There are increasing claims that a strain of COVID-19 may have been in the UK late 2019. If true, it may answer some questions about this outbreak.
I understand that a lot of you will be reading information from multiple sources, so I aim to keep this first section very brief, I'll go into much more detail later. Also please forgive me if it doesn't read correctly. I'm working from home on my iPad, and it is trying to autocorrect everything behind my back.
OK, I'm not going to argue that COVID-19 is not an illness; it is a nasty piece of work. We are going to highlight evidence which suggests that it first arrived last year. Something that a number of you probably already suspect.
Before I do, let be clear that I'm not claiming this is a conspiracy of any kind. I'm not going to get into motivations.
My view is that COVID-19 was here in the west throughout 2019. In late 2019 in mutated slightly in and around Wuhan China and became a touch more damaging. What we are now seeing is the second wave. This is following the same path through society as the Spanish Flu of 1918.
Evidence for my theory
I'm alleging that this outbreak is a result of panic-driven by the media, so let's go back before they got involved in driving it.
If you search Google for "deaths flu-like symptoms" and set the search dates to pull stories that happened before December 29th 2019. You will see endless stories of ILI (influenza-like illness) being reported all over the UK and the world. Young people dying, healthy people dying. Schools in Warrington were losing 40% of their students due to ILI.
Now, this article states Influenza A, but I think this needs to be checked. Was this tested and confirmed as Influenza A? If it was, then it is odd for an outbreak of "Influenza A" to behave like this. If it was just labelled "Influenza A" due to ILI, then it adds to the theory COVID-19 was already here.
Quotes such as this are now striking:
"A public health representative, on behalf of all three local authority teams, said: "We're seeing an unusual number of outbreaks of flu-like symptoms in our schools. It's important that any child who is poorly stays off school to help stop the spread of the virus." and "It's unusually early to see such a high level of flu-like symptoms, so please make sure you protect yourself and others as we head into winter and the festive period."
The point is there for people to investigate. But let's put that aside for a moment. What about this from Australia?
"So far in 2019, there have been at least 135,952 cases Down Under, compared with an average of 17,349 in the previous five years."
An 800% increase in ILI didn't set off alarm bells?
There are countless cases of these examples if you perform the same search that I did. I've compiled around ten or so at the bottom of this article.
If these examples were not COVID-19, where did it come from and more importantly, where did this outbreak go?
I am throwing out ideas that should be challenged; there are no conclusions to be found here. Those require time and a lot of modelling.
So, late last year (2019, all the way through December) a lot of our staff were off sick with a similar illness. Feeling tired, fever, long persistent coughing. I put it down to the lazy catch-all term "Flu". They went home and 5-7 days later, others in their family also fell ill - sound familiar?
Most of the symptoms fitted what I now know about COVID-19. Add to that, the tens of thousands on Twitter who say similar things, add to that comments from people responding to news articles this week reporting that there was an illness late last year.
I understand that scientists and others have instantly dismissed our claims and those of others who say the same. They say that it was 100% not COVID-19. But what can that be based on? Nobody was testing for COVID-19 back then
What if they are mostly wrong? It would answer some of the questions that are currently unknown by scientists who are studying the current outbreak.
I'm now 40 years old, my friends are in their 40's and 50's, and when we all say that we had something that we hadn't had before, with symptoms that exactly matched COVID-19 and it came with three months of a significant outbreak of COVID-19, there has to be something in it. Statistically, the chances of those not being connected are remote.
There are some things in the official model that don't add up if this is as they say the first wave of a highly dangerous virus.
1) Why is the young almost untouched by this COVID-19?
They aren't, or rather, they weren't.
First of all, the younger someone is, the better their chances of dealing with health issues. This is always going to account for some differences in mortality rates.
Most viruses go through the younger demographics first; they are more socially active and interact more frequently. This gives a virus more chances to jump from person to person. There is nothing controversial in this - so why is COVID-19 different? The Government model doesn't explain that.
There are plenty of theories, but in most walks of life, the most obvious is usually the right one. The most obvious assumption is that the younger demographic is mostly immune to it because they had a slightly lesser strain last year.
It is a theory that because it has slightly mutated, younger people can still catch it in the second wave, and transmit it, but they won't suffer the effects of it. They could be asymptomatic as their body knows how to fight most of the virus.
It happens with vaccines. Last year's flu jab, will protect people from some of the effects of this year's strain. They can still catch this year's strain, but the effects will typically be milder than compared to someone of equal standing that hasn't had it.
Is there any evidence for this?
Evidence is a tough hurdle, but precedent yes. The Spanish Flu seemed to behave in the same way. The first wave tended to take hold in the younger demographic more than the older one. The second wave seemed to be more deadly for the older and more vulnerable groups.
The second wave of the Spanish Flu mutated into a slightly deadlier version than the first. With the younger demographic having a higher chance of immunity through the first wave, it tended to not be as significant for them.
2) Why does it seem to have more severe effects for 1 in 5 of those that catch it?
This is an interesting number, I don't assume it is exactly 4 in 5 but it's roughly around that that have moderate symptoms whilst 1 in 5 get a rough ride.
It takes us back to what the Chief Medical Officer Prof Chris Witty told us early on. Due to the way herd immunity works, no more than 80% of the population will get a virus if it roughly follows established models. Well if COVID-19 went through the population last year, it would have gone through around that number by now. Therefore around 80% of the population will have some kind of antibodies to COVID-19. Is it a coincidence that 80% (4 out of 5) is the number that the CMO is saying will get moderate or even no symptoms at all?
But that leaves a question, how does it get to 20% of the population that missed out on the first wave? The only answer I can think of for that is that those who caught the first strain in the first wave, are still able to carry and pass on the second strain. Although, they will be immune to most of the symptoms of catching the second strain. In fact, this could explain why a high percentage are asymptomatic.
Is this a stretch? Possibly, but I know from cases around the world that people who tested positive, later tested negative and then tested a month or so later were found to be positive again. if they tested positive for the different strain, this would explain it.
This article shouldn't be used to change anyone's behaviour. Please don't believe you have some immunity on the back of what I have written. Follow the Government's advice at all time. But don't be scared to death either.