Pilot Events: A Step Towards Freedom or a Tightening of the Noose?
I could have gone to the Edgbaston Test Match this year. Prior to the insanity of 2020 it had become a little tradition for a few of my oldest and closest friends and I, now living dispersed around the country, to get together once a year in Birmingham to enjoy a few drinks, catch-up and watch the cricket. It had become one of my highlights of the year. Last June England played the West Indies behind closed doors in two specially adapted venues in Hampshire and Old Trafford, termed 'bio-bubbles,' - a ridiculous name for a ridiculous concept - and our annual excursion, like almost everything in the last 14 months, was cancelled.
The summer of 2021, however, is different. Venues are reopening their doors, small crowds are returning to sporting events, and some, like the Edgbaston Test have been chosen as 'pilot events', trialling even larger attendances as part of a government 'Events Research Programme'. My friend bought tickets back in February, more in hope than expectation, but according to an email from Warwickshire County Cricket Club 18,000 people per day will be able to attend and we have the opportunity to be part of that number. Throughout the coming months TV screens up and down the country, and around the world, will broadcast the smiling faces of thousands of sports fans taking their first steps back to normality and freedom. But I won't be one of them. The truth is, any perceived sense of normality and freedom is an illusion, that, in good conscience, I can't participate in.
All the old Covid rituals remain in place to some extent. Masks, though not required when seated, are mandatory elsewhere at the venue, unless one is eating or dinking. To wear a mask, even if only to get through the turnstiles and during trips to the toilet would be a visual sign of assent to the entire Covid lie. It would say to others that I believe Covid-19 is an extraordinarily dangerous disease, (which it isn't), that I believe SARS-CoV-2 spreads through asymptomatic carriers, (which it doesn't), and that masks are effective in stopping the spread of viruses, (which they aren't). I would be perpetuating the deception on one hand, and, in acting contrary to reality and reason, humiliating and demeaning myself on the other. My friends suggested wearing an exemption lanyard but that too is problematic. Giving credence to government approved exemptions does not oppose the mandate, it reinforces it.
The permission to remove the mask when seated is perhaps worst of all. That would signal a belief that I may pass on, or receive, Covid-19 when strolling past somebody on an open air concourse in a fleeting moment, but not when sitting in close proximity with the same people for hours on end - which would make me not just a liar, but a lunatic. The only sane and honest course of action in regards to masks is refusal to comply.
Attendees are also required to produce a negative lateral flow test. Compliance with this, as with masks, speaks assent to the Covid lie, yet more perniciously, it standardises the idea that people should be assumed sick unless they can prove they are healthy. This notion is so absurd, and so dangerous, that I couldn't possibly address it adequately here, but suffice to say, the implications are horrifying.
As absurd and nightmarish as masks and tests are, they have been around for what feels like forever, yet the pilot events are a government research programme - a trial. What is it they are researching? The official website states:
"Researchers at the events will gather evidence associated with different settings and approaches to managing and mitigating transmission risk. The pilots will explore how different approaches to social distancing, ventilation and test-on-entry protocols could ease opening and maximise participation. Covid-status certification will also be trialled as part of the pilot programme. Researchers will also be at the venues to monitor crowd movements at the pilots and look at how attendees behave in these environments as well as consider the economic impact of any mitigation measures trialled such as changes to the layout."
A chilling statement all round, but buried in the middle is the admission that they will be trialling Covid-status certification. The question must be asked, are they being trialled to assess their efficacy or to normalise them and test the public's willingness to adopt them? Considering the government know what we know, (or should know by now), that Covid-19 is a relatively innocuous disease unless you are above the age of 70 and at death's door, and considering that digital bio-security passports have been in the works for years, it seems the latter is true. Implicit in the public willingness to help trial the Covid-status certification is the willingness that they potentially be adopted. Can it can be interpreted any other way? Certainly the government research panel will interpret it that way and present that as one of their findings. Especially since all attendees must agree to be part of the Events Research Programme via a consent form in order to gain admittance.
Clearly, these pilot events are not, as might be imagined, intended to determine if it is safe to return to the pre-Covid normal. They are testing whether the population are ready to be herded into the next stage of a totalitarian, bio-security nightmare. Attendance is a declaration of belief in the entire Covid fantasy that has driven the world to madness for over a year, and a declaration of assent to the continuing enslavement the Great Resetters have planned for us.
One of my friends has, like me, declined his ticket; the other two - not lockdown sceptics - will be in the crowd. So, when the first ball is bowled on June 10th, I will not be upset that two of us didn't go, I shall be sad that two of us did.