The once mighty British Empire has recently become more and more of a generic term, not only for its provocative foreign policy, which very often stems from fake information, or the activities done by the “White Helmets”, but for its unceremonious interference in the domestic affairs of other states. Various media outlets are increasingly leveling accusations of war crimes against London, and for the failure of its policy towards children, on how to raise them, and on failing to provide the conditions necessary for their full-fledged development.
The coronavirus pandemic that has swept the world over the past year has also tarnished Britain’s image, whose propaganda machine has actively, but unsuccessfully, sought to present the country to the world as a kind of “white swan” that has turned out to be “black”. Even a year ago, the British independent portal UKColumn noted London’s miscalculations in the fight against the pandemic “while Britain hurtles headlong towards neo-feudalist governance with heightened surveillance, micro-management of society and an uptick in fascistic policing.” In an article on the Canadian portal Global Research, the well-known journalist Kurt Nimmo wrote that the COVID-19 epidemic is not used to benefit the people, but to cover up the introduction of mandatory biometric identification. “COVID-19 is the perfect Trojan horse for a control freak state itching to not only micromanage the lives of ordinary citizens but also ferret out critics … and punish them as enemies of the state,” Nimmo writes.
According to many observers, Britain is an example of how not to combat a global pandemic. Lockdowns and internal strife, combined with Boris Johnson’s ineffective management, have resulted in the horrible figure of 100,000 casualties.
There have been several reasons why the coronavirus epidemic swiftly developed in the United Kingdom. First, there is the lack of both effective healthcare and social policies. In addition, problems have cropped up with testing and tracing those with whom the infected have come into contact – these have cost the country 12 billion GBP and wound up not very capable of “conquering the world”, although many in Britain expected just that. The Sage Group plc, a UK company that provides enterprise management software solutions, and related products and services, stressed in September that the UK coronavirus testing system had a “marginal impact on the spread” of the disease.
Another very significant feature of London’s failed Covid-19 policy is the poor care that is provided for the elderly. While Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, was pledging to “raise a protective ring”, the death rate only grew. To date, 26,000 people have died in nursing homes in Great Britain. It is true that most of the deaths occurred during the first wave of coronavirus: in May, 16,000 elderly Britons died, and this was despite the fact that, for example, less than 3,000 people died in Germany and nobody died in the former British colony of Hong Kong.
The Guardian correlates the population’s obesity in the United Kingdom with one very significant reason for why British policy failed: Twenty-eight percent of Britons suffer from that, and it increases the probability of the illness to be particularly severe. The proportion of these people has doubled over the past 25 years (and in general, Her Majesty’s subjects have begun to suffer from obesity three times more than before, according to the conclusion reached by the publication).
While Russia offered Africa 300 million doses of its Sputnik V vaccine, the World Trade Organization warned that wealthy countries, especially Britain, refusing to share their vaccines with less developed countries will negatively affect global GDP. Owning to this, the organization’s new director-general, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, called on Great Britain to send vaccines to developing countries, not to wait until there is excess supply in the country, and not to postpone the deadline for donating vaccines. As one argument, the WHO’s head cited a study done by the International Chamber of Commerce, which outlined the economic factors in favor of global vaccinations and showed that if developing countries did not vaccinate their populations by mid-year then global GDP would decrease by 6.4 trillion GBP. British media outlets note that according to the UN about 75% of all doses of the vaccines that are available in the world are concentrated in only 10 countries, while 130 countries across the world have not yet received a single dose.
Against this backdrop, the increased debate in Great Britain about ethics was caused by its decision to test the COVID-19 pathogen on humans for the first time in the world, and under the pretext that “the number of those infected is dropping, and researchers need to keep working.” According to observers, it all sounds as if this means medical experiments from the country’s dark past: Britain is going to infect people with the coronavirus on purpose to gain a better understanding of it. As soon as March, volunteers will be isolated, infected, and monitored to obtain new information about the virus, and then about the efficacy of vaccines.
However, this naturally raises quite a few questions. And the first one above all others is: did Great Britain really not do that kind of research before promoting its vaccine, and pushing for it in every possible way to be used around the world? In that case, what is their vaccine in reality – another piece of fake news from Great Britain?
Although it should come as no surprise, since these human tests have already been a tradition in Great Britain since 1940, when the “subjects” were infected – for example, with the winter seasonal influenza – and as a reward they were given the opportunity to get some rest for free. The Swiss television channel SRF, in particular, recently reported on this. Along with that, SRF correspondent Henrietta Engbersen emphasized that in the past there have been studies in which volunteers have suffered, and ethics commissions in other countries would hardly have given approval for the tests that were planned in Britain. For example, in Switzerland, protecting the rights of the individual is much more important, while in Great Britain they are willing to take these kinds of risks.
In addition, it is worth remembering that – as numerous studies have already demonstrated – any people infected with the coronavirus may suffer in the future from the long-term consequences of COVID-19. However, the feeling exists that this is of little concern to the current British authorities, as is concern for the health of the United Kingdom’s subjects, whose number has already unfortunately decreased by 100,000 due to the failed policy adopted by the “black swan”.
Valery Kulikov, political expert, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.