WATERMELON
Conference Newsletter
of Green Left Spring 2026
GREEN SHOOTS SPROUT
FROM BELOW WHILST FIRE REIGNS FROM ABOVE?
p.murry
Members of the Green Party of England and Wales, (GPEW), may be experiencing confused and contradictory reactions to recent mainstream media reported news.
Fortunately there has been a vast and unprecedented surge in GPEW membership, popularity and poll ratings, especially since Zack Polanski’s election as leader of GPEW in September 2025. This has encouraged and enabled much more active electoral campaigning than had previously been the case and also there seems to be a wider political impact than ever before.
News of sitting councillors defecting from other parties, mostly
Labour, to GPEW is becoming almost commonplace; and there is even some, possibly far-fetched, speculation about the defection of MPs.
This is not surprising as the increase in GPEW resources and activity has
already achieved one spectacular result in the Gorton and Denton by-election
victory where Hannah Spencer was elected as GPEW’s fifth MP with an emphatic
majority of over 4,000 votes. So, hopes are high for further GPEW electoral successes
in the May 2026 local elections.
In her victory speech and her first speech in the House of Commons, Hannah Spencer emphasised many of the eco-socialist aspects of GPEW’s political agenda, paying much attention to remedying inequalities of wealth and class.
Emphasis on these aspects of GPEW ‘s agenda has always been a major focus
for Green Left and other eco-socialists within GPEW. However, there are also
worries that this emphasis should not be at the cost of more traditional,
possibly central, GPEW concerns with the increasing, and out of control global climate
crisis.
If any evidence is required to substantiate this point, just consider how
much current news media is pre-occupied with the US and Israeli initiated oil
war which is currently engulfing the middle east in death and destruction.
People who have never heard of Gorton or Denton or Hannah Spencer or Zack
Polanski and probably couldn’t care less about levels of Green Party membership
or activity in England and Wales, are being subjected to vast automated missile
bombardments, and arbitrary death threats. This is going on throughout Arabia,
Iran, Kurdistan and Israel.
News, commentary and analysis about this war seems frequently biased, and
partisan from all sides. In fact media coverage is more often than not, another
site of conflict in the war itself. Is the war based on the whims of a increasingly
unstable and stupid US president? On Israeli imperial ambitions? Or on the
policies of the Iranian theocracy? Does any of this even matter to those being
blasted by missiles and drones? Or to those being impoverished by energy price
hikes?
 |
Green Left is an anti-capitalist, ecosocialist
group within the Green Party of England & Wales. Membership is open
to all GPEW members, (see back page for details). All views expressed here
are those of the author and not necessarily of Green Left. |
Motion E12 "Zionism is Racism” : Jeremy Parker
Artist, Green for Palestine and E12/A105 proposer Lubna Speitan
At the
forthcoming Green Party conference, Greens for Palestine, a fast growing group
within the fast growing political party that is the Greens, have unveiled a
landmark motion for your consideration, and, if you agree, your vote of
approval.
Motion E12
(formerly A105), “Zionism is Racism” was drafted by Greens for Palestine
Steering Group member Lubna Speitan, with the help of Global Majority, Muslim
and Jewish Green allies. It will be this motion that allows the Green Party to
“grab the bull by the horns” and confront Zionism for what it is: a racist,
supremacist, colonialist ideology that has caused untold suffering in the years
since it imposed the state of Israel on the indigenous population of Palestine
in 1948.
Nobody who
follows the news and a has a conscience will be unaware of the livestreamed
genocide that has assaulted our senses through every form of media since
October 2023. It is a sad fact that what has happened is a logical conclusion
to the supremacism and exclusivism that was baked into political Zionism from
its outset in the 1890s.
It was this
ideology, allied with its Christian counterpart (which is supported by more
Christians than political Zionism is supported by Jews), that used its
connections with the dominant colonial powers of the western world in the 20th
and 21st centuries (first the United Kingdom and then the United States) to
dispossess and ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, by committing a Nakba* that
started in 1948 and accelerated again after October 2023.
Now Greens
for Palestine say it is time, past time to condemn this destructive doctrine.
Therefore, we call on the Green Party to:
- Declare that Zionism is a form
of racism
- Declare its support for a single
Palestinian democratic state with equal rights for all and a capital of
Jerusalem
- Affirm the right of Palestinians
to resist Israeli repression and occupation by all means mandated by international
law
- Support boycotts and embargoes
of Israel in the same way that Apartheid South Africa was treated as an
international pariah state.
- De-proscribe the non-violent
direct action movement Palestine Action
- Endorse the release of all
Palestinian prisoners unjustly held by Israel, including Marwan Barghouti,
“The Palestinian Nelson Mandela”.
After
previous conference motions were passed in 2024 (E05 - to declare that Israel
is an apartheid state committing genocide) and 2025 (E07 - to proscribe the IDF
as a terrorist organisation, apologise for the Balfour Declaration and send a
peace keeping force to the west bank of Palestine), this is the logical next
step for the Green Party towards adopting a position in support of peace,
justice and equality for Palestine.
We therefore
ask you to vote in favour of this motion when it comes before the Green Party
Spring Conference on 28th March.
Greens for
Palestine rejects anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian
racism. We affirm that not all Zionists are Jews and not all Jews are Zionists,
and we will continue to stand with our brothers and sisters of all races and
religions (and no religion) to call for social, environmental and racial
justice.
For the Palestinians, the nightmare that began in 1917 continues, but at least by passing this motion we can shine a light of hope in the darkness
ON-LINE
CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS MUST HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS THOSE ATTENDING IN
PERSON Nicole Haydock – North East Wales
GP
As the
result of a mandatory ballot of members held in 2021, the Standing Orders
Conference Committee (SOCC) opened up full participation to Conference to all
members with an on-line facility. This was a major breakthrough in widening
democracy and has been warmly welcomed by the many in addressing exclusion.
However,
something went very badly wrong at the Autumn 2025 conference in Bournemouth.
Because of a technical fault or oversight, online participants were denied the
right to speak. Why this major constitutional matter was not addressed by
providing a simple zoom link or even a basic telephone connection to Plenary
sessions is beyond comprehension.
However, a
ruling by the Standing Orders Committee ( SOC) to my request as to the legality
of decisions made in Bournemouth where over 150 members could not be called up
to speak at Plenary sessions has now
been made. Such ruling opens up a new can of worms.
SOC’s
determination is that the SOCC do not
give the same rights to on-line participants at Conference as given to those
attending in person”.
Under its
‘Rationale’, SOC provides a long list of clauses from the SOCC Standing Orders
document with references to ‘a hierarchy of voting’ and multiple H type clauses
about the chair’s discretion in calling members to speak.
But, as the
Party’s guardians of the constitution identified in their diligent
investigation, SOCC 12 headed ‘calling
members in attendance to speak ‘ report : ” there is no separate section for
calling members on-line to speak, except , as indicated in section 12.
2.”. So, what does Section 12. 2
say? : “Chairs shall also seek to ensure that the range of speakers called is
broadly representative of Conference….”
If we
therefore follow the logic of SOC’ interpretation of SOCC’s own Standing Order
12. 2, the chairs of Plenary sessions at the 2025 Autumn Conference exercised
their right to exclude all online participants from speaking because … “there
is no separate section for calling members on-line to speak ‘. Catch 22.
Whilst I
appreciate SOC’s dilemma in their response to my request for a ruling in this
instance as to the legality of decision made in Bournemouth as per the Party’s
constitution, the Standing Orders of the Conference Committee has no such
excuse.
It must
immediately amend its own SOs so that all on-line participants enjoy
exactly the same rights as those
attending in person at all times. This
is all the more urgent as this Spring 2026 Conferences is entirely on-line !
I thought it
was broken long before the recent (welcome) huge influx of members, which has
served to ‘accentuate its brokenness’.
The pre-conference
process is fine in principle but in reality involves considerable effort on the
part of proposers, with little prospect of their motion receiving sufficient priority
to be discussed, unless endorsed by the relevant self appointed Policy Working
Group or Groups and the all powerful Policy Committee, thereby becoming a C
Motion. Not all motions can find a relevant PWG. Many call for party-wide
action.
At
Conference itself decisions are taken by those with the time and energy to turn
up, either in person or on-line. I think less than 1% of the membership
attended the Bournemouth Conference, with only the former having the
opportunity to speak .The only motion which went to a card vote in Bournemouth
(mine!)was at the very end of Conference and it’s legitimacy was undermined by
‘delegates’ ( also self appointed) either having left Conference to catch
trains etc or mislaying cardboard voting slips that they had been issued with
up to two and a half days previously, and therefore being unable to vote. The
legitimacy of the vote was further undermined by the entry of proxy votes into
the equation in the final card vote.
Twenty Organisational
Motions and 49 Policy Motions have made the Final Agenda for this year’s
truncated on-line Spring Conference. Five of the later have been endorsed as
C motions and presumably time will be found to discuss all of these ( four of
the five have been submitted by Policy Working Groups ) A maximum of three or
four C and D motions are likely to be discussed, although a few more ‘
uncontentious’ ones may be fast tracked.
In addition,
seven Late Motions have made the agenda, seventeen(!)others having been ruled
out of order, not having sufficient co-proposers or SOC having determined that
they don’t meet the criteria for being considered unavoidably late. Only one of
these is scheduled to be debated * Space is also to be allowed for an
Emergency Motion**
How we make policy
is something that all parts of the party should discuss in the weeks and months
ahead, if we are to continue to claim that, in contrast to other parties, our
policy is made by our members. The current model, created when the party had a
few thousand members, is no longer fit for purpose, if it ever was.
My own view
is that we should make far more of the modern technology that we have
available. This might involve all-member ballots for motions which are not overwhelmingly
supported (less than 75%?) or not overwhelmingly defeated (less than 25%?) at
Conference. Such ballots need not be taken in ‘real time’ but over (say) a
three month time period, perhaps allowing several weeks for further debate and
even the acceptance of ‘friendly’ amendments which clarify meaning and/ or mprove
wording. Ballot results could be announced and formally endorsed at the following
Conference. Most policy doesn’t need to be made in a hurry. And there would be
no need for proxy votes!
** an Emergency Motion from the Party leadership and MPs, calling for an immediate and genuine end to the wars on Palestine, Iran and Ukraine, at a time when the world should be coming together to address the Climate and Ecological Emergency, would be one I would like to see in front of Conference.
THE
GOVERNMENT HAS RECOGNISED THE CLIMATE AND NATURE EMERGENCY: NOW IT MUST ACT. Peter Allen
When Zack
Polanski was interviewed by The Guardian about defence policy on January 20th,
he confirmed that the first responsibility of any government was to keep its
people safe. He noted that a government defence review last year concluded that:
“the single biggest national security threat is actually the climate crisis”.
His
timing,as so often, was perfect given that on the same day that same government
published a National Security Assessment titled Global biodiversity loss,
ecosystem collapse and national security. (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/696e0eae719d837d69afc7de/National_security_assessment_global_biodiversity_loss__ecosystem_collapse_and_national_security.pdf)
Although the
report hasn’t been given much publicity and didn’t tell the full story see here
https://youtu.be/59DZiPdsOc8?si=gD5wrBFjD36rXOZm ) the message is both
important and alarming. Drawing on substantial recent scientific research it
warns that the climate and nature crisis poses a big threat to our national
security.
“Nature is a
foundation of national security. Biodiversity loss is putting at risk the
ecosystem services on which human societies depend, including water, food,
clean air and critical resources. The impacts will range from crop failures,
intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict
within and between states, political instability, and erosion of global
economic prosperity. Increasingly scarce natural resources will become the
focus of greater competition between state and non-state actors, exacerbating
existing conflicts, starting new ones and threatening global security and
prosperity “.
A stark
warning is given that “if current rates of biodiversity loss continue, every
critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse” some as soon as 2030.
Crucially, it will become ever more challenging “to produce sufficient food
sustainably”. Unless the necessary action is taken to reduce the current rates
of biodiversity loss “every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse”.
Whilst
recognising the global nature of the challenge the report accepts the
responsibility of national governments to take their own actions, eg forest
protection and restoration. It also holds on to the commitment to limiting
global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrade, a forlorn hope but supposedly a sign
of good intentions.
According to
the BBC the report, which it says was put together by the Joint Intelligence Committee,
should have been published in October but was delayed due to fears that it could
be considered too negative. Perhaps it didn’t want publication before the
recent COP in Brazil, at which it failed to provide financial support for the
host country’s ‘Tropical Forests Forever Facility’ set up to prevent the
destruction of the Amazon rain forest, despite a promise by Ed Miliband that
they would?
The Amazon
rain forest is one of six regions across the globe which the report identifies
as being “critical for UK national security given the likelihood and impact of their collapse”.
Achieving Circularity, using a Natural Model. lou stothard
It’s generally agreed, at least on the green left, that capitalist (growth) economic systems prove, by their very existence, to be self-defeating;- that you cannot have infinite growth n a finite planet, and that genuine-only forms of sustainability in the way human activity is carried on, will increasingly be required for our planet to support its systems, its species and its integrity. It’s a case not so much of whether or not there is a Planet B, but rather, of why anyone should expect to find one.
With this in mind, I believe that, as a species, we have no greater claim to our existence than do any other parts of the natural world, such as our climatic and oceanic systems, and the evolved species which make life possible. All of them, both uniquely and collectively, require each other inasmuch as they naturally evolve, not by manipulation, but by their own regulation.
Respecting that, I believe that our own social and economic lives need circularity, economic modus operandi/ vivendi based on natural systems.
Recognising that the manipulations of the world in which we live are so profound that it will be hard (though not quite impossible) to put the genie back in the bottle, such notional world systems will need to be achieved by universal step-changes and the confidence and well-being they generate.
It has always been my belief, therefore, that we need an international, unified and muscular response to the deep devastation that is being wreaked on our planet, largely by the military industrial complex, by its warmongering and imperial adventures, by corporate theft, by the exhaustion and extraction of our natural resources, and by an abandonment of the values (significantly in the Western Hemisphere) that serve our selves instead of the planet, so rapid is its progress. Circularity must be our rebuttal to all of these. Nothing less will do.
To achieve this sufficiency, in a world whose species and natural resources are protected, and fairly distributed amongst human populations without deprivation or destruction to the rest of the planet, we will need internationally binding legislation, an Environmental Protection Treaty, under which nations can disadvantage or debar those who appropriate, buy, sell, manufacture or handle resources, goods and services which degrade the environment. All economic activity, under this treaty, should be regulated, and achieved by circularity, and no advantage should be sought by any nation, or body over another.
Instead, resources could, and should be equitably traded and distributed across the world by mutual exchange. Those countries who refuse to sign up to the treaty would be excluded from its benefits by default, or expected to pay a penalty to an international UNED fund which protects signatories under the same clauses with equal force, protecting and remediating the damage they have caused to the environment.
Such damage must not be tradeable against benefits, in the way that biodiversity net gain is, since this trading system allows what need not be degraded in the first place. Individual countries should exercise, within legal parameters, and within the spirit of the Treaty, the same powers to detain, tax and otherwise place penalties on offenders by virtue of this UNED Treaty, which has been formulated under the Polluter Pays Principle, enshrined by the Aarhus Convention.
So, for example, a Government would tax or ban environmental degradation, or fine offenders (the ban on planned obsolescence being legislated by France is an example). The currency or resource recouped, would, by force of the UNED, be returned to the public purse and reinvested in restoration/ sustainable-only development such as fully-funded and comprehensive public transport and an agrarian economy, apprenticeships in farming and stewarding our countryside, reforestation (especially of our native broadleaf species) and in small social manufacturing incentives for small and medium sized farming businesses, providers of renewable-only energy, and localised, circular economic activity.
The provisions of an Environmental Protection Treaty should ensure the absolute protection of trees and other vegetation, of water bodies, of the atmosphere, for example.
So, it must be used to stop the production and use of plastic, and chemical agents at both ends of the cycle of production and consumption. There is no such thing as disposal where such products are concerned. The same is true of nuclear fuels and arms. Circularity can, and must be employed to recycle, restore and protect resources. So, for example, housing/accommodation needs can, and must all be met by the restoration and repurposing of pre-existing buildings and properties, by the re-use of materials and by the care and maintenance of pre-existent public utilities. Running such economies would provide the means to replace and refurbish what has been exhausted by growth economic activity such as the rebuilding of transport units, reforestation of broadleaf species and increase in the longevity of consumer units.
Reforestation is one of the most productive forms of investment to be made, since it delivers immense economic and health benefits at virtually nil cost. The role of trees in storing and filtering water, improving soils, defending against flooding, land degradation and slippage, manufacturing oxygen and storing carbon, as well as mitigating air, noise and light pollution and improving neighbourhoods has been roughly calculated by the London Tree Officer’s Association, using CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees)
Likewise, publicly owned and maintained public transport would operate without waste. Exhausted products such as human and animal waste, could themselves be converted for use as building materials and in order to supply energy needs, which would be much reduced by the step-change from growth economies to circular and sufficient economic models.
In this scenario, there would be no waste and no surplus, no profit and no loss, only a balancing, an equilibrium, stasis and sufficiency instead of growth, over-consumption depletion and waste.
Do you
have a Liberal Democrat MP? Write to them.
Sir Ed Davey’s
call for the UK
to develop a fully independent nuclear weapons system represents a dangerous
and irresponsible shift in Liberal Democrat policy. It risks committing Britain
to a hugely expensive expansion of its nuclear arsenal, which would cost
hundreds of billions of pounds that would inevitably come at the expense of
public services, climate action, and efforts to tackle poverty and inequality.
At a time of rising global tensions, this is a move away from de-escalation and
disarmament.
“You want to know why it [fascism] happened here? People let it happen. Because they didn’t stand up until it was too late.”
As the US
Army psychiatrist (Rami Malek) later warns:
“They
[the Nazis] are not unique people. There are people like the Nazis in every
country in the world today.… And if you think the next time it happens we’re
going to recognize it because they’re wearing scary uniforms, you’re out of
your damn mind.”
The
Trump-Farage ‘Window’
Those
lessons couldn’t be more timely. Over the past decade, Trump and Farage –
following far-right populist ideas propounded by US fascist Steve Bannon – have
succeeded in widening the ‘Overton Window’
regarding what can apparently be said in ‘mainstream’ political
discourse.
In the UK, Nigel
Farage has been helped in this by those media outlets who constantly give him
prime TV slots. Creeping fascist Farage has used such opportunities to dismiss
his racist and antisemitic bullying – whilst a pupil at the very expensive
Dulwich College – as “playground banter.” While Refuk Deputy Leader Richard
Tice tried to pass off the repeated kicking of a former girlfriend by a Refuk
MP as merely “a teenage indiscretion.”
After having seen Nuremberg, it’s important to say – and say out loud and clear – that every genocide starts with trying to persuade people that certain ‘others’ aren't fully human. Not to condemn such comments in the strongest terms is effectively to accept a little more contempt and cruelty, and to dehumanise a group of people. Not to speak out, and not to protest, is to allow ourselves to become a little less human too.
Silence in such circumstances is NOT neutral – merely shrugging our shoulders and passing on is to become part of such hateful and dangerous politics. And that’s precisely one of the most important lessons of Nuremberg. Not to learn that lesson is not only to betray all those exterminated by the Nazis – it’s also to betray the ethnic groups and refugees demonised today by the likes of Trump, Farage and ‘Tommy Robinson’.
Is non-violent resistance enough?
Another
issue arising from the film – though not directly – is the whole question of
how to push back and defeat such hateful politics. Recent events raise the
question of whether non-violent resistance is enough. Or when it ceases to be
enough.
History has shown many times that non-violence can be an effective tactic in the arsenal of self-defence. But, unfortunately, history doesn’t always ‘allow’ non-violence as a practical and effective option. This is most apparent during extreme state violence and genocide – and, increasingly today, with ecocide. In such circumstances, shouldn’t resisters at least consider ‘full-spectrum resistance’, with all methods on the table?
There are strong arguments in favour of non-violence – but what about those arguments relating to self-defence? Roger Hallam (XR and Just Stop Oil) continues to defend Non Violent Direct Action against any kind of violent self-defence: https://www.planetcritical.com/roger-hallam/?ref=planet-critical-newsletter
But is he right, in all instances? One problematic issue is that he seems to assume violent resistance will always result in more deaths than passive resistance. It could be argued that a violent resistance on the part of Jewish people – and other Germans – in the late 1930s might have prevented the Holocaust of the 1940s. Similarly, a strong international response in defence of the democratically-elected Spanish government after 1936 might have prevented the Second World War – and its 70 million deaths.
Having just seen Nuremberg, another question which arises is – knowing what we know now – should we have fought WW2? Or should we have continued with appeasement? But, if we should have fought WW2, should we have begun fighting earlier?
Resistance
Regardless
of the non-violent vs. self-defence resistance question, resistance is
what matters when it comes to opposing – and hopefully stopping – movements
that are morally-wrong. Whilst individual resistance is an important starting
point, to be effective – i.e., successful – resistance has to be done in the
company of others. Most people tend to stand on the sidelines – but are
influenced by groups of committed individuals. The initial resistance of a
small minority can then spread like a virus, soon spreading to millions. That’s
why revolutions can gain momentum so quickly.
Towards the end of the film ‘Spartacus’, when Crassus offers not to crucify the captured rebels if they’ll just identify which one is Spartacus – and they ALL stand up to say: “I’m Spartacus!” Courage is contagious – again, as Spartacus (more or less!) says: “When one person says ‘No!’, Rome begins to tremble. If tens of thousands say ‘No!’, Rome falls!”
An important example of how standing ‘Together’ can defeat creeping fascism in the UK was the recent by-election in Gorton and Denton (Manchester): where the Refuk candidate was convincingly beaten by the Green’s Hannah Spencer, with Your Party NOT standing a candidate AND, instead, actually endorsing the Green Party candidate.
It's that kind of a Red-Green United Front Against Fascism that we need across all the nations of the UK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Todd is a member
of Anti-Capitalist Resistance’s Council, and of Unite Against Fascism; and is
an ecosocialist/ environmental and anti-fascist activist. He is the author of Revolutions
1789-1917 (CUP); Trotsky: The Passionate Revolutionary
(Pen & Sword); Ecosocialism Not Extinction (Resistance Books); Che
Guevara: The Romantic Revolutionary (Pen & Sword); For the
Earth to Live: The Case for Ecosocialism (Resistance Books); and the
forthcoming Robespierre: The Virtuous Revolutionary (Pen &
Sword)
The
Return of the Mask – Superflu and Covid
Covid-19
persists, but the world fails to confront it. Joseph Healy takes on the pandemic.
Originally from Antticapitalist Resistance 09 Jan 2026
The
appearance of a new flu strain and the resulting health pronouncements and
media coverage leading up to Christmas led to a resurgence of mask-wearing
among the public. Those of us who have been Covid-19 cautious over the last few
years were joined by a new group, shaken out of complacency by the emergence of
the so-called “superflu,” and the public was suddenly reminded of the dangers
of infection.
This was
visible on public transport and even at a concert I attended before Xmas, where
I am usually the lone masker. Interestingly, public health messaging, together
with widespread press coverage, turned things around, and therein lies the rub:
it’s precisely because of the lack of that coverage that the public continues
to believe that Covid-19 is not serious or has gone away.
As Professor
Christina Pagel (formerly of Independent Sage) pointed out, it was not a
superflu but simply normal flu that arrived earlier than the normal flu season
and hit the NHS and the public unaware. It is true that the virus mutated over
the summer and that vaccine manufacturers were unable to produce a tailored
vaccine in time, but that was not the main cause of the impact.
There were
two main reasons the flu hit so hard. One was the low take-up of the vaccine,
especially among the vulnerable, but also incredibly among NHS staff, where
take-up was lower than in 2019 before the pandemic. All of this demonstrates
the insidious influence of the anti-vaxxers, which we now witness playing out
horrendously in Robert Kennedy’s US, where scientists have been sacked and
access to many vaccines is curtailed – the latest being vaccines against
meningitis in children.
However,
with hospitals clogged with flu patients and the resulting media storm, there
was a significant increase in flu vaccine uptake, to the point that many
pharmacies ran out of stock. Indeed, it was the higher-than-average take-up
which contributed (along with increased masking) to the tapering off of the
wave as Christmas approached, although many experts said Christmas and New Year
socialising may lead to a further wave.
The other
issue neglected by the media, as part of its deliberate ignoring of Covid-19,
is that many scientists have speculated, and there are scientific papers
supporting the hypothesis that many immune systems have been dysregulated by
Covid-19 (a vascular disease), leaving people more open to serious infections
such as flu, particularly after an increased number of Covid-19 infections.
This may be the real explanation for superflu: not that the flu itself was
stronger, but that the ability to resist it had declined, leading to more
serious pneumonia and other consequences.
Scientific
research has repeatedly shown that increased Covid-19 infections impair T8
immune cells, which explains why many complain of constant illness. With many
people experiencing 2 or 3 Covid-19 infections per year, Long Covid-19 is not
the only danger; the immune system is also so damaged that we are open to a
range of new infections, and any resulting illness takes longer to recover.
The
unwillingness to confront the reality of Covid-19 leads to attempts to blame
illness on everything else. The lesson of the superflu period this winter is
that if the same effort and awareness were put into protecting the public from
Covid-19, we would all be in a better place. The flu panic brought many people
to greater awareness of their health and how to protect it through masking and
other measures, but the real cuckoo in the nest remains Covid-19.
Its impact
will continue to plague society, even as public health appears to have
abandoned the field and the media ignores it.
