The Spectator editor Fraser Nelson recently had an exchange with Graham Medley, chair of SPI-M, a committee of Sage Modeling, who came up with a pretty grim outlook for the "Omicron" (Moronic) variant of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). It turns out that Sage only churns out worst-case scenarios, Moronic included, that sidestep any possibility of a positive outcome because this is what politicians expect in order to impose more fascism.
The latest Sage papers, Nelson explains, envisage anything from 200 to 6,000 deaths per day from Moronic depending on the level of restrictions imposed. There is no scenario from Sage in which Moronic is no worse than the common cold, and Nelson wants to know why it is only doom and gloom for this latest strain of the Fauci Flu.
It turns out that most everyone involved in pushing the plandemic is just assuming, based on nothing, that Moronic will cause people to start dropping dead in the streets unless there are more lockdowns and mask mandates. Actual evidence, contrarily, shows that Moronic is basically just the seasonal sniffles.
"The latest Sage paper-drop – the 6,000-deaths-a-day one – refers to 'scenarios,' not predictions," Nelson writes. "Professor Medley emphasizes the distinction: saying something could happen is not saying that there's a realistic chance of it happening. But then why do Sage modellers publish some scenarios and not others?"
The establishment wants bad news (even if it's fake) so it can impose more tyranny, hide vaccine side effects
To try to get to the bottom of this, Nelson engaged Medley on Twitter. He pressed him on why a best-case scenario has never been put forth by Sage, to which Medley responded that the establishment does not want good news because it does not "support a decision" – meaning things would quickly get back to normal, which is not what politicians want.
"The point being missed is these scenarios are not predictions," Medley tweeted. "We can't predict what people are going to do over Christmas (many people themselves are 'undecided'). They are made to support a decision to illustrate the possibilities and uncertainty."
When Nelson responded and asked why Sage did not include the JP Morgan scenario of lower virulence, "given that this is a very-plausible option that changes outlook massively," Medley was unable to grasp how this would in any way benefit politicians in imposing more restrictions on the masses.
"What would be the point of that?" Medley asked, failing to understand how good news would help steer politicians to back off all the tyranny and let people just live their lives already. "Not a snarky question – genuine to know what you think decision makers would learn from that scenario."
Nelson responded with the obvious: politicians would learn, based on a positive scenario, that lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine impositions are ridiculous and only cause harm to both the economy and society. He then asked Medley why he thinks a less alarming scenario should not be excluded.
"You know the answer," Medley shot back arrogantly. "That's what the paper says. If somebody draws a line on a graph it doesn't add any further information. Decision-makers are generally on [sic] only interested in situations where decisions have to be made."
Still unable to grasp that deciding to do nothing is still a decision, Medley received several more responses from Nelson who attempted to get this through Medley's thick skull, to no avail.
"So you exclusively model bad outcomes that require restrictions and omit just-as-likely outcomes that would not require restrictions?" Nelson further asked Medley, only to receive the same pre-programmed responses. Apparently the plandemic purveyors never want the tyranny to end, hence the endless made-up bad news about Moronic or whatever new scapegoat appears on any given day.
More related news can be found at Fascism.news.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.