Coronavirus Act 2020

Well dodgy document, how exactly did they prepare 395 pages of legislation in no time at all unless it was already pre-prepared?

Also what is even more puzzling, similar (or almost identical) legislation has been enacted in many if not all European countries as well as NZ and Australia.

At present they don't seem to be using many powers given to them by the act, however it doesn’t mean it will not happen when the '2nd wave' of bullshit is finally upon us.

Correct V V and now we have this:

From gov.uk

Corony is not a high consequence infectious disease

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid

Big Brother Watch has produced some helpful reports on the Coronvirus Act and other regulations - see the Emergency Powers section of their website https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/campaigns/emergency-powers/#introduction

I am currently reading the consultation to the Human Medicine Regs and I've had a look at the website for responding to the consultation https://consultations.dhsc.gov.uk/5f43b8aca0980b6fc0198f9f

It's not an easy document to respond to, so needs a lot of research and thought. Hopefully, we can use this thread to help share ideas on the most appropriate evidence to submit.

Just looking over the Parliamentary diary.

https://calendar.parliament.uk/calendar/Commons/All/2020/9/7/Daily

Monday has something:

Third Delegated Legislation Committee - Oral evidence The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No.3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 750)

(at 4:30 pm)

Location: Room 9, Palace of Westminster

Does anyone have information about this?

Also on Friday it’s Private Members Bill day.

This is listed:

Private Members' Bills

Coronavirus Inquiry Bill: Second Reading - Sir Edward Davey

What do we know about this?

For those in Scotland look over the diary for this week as there are a couple of review sessions.

There are also one or two ’impact of coronavirus on ...’ debates

For those writing to their MPs, asking them to withdraw the support for these Corona measures, here is an interesting article. - words and definitions matter and back in January Fauci had his name on a paper that predicted CV19 would be no worse that a bad flu season.

Remember that any restrictions to our rights should be proportionate. What is happening to our freedoms is definitely not proportionate to the risks to public health.

Great stuff @LivvyB thanks- I've already written to my MP (I thought the vote was on the 5th September, but it's actually the 26th I believe):-

Dear sir, I am writing to you in regard to the upcoming vote as to whether or not to renew the Coronavirus regulation, (as laid down by the health secretary in March of this year), which I understand is to be held on 5th September.

I would ask before casting your vote that you give serious thought to the following facts, of which you may be unaware (please accept my apologies if you are already aware of this information):-

1/ The true total number of deaths caused just by SARS-COV2, with no other underlying causes, up to 4th July, is 4,476, please see the ONS figures below which show categories for death certificates ‘involving’ Covid19. This means that continuing with the enforcement of the regulations is completely disproportional to the (miniscule) risk of infection and death from SARS-COV2.

2/ Asymptomatic transmission has never been proven- therefore the wearing of masks by well people, the limiting of size of gatherings and all of the other draconian and totalitarian restrictions placed on a supposedly free society by these regulations cannot by any sane judgement be justified. Please see (pasted below) the front page of one of the studies said to support asymptomatic transmission (apologies as it was all that would download when it was sent to me, and I have no other papers on the subject), where it clearly states that transmission is ASSUMED up to 12 days prior to onset of symptoms. Please bear in mind that the subjects in the study had swabs taken upon their admission in to hospital so they were very clearly symptomatic by that point.

3/ Now that we know an effective treatment is available (Hydroxyqloroquine plus zinc), we no longer need to be fearful of overwhelming the NHS with patients needing ventilators (indeed, placing a Covid 19 patient on a ventilator could do more harm than good). This again supports the lack of need to legislate through these challenging times, and would render the Coronavirus regulations an act of futility as it is false to claim that there is presently a health emergency when clearly there is not (please see death figures and causes below).

4/ SARS-COV2 is said to cause Covid 19, but to the best of my knowledge there are no peer reviewed papers that have been published that can prove this theory (even Public Health England replied ’we hold no papers of that description’ in response to an FOI request for all documents that show the SARS-COV2 virus has been isolated and has been proven to cause Covid 19). With that in mind, there can be no reason to renew the Coronavirus regulations.

With all the above in mind I would strongly implore you strongly oppose the renewing of the Coronavirus regulations, and not vote in support of their renewal..

And this his response (although I do appreciate that he actually read and responded personally):-

Dear Mr Murray,

I have spent my political career defending democracy at home and abroad and indeed it is the main reason for my engaging in active politics many years ago.

That said, and while I accept that the legislation was inevitably passed in haste, I believe that the Government has used its powers responsibly and proportionately. As long as the pandemic persists those powers are going to have to be available and I am afraid, therefore, that I do not propose to comply with your request.

With good wishes

Roger

I shall be writing back to him as I neglected to include information about the flaws in the PCR test, which kind of demolishes the pandemic argument. I'm sure that will change mind completely. :)