Wikipedia is not science

Forget science. The Covid lockdowns aren’t even based on reliable news sources:

No10’s scientific advisers relied on dubious data from Wikipedia to help steer Britain through the spring’s coronavirus crisis and wrongly predicted the peak of the first wave by two months, an explosive new documentary has claimed.   

Members of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) admitted early virus modelling was based on unverified figures from the online encyclopedia, which can be edited and managed by members of the public. 

Tory MP Steve Baker, who has refused to support the Prime Minister’s second lockdown, told MailOnline: ‘Some of those claiming to be “following the science” seem not to understand the meaning of the word.

‘SAGE has been put on a pedestal as if they are able to produce a single version of the truth. It’s not possible.

‘We were given terrifying 500,000 death figures predicted by modelling that was completely flawed and scientists will no longer defend them. It was the same with NHS overcrowding figures – and yet that hasn’t happened.

‘We cannot go on like this any longer. The public deserve better than this. We cannot go on with public policy based on models that clearly didn’t reflect reality’.

One prominent Oxford University scientist told MailOnline using Wikipedia to guide Britain through the crisis was ‘absolutely unacceptable’, describing it as a ‘damning reflection of our lack of preparedness’.   

It is beginning to become apparent that not even the Covid-19 conspiracy theorists theorized imaginatively enough. I never thought the science behind the Western lockdowns was sound, but I would have thought they could have found a better excuse than freaking Wikipedia.

Not unlike the fake results of the U.S. presidential election, Covid lockdowns are little more than the result of a social media-created mirage.