was involved in a meeting with the Home Office and the NPCC (National Police Chiefs Council) in order to discuss the “risk of public disorder” in the face of COVID-19 and, specifically, the public’s perception of the police force’s strength.

“Public disorder” was defined as opportunistic crime, community tension and rioting.

The SPI-B held the view that public disorder came from a perception of ineffectiveness of the government’s response strategy to COVID-19.

In other words, so long as the government could convince the people that it was effective, SPI-B believed this would prevent rioting.

One of the ways to achieve this perception, the minutes reports, was to convey the message that “we are all in this together” which SPI-B said would “lead to self-policing within communities around important behaviours”.

And then, a few weeks lanter, SPI-B told SAGE and the UK government to incite fear in the public in order to increase compliance with government mandates.

That was in early March 2020.

Four members of the SPI-B remain, to date, anonymous.

This notorious recommendation drafted by SPI-B for SAGE and subsequently acted upon by Downing Street was titled Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures.

The document said:

The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.” (source)

The government clearly swallowed that pill completely and entirely. As of April 2020, shocking images and “hard-hitting emotional messaging” were being used in everywhere you looked in billboards and social media to “increase the level of personal threat” amongst people. Examples are messages such as this one and this one, with terrifying colours being used to instil a sense of terrifying alarm in its people.

What followed was a coordinated series of actions where the entirety of SPI-B’s recommendations was implemented with gusto.

The UK government also started to spend megabucks in advertising in the press — the same press that was now unleashing a torrent of terror at the British populace in order to make it compliant. The UK government would go on to spend a total of £184 million in COVID communications in 2020. (source)

So, the fact that the government accepted and then acted upon a campaign of fear is a matter of record.

Now the question remains: Was it ethical?

Mental health and excess deaths

The mental health toll of locking people in their homes has been staggering. According to a group of 47 psychologists, the government’s fear tactics are being called “ethically murky”. These psychologists have made a formal complaint to establish if the government’s actions were a breach of ethics.

In the USA, there appears to be a correlation between increased numbers of suicides and lockdowns.

Data on UK suicide rates for 2020 will not be officially available until late 2021 as the data takes a while to correlate.

But the UK’s excess deaths — the number of additional deaths per year compared to an “average” year — at home which are not attributable to COVID are shockingly high. This is mostly as a result of lack of access to medical facilities, offices being closed, failure to detect cancers early, etc. — all of it a direct result of the UK’s lockdown policies and Stay at Home orders.

With more and more data coming to light that COVID is not the dread disease it was once made out to be, the murky area of “Was it ethical to engender fear in  your own people?” becomes a lot clearer.

And we haven’t even mentioned the decimation of the economy or the obliteration of the educational system.

Democracy or fear?

Those of us who are old enough will remember being raised with the ideals of freedom of speech, and the belief that we can be and do anything we want — because we live in a democracy.

Taking a COVID test should feel no different to getting tested for the flu or some other malady. It shouldn’t engender fear and anxiety as a result of a relentless campaign to drive a population into a complete panic.

Fear and terror are the tools of fascism, nationalist propaganda, Iron Curtain states that make their citizens disappear, and totalitarian states who outright kidnap intellectuals.

Almost overnight, democratic governments turned rogue and became tyrannical, fearmongering terror states who took away people’s freedoms and sent their levels of anxiety skyrocketing.

So, here’s the question again: Was that ethical?

Will COVID Vaccines Become Mandatory?

The issue of COVID-19 “passports” has been floated already since the beginning of the year.

The use of the word “passport” for a vaccine is a terrifying one. A “passport” is a government document that grants the bearer full and legal rights as a rightful citizen of whatever country they hold a passport for.

To call for vaccine “passports” is to hint at the fact that those who choose to go unvaccinated might be treated with fewer rights than others.

Yet another blow to democracy in the last 12 months.

Aside from the fact that the science behind the UK’s eternal lockdowns appears severely flawed (lockdowns appear to have increased excess deaths rather than reduce them, and lockdown-rejecting Florida’s COVID-19 stats are unbelievably good), to enforce that an entire population be vaccinated for a virus with a survival rate of 99.5% for anyone under 70 years of age is almost laughable.

Indeed, the survival rate for people 19 years old and under is, according to this article, 99.997 per cent!

Now, let us introduce you to Dr Ryan Cole, who is a Mayo Clinic trained Board Certified Pathologist. He has expertise in immunology and virology and has seen over 350,000 patients in his career. He has also carried out 100,000 COVID Tests in the past year.

In a talk he gave recently, Dr Cole — who is pro vaccines, FYI, and whose own children have received “lots of vaccines”, according to him — pointed out that, historically, a vaccine was defined as the act of injecting a protein, antigen or part of a pathogen into the body to trigger an immune system response and thereby obtain immunity.

He further pointed out that the Pfizer “vaccine” does not fit within that definition, but is in fact injecting a genetic sequence into the human body, which he defines as a “medical device”.

“Historically,” he says, “what we’re doing right now does not fall under the definition of a vaccine.” He further states that the wording of the official register that defines a vaccine was changed just before the Pfizer vaccine was approved.

And then there’s the rushed, emergency approval of this so-called vaccine. Vaccines, to be considered entirely safe, usually take ten years before they are finally, officially approved. The Pfizer and other vaccines were developed in mere months.

Also, whereas it was once unequivocally believed that mRNA can never modify human DNA, a recent study indicates that this might indeed be the case.

That mRNA might actually be able to alter DNA will no doubt be viewed with more than a little skepticism — it is, after all, like telling physicists that gravity actually pushes objects up, not down.

But the observations are there. And if there is one thing the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us, it’s that we don’t  know everything.

Okay, this is absolutely not an “anti-vaccine” post — it is a post that elucidates a number of elements that might be potentially concerning for many types of people, especially parents.

Alas, one of the biggest casualties of the politicized COVID pandemic could be science itself. When YouTube technocrats censor an open discussion of luminaries and health experts regarding masks and the (in)effectiveness of lockdowns, we should all worry about the state of science itself.

It does remind one of the stories we were told about Pharaohs convincing the people that they were gods and so should never be questioned.

Any semi-logical person can see that there are questions. Any person who believes in the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom to Think for Oneself would look at the above evidence and say, “Okay, there might be something more to know here. Let me ask some questions.”

But here’s the point: When Boris J recently pointed out that there might be “ethical issues” with enforcing a Vaccine Passport system, he blatantly failed to mention the largest of those concerns, but only gave a trite “for medical reasons” or “maybe they’re pregnant”.

What about people who cannot be vaccinated on religious grounds? What about parents who are genuinely concerned regarding potential health risks for their children?

Neither of these was cited in BJ’s comments regarding the “ethical issues” surrounding the enforcement of a medical procedure on its people by a supposedly democratic government.

A little over a year ago, we would never have said that governments across the world would jail their citizens, take away their rights, and prevent them from working. We also would not have said that Big Tech — companies we trusted — would embark on a rampage of blanket censorship and so irreparably ally themselves with the muck of politics.

The only thing we can hope for is that the public pushback will be strong enough for government to come up with a plausible excuse that allows it to save face when it retracts its plans to enforce vaccine passports on UK citizens.

An alternative to “Vaccine Passports” is to have people tested for coronavirus before attending an event. A test is easy to carry out and does not infringe on anyone’s rights by making them do something that is against their beliefs or their personal will.

Is the Internet Being Censored Because of Coronavirus?

Well, yes. But that’s not the right question to ask. The question is: “Is the curtailment of Freedom of Speech merited and correct during such unprecedented times?”

Active censorship of COVID “misinformation” has been going on since the very beginning of the pandemic and only seems to be getting worse, even going so far as to ban videos of concerns to vaccinations based on religious convictions.

From a perspective of liberty and democracy, the situation is terrifying.

This article is no argument as to whether or not you should be taking Zinc or upping your Vitamin D. It isn’t even an argument against getting vaccinated every year and touting your Vaccine Passport like a trophy. By all means, do that — if you so choose and if you made the decision to do so with all the information at your fingertips.

This is an article about a world whose western governments changed, overnight, from democracies to tyrannies and fascistic regimes, and if that was the best move for our collective future.

More than ever, Big Tech has gotten involved and is actively banning anything it deems to be “misinformation” — or even anything that suggests people don’t get vaccinated.

The renowned activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Instagram account was banned just 15 minutes before he and Del Bigtree were about to air this video on the potential side-effects of the new COVID vaccines.

That video was made up of a panel of trained physicians, scientists, lawyers, (experts, in other words), sharing their scientific views on the potential dangers of the COVID vaccines.

The very essence of science is contention. It is only through disagreement and challenging the status quo that progress can be made: Socrates’s hemlock. Galileo’s persecution for endorsing heliocentricism and being subjected to the inquisition, ending his life under house arrest. These are classic examples that people look at today.

But too often those distant examples are looked at from a lens that says that  “such things don’t happen today.” In this super-modern world, people tend to believe that everything major has already been discovered and that there is nothing new to learn.

The people of the Dark Ages felt the same.

And yet just in the first 18 years of the 21st century, numerous paradigm-shifting scientific discoveries were made.

These discoveries could be made because the entire ethos of science is to:

– Question the status quo

– Be allowed to talk about it openly in professional circles.

Gone are the days of dogma and physical enforcement of beliefs by a class of High Priests who stand to gain financially or otherwise from the public’s credulity.

Or are those days gone?

Twitter has now started labelling tweets it deems to contain “misinformation” about COVID-19 and vaccinations. But who determines what is misinformation or not?

Facebook will now block “misleading” coronavirus ads. And who determines what is misleading or not?

Yes, we’re in a difficult situation in the world today. And no sane person wants a bunch of con artists running around selling snake oil and Kool-Aid for a quick buck while people are dying.

But do we also want to have our freedoms limited and our liberties taken away because the advertising-funded mainstream media has driven the population into a paralyzing fear that makes it difficult for anyone to think calmly on the subject?

I remember the early days of the pandemic before the lockdowns burst upon the earth like unchecked mushrooms. I couldn’t help get the feeling that I was looking at a bunch of masochists sitting glued to their screens, mouths watering and rubbing their hands together, hungry for the bad news to be reported! It almost felt like the mainstream media was in a state of euphoric ecstasy at the horrors playing out before their eyes.

They drove panic and incited fear.

Just the other day, The New York Times was caught fear-mongering about COVID, trying, a year later, to incite the same degree of panic, frustration and sense of dire hopelessness, which has caused an unimaginable spike in anxiety and depression levels across the world’s population.

But you won’t find The New York Times being censored for “mis”-information by Google.

As we said, these are unprecedented times. But the blanket censorship of information, even when that information is provided by veritable “experts”, is cause for deep concern for our children — it opens the door to a world where nothing is questioned and Big Brother controls everything.

We’re almost there already. But those of us who have a memory of a world where Freedom of Speech was once protected can still do something about it.

In fifty or a hundred years, history will have been rewritten, books burned, and a new ideology brought to the fore where nobody but the High Priests can make any decisions about your or your children’s future.

That’s not right. That’s a Dark Ages.

What Are the COVID Regulations to Travel to the UK?

Earlier last month, the Prime Minister unveiled the steps necessary to ease the UK out of its third lockdown. These are travel restrictions currently in place to travel into the UK.

Travelling into England

Everybody who travels into England must quarantine for 10 days. This must either be done in the place the person is staying (second home, holiday home, hotel, etc.) or in one of the UK’s managed quarantine hotels.

Determining which you need to do depends on where you travelled in the 10 days before arriving in England.

If you have travelled through one of the countries in the UK’s “red list” during the 10 days before entering England, then you will need to quarantine in one of the UK’s managed quarantine hotels. The “red list” of countries currently is:

  • Angola
  • Argentina
  • Bolivia
  • Botswana
  • Brazil
  • Burundi
  • Cape Verde
  • Chile
  • Colombia
  • The Democratic Republic of the Congo
  • Ecuador
  • Eswatini
  • French Guiana
  • Guyana
  • Lesotho
  • Malawi
  • Mauritius
  • Mozambique
  • Namibia
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Peru
  • Portugal (including Madeira and the Azores)
  • Rwanda
  • Seychelles
  • South Africa
  • Suriname
  • Tanzania
  • United Arab Emirates (UAE)
  • Uruguay
  • Venezuela
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

Please note that the above rule regarding the “red list” applies only to British citizens, Irish citizens, or people who have the right to live in the UK. If you are not British, Irish or have the right to live in the UK then you will not be allowed to enter the country at all if you have been to one of the destinations on the red list!

Everyone arriving in the UK must also then get two coronavirus tests after arriving in the country. These tests need to be booked before travelling to England.

Before travelling, you must provide your contact details using this online “Passenger Locator” form at least 48 hours before your departure.

You also need to carry out a coronavirus test a maximum of three days before travelling to the UK. Failure to provide a negative-result COVID-19 test at the border could result in a fine of £500you. Ouch!

Children under eleven do not need a test, nor do people travelling from Ireland, Ascension, Falkland Islands or St Helena.

Ending quarantine early

There is a system in place to end quarantine early. It is called the “Test to Release” scheme. (If the name makes you feel a bit like a trapped animal in a cage, well, you can be forgiven.)

After 5 days, you will be allowed to take a private coronavirus test to determine if you are infected with COVID-19. If the test is negative, you may end your self-isolation early.

Testing privately, however, does not obviate you from needing to take the other two tests.

Please note, however, that if you travelled to one of the countries on the red list, you will not be allowed to end self-isolation early using the “Test to Release” scheme.

Travelling into Scotland

The rules for travelling into Scotland are almost identical to those for travelling into England.

Travel within Scotland is currently forbidden as many areas are currently in lockdown.

Travel from Scotland to the UK or abroad is currently forbidden unless there is an exception. The list of exceptions is extensive and includes such things as:

– Travel for work

– Travel to school

– Travel for essential shopping

– Healthcare-related travel

– Travel for childcare

– Travel for parental support services

– Travel to donate blood

And numerous other exceptions. You can find the full list or coronavirus travel updates here.

Travelling to Wales

If you are travelling into Wales from the Common Travel Area (CTA), including from the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, then you will not need to self-isolate for 10 days.

Anyone who has been in a country on the above “red list” in the previous 10 days will not be allowed to enter Wales! The only way to enter Wales in these cases is to come in through one of the other ports of entry in the UK, isolate for 10 days in managed quarantine, and then travel to Wales.

Some people are exempted from quarantine.

If you do need to isolate, you must travel directly to your place of isolation with no stops in between.

Travelling to Northern Ireland

Only people with a legally permitted reason are allowed to travel outside of the Common Travel Area.

The rules for entering and leaving Northern Ireland are extensive and could probably fill a book.

In essence, to enter Northern Ireland, you must:

– Take a COVID test 3 days before your departure. You will only be permitted to travel if your test is negative.

– Fill in the Passenger Locator form before departure (same as for the UK above)

– Self-isolate for ten days.

Unlike Scotland, England and Wales, travelling from a Red List country into Northern Ireland does not obligate you to fork over nearly two-thousand quid to stay in a government-sanctioned managed hotel. But your “entire household” does need to isolate for 10 days.

If, however, you travel through Great Britain into Ireland, you will need to follow any rules in place in Great Britain (covered above).

More information on Northern Ireland’s rules can be found here.

Confusion and Controversy over Face Masks in School

As Brits slowly emerge from their year-long house-arrest prison cells this month, like rats from unlit sewers, dissent and indignation reign when discussing the controversial practice of forcing children to hide their faces behind purportedly panacea-like masks.

And, as Big Tech censorship grows ever more brazen, alarming and ubiquitous, finding information regarding the pros and cons of masks becomes ever more difficult.

We have, by our own fear-driven complacency, descended to a level of collectively submissive behaviour which has allowed supposedly democratic western governments to eradicate and shatter basic democratic rights as if they were swatting at flies.

Indeed, the case for face masks, in general, is not cut and dry by a long shot. Study after study has confirmed that face masks have “no significant impact in stopping [the] spread of the Covid virus.” And, yet, the mainstream media narrative will have you believe otherwise.

The sheer volume of science-based evidence that masks don’t work is stunning in its quantity. Faced with such clear evidence, it boggles the mind to watch Brits (and many others in the world) don their masks like min emperors putting on their new clothes.

This is bad enough for adults. But the data regarding whether children should be forced to wear masks borders on scandalous — as does the entirely botched “handling” of the COVID-19 pandemic by incompetent politicians and blundering health ministers, from the beginning.

The most egregious myth (now utterly debunked) which has been disseminated about our youth is that they are “super-spreaders” — a term which, sadly, will likely be used to ostracize our children and people for decades to come.

Actually, children and their strong immune systems are part of the solution.

According to eminent bio-statistician Knut M. Wittkowski, the only way to conquer a respiratory disease is through herd immunity. (That’s another term that has previously calm and logical people now spitting in disgust.) He talks about “contact” with the virus, and that merely being in contact with it will not necessarily make you ill.

Herd immunity can be achieved through vaccination programs or through safe contact.

Safe contact, according to him, is achieved by exposing healthy people to the virus, all while protecting the old and the infirm.

Dr Wirrkowski, who headed the Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University, New York, for twenty years, had his video explaining the above promptly and summarily banned by technocrats at YouTube for offering his expert medical opinion.

These are dystopian times.

On the subject of illustrious experts, few fill those boots so perfectly as Oxford University’s Professor Sunetra Gupta. Dr Gupta “studied biology at Princeton University and completed her PhD at Imperial College London, writing her dissertation on the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases.”

Few are as qualified as she to comment on the validity of lockdowns and the ways in which respiratory diseases get transmitted.

In her expert opinion, lockdowns are “cruel and regressive.” More importantly, she points out that the initial data models predicting mass and almost apocalyptic levels of death were completely flawed.

Those models were touted by Imperial College of London’s (ICL) mathematical epidemiologist Neil Ferguson who was quick to retract his “predictions” once they resulted in the draconian actions which have all but collapsed the world’s economies.

Unfortunately, the ICL’s model was not merely “slightly” flawed — it was almost completely, utterly and hopelessly wrong. (According to the previously linked article, Ferguson was wrong about his projections of Mad Cow disease as well. Oh, and do you remember that scandalous story of when “Professor Lockdown” himself was caught violating the very social distancing rules he insisted on being implemented?)

So, what does all this about lockdowns have to do with masks in school?


We need to start afresh. Stop being afraid.

It all began in March 2020 when we didn’t know anything about the virus. Back then, there was also very little testing being done for coronavirus. Not knowing anything meant that people panicked and toilet paper disappeared off the shelves faster than people could wrestle it out of others’ hands.

The media jumped on the bandwagon (bad news sells) and spewed out a torrent of terror that had everyday folk holding their children tight and saying an extra prayer every night.

Shame on these terror-mongers.

Likewise seeing an opportunity, technocrats and politicians quickly pushed their own agendas until talk of masks, lockdowns, “shelter in place” (a wartime practice to protect yourself, not one in peacetime) and the ever-growing onslaught of vested interests promptly buried and censored information and turned the COVID-19 epidemic/pandemic into a free-for-all circus.

Free speech went the way of the horse-drawn cart, and here we stand, tired, weary, battered, beaten down by governments who are too scared to admit they made a mistake and too afraid of losing their own jobs while gratuitously decimating the jobs of millions of others.

Before deciding about masks, we need to calm down.

We need to stop being afraid of a virus that has close to a 99.9% survival rate when there are no other comorbidities present. And that was without a vaccine!

We also need to stop being afraid of being imprisoned in our own homes by a government entirely antithetic to basic human freedoms.

We need to take a breath and forget the last twelve months.

After doing that, we need to look at the data — all the data — and decide for ourselves if masking children is good for their health, their education and their general wellbeing.

Should I Be Worried about Vaccinating My Child against COVID-19?

Concerns over the safety of a COVID-19 vaccine have existed since before the Pfizer/BioNTech announcement that its new vaccine is over 90 per cent effective.

Concerns over vaccines, in general, is not a new thing — the “vax vs anti-vax” controversy has raged for a long time.

Even before the pandemic, Matt Hancock was already trying to get anti-vaccine posts banned from social media.

Well, it seems that all it took for him to get his wish was a global pandemic of deadly proportions.

Perhaps the most alarming matter in this current situation is that Big Tech has now taken a Big Brother attitude and is actively censoring posts and content that it deems to be “misinformation” on the subject of vaccinations as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Look, we’re all tired. And we’re not here to tell you whether you should get a vaccine or not. We’re not medical professionals — but at least we’re honest about it.

What we are here to tell you is that you should choose your sources of information.

For a company like Amazon to take down a product from its shelves or for YouTube to ban a video that contains opinions from medical professionals that the COVID-19 numbers were being boosted is concerning at best.

By blithely assigning the label of “misinformation” to any post that goes against the status quo — even when such information is peer-reviewed and validated by experts — one puts into the hands of Big Tech the power of judge, jury and executioner.

Again, let us be blunt — we are not making a case for or against vaccines. We are making a case for your rights as a parent to know what you put into your children’s bodies.

(Oh, and while we’re at it, did you know that the UK has the best survival rate for COVID-19 than any other country in the world? How does that make you feel compared to hearing about “death rates” all the time.)

As a parent, you should be allowed to receive facts and opinions from people who are trained to give those facts and opinions.

For example, if 25 per cent of residents at a German old-age home died (video in German) after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, you should know about it.

You need to know that over 500 people have died “shortly after” receiving the vaccine in the UK (227 after receiving Pfizer/BioNTech and 275 after receiving the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine). And you need to know these things in a table with information listing:

– Age

– Other morbidities

– How soon after vaccination did the person pass away

You certainly don’t need this “reported” to you in a watered-down summary that reads more like a paean to the miracles of vaccination rather than as a clearly stated and objective report containing facts and figures.

Could it be that someone doesn’t want us to think for ourselves?

By putting the power into Big Tech’s hands to label data as “misinformation”, we are basically being told that we are unable to decide for ourselves what works and what doesn’t.

As if we’re the stupid masses who must constantly be controlled.

And, let’s face it, the mainstream media is no accurate source of information. After Larry King died, one of the major British news networks posted a huge scare headline which read, “Larry King Dies of COVID-19”.

What a lie. And I think they knew it. Because a search for that same article now shows that the article with that title no longer exists.

Larry King did not die of COVID-19. He died of sepsis.

Misinformation from whom?

When a 39-year-old woman with no other known morbidities dies from heart and kidney failure after receiving the second Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, you should know about it.

If Matt Hancock is turning a profit from PPE sales, you should know about it. That information shouldn’t be censored or go unreported by Big Media who are supposed to be objective in their reporting and not worry about how to stay afloat as a result of fees paid given to them by their advertisers.

These are difficult, unprecedented times for all of us. A lot of good people have worked (and are working) very hard to deal with a catastrophic state of affairs.

We will forever be indebted to the wonderful souls at the NHS who have sacrificed so much to keep us well.

But it doesn’t change your rights as a parent. You have a right to know, and you have a right to choose.

That’s all we’re saying.

To blindly label anything as “misinformation” because it goes against the status quo is ludicrous.

We have already been thrown into a 1984-esque state of affairs where our individual liberties and personal freedoms have been repeatedly taken away from us, businesses closed down and the livelihoods of millions destroyed through the draconian (and dubious) measures of worldwide lockdowns (which apparently don’t even work).

Perhaps those actions were done in foolishness; hopefully, they were not undertaken with malice aforethought and for profit.

And, on the subject of profit, no one can deny that vaccines and COVID-19 drug research are big bucks.

Either way, here we stand. We have to get back on our feet and have to get the world moving again.

We also need to maintain our liberty.

And the only way to maintain liberty is to keep the channels of dialogue open, to choose for ourselves what information we agree with or not, to speak to medical professionals of our own choosing. Maintaining liberty is not done by Facebook, YouTube and Amazon exercising their strong arms and burying any and all information that the status quo deems unfit for public consumption.

There’s a book about that.

What Are the Side-Effects of the New COVID-19 Vaccine?

The announcement of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 in November was met with ebullient joy in many quarters, prompting The Economist to release a moving cover story titled only “Suddenly, hope”.

Indeed, the release of the vaccine brought on a sense of hope for a population which has been driven to fatigue and apathy as a result of the trials of this challenging year.

Alas, our fears and desperate need for a solution to these harrowing times might have silenced many who, under normal circumstances, would peer more closely at this medical breakthrough.

In the late 19th century, cocaine was lauded as a solution to many illnesses and utilised in products such as toothache drops and “Coca Wine” which were promoted as healing solutions. It even went so far as to be suggested as a cure for depression. It wasn’t until 1914 that cocaine was made illegal in the USA. But, by that time, addicts abounded.

Heroin was similarly once produced on a mass scale and used as widely in medicine, touted as a “wonder drug”.

Less dramatic, and yet eerily apt, was the drug Alatrofloxacin, sold under the name Trovan, and developed by Pfizer, the original discoverers of Viagra and also the makers of the COVID-19 vaccine which is currently being shipped out in millions.

Alatrofloxacin was withdrawn from the US market as a result of causing “serious liver injury leading to liver transplant or death” (source).

There is also the controversial (and tragic) case of Pfizer’s involvement in the 1996 meningococcal meningitis epidemic in Nigeria, where Pfizer administered an experimental antibiotic to 100 children. Survivors of the human trials sued Pfizer for alleged violations of the Nuremberg Code and claimed that administration of the experimental drug on the children was carried out without the parents’ informed consent.

The matter was eventually settled out of court for $75 million. Meanwhile, the medical records of those patients have disappeared. And Wikileaks reported Pfizer’s country director hiring private investigators to uncover corruption on the part of the plaintiffs.

In 2009, Pfizer paid a civil and criminal fine of $2.3 billion after pleading guilty to illegally promoting an anti-inflammatory drug called Bextra “with the intent to defraud or mislead”.

Pfizer settled a class-action lawsuit out of court for faulty valves which were alleged to have caused the deaths of 250 people.

Historically withdrawn vaccines

There is also historical precedent for vaccines being withdrawn. Some of the reasons for the withdrawal of these approved vaccines were:

  1. It contained live poliovirus, thereby causing the disease it was supposed to vaccinate against.
  2. It contained simian virus 40.
  3. It increased a neurological disorder as a result of the swine flu vaccination.
  4. Might cause multiple sclerosis.
  5. The vaccine contained small amounts of glass in it.
  6. The first vaccine to be approved for fighting rotavirus gastroenteritis resulted in some infants developing a “rare type of bowel obstruction that occurs when the bowel folds in on itself”.
  7. Flu vaccine resulted in a chronic sleep disorder.

What are the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine side-effects?

A vaccine usually takes over 10 years to develop. The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was developed in just a matter of months.

The world has been battered, bruised and beaten in 2020. In the UK, particularly, mismanagement of the virus, lockdowns as well as the well-being of small businesses has left many people desperate to get back to work and to get back to normal.

In such trying times, few people might be keen to ask the following questions:

  1. Is the COVID-19 vaccine safe for pregnant women?
  2. Does the COVID-19 vaccine cause allergic reactions?
  3. What exactly are the ingredients of the COVID-19 vaccine?
  4. Has sufficient testing for the COVID-19 vaccine been carried out?
  5. Will the COVID-19 vaccine cause or aggravate autism?

The COVID-19 vaccine is not only new to the market, but it uses an entirely new method to induce an immune response.

The COVID-19 mRNA vaccine will be the first mRNA vaccine ever sold to the public.

As much as the vaccine is being lauded, the UK government still advises that those who have been vaccinated continue to practice social distancing and wear face masks. It admits that “We do not yet know whether [the vaccine] will stop you from catching and passing on the virus”.

Back-to-School Kids Require Regular COVID-19 Testing as of 8 March 2021

As per the Prime Minister’s much-anticipated announcement regarding the Road Out of Lockdown yesterday, school children will be allowed back at school on 8 March 2021.

But they will need to take COVID tests regularly.

Schools will be able to decide for themselves if children can return all at once or in a “phased” manner.

Part of getting kids back to school is that parents will now be responsible for testing children for COVID-19 at home, using COVID-19 Home Testing Kits.

We wrote about this already back in November last year, when some schools were demanding that children be given COVID-19 Home Tests if they experienced any COVID-related symptoms (such as shortness of breath, high temperature, cough).

But the new measure by No. 10 means that the testing will be conducted on a massive scale, with secondary school children being tested as often as twice a week! And they must be tested regardless of whether they exhibit symptoms or not.

To return to school, secondary school and college students will be tested for COVID-19 four times in the first two weeks of the term. After that, they will need to regularly conduct home tests for coronavirus, such as the highly accurate PCR Home Testing Kit.

Primary school kids are not required to take the later home tests.

School Bubbles

Last year, the government released guidance for forming school “bubbles” that would allow predesignated groups of students to comingle during break and lunchtimes so as to minimise the spread of the virus should anyone catch it.

As far as we understand, this guidance will still stay in place moving forward.

Part of the government guidance is that books and shared equipment only be used within a certain bubble. If those items are indeed shared across bubbles, then the items must be sanitised.

Face Masks

If students cannot be kept two meters apart in a classroom, then they are required to use face masks. But primary school children are not required to use them.

A suggestion was made for the school to keep a supply of masks, but no commensurate suggestions were made as to how these would be paid for. The same is true for the COVID-19 test kits.

The roadmap to return to schools also states, “Face coverings are now also recommended in early years and primary schools for staff and adult visitors in situations where social distancing between adults is not possible, for example, when moving around in corridors and communal areas.”

Kids can be sent home for having symptoms.

If a child tests positive for coronavirus, then schools must contact “local health protection teams”, who will then trace who the child has been in contact with.

Schools are apparently within their rights to request that the child’s bubble or even the entire school self-isolates as needed.

The headteacher has the right to refuse to accept the child to school if they have symptoms of coronavirus.

Still a long road ahead

But the road to end the lockdown for everyone is still a long way ahead. Although children will be allowed to return to school on 8 March, the Stay-at-Home order will not be lifted until as late as 29 March.

Only in mid-April will people be allowed to move around the country.

It won’t be until April that you can go to the gym again or attend exercise classes, but you won’t be able to watch any movies in the cinema until May or catch a London theatre show until then as well.

Fear not, however, because pubs and restaurants can have outside table service as early as 12 April. Let’s hope it’s warm in April because you’ll only be able to dine in style indoors as of May.

For those of you itching to tie the knot with two hundred guests, I’m afraid you’ll have to wait until 21 June for unlimited guests. You can, however, have 30 guests at a wedding until then. (Does that include caterers? We don’t know.)

Just be glad this isn’t the Middle Ages and that it is perfectly legal to cohabit with your dearly beloved in 2021.

The much-dreaded vaccine passport was floated as a way to allow people to attend stadiums as of May.

If, however, you’re eager to get back to the Algarve for some much-needed sun (who isn’t, by now?), doubt still exists as to when that will be possible. After 21 June, the need to social distance will be reviewed.

Everything You Need to Know about the UK’s Travel Quarantine Rule

As of 15 February, UK residents and Irish nationals entering the UK from a list of 33 “red-listed” countries will need to quarantine in a hotel for 11 nights — at their own cost.

Which countries require a mandatory hotel quarantine?

The red-listed countries are:

  1. Angola
  2. Argentina
  3. Bolivia
  4. Botswana
  5. Brazil
  6. Burundi
  7. Cape Verde
  8. Chile
  9. Colombia
  10. The Democratic Republic of the Congo
  11. Ecuador
  12. Eswatini
  13. French Guiana
  14. Guyana
  15. Lesotho
  16. Malawi
  17. Mauritius
  18. Mozambique
  19. Namibia
  20. Panama
  21. Paraguay
  22. Peru
  23. Portugal (including Madeira and the Azores)
  24. Seychelles
  25. South Africa
  26. Suriname
  27. Rwanda
  28. Tanzania
  29. United Arab Emirates (UAE)
  30. Uruguay
  31. Venezuela
  32. Zambia
  33. Zimbabwe

Which airports can UK residents enter the country in?

If you are flying from one of the red-listed countries, you can only enter the country from one of the following airports:

  • Heathrow
  • Gatwick
  • London City
  • Birmingham
  • Farnborough Airfield

The pricing for the hotel stay is set by the government in accordance with participating hotels. The cost for adults is £1,750. This covers tests, food, accommodation and transport.

That’s the price if you are travelling alone.

Children aged five to 12 cost an additional £325. Any other person over the age of 12 who is travelling with you will cost £650.

If you feel this all sounds a little 1984-esque, you are not alone.

Failure to comply with this quarantine rule can lead to a fine of up to £10,000. You could also be fined up to £10,000 if you misinform the authorities about which destinations you have travelled to in the last ten days before arriving back in the UK.

Which hotels are included?

So far, sixteen hotels are included in the program with plans to add additional hotels near the airports listed above.

What should I do before I travel?

Before travelling to the UK, you will need to take a COVID-19 test 3 days before your flight, and test negative for COVID-19.

You also need to book your stay in one of the quarantine hotels via the CTM portal. The cost of this booking will include additional COVID Tests on day 2 and on day 8 of your hotel quarantine.

The government will bear the costs of any additional food and drink consumed by children between the ages of three and five. (Hotels often do not charge for children under three years of age.)

If the package puts you under a tremendous financial strain, there is an option to defer payment. But the government does expect you to foot the bill, even regardless of how many assurances you give them that you would honour your stay at home instead.

You have absolutely no choice in the matter — you and everyone else entering the country form one of the red-listed countries must quarantine in one of the sanctioned hotels.

What happens after arriving at one of the designated airports?

When you arrive, Border Force officers will require your passenger locator form, your passport and your negative COVID-19 Test Result.

You will be escorted to your managed hotel. You will have to follow social distancing rules and wear a face mask at all times.

And if I’ve been vaccinated?

If you are vaccinated, you will be treated in exactly the same way as anyone else entering the country. You will obtain absolutely zero privileges from being vaccinated — you will not be allowed to leave your room, will have to wear a face mask, you will have to social distance, and so on, just like everybody else.

What is it like to stay at a quarantine hotel?

Well, it can be pretty grim. To quote a Telegraph journalist who booked a stay in a double room (which ended up being unbelievably tiny), she said, “I’m fairly sure, I personally would go mad,” referring to not being able to leave that room.

The room had no windows at eye-level. The only windows were set so high up that it’s impossible to get a look outside.

There are many prisons in the world that look better than that hotel.

To be fair, not all hotels have such dismal accommodations as can be witnessed by the Telegraph reporters filming directly into recently-arrived passengers’ private hotel rooms like paparazzi.

What would you prefer — a room with no windows, or being filmed in your pyjamas for ten days and eleven nights?

More costs

If you test positive for COVID-19 on your Day 2 test, then you will need to quarantine until day 12. If you test positive on day 8 then you must quarantine until day 18.

This will set you back an additional £152 a day.

Regardless of where you’re travelling from, you will need to take a COVID-19 test three days before your flight. Failure to do so will result in a £1,000 fine. The same fine applies if you fail to take the second test after arrival. A £2,000 fine will be levied to anyone failing to take the test on Day 8.

Could an Effective COVID-19 Testing Program Ease Lockdowns?

The need for rapid and efficient COVID-19 testing continues to grow. Recently, Heathrow announced that “Lamp” (Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification) tests would be given to passengers flying from Heathrow to Hong Kong.

The Lamp test is not as sensitive as the PCR tests used by the NSA, which is the same test used in COVID-19 Home Testing Kits.

As the UK enters its second phase of lockdown, with places like Liverpool and Greater Manchester being ordered into a tier-three level of full lockdown, the need for testing becomes more urgent.

Not only are accurate tests required for getting kids back to school, but many destinations now require that people undertake a COVID-19 test in as little as 72 hours before flying.

Already in September, the demand for testing was so high that the NHS was running out of tests.

Faced with the inability to get their children back to work as a result of the lack of tests, or to fly urgently for business as a result of the same, many parents and businesspeople took the quickly rising option of ordering tests online and taking them at home.

The pros of these kinds of tests cannot be understated. Not only are they conducted in the safety and security of one’s own home as opposed to at a crowded clinic where one risks exposure. But the PCR Home Test Kits offer extremely high accuracy in determining if someone is currently infected with COVID-19.

These tests differ from antibody tests which cannot detect if someone is currently infected, but rather if they’ve had COVID-19 within the last six or more weeks.

The Home PCR Test is taken by rubbing a swab at the back of the subject’s tongue, as well as taking a sample from inside the nostril. These samples are then sent to a laboratory, in secure packaging, and the results are often returned within hours of receiving them.

Many brits are unable to withstand another three-to-six months of hard lockdown as a result of not being able to earn their livelihoods. As stated by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan a few weeks ago: None of these restrictions would be necessary if proper testing was in place.

If an effective and accurate testing program were in place, perhaps the need for a full-scale lockdown might be obviated.

The main complaint with lockdowns is that it tends to penalise the healthy. An effective testing program would, at least, offer further options and possibilities such as only insisting on a lockdown of those people who had either not conducted a test, or who had conducted a test and then tested positive.

Undoubtedly, the need for self-testing will continue to grow.

No matter what route the next few months take, it is certain that people must be given a choice, and that the choice must be backed by science. If people could prove without a shadow of a doubt that they were not infected, surely they could be allowed to walk the streets and go to work without restrictions?

If the UK is to bounce back and return to some degree of normalcy, testing will need to become a de facto standard in our daily lives, with the burden of testing being shared by clinics, individuals, the NHS, the government, businesses and any other entities that can contribute to easing the load.