Hit The Road Matt  - Parody Song about Matt Hancock's Corruption, lies and harmful policies
Channel: Corneilius Crowley Music
Date: 2021-06-26

If you enjoyed the song, please consider donating via Patreon, the price of a coffee or a drink, monthly which will support me in making more content, ad free, for your enjoyment.

http://www.patreon.com/corneilius

http://www.reverbnation.com/corneilius - MP3 free downloads
https://soundcloud.com/corneilius-crowley - CD quality free downloads
http://.soundcloud.com/coreluminous - CD quality free downloads
http://www.soundcloud.com/djlookwood - CD quality free downloads, Electronic Dance Music


Hit The Road Matt!

Is snogging a criminal offence?

Matt Hancock is filmed in a sexual embrace with his lover, within his offices and some people call for his resignation. Hancock makes an apology, in writing, but does not present himself in public. Johnson accepts the apology, and says the matter is closed.

I disagree.

I think it was deliberate set-up, to make way for Banker Sajid Javid, the CDO king who shorted Mexico... The emerging policy position is not something Hancock can sign off on. He'll probably be offered a sinecure role somewhere else.

I say - arrest Matt Hancock, drag him from his office, bring him to a police station, charge him with Gross Malfeasance or Misconduct in Public Office and Corporate Manslaughter, and place him on remand, in Belmarsh Prison..

HERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT ELIMINATION PREVENTS THE HARMS HANCOCKS POLICY CHOICES HAVE CAUSED:

Elimination was rejected, and yet it was and is a proven strategy to prevent the harms  mitigation induced, including better outcomes for civil liberties.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00978-8/fulltext

"We compared COVID-19 deaths, gross domestic product (GDP) growth, and strictness of lockdown measures during the first 12 months of the pandemic for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries that aim for elimination or mitigation (figure).2,  3,  4 Although all indicators favour elimination, our analysis does not prove a causal connection between varying pandemic response strategies and the different outcome measures. COVID-19 deaths per 1 million population in OECD countries that opted for elimination (Australia, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea) have been about 25 times lower than in other OECD countries that favoured mitigation (figure). Mortality is a proxy for a country's broader disease burden. For example, decision makers should also consider the increasing evidence of long-term morbidities after SARS-CoV-2 infection."

and

There is also increasing consensus that elimination is preferable to mitigation in relation to a country's economic performance.6 One study quantified the optimal basic reproduction number so that elimination is achieved at minimal economic cost.7 To this end, consider weekly GDP growth with respect to 2019 for the OECD countries that opted for elimination or mitigation (figure). Elimination is superior to mitigation for GDP growth on average and at almost all time periods. GDP growth returned to pre-pandemic levels in early 2021 in the five countries that opted for elimination, whereas growth is still negative for the other 32 OECD countries

and

Despite its health and economic advantages, an elimination strategy has been criticised for restricting civil liberties. This claim can be challenged by analysing the stringency index developed by researchers at the University of Oxford.2 This index measures the strictness of lockdown-style policies that primarily restrict people's behaviour by combining eight indicators of containment and closure policies, eight indicators of health system policies, and one indicator of public information campaigns.2 Among OECD countries, liberties were most severely impacted in those that chose mitigation, whereas swift lockdown measures—in line with elimination—were less strict and of shorter duration (figure). Importantly, elimination has been framed as a civic solidarity approach that will restore civil liberties the soonest; this focus on common purpose is frequently neglected in the political debate.

Then there is the element of behavioural nudging, gaslighting, blaming people for spreading the virus when Hancock and others lied in public and undermined people by not  providing support when and where it was acutely needed (EG: sending elders with COVID back into Care Homes without adequate testing or isolation facilities, blaming students they forced back into school and universities for spreading the virus when there was no real mitigation resources funded to help them achieve that..)

https://theconversation.com/human-behaviour-what-scientists-have-learned-about-it-from-the-pandemic-163666