TU Delft has now also decided: 2G and 3G now have little effect | NOS. They have not yet discovered that the effect is counterproductive because of the false security, but that is a matter of time. It's getting exciting now. As a counterforce, we have the OMT that continues to cling to its own assumptions plucked out of thin air. But things are also rumbling within the propaganda ranks. Patricia Bruijning just gave a remarkable interview with Sven "we have to talk" Kockelmann.
How is Minister Kuipers going to mess us into 2G? Falsifying charts as on the press conference will no longer succeed because it is no longer about smuggling for a few days: the downward trends are too striking for that. Steering for 2G is becoming an increasing challenge. But he has let himself be used for heavier carts so let's stay on our guard.
Why definitely not 2G
There are foreign countries that are extremely committed to 2G. In Germany, a minister with a stroke of the pen, without involving parliament, shortened the validity of the recovery certificate to two months, de facto increasing the vaccination compulsion. The Eucalyptic Society has already paid extensive attention to the undesirability of 2G.
2G is vaccination compulsion under penalty of exclusion, especially if a recovery certificate is only valid for a short time. It is no different in Austria and France and further away it is sometimes even worse. There is now growing protest in those countries.
In the absence of its own vision, the Netherlands likes to look to Germany. It will be the litmus test how the cabinet now holds up in the face of German violence - and we are not talking about the WEF.
Unfortunately offline: https://eucalyptischgenootschap.nl/de-redenen-waarom-2g-zeer-onwenselijk-is/
The circumstances have long since ceased to require a draconian, society-splitting intervention such as 2G:
- A harmless disease, less threatening than the flu
- Declining admission, ICU and death rates
- Increasing signals about catastrophic side effects (not mentioned by EC)
- The Parachute Argument is the only 'theoretical consideration' behind almost all interventions – because there is no scientific basis.
If, despite all this, it is still decided to use 2G, vaccination and it is still decided to sacrifice children to this, then I can only conclude that our leaders have really gone crazy with fear. And I have to suppress the urge to recognize a conspiracy in it again. It's the collective fear of a group think dynamic, it's not a conspiracy. Let's get it right: "It's the collective fear of a group think dynamic, it's not a conspiracy. It's the collective fear of a group think dynamic, it's not a conspiracy. It's the collective fear of a group think dynamic, it's not a conspiracy. It's the collective fear of a group think dynamic, it's not a conspiracy. It's the collective fear of a group think dynamic, it's not a conspiracy..." [repeat]
The main rationale of the Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions: the Parachute Argument
None of the measures have a scientific basis. This has not disturbed the policy: "OMT = the science". However, there was indeed a scientifically substantiated blueprint with regard to respiratory outbreaks, see the now off-line obtained at John Hopkins Institute 2019 Handbook from John Hopkins University (now download here). The word "lockdown" does not appear in it, the word "quarantine" is called controversial. Nevertheless, the academics gathered in the OMT unanimously went into a fit of fear and decided, on the basis of their "own theoretical considerations", that those existing scientific guidelines had to be scrapped. People were afraid.
Not only the government, but also the judiciary refers to the OMT for scientific substantiation. They consider that to be a 'source'. However, the OMT is not bothered by advancing science. The members trust each other's expert status (because in the OMT it is top) and decide, confirming each other on 'good theoretical considerations', what is best for public health – with a virologist's/doctor's eye, so without any idea of overall effects on public health, economy, mass dynamics, etc. etc.
They invoke the Parachute Argument time and time again, whether it concerns aerosols, vaccinations or face masks.
What exactly is the Parachute Argument?
Whether it concerns droplet contamination or the corona pass: if this has to be defended, OMT members like to use their beloved Parachute Argument.
Patricia Bruijning also tilts!
A surprising interview (today 18 January) by Sven Kockelmann with Patricia Bruijning. The insight is actually starting to progress. She was in favor of childhood vaccination and is no longer so. Omicron thus turns out to be the ideal graceful exit from panic hypnosis. Without losing too much face, everyone can go back to common sense. The interview lasts half an hour, I have paraphrased the highlights below.
"I don't think I would have my children vaccinated under the current circumstances. The situation has changed due to immunity and Omicron."
"There is nothing against vaccination, but the need is no longer there given the health gains to be achieved."
"I am not calling on anyone to vaccinate children. It remains a personal choice, it's also fine not to do it."
Patricia Bruijning on boosters
"Booster for teenagers: I have doubts about that too, also because it is not an anti-omicron vaccine. [..] If it were up to me, the advice should be: don't do it."
"It protects against becoming seriously ill. Teenagers certainly do not suffer from this after two vaccinations. It could only help against contamination – but it doesn't. And certainly not in the longer term. It remains a consideration in which age plays an important role."
"Temporary dampening is really the only argument in favor of a booster, really only for about 20 or 30 years and older."
"Future boosters? only for the vulnerable and the elderly, high-risk groups. And with a more appropriate vaccine for Omicron."
"We have to abandon the whole idea of preventing infections with vaccination."
"If there is a good Omicron vaccine, it should be used for the vulnerable. We have to go to the flu regime."
"Vaccinating too often with a specific vaccine can train the immune system too unilaterally. It loses broad effective protective effect in the process."
Patricia Bruijning on RIVM models and 2G/3G/1G
"What I don't understand about the RIVM models is that they have not adjusted the length of stay of hospital patients and flow to ICU for Omicron. They will make much more negative assessments than what is actually going to happen."
"Whatever measures you take, Omicron will go through society without many admissions or ICU occupancy. The policy has to change. Instead of focusing on infections, we should focus on the vulnerable and preventing disease. Targeted deployment, around vulnerable people on 2G/3G. You have to go back to other places in society."
"As far as I'm concerned, we can get rid of the lockdown. Be careful with large events and nightlife, isolation from positives is also wise."
"One and a half meters... [long doubt] yes I would keep that to prevent you from getting too high a peak all at once. Just keep the brakes on for a little bit because of the pressure on healthcare."
"No longer focus strongly on measures to get the R number below zero."
"2G but also 1G remains important in specific places. It only concerns people who cannot be properly protected and people with fragile health. Sharpen it there. It is temporary until we get through the Omicron wave."
"Seated to the catering industry until 22:00: I think that is already possible."
"For the future: when there is a lot of virus circulation, you have to take targeted measures, but no longer everywhere. Of course, assuming that we are not dealing with a very serious virus."
