Lockdown 3.0 Set to Continue to Summer 2021 at Least


Think that this will all be over by Christmas'? Or once the NHS assures us they're not overwhelmed? How about when a vaccine arrives? Well, if you believe any of those things then you're going to be in for a shock. Because there is overwhelming evidence that lockdowns will continue to at least June 2021, whilst many are saying that 2022 will be the EARLIEST that any real change will occur.


Political website Guido Fawkes has discovered the truth buried in Rishi Sunak's figures in the latest incident of government manipulation. Their article states:


The Chancellor, in his statement today, used the forecasts from the OBR’s “central scenario” when it comes to Covid complications. So Guido took a look at those underlying assumptions. The OBR assumes, presumably with good reason given how closely it works with the Treasury, widespread deployment of a vaccine by the middle of 2021, not by the Spring, with a high to medium level of restrictions until then. The differences in implied borrowing, growth, and scarring are stark.


The “upside” scenario the Government is clearly not confident of taking place, involves restrictions “broadly equivalent” to October 2020’s tiers 1 and 2. The Government’s modelled upside is the previous tiered system. Meanwhile the “central scenario” expects the whole country to be between tiers 2 and 3 right through until “mid 2021“. No household mixing until June…


As Boris stated earlier this week, his post-lockdown plan is for a “new, stronger and more sustainable tiers framework on December 2nd”, styled as “tougher than in October” – reinforcing the Government’s view that we will find ourselves in the OBR’s “central scenario” where things “may vary regionally and temporally”, however are still predominantly repressive, until the start of summer. Guido can only hope the forecasters are once again wrong.


This surely can't be about a virus, especially one with a fatality rate of 0.04%, where >99% of people recover and where >40% experience no ill effects to it whatsoever. You wouldn't wreck the entire country's economy for something that is no real threat to 99% of the population would you? You surely wouldn't put such a mild illness at the top of the NHS list of priorities, so allowing 200,000 people suffering from real illnesses to die prematurely. You surely wouldn't bankrupt the country to the tune of £280 BILLION on a computer model that didn't work. Surely?


It's almost as if there were some ulterior motive for this oppression of the masses, for instilling fear in the public, for the banning of freedom of association, free speech, and movement, and to make millions of people totally reliant on the state. But what could that possibly be?