Coronavirus Pandemic: Apocalypse Now! Or exaggerated scare story?

[SlipNet]

I guess it's not new, just more visible. In the SDS realms organizational structures are pyramidal and most visible leaders are not at the top. Here is one of the numerous session excerpts that deals with the notion of "secret world government".



Here is a second excerpt that illustrates the chasm between the secret government and the official governments:

It's staggering, mind blowing, to think that this is the reality we're living in. I've been reading C's info for the best part of 20 years and yet it still amazes me this info. Having said that, I'd still rather be in my position than "theirs", because they've in all probability lost their humanity. They probably have a kind of casual disinterest in us, the lumpen proletariat, to quote Marx. We're just a human resource, to be managed and dealt with. 150 years ahead of us in tech/knowledge, whilst being probably aeons behind us in terms of the duty of care.

There has to be a full polarisation of beings in our realm, because we cannot and will not become like them. Enlightenment is truly a double edged sword; at what price is intelligence and knowledge if you are eventually alienated from your own kind?

 

[Persej]

I guess that's what it comes down to. It's always there, just rarely do we see it so clearly. Like the way the farm is run and the obvious ownership by somebody, and our very lowly positions in it!

And perhaps that's the "exposure" that the C's mentioned in the last session?! Trump exposed the Deep State, and this virus exposed the secret world government.

 

[Carl]

And perhaps that's the "exposure" that the C's mentioned in the last session?! Trump exposed the Deep State, and this virus exposed the secret world government.

From the stories I've heard from members, 9/11 was basically the catalyst for the vast majority of us to end up here, in one way or another.

We are currently witnessing a 9/11 on hyperdimensional steroids. Orders of magnitude bigger.

Would orders of magnitudes more people subsequently wake up? Feels like a sad, silly thing to write because nobody ever seems to wake up no matter what happens, but I guess that's one possible silver lining.

 

[Michael B-C]

Just came across this regarding Maurice Strong, the inventor of Climate Change and who declared in his official UN capacity:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it out responsibility to bring that about?”

• A self-confessed socialist
• Founding Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
• The man who invented 'climate change’: to this day, global climate policy is still shaped by the agenda of Maurice Strong, a Canadian multimillionaire
• Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few
• Strong was the driving force behind the idea of world governance by the United Nations when he dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion. About equal then to the income of the USA.
• The stumbling block was the Security Council, and their power of veto. He devised a plan to get rid of the Security Council but failed to get it implemented. Then came along the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running.

Freakin' unbelievable!

Maurice Strong - the unheralded, unknown, unassuming director and board member of about 100+ institutions that have done everything possible to bring about the Green New World Oil order of 666.

Meet Maurice Strong: Globalist, Oiligarch, “Environmentalist”

Corbett • 02/01/2016 •

The Corbett Report Subscriber​

vol 6 issue 04 (January 31, 2016)​

​

Meet Maurice Strong: Globalist, Oiligarch, “Environmentalist” by James Corbett TheInternationalForecaster.com January 31, 2016 “Disgraced kleptocrat Maurice Strong died late last year at the age of 86. He was shunned from polite society and forced into a life of exile in Beijing after his decades of business intrigues, crimes against humanity, and environmental destruction unraveled. His savagery culminated with an attempt to profit off of the death of starving Iraqi children. His funeral was a quiet affair, attended only by those few family members who could not find it in their heart to shun him completely. Former friends and business associates like Paul Martin, James Wolfensohn, Kofi Annan, Conrad Black, and Al Gore all avoided calls for comments on their disgraced friend’s passing.” …is how Maurice Strong’s legacy would have been remembered in any reasonable world. Instead we get this: “On Wednesday, hundreds will gather across from Parliament Hill for an extraordinary commemoration. The Governor General, the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment, the former president of the World Bank – among other dignitaries, in and out of office – will pay homage to one of the great Canadians of his generation. They will celebrate the life of Maurice Frederick Strong, who died on November 27. His passing brought the obligatory obituaries and personal tributes. But in a country that often hides its light under a barn, Maurice Strong – and the feverish, consequential life he led at home and abroad – should not go uncelebrated.” And the accolades just keep pouring in. From Canadian PM Justin Trudeau: “Maurice Strong was a pioneer of sustainable development who left our country and our world a better place.” From the co-founder of the World Economic Forum at Davos: “He was a great visionary, always ahead of our times in his thinking.” From author and philosopher John Ralston Saul: “He changed the world.” In fact, a whole gaggle of globalists showed up to pay tribute to the memory of Strong earlier this week in Ottawa, from former World Bank president James Wolfensohn to under-secretary general of the UN Achim Steiner to Martin Lees, the former secretary-general of the Club of Rome. Written condolences poured in from other prominent globalists including Mikhail Gorbachev, Gro Harlem Bruntland and Kofi Annan. So why exactly was Maurice Strong so beloved by the globalist jet set? Oh, that’s right: INTERVIEWER: “Maurice Strong doesn’t have any ambition for the United Nations to become the world’s government?” STRONG: “No, and it’s not necessary, it’s not feasible, and certainly we are a long way from any such thing. But we do need–if we are going to have a more peaceful world, a more secure world–we need a more effective system of cooperation, which is what I call ‘system of governance.’ And the United Nations, with all its difficulties, is the best game in town.” President of Power Corp. President of the Canadian International Development Agency. Chair of Petro Canada. Chair of Ontario Hydro. Head of the United Nations Environmental Program. Founding member of the World Economic Forum at Davos. Father of the IPCC. Committed globalist. No, it is not difficult to see why globalists love arch-globalist Maurice Strong. But how did this man, a dirt poor high school dropout from Oak Lake, Manitoba, rise to become an international wheeler-dealer who is responsible for shaping our modern day globalist institutions? The story is as unlikely as it is instructive, and it leads us from the heart of the oil patch to the formation of the IPCC. Given Strong’s remarkable ascent through the ranks of political power to become a globalist kingpin, it won’t be surprising to hear that he had political connections in his family. But it may be surprising to hear where those connections were placed. His aunt, Anna Louise Strong, was a committed communist who befriended Lenin and Trotsky (who asked her to teach him English) before she ultimately settled in China, where she was on familiar terms with Mao Zedong. She became close with Zhou Enlai, who wept openly when she was buried with full honors in Beijing’s Babaoshan Revolutionary Cemetery. Unfortunately for humanity, the apple didn’t fall far from the tree with young Maurice. Born in rural Manitoba in 1929 and suffering through the worst of the Great Depression, Maurice Strong drops out of school at age 14 to look for work. He works his way around as a deck hand on ships and then, at age 16, as a fur buyer for the Hudson’s Bay Company in Canada’s North. There he meets “Wild” Bill Richardson, whose wife, Mary McColl, hails from the family behind McColl-Frontenac, one of Canada’s largest petroleum companies. Through Richardson, Strong makes contacts that propel him into his unlikely career. As Wikipedia cryptically explains: “Strong first met with a leading UN official in 1947 who arranged for him to have a temporary low-level appointment, to serve as a junior security officer at the UN headquarters in Lake Success, New York. He soon returned to Canada, and with the support of Lester B. Pearson, directed the founding of the Canadian International Development Agency in 1968.” As far as massive narrative gaps and cryptic cover-ups of detail go, that paragraph is a masterpiece. The truth is even weirder. That “UN official” referred to by Wiki? That was none other than the Treasurer of the UN himself, Noah Monod. In fact, Monod doesn’t just get him a job, he gives him a place to live; the two room together during Strong’s time in the Big Apple. But most importantly, Monod gives him an introduction to the man who more than any other will be behind his meteoric rise to international superstardom: David Rockefeller. Maurice Strong liked to relate the story that he had been confrontational with Rockefeller at the start. According to Strong, some of his first words to David were “I’m deeply prejudiced against you and all your family stands for.” Oddly, David doesn’t remember the meeting that way, saying instead that the two had “a strong working relationship.” Either way, from that moment on Strong was a made man. And from that moment on, wherever Strong went Rockefeller and his associates were there somewhere in the background. It was a Standard Oil veteran, Jack Gallagher, who gave Strong his big break in the Alberta oil patch when he quit his UN security job to return to Canada. Gallagher had been hired to create a new oil and gas exploration company by Henrie Brunie, a close friend of Rockefeller associate John J. McCloy. Strong signed on as Gallagher’s assistant. When Maurice Strong suddenly decided to quit his job, sell his house, and travel to Africa, he found a job with Rockefeller’s CalTex in Nairobi. When he quit that job in 1954 and started his own company back in Canada, he hired Brunie to manage it and appointed two Standard Oil of New Jersey reps to its board. By this point he was in his late 20s and already a multi-millionaire. After considerable networking with Canada’s political elite, Strong was appointed head of Power Corporation, the baby of the powerful “Canadian Rockefellers,” the Desmarais family. Power Corp is a political kingmaker in Canadian politics and under Strong’s stewardship it continued to function in that role. One of his appointees: a fresh-faced Harvard MBA named James Wolfensohn, future president of the World Bank. Another hand pick: Paul Martin, future CEO of Canada Steamship Lines and Prime Minister of Canada. Strong left Power Corp to head up Canada’s External Aid program. He oversaw the creation of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). As journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong for her groundbreaking book “Cloak of Green,” explains: “IDRC had a clause in its enabling legislation allowing it to give money directly to individuals as well as to governments and private organizations. It was set up as a corporation, reporting to Parliament through the minister of external affairs. Its board of governors was designed to include private and even foreign persons.[…]Since IDRC was not created as an agent of the Crown (as CIDA is) , it was able to receive charitable donations from corporations and individuals as well as government funds.” Those “corporations and individuals” generously “donating” their money to IDRC naturally included Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation itself. Strong admitted to Dewar that the IDRC was able to peddle political influence in the third world under its quasi-governmental guise. His quasi-business/quasi-governmental/quasi-“philanthropic” career reached a new level in 1969, however. That’s when the Swedish ambassador to the UN called Strong up to see if he wanted to head the forthcoming United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, due to take place in 1972. He got the call not out of any supposed love for the environment, but because even by that time Strong was renowned as a human Rolodex of political, business and financial connections across the developed and developing world. Naturally, he was duly appointed a Trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, which then funded his office for the Stockholm summit and supplied Carnegie Fellow Barbara Ward and Rockefeller ecologist Rene Dubos for his team. Strong commissioned them to write Only One Earth, a foundational text in the sustainable development arena that is heavily touted by globalists as a key for promoting the global management of resources. The 1972 Stockholm summit is still hailed as a landmark moment in the history of the modern environmental movement, leading not only to the first governmentally-administered environmental action plans in Europe but the creation of an entirely new UN bureaucracy: the United Nations Environment Program. UNEP’s founding director: Maurice Strong. As Dewar explains: “Like so many of the organizations Strong has made, this one too had multiple uses. In 1974, UNEP rose out of the undeveloped soil of Nairobi, Kenya, Strong’s old stomping ground. Placing UNEP in Africa was explained as a sop to the developing countries, who had been suspicious of Western intentions. But it was also useful for the big powers to have another international organization in Nairobi. After the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Nairobi became the key spy capital of Africa.” The Yom Kippur War and resulting OPEC oil embargo (magically foretold by the Bilderberg Conference in Sweden earlier that year and arranged by David Rockefeller’s agent, Henry Kissinger) had another spin-off effect that ended up benefiting Strong. The embargo hit eastern Canada hard, prompting Prime Minister Trudeau to create a publicly-run national oil company. The result: Petro-Canada was born in 1975 and Trudeau naturally appointed Strong, by now the single most powerful member of the global(ist) environmental movement, as its first president. David Rockefeller was there with Strong in Colorado in 1987 for the “Fourth World Wilderness Congress,” a meeting of world-historical importance that almost no one had even heard of. Attended by the likes of Rockefeller, Strong, James Baker and Edmund de Rothschild himself, the conference ultimately revolved around the question of financing for the burgeoning environmental movement that Strong had shaped from the ground up through his work at the United Nations Environment Program. It was at that conference (recordings of which are available online thanks to whistleblower George Hunt) that Rothschild called for a World Conservation Bank, which he envisioned as the funding mechanism for a “second Marshall Plan” that would be used for third world “debt relief” and that favourite globalist dog whistle “sustainable development.” Rothschild’s dream came true when Strong presided over another high-level UN environment summit: the 1992 Rio “Earth Summit.” Although perhaps best known as the conference that birthed Agenda 21, much less well known is that it was the Earth Summit that allowed the World Conservation Bank to become a reality. Started on the eve of the Rio Earth Summit as a $1 billion World Bank pilot program, the bank, now known as the “Global Environment Facility” (GEF) is the largest public funder of global environmental projects, having made over $14.5 billion in grants and cofinanced a further $75.4 billion. The bank is the financial mechanism for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the organizing convention directing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). With Agenda 21 under his belt, Rothschild’s GEF dream bank in the can and the IPCC already twinkling in his eye, Strong’s remarkable career showed no signs of stopping. After wrapping up the Rio Summit he took on a series of appointments so bewildering it almost defies credulity. From his official website comes the following list: “After the Earth Summit, Strong continued to take a leading role in implementing the results of Rio through establishment of the Earth Council, the Earth Charter movement, his Chairmanship of the World Resources Institute, Membership on the Board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Stockholm Environment Institute, the African-American Institute, the Institute of Ecology in Indonesia, the Beijer Institute of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and others. Strong was a longtime Foundation Director of the World Economic Forum, a Senior Advisor to the President of the World Bank, a Member of the International Advisory of Toyota Motor Corporation, the Advisory Council for the Center for International Development of Harvard University, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Wildlife Fund, Resources for the Future, and the Eisenhower Fellowships.” There is no doubt that Strong led a charmed life. And given the persistent presence of Rockefeller interests in that life from his earliest years, there is no doubt why doors seemed to open for him wherever in the world he went. But still, one has to ask how and why a high school dropout who made it big in the oil patch thanks to his big oil connections would go on to become the single most important figure in the international environmental movement. Was he genuinely interested in protecting the environment? Consider Strong’s acquisition of the Arizona Colorado Land & Cattle Company from Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi in 1978. As part of that acquisition, Strong gained control over a ranch in the San Luis Valley in Colorado called the Baca Grande. As Henry Lamb explains in a 1997 article: The ranch, called Baca, sat on the continent’s largest fresh water aquifer. Strong intended to pipe the water to the desert southwest, but environmental organizations protested and the plan was abandoned. Strong ended up with a $1.2 million settlement from the water company, an annual grant of $100,000 from Laurance Rockefeller, and still retained the rights to the water. No, Strong’s interest in the site had nothing to do with preserving the pristine environment of the San Luis Valley. His interest was altogether stranger. As Quadrant Online notes: Maurice Strong had been told by a mystic that: The Baca would become the centre for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come. As a result of these revelations Strong created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age institution located at the Baca ranch — above the sacred waters that Strong had been denied permission to pump out. This hocus-pocus continued with the foundation of The Conservation Fund (with financial help of Laurance Rockefeller) to study the mystical properties of the Manitou Mountain. At the Baca ranch there is a circular temple devoted to the world’s mystical and religious movements. Indeed, Strong’s missionary zeal for spreading his environmental message of doom and destruction for so many decades can be more easily explained as a quasi-religious zeal for preparing the way for the “New World Order” that this environmental doom supposedly foretells. Further insight into Strong’s own mystic, New Age beliefs are found in what he considered to be his most important achievement: the creation of the Earth Charter. The Earth Charter was an outgrowth of Strong’s Earth Council Institute which he founded in 1992 with the help of Mikhail Gorbachev, David Rockefeller (of course), Al Gore, Shimon Peres, and a bevvy of Strong’s globalist friends. Strong’s own website has described the Earth Charter as “a widely recognized, global consensus statement on ethics and values for a sustainable future,” but Strong himself has framed the document in religious terms, saying he hopes it will be treated like a new Ten Commandments. So what does the Earth Charter say? Other than the predictable mealy-mouthed platitudes one would expect about “social and economic justice” and other political buzzwords, the document ends up as a love letter to world government: “In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfill their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development.” The Earth Charter itself rests in the “Ark of Hope,” a literal ark that was constructed specifically to house the original document in an obvious reference to the ark of the covenant. The ark was unveiled on September 9, 2001, and then carried 350 miles to the United Nations in the wake of 9/11. The Earth Charter Commission member who presided over the unveiling just happened to be none other than Steven C. Rockefeller. While this quasi-religious quest for global government is always wrapped in feel-good language about strengthening communities and preserving the planet, the underlying reality is about a much more Machiavellian agenda. As Dewar notes of the Rio Summit in “Cloak of Green”: “Advertised as the World’s Greatest Summit, Rio was publicly described as a global negotiation to reconcile the need for environmental protection with the need for economic growth. The cognoscenti understood that there were other, deeper goals. These involved the shift of national regulatory powers to vast regional authorities; the opening of all remaining closed national economies to multinational interests; the strengthening of decision making structures far above and far below the grasp of newly minted national democracies; and, above all, the integration of the Soviet and Chinese empires into the global market system. There was no name for this very grand agenda that I had heard anyone use, so later I named it myself–the Global Governance Agenda.” Strong himself gave some insight into what this agenda actually entailed for the average man or woman in a 1972 BBC interview prior to the start of the Stockholm summit. Discussing the “overpopulation problem” then en vogue as the environmental cause du jour, Strong admitted to his musings on the potential for reproductive licenses: “Licenses to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child. I’m not proposing this, I was simply predicting this as one of the possible courses that society would have to seriously consider should we get ourselves into this kind of situation.” That Strong was so successful in promoting his “global governance” agenda for so many decades is a testament not to his own visionary leadership, as so many globalists profess, but to the incredible resources of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and others who are funding this agenda into existence and pushing it along at every step. It is some measure of good fortune, then, that Strong’s decades of deceit finally came to an end (more or less) in 2005, when, as Quadrant Online notes, he was finally caught “with his hand in the till”: “Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.” Although still making appearances at various events around the world, Strong led a much more low key existence for the past decade, likely slowed by the ravages of advancing age. But now that he has finally passed away, we are left to be subjected to yet more nauseatingly lavish praise for this man and the many globalist institutions that comprise his legacy. No, it is not difficult to understand why Maurice Strong was so beloved of the globalist jet set. Just don’t expect any of the members of that jet set to tell you this story in any detail.

 

[Esprit]

Took all day to catch up with you guys it's a good thing there is a coronavirus lockdown, I have time to catch up with this thread !

Counting probable cases as actual cases seems to explain why Quebec has the highest count for all provinces in Canada. I'm surprised that this mainstream media actually sees through this and even more surprised that it reports it.

First, other provinces count cases differently, aka, the apples-to-oranges problem.
Before March 23, Quebec was keeping a separate tally of probable and confirmed cases.

In the early days of the outbreak, swabs were tested at the hospital where they were taken (a probable result) and then sent to a provincial laboratory for confirmation.
But public health officials are now confident in the quality of the results available in hospital labs, making that second step unnecessary.

A whole bunch of cases that were previously considered 'probable' were then moved into the confirmed column. Result, a big spike in numbers on Monday.

Other provinces — including Saskatchewan and Manitoba — still keep the probable and confirmed numbers separate.

As Quebec enters that phase, test criteria is widening. It is no longer necessary to both have symptoms and have travelled — the first suffices to qualify for a test, the province's public health director, Horacio Arruda, said last week.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/covid-19-cases-quebec-statistics-canada-1.5511950

 

[Mrs. Peel]

Just an FYI for people in the USA (possibly elsewhere around the world), there's talk about possibly having to wear masks to go out in public - it could become mandatory (maybe it is in some areas already?). I assume they're referring to masks of the N95 type, or better. So it might be a good idea to go ahead and find some to buy now (sellers on eBay have some, at this moment anyway) instead of waiting, otherwise it might become an issue trying to be allowed out in public because an appropriate mask can't be had, or they're even harder to come by than they are now.

I've seen that. Nobody has masks so people are improvising and making their own. Lots of folks on local Facebook groups showing "how-to's" although I wonder about their effectiveness. Women are even making them out of bras!

 

[Andrian]

Why, thank you, good sir! I believe I know what to do!

View attachment 34860

View attachment 34861

Go and spread the word, children of Cassiopaea!

(My numbers are slightly different. I took them straight from the linked websites, to be sure they're legit. Good find!)

Thanks M.I., i've shared it on fb, even if the numbers for 2020 may not be official thus may be considered not legit as @Persej mentioned above i still think it's worth throwing it out there and see what happens

 

[syldan]

WTF???

 

[Laurentiu]

The house of cards begins to crumble on german TV!!!!

I just watched a talk on the german TV and they are beginning to pull back. I did my best translating it. Sometimes they speak so incoherently that i did not know who to translate. Alot of times i just used three dots in between the sentences. And oh boy. Never knew how much time it takes to translate a 20min video. Even with the help of DeepL. That was a half marathon

First observation is that the host seems to be angry/iritated. Maybe it's just me but the way the looks into the guests eyes and the way he interrupts him sometimes really feels like he is just pissed because of the whole situation.

I've highlited some parts that are interesting or just pure gold so to speak.
It is realy worth reading! The german speaking members can obviously watch the video.

Video Link: Virologe Streeck kritisiert bei Lanz Corona-Maßnahmen

Talkshow Guest:
Prof. Hendrik Streeck is Director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research at the University of Bonn. Together with his team in the Heinsberg district, he will now investigate in greater detail how the virus has spread. He will also investigate the question of the number of undetected cases of the disease. He was surprised that the RKI had not planned such a study.

Moderator: Mr. Streek this study that you are now pursuing and which you say
should have been done a lot sooner, what exactly are you doing and when you say
I am actually the scientist who has seen the most CoVid-19 patients in this country?
What did you see there, what were the symptoms? How seriously must one take this disease and how relaxed
do we have to be on the other side at some point? Because we have to learn to deal with it simply and
touching. It's no use to panicking the people from morning to night.

Streeck: Well, this is because we were asked by the health department in Heinsberg whether we could take over the Diagnostics for a while. So the determination of whether or not there is a CoVid-19 infection. In the evening I sat down with a good friend of mine who is from internal medicine at the hospital and we have thought that it is actually also a chance to better understand the disease. Then we have put togehter the ethics and the study and then the next day, together with the hygiene in Bonn under
Ricarda Schmidthausen, drove out to Gangelt and in close cooperation with the administration in Heinsberg (and Mr. Pusch??) and then went from household to household. We asked the people about symptoms. We asked them how they may have been infected, what medications and pre-existing conditions you have and also took some smears and took blood samples. At the same time, we took smears (or swab? don't know the right translation here) of the environment. We tested to see if the
virus was on the doorknobs is, in the air, in the toilet, on the phone, on the remote control and have also took smears from the cats (they took smears/swabs from all these places). We went, several days, from house to house and talked to the people.
We have already given the research result to the press. The result was that almost everyone reported a loss of smell and taste.
That stays for a few days and then it comes back again. It's not permanent but it was a symptom that hadn't been noticed before.

Moderator: And you said that went extremely far. So the loss of the sense of smell. I can remember a sentence from your reporting
that a woman could no longer smell her own baby's full diaper.

Streeck: Yes, exactly. That was a nurse who then reported very impressively how she herself tested with vinegar essence whether
she can still smell it. She was taken aback by it. The first one who told us, we didn't took him too seriously at first. We thought,
he's having a quarantine meltdown or that he's reacting a little psychosomatically. We don't know exactly when this will occur (at which point during the infection).
We believe it doesn't occur until the end of the illness. There are also other reports that in some cases other nerves are affected.
From Iran I have received a report which says that it can also affect the ears. It was reported, for a short time, about deafness.

Moderator: The short time is important in this context. This means that the loss of sense comes back again.

Streeck: Yes. But we have never observed this ourselves, a deafness, but only the loss of taste and smell.

Moderator: When you say: "we have taken swabs everywhere, even on the cat". Where are the most viruses?
This is a big issue for many people. We have many contradictory reports. What can you tell us in a binding way?

Streeck: By the way, the cats have cooperated super. They all bit on the chopsticks. None of the cats has been positive tested for CoVid-19.
But what is more interesting, we did detect viruses on the door handles, toilets and washbasins, but in the Virology Department we took these swabs and tried to breed them. We tried to find out if the virus could grow and if it was infectious.
We never could! This means that we have detected the DNA of dead viruses, i.e. RNA from dead viruses, but we have not obtained a living virus from it.

Moderator: That is, he reach for the door handle, the fruit basket in the supermarket, the cat, the telephone, whatever... there is no risk of this?

Streeck: Yes. So that's what's going to happen in the new study we're doing now. We want to have a representative sample in these areas as well, to be able to say exactly where there is a virus and where there is no virus. But it seems to me, from the results of this study,
that a door handle can only be infectious if someone has coughed in the hand and then grabbed the handle
and you reached for the doorknob again afterwards.

Moderator: How long do the viruses stay on it? Do you have an idea?

Streeck: Such a time study has never been carried out before. We don't know for sure but we were in a
Household where many highly infectious people have lived and yet we have not received a live virus from any surface.

Moderator: Now that's good news. It means keeping people away from getting too close, not talking to someone up close for too long and washing our hands, is really getting us somewhere.

Streeck: I'm convinced of it. I also find the problem in our discussions so far to be that we talk a lot about speculation and model calculations. Only one factor in such a mathematical calculation has to be wrong, then it all falls together like a house of cards.
I think that's exactly what you have to do, that you collect the data together and really create facts, so that you can make recommendations on the basis of them and make decisions on the basis of them.

Moderator: May I ask, has the Robert-Koch-Institute, these studies in Heinsberg, where one could look at them as an example, so to speak, have they also examined them?

(Note from Laurentiu: In this situation, Robert-Koch-Institute is for germany what the NHS is for UK or the NIAID for the US)

Streeck: No, I was surprised myself that they didn't do that. We held ourselves back from our side for the time being,
because we thought it was a federal agency job to do that. After all, they also give us recommendations for diagnostics, who to test, how not to test. When I then learned that the Robert-Koch-Institute does not carry out such studies, but also does not think about it, I actually found it almost a duty as a virologist that we should do this. Of course, I could well imagine that I could now just go about my normal working day. That is of course an extreme additional burden but such a study must be done so that we can find answers simply for politicians but also for citizens.

Moderator: Do I take it from that too, I'm just trying to hear a little bit between the lines, Mrs. Käßmann (Theologian who is also present) nods too, you probably just had the same feeling. You say that we are too fast at some points, we make decisions based on facts that are no longer really verified. And again, to put it bluntly, this shutdown and the whole paralyzing of the public life so to speak, was that too fast for you? Is that something you're saying, then we need to talk about whether that was right?

Streeck: Yes, in retrospect you can always say that you know better. But when that moment was, when we had to take a measure in a very short time... I don't remember how it started but it was only the bigger events that were cancelled. Then schools were closed and then came the curfew. And to the curfew I said in advance we should wait and see what happens. The virus does not obey any politician, it does not obey any human being.
Especially because what we decide today, we will not see the result for two weeks. Now we are slowly starting to "maybe" see the results from the first measures. But we have to give the virus time, so that we can also see and assess the results in the long term. To see what works and what not. Just as wrong I would find it now to turn everything back immediately and say that it all worked. Now we are in this situation, now we have to look how we can control the virus or the infection rates.

Moderator: But what does that mean in translation? Would you have let it run for now, so to speak? Or what would you have done? In this context we also have to talk about this Swedish way, their very interesting way. Because on the other hand we see the countries in Southeast Asia which were trying very, very, very quickly to understand where the infections are. Where do people go, where do people go. Including taking temperatures, including mouth guards and so on and so on. They actually got a handle on that relatively quickly. Should we have done the same? What would you have suggested?

Streeck: I think that what South Korea had done well was to test. A lot of testing, and when they found a cluster, people tested positive, then to contain it there directly. However, a curfew was not imposed on an entire country, but contacts were traced and then tested and contained there. That was, in my opinion, a very good strategy and also a strategy that is feasible for a country like Germany. We have the possibilities.

Moderator: Because we have the opportunity to test so much, you mean?

Streeck: Yes. The danger with this virus is when it gets to the hospital, when it gets to the old people's home, to the nursing home. We can see this in the example of Wolfsburg and Würzburg where really unique.......

Moderator: Or in Italy too.

Streeck: Or in Italy.

Moderator: Well, that's what I always read and hear, that the Italians now understand that the clinics were real virus-slingers in the beginning. Because it was not clear what they were dealing with.

Streeck: And that's something we have to deal with, that we have the vurnerable population, that is a part of the population for which the virus is really dangerous.
How can we better protect them and how can we avoid spreading it there. One can imagine, for example, that all the nursing staff, all the employees, are tested every four to seven days. This can be done through pool procedures (?) that are already used in transfusion medicine to test blood reserves for HIV or hepatitis.
This is the procedure that virologists and transfusion physicians deal with every day. This is something that can be applied.
We might be able to save nursing homes from the virus permanently, for example. You have to think about such ideas and develop them. But there are many people involved. Many experts and not just individuals.

Moderator: You say many experts not just a few. For me, this crisis also has a face, and that is above all the face of Mr. Drosten, who is the virologist of the Charité.
In this context, do you think it is a mistake not to get the other bright minds together? Because they all have different focuses. So
is doing a panel of experts, in the manner of an ethics council, of which Mr. Merkel (Probably Reinhard Merkel from ethikrat.org) is a member. At that time initiated by Chancellor Schröder. Would that have been probably a better way?

Streeck: I have the highest regard for Mr. Drosten...

Moderator: You are his successor, after all.

Streeck: ... ...as a colleague. He is a good colleague and I value his opinion. It's not without reason that he heads the National Reference Center for Coronaviruses and is thus also the first consultant for it. I think that's absolutely right. Only, all of us virologists work differently here. That may be slowly creeping in, that the population notices but Mr. Drosten for example works very virus centered. So he starts from the virus and looks at what makes the virus so special and how did it get for example, from the bat into humans and how it spreads. My work is more about looking at what the virus does to humans and how the immune system reacts to it. How's the clinic with the virus. What Mr. Drosten can do, I can't. But what I can do, Mr. Drosten, not as well as I can. There's no competition, just that you have your own specialties. And I think it's a pity that the government has gone into it in a rather monothematic way.

Käßmann (a Theologian who is also present): One could make a roundtable of all the virologists or an exchange with the Chinese.
There is no such thing?

Streeck: No, unfortunately, there is no such thing yet. This has now been started by the BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) to establish a larger network between researchers. But so far, that doesn't exist.

Moderator: Is that too late? Before we talk about it with Mrs. Käßmann and also with Mr. Fratzscher (Economist). I mean, what we are experiencing right now, you yourself say that, "I'm not speaking as a virologist, I'm speaking as a citizen of this country". This has such an impact on the existence of many people that we must of course urgently think about how this actually continues. Because if we go through this for a very long time then life will be ... then the world will be a different place.

Streeck: Yes, I'm a bit conflicted, of course, because I'm a virologist and I'm sitting here as a virologist and not as an expert in economics or ethics. But of course I also have my personal opinion on this and I can weigh up for myself, at least in my chest, what I think of individual measures and what they mean. So also from the doctor's point of view, because one deals with ethics issues.
And even if I speak as a citizen, I believe it is the same for everyone else, even if you speak from the business world, it is important to assess where your own limits are. And there is quite clearly my limit where I simply cannot give any expertise.
But we have already dealt with many viruses and I just know, or rather I see what such a curfew does to people. I have friends myself who wonder if they will have a job after this or friends who wonder if they can pay their rent in the long run. I find this limitations quite drastic in relation to other viruses and other epidemics we have had.
I can't estimate that but I would have wished that if such a measure is taken, that you don't react violently immediately but first think together about where you want to go.
Our limit is the capacity limit of the hospitals. It's not the number of people infected. We've never heard what our policy is, what our goal is. Are thousands of infections a day too many? Is a hundred too many? Is one too many?
We can't contain it completely and instead of always counting how many new infections we have, we have to listen to the intensive care doctors and say this is our limit. Of course we have a time lag, but in the end they are the ones who can best assess which measures are actually the right ones and which are not.

Moderator: That means that one should think about an exit strategy slowly?

Streeck: Personally, speaking as a citizen again, I think it is extremely important...

Moderator: Me too! But how could it look like? that's the big question. How do we get out of this situation?

Streeck: ...and that is why we have just initiated this study. To create facts, to say we now have so and so many percent undetected.
To be able to say "that many were infected and that's actually the mortality rate". We can look at what the actual routes of infection are, where there is a real benefit to breaking through them or to avoid. And these are areas where it makes no sense or where measures can be relaxed. For example, we have never heard of infection in hairdressing salons now. Hairdressing salons are closed.

Moderator: Interesting. I get it, okay, but go on. Could you please be more specific first, I'm very interested in that as well, with shops for example. They do not understand how we are in the situation .... because in the supermarket the risk really has to be minimized .... because people think along with us and keep their distance and so on. Why shouldn't that work in a clothing store, for example. I've never understood that.

Streeck: Yes, I had just asked myself in the mask (when they get ready for the camera) ... you didn't talk anymore. One wears a mask... We just don't know that infections have ever occurred through that. And I think it is important as a scientist and virologist to remember in the end what we know and what we do not know. We know relatively well that it is not a smear infection.

Moderator: The doorknob...

Streeck: Yeah, the doorknob. But we know that dancing and celebrating close together, celebrating exuberantly, that there have been many infections. Now it is actually about finding the nuances in between. When can an infection take place and when does no infection take place. And that has to be a guideline at the end of the day so that certain measures can be reversed.

Moderator: Interesting. Before we open the round table again (opening the talk to the other guests). I'm just hanging this sentence after which you mentioned before (meaning, he still things about what Streeck said before). "You have to give the virus a little time". Is that what Sweden is doing right now? They're going a different way, and they're making a big appeal to personal responsibility.
Tell me. What are the Swedes doing right now?

Streeck: Well, I think the Swedes are... ...it's risky what they're doing in the political environment right now, because every other government is going a lot of more drastically in the way. I don't think they're doing it all that wrong. We know how the virus is transmitted. That there is proximity and time with an infected person.
So if you're close and you talk and you spit a bit when you talk, for example, you get an infection. And the Swedes are appealing for people to keep their distance, not to have large groups, but to live normal life, normal everyday life goes on. And they appeal to hand hygiene and that they take care of each other when someone feels sick. When he stays at home ... I do not know what will happen ...

Moderator: How are the numbers developing? Do you have this in mind?

Streeck: I don't have that in view. Whether these... these are recent decisions. I can't seriously say: they are now going to
go up or go down. These are predictions that no virologist can make. But from what I've been thinking, at least now I don't think it's unreasonable for Sweden to have gone this way.

 

[Bluegazer]

Right now here in Argentina an MSM channel is talking about the genetic manipulation of the virus!

 

[Bluegazer]

Right now here in Argentina an MSM channel is talking about the genetic manipulation of the virus!

Note: There are biases. However, they are realizing that the virus is man-made.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

It seems that the numbers for 2020 are not official numbers, so they might not be legit. That is a problem with this whole virus hysteria. You cannot prove that there are no more deaths compared to previous years because you have to wait a long time for official numbers. And by then, the global takeover will be over!

Yeah, 2020 numbers are still coming in, but from what I've seen, Italy is pretty good about releasing up-to-date mortality info (e.g, from Sismg, which is so far available up to the 2nd week of March). Overall mortality for the whole 2019/2020 flu season was less than average, plus people only started dying with corona at the very end of February, so only March is really relevant. On that note, I found something else relevant to the previous post I made about Italy's excess mortality in the first weeks of March (see the bold bit):

The overall Italian mortality rates for the first 2 weeks of March are available now from Sismg. Reminder that these are based on a representative sample of ALL deaths of people over 65 in the biggest cities in all regions, so the current spike is probably greater in some regions, like Lombardy, and smaller in other regions, like in southern Italy (Sismg only records Bergamo province deaths from the cities of Milan and Brescia):

http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/caldo/sismg/SISMG_sintesi_2020w11.pdf

Here's a screenshot:
View attachment 34648
Note that overall mortality for Italy has been at or below average since late November of last year, and a secondary spike begins first week of March. Here's a chart of daily deaths reported as Covid-related in Italy to compare, from worldometer:
View attachment 34649

So in the next few weeks we'll be able to compare the Covid spike to the flu spike of 2016/2017.

Mortality of 65+year-olds in the first week of March was 9.5% above average. Second week was 21.4% above average. That's for Italy as a whole. I found this article breaking it down for the city of Bergamo (Google translate):

A Bergamo decessi 4 volte oltre la media L’Eco lancia un’indagine nei Comuni

I dati dei decessi ufficiali per «Covid-19» fotografano solo una piccola parte dei casi reali nella provincia di Bergamo. L’Eco l’ha raccontato più volte intervistando i sindaci. Ora parte una raccolta dati per avere un’analisi più approfondita.

www.ecodibergamo.it

The Bergamo mayors have told Eco several times: "There are many more deaths in our municipalities than in official cases". To shed light on the real impact of the coronavirus in Bergamasca, the most affected province in Italy, we decided to thoroughly analyze the data of each individual municipality. The Eco di Bergamo and InTwig , a research and data analysis agency, have decided to launch an in-depth investigation in the 243 municipalities of Bergamo. We will ask each administration for information on residents' deaths in the first three months of 2020 to compare mortality compared to previous years. In the absence of widespread monitoring of the infected, the death rate is in fact (and unfortunately) the only real yardstick on which an analysis can be made.

To understand the method by which deaths will be analyzed, it is good to observe the case of the Municipality of Bergamo, which has already provided partial data for the first three weeks of March.

From an average of 45 deaths a week in the last ten years there has been a surge to 313 per week, almost seven times as much in the seven days from 15 to 21 March. From March 1 to 21, however, the ratio is four times the average for the past ten years.

Until the last week of February, when the contagion was still limited, the data remained in line with the average: 64 deaths per week against 48.9 per week over the past ten years. With the beginning of March, however, here is the surge: 95 deaths in the first week against 49.1 on average, then a leap upwards with 296 deaths in the second week of March against 49.4 of the average of the last ten years and finally, the highest figure so far, in the third week, with 313 deaths against an average of 45. Only with the numbers of this week will it be possible to understand if a decline is taking place in the city of Bergamo, as the trend of the infections suggests, or no.

A comparison that applies to all the people who lost their lives in the Municipality of Bergamo, therefore also counting the data of the province residents who died at the hospital, both the statistics that only cover city residents. In this case, the peak was always recorded in the third week of March with 154 deaths against 26 on average in the last 10 years.

Here's a screenshot showing the average monthly deaths for the past ten years (if you go to the link, it is interactive). You can see the spikes for the flu season in January of all previous years. 2019/2020 was a mild flu year in comparison to previous ones:



That huge spike includes all deaths at hospitals in the city, i.e. it includes people from other cities who were moved there for treatment, as well as everyone who died from all other causes (including those who died because they couldn't get treatment). Here is the graph showing only deaths of residents:

 

[nicklebleu]

Donjuan, as much as I believe what you are saying, and see it happening in France too, the problem still remains, in the sense that what you have been posting about does not prove that there is a real problem in terms or a real disease or "pandemic". These are all decisions from the medical authorities. Okay, it never happened before, but what about the ACTUAL cases? When you look at the things that have been posted here and elsewhere about the reliability of the tests, can you as a doctor say, with 100% certainty, that all the "extra patients" are COVID19 patients, or is that the label that they have been assigned? And among the real ones, how many have other underlying diseases which have put them in a serious condition?

Ambulatory treatments and surgeries being cancelled are not proof of a dire situation unless they match a real problem behind the decision. The same with only letting people enter the hospital through the emergencies. Etc, etc. So, as honestly as you may be in reporting what you witness, I'd like to know more about the actual cases you are treating, the certainties behind the diagnoses, and anything you can offer in terms of proof. Otherwise, we turn around in circles. I understand that the situation looks critical, but we know that panic is contagious, and that a situation may not be what it looks like, that facts are distorted and a "reality" created around them, etc.

Sorry, I’m still trying to catch up - but I wanted to give another aspect to the above.

Most professional anaesthesia/ ICU bodies have recommended that any patient with respiratory difficulties be intubated straight away. This is not the normal procedure, but a major deviation from common practice. A lot of patients with pneumonia will never progress to intubation, but will have what is called NIV (non-invasive ventilation), basically an airtight mask strapped on their head that will support their breathing.

The idea is that intubation is safer for staff (not the patient), because once the patient is intubated, he is on a closed circuit and
thus his environment is protected from secretions/ aerosols.

That means that a number of patients that woudl normally stay in HDU rather than ICU are now shifted to ICU (because only ICU ventilates patients), which in my view will artificially inflate the numbers of patients in ICU - even if only by a small percentage, which might be enough to overcrowd an already stretched ICU.

On top of that, intubation has its own issues - ventilator-associated pneumonia, reflecting the fact that if a patient is on a ventilator, he has a higher risk of developing pneumonia, due to reduced clearance of bronchial secretions. Of course the Covid-19 patients already have a pneumonia, but lack of clearance of secretions make healing harder.

 

[Soluna]

If it's of any relevant interest (in terms of what sort of people are on 'house arrest' in the UK) - I received a message from my mum saying she has received a 'stay at home for 12 weeks' letter. I assume she falls into a vulnerable persons category, as although she is only 58 - she has Multiple Sclerosis, Diabetes, Hypothyroidism and has had her 2 years 'clear' mammogram after having a small breast cancer removed. I responded with a pretty 'upbeat' but perhaps benign "I'm sure you will be fine if you continue to eat healthily, and take some extra vitamin C!", non-confrontational.

 

[seek10]

Sunday night, we have a zoom call with our university friends after probably 28 years. As every body working from home, it became possible. the topic obviously revolved around CoronaScare. Of all the friend groups, this group some what mature in getting along, laugh at our stupidities and open. I tried to convey the message of US origins of virus, hype, wall street pump and Dump. Well, it was promptly marked as Conspiracy. I was little upset with the turn of events, probably my people pleasing program of ego.

I posted some empty hospitals video's on this friends group, people promptly this is BS, crap etc. I never seen this from these quarters.

Last week, when i was talking to kids, i told them i went to costco and they asked me tell them next time i am going so that I can get some items for them. Given that I am bored with staying at home, I decided to go today and told them and brought all the items they want. What surprised me is she made me to keep all the food items in the garage and they want to take after a day, cleaning the items with a wipe. I was completely flabbergasted. They think i am risking my life by going out. What type of quarantine is this? They can get the food from others and wiping it some thing it magically goes away?

Even the folks who argued all the time and go on succumbed with the corona mind virus. Do these people are so saturated by the fear and blindly following and not all using their brain. In theory, if some body sends a information ( Video/article) that relieves their constriction, they should be happy with it. right?. No, they attack you. It is like full level Stockholm syndrome all over the planet.

I am wondering What ever we are seeing is from a technology much different than what they did before. Before, shock and awe against the enemy is somewhat distant and it reached their bodies with corona scare. I am also wondering about this organic portal component.
C's said OP are pool group and did 4D STS triggered some thing in them to activate them much more obediently large scale? . I find that people are even scared to see in the eyes 8 ft apart at the shop. I find it strange and bizarre.