We keep hearing about next waves. The second wave, the third wave, and then it'll be the fourth wave, and the fifth wave, and the sixth wave, and on and on it will go forever and ever and ever because they want this narrative with continual waves of a threat to keep going on. But what are these waves? 

Every year there are seasonal spreading of viruses. This is what happens with the flu. There is an uptick in infections in people getting sick starting in late fall and going on till early spring, and then it dies down for the summer (depending on your location in the world it can be the opposite). Well, that is until the flu suddenly just stopped being a concern and stopped being part of the numbercrunching. The flu has magically vanished in 2020 and 2021. Instead the only thing happening is PCR test positive cases of a genetic fragment we attribute to covid-19, and pneumonias. All of this is categorized together as PIC, pneumonia, influenza and covid.

When the viruses come back around every year, we are going to be more people sick, and some people end up dying due to their poor health conditions that can't handle the additional burden of fighting off a virus. The first wave of the new virus sees more people affected, and more of the health compromised die. All these successive recurrences do not have that high mortality rate.

When they talk about second waves and onward, these are just the recurrence of the virus in our environment and its effect. It happened with the flu all the time. I just wasn't part of the media hysteria and fear porn. The third wave they are focusing on now to try to make everyone afraid, is merely PCR test positive results that they call cases but are actually cases of people being sick. PCR test is not designed to be used for diagnosis of an illness.

Of course they have models to try to prove to us how seriously these waves are and how deadly they are going to be, even though those models always end up being flawed and over exaggerated. They serve their purpose to get the four fear alive in the control in place.

https://i.imgur.com/dIQVt1f.png

The [telegraph](https://archive.is/3B8Vd) in the UK is pointing a light at some models predict a third wave. Why is there going to be 1/3 wave after a very successful experimental injection vaccination program in the UK? That's because the resurgence and increase of PCR test positive results will apparently be from the vaccinated themselves.

> Hopes that life may soon be back to normal were dashed by Boris Johnson this week, who indicated that restrictions would remain in place to prevent a deadly third wave.

The good old politicians like Boris make sure to keep their people saved by walking them down and bringing economic and psychological harm to their lives. All based on predictions of a wave that hasn't happened yet. But it's all for your own good so you better do what you're told.

> Predictably, the announcement relied on unduly pessimistic modelling, which suggested a full release from lockdown in June could trigger a new wave of hospital admissions every bit as bad as the January peak, and spark deaths of up to 59,900.

> Look more closely at the modelling from Imperial College, Warwick University and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and it soon becomes clear how such dire forecasts have emerged. Much of the data is needlessly negative and often out-of-date. 

Oh look, it's the trustworthy Imperial College with their fantastic and reliable modeling that always is used despite always being flawed and having false outcomes. Let's just keep using them over and over in order to justify authoritarian policies and never-ending lockdowns.

They told us the death rate of the new coronavirus would be 3.6%. I'll guess what, it only turned out to be 0.15%. No one cares about that fear porn used to justify all authoritarian measures. No corrections are made, just keep going on with their nonsense.

Then they came out with their modeling of the variant that was supposed to be even more deadly than the original. But that wasn't true. The panel that looked at the variant said it wasn't more deadly, but Neil Ferguson said it was, so the government decided to support what Neil Ferguson said even though he has a track record of being wrong over and over and over again. So the government ignored what the panel concluded and decided to keep pushing the fear of his variant.

But yes, keep using these people who have data that's out of date that pushes negative outcomes that never come to pass.

> There is an extraordinary paragraph buried in the summary of modelling submitted to Sage by the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (SPI-M) which discusses who will die in a third wave.

> It states: “The resurgence in both hospitalisations and deaths is dominated by those that have received two doses of the vaccine, comprising around 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the wave respectively. This can be attributed to the high levels of uptake in the most at-risk age groups.”

So the people were told to listen to, I now saying that the majority of hospitalizations and deaths in 1/3 wave are going to be people who received two doses of the vaccine. It's quite telling that there admitting this. Even though they later say that the reason is because 10% of the people vaccinated over 50 won't be protected by the vaccine that has a 90% efficiency, which means 2.9 million people will be protected.

That's not even accurate because we already know that none of the trials looked at preventing infection, preventing the spread of the virus, or preventing severe hospitalizations. Even data coming out now shows the people who received both vaccinations are testing positive PCR test.

Check this out though. A paragraph used to [say](https://archive.is/3B8Vd#selection-1817.0-1821.2)

> Yes, you did read that correctly. The third wave deaths will predominantly be driven by people who have been vaccinated. 

But now says:

> Clearly the death rate in the first and second waves was kept down by restrictions, but are we really to believe that a mass vaccination programme will more than double the risk of risk of dying for the unprotected over-50s?

Once again they change what they said because it gives a message they don't want to give, that the vaccines are not helping. Even though that's the reality. But the change also has another ridiculous notion that is merely an assumption based on no evidence. That the death rate was always lower than the Imperial College crop models predicted because of the lockdowns and restrictions. Even though many studies have come up to show that that isn't the case. These restrictions and lockdowns do more harm than good. And even looking at places where there were more restrictions versus places that had less or no restrictions, you see that there are more PCR test positive cases and there alleged waves are more severe.