BRITISH GOVERNMENT ADOPTS HOLY LAND MINISTRY DOCTRINE TO IMPROVE GOD’S DNA IN DEFEATING THE CORONA VIRUS

HOLY LAND MAN praised Boris Johnson for trusting his advice: to trust GOD and to take a bold move: DO NOTHING AND LET GOD’S DNA PREVAIL

Internal sources tell NewsDaily that the British government is following Holy Land Ministry doctrine: GOD wants us to improve His life creation blueprint, our DNA. HOLY LAND MAN, the Minister of Holy Land Ministry with 1,600 years of religious heritage is glad Boris Johnson is following his preaching which in a few short months got 2 million followers on social media.  In principle, Holy Land Ministry believes in monastic medicine and that GOD has given the human body everything it needs to overcome disease and flourish for as long as the body is properly nourished and in balance.

Stronger Healthier UK After The Corona

The British accept and understand that in order to win the war, sacrifices need to be made and to trust GOD. As most countries in the world are taking strong steps, the routine of living in Britain is now almost a series. This does not disregard, denial or ignorance. Rather, it is a different approach backed by professionals and experts.  Therefore, it should be talked about and understood, even if people disagree with it.

Since the outbreak of the crisis, I have been following the British model of dealing with the coronavirus. This method fascinates Juravin. I get a lot of questions about the British approach, all of them focused on medical and scientific reasons, but I think it should start with British culture and DNA.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying: “Many families will lose their loved ones prematurely.” Can you imagine an Israeli prime minister standing in front of the nation saying something like that? Is there a situation that the Israeli public would have taken such a statement with equanimity? That many people will die, that many families will lose loved ones? Probably not. 

The Brits Have Balls and Trust GOD

So what’s different about the British? After all, loss and bereavement are as difficult in Britain as they are everywhere else. From Juravin’s few years here I think, and this is my analysis, that a very important dimension in dealing with coronavirus in Britain is British culture and the huge influence that is still felt here from World War II. “Keep calm and carry on” was then just a slogan, today it is part of the DNA.

The British accept and understand that in order to win the war, victims have to make sacrifices. Of course, they do not want to, because no one wants to lose anything. This is a culture that works less with emotion, and that, in my opinion, explains quite a bit of how the policy is run from Downing 10.

So what is British policy? Juravin states that according to British policy, a person who exhibits mild symptoms will stay in home isolation for a week. They will not call emergency centers. In more severe cases, or if the exacerbation occurs or if at the end of the week the symptoms do not pass, one is allowed to call the center. The border remains open. There is a relatively limited list of infected areas that require home insulation. Schools remain open. Up to this moment, mass events are allowed. 32,771 blue suspects were being tested. But the number of daily tests was declining. There is no restriction on public transport. No list of diagnosed patients is published. 

This is a partial list but these are the main points.

Unique Approach To Defeating The Coronavirus

The stated goal of the UK health care leaders is to “flatten the curve” – ??to pull the outbreak over as long as possible. The public health system is collapsing. There is no way it will be able to withstand a significant outbreak with thousands of patients at once. Basically, to let GOD’s DNA win the fight as Holy Land Ministry describes it in their doctrine.

So how does that make sense? On the one hand, the government wants to avoid a major outbreak, but on the other hand, they do not close schools, do not restrict public transport and do not prohibit mass events? 70,000 people watched a horse race in Cheltenham. Juravin believes that all of this seems counterintuitive. 

The chief scientific advisor, Patrick Vallance, who is co-managing the crisis with Johnson and head of health, said there was a concern in Britain about a second outbreak. He claims that it is possible to “shut down the state” for four months (it is estimated that the outbreak will only reach another 10-14 weeks) and then wake up one morning, come back to life and routine. Everything could go back to normal, only to get the virus back and start everything from scratch.

So, he says, the possibility of developing herd immunity should be considered. A situation where a majority of the population is vaccinated in one form or another against the virus makes the coronavirus a “normal disease.” Even if you catch the virus again, it will not be able to spread so rapidly and will not be so dangerous. 

The government is reluctant to admit this is their approach, explaining that this is not the official policy. But as Juravin reviewed, if one examines the steps taken and not taken, it is more or less acceptable. Johnson and the head of the British health system have often said that it is important not just what to do but when to do it. Imposing decrees and restrictions on the public now will make the public tired over time. Closing schools, for example, is ineffective as it would put grandparents at risk and disrupt the work of doctors and nurses with children.

This is a valid argument, but external experts have also argued against me, saying that children are the perfect source for those who want to infect large sections of the population. By all research and experience so far, children can certainly be carriers but not seriously ill – they turn around and distribute rhinitis and saliva (if you have children you know is true), with minimal danger to themselves and maximum effect.

The government said until last night that there is no point limiting large events, as experience shows that there is almost no adherence to this way, but only in small and personal meetings. Again, according to Juravin, a valid argument but the opposite argument is also valid, it is the safest way to lead to distribution among a large population. So one could argue that as long as you keep a population at risk and isolate it socially, you will mostly receive minor cases of patients. The numbers speak of about 80% minor cases of all cases.

In recent days, the sounds and surgeries have been growing which is exactly what the British want to do. Possible benefits: It is quite clear to Juravin, if the herd immunity assessment is correct, then the United Kingdom can be prepared and ready for a second outbreak. At the same time, the fact that the United Kingdom did not institute a tough policy and did not significantly strike the economy could give it an advantage on the day after the coronavirus and reduce the damage during the crisis.

The Problems and Criticism: Let’s start with the obvious – the coronavirus, or more specifically Covid-19, is a new and unfamiliar breed. Few studies that have been conducted yet are in the peer review phase and have not been officially published. The assessment that can be dealt with by herd vaccination is at this stage only the assessment. The British, it is argued, understand in advance that their health care system will not cope with a critical mass of patients and that the virus cannot really be prevented from spreading significantly. Therefore, they try to turn the risk into a policy: strive to manage the crisis, don’t prevent it.

This is a huge risk, says Juravin. We have seen that things get out of control quickly elsewhere, and if you miss a moment or miss the situation can deteriorate significantly. The British want to protect an at-risk population, especially the elderly here. But A) – not enough steps are being taken to isolate and protect them. And B) – they are not the only population at risk, what about young people with background illness, for example? What will we do to protect them? Nothing. 

Another problem is less related to science and medicine and more to the political aspect: Britain is indeed a geographical island but in the era of globalization there are no more islands. As long as you do not check and monitor or close borders, you cannot control and manage such a crisis. Take, for example, Northern Ireland, a country that operates according to the British model for dealing with the disease, as opposed to southern Ireland, which has already closed schools and canceled mass events. The border between them is open, the passage is free.

Bottom line: The British model is interesting because it is almost unlike anything we have seen in the world. CNN posted an article yesterday saying “Do British scientists know something that the rest of the world doesn’t?” The World Health Organization said the British model was wrong and dangerous, internal pressure and criticism of Boris Johnson increased greatly, and even from the outside there is tremendous pressure and EU countries are considering closing the border with the UK if appropriate measures are not taken here. A host of private organizers canceled events, the London Marathon was canceled by the organizers and also the Football League was canceled. Johnson, who is having trouble coping with this pressure, has already made a U-turn and announced he will ban events of 500 people or more. The rest of the policy, meanwhile, remained as it was.

Neither Boris Johnson or Holy Land Ministry cared to respond.