This may have been said already, but one thing that has surprised me is the lack of critical and objective discernment by Sputnik News and RT, Sputnik being slightly more naive than RT. I’m not sure why this is, either they are ‘playing it safe’ not wanting to feed the ‘Russian disinformation’ propaganda or they are just surprisingly ignorant. From what I can tell, I’m afraid the reason is the latter.

You're not the only one to notice it. It seems that challenging local medical establishment is a forbidden territory for any state funded media in Russia. If RT would have started to ask uncomfortable questions "outside" Russia, then it would have to change its narrative "inside". Last Friday I watched an excerpt of Russian TV show where high rank official Popova stated that there's no specific cure for COVID-19 and isolation + vaccination is the only hope. Well, I still hope the official view to change since China sent its specialists to Russia last week. Testing IV vitamin C on the "battlefield" now would make a real change next time when pandemic would be really dangerous.

Yeah, maybe they're just Authoritarian Followers:


Sott comment:

One silver lining to this whole police state lockdown is that it has certainly helped to separate the wheat from the chaff. It has forced us all to really show where we stand in the face of tyranny - do we call it out for what it is or shrink back and join the oppressors? For those of us still willing to stand, at least now we know who our true allies are.

It's been an eye-opener hasn't it? Jordan Peterson warned that, when it came down to a crisis situation like this, almost anyone could 'become the Nazi prison guard'. But maybe that's too wide a net to cast. Let's assume it's more like 50% could or would 'go there'.

That's quantity; what about quality? 'Fascists' is also perhaps too strong a term. Many are just 'going along to get along', but certainly some of them are thriving on it.

Authoritarian Followers comprise a substantial portion of any given population, perhaps as much as 50%. What we're finding with the 'pandemic' is that many who have fashioned themselves as 'skeptics of officialdom' were just talking. Literally, to them it was just words.

The academic who coined the term - Bob Altemeyer - has published a number of informative books on 'Right-Wing Authoritarianism', but we have found that it's NOT a simple Left-Right divide. On COVID-19, Tucker Carlson doesn't get it, yet Candace Owens does. Infowars/Prison Planet and ZeroHedge were highly active in catapulting the lies that spread hysteria and panic, yet rational articles and government decisions appeared in unexpected milieus like the Financial Times and Sweden.

While it can take study to figure out exactly which 'authority' it is that people are following in any given context, the main point you arrive at is that they are constitutionally incapable of following their OWN authority, instead transferring most of it onto the state.

Sure, they'll SAY they're 'anti-govt' or 'anti-statist' or 'anti-communist' or 'against the deep state', but it's just words. When it came down to it, the govt said 'boo' and they fell right into line.
 
The Chinese noticed the Cambridge study big time. They were practically interviewing the lead researcher on the same day the study was out. Priceless.

And the same Cambridge team just finished analyzing 1001 more genomes (pending publication). I must say that the smoking gun really does point to the U.S.

"Geneticist Peter Forster from the University of Cambridge, lead author of the study said he understands the topic of the viral origin is a "hot potato" after the political dispute between China and the US, but neither the PNAS paper nor the unpublished paper could offer a clear explanation for it. But their study has evidence that the virus mutation rate is significantly faster outside China and the spread of the disease among humans likely occurred between September 13, 2019 to December 7, 2019. "


Recent research conducted into the genetic network analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic, done jointly by British and German experts, testified the variant of novel coronavirus that is closest to that discovered in bats was actually found mainly among cases from the US, rather than in Wuhan, Central China's Hubei Province.

To explain the pandemic origins, experts from the University of Cambridge and their peers from Germany analyzed 160 virus genomes that were extracted from human patients around the world and they found the coronavirus mutated into three distinct strains.

They found that most cases carried type A virus - the ancestral type of virus, which is bat coronavirus, with 96 percent sequence similarity to the human virus - were largely seen in patients from the US and Australia.

Once type A had been detected in Wuhan. The virus infected five individuals from Wuhan and four patients from South China's Guangdong Province. But most cases from the Chinese mainland and East Asian regions do not carry type A virus but carried the type B virus, which is a variant of type A, the study found.


Instead, patients carrying the ancestral type of virus (type A) were largely seen coming from the US and Australia, such American patients had a residence history in Wuhan, the study found.

As for type C, it is a variant of type B, which is commonly seen in European countries such as France, Italy and Sweden and also evident in Singapore and South Korea as well as China's Hong Kong and the island of Taiwan
, the study found.

In reply to the question why the ancestral type of virus was not commonly seen in China and particularly in Wuhan, but instead the mutated type B virus, geneticist Peter Forster from the University of Cambridge, lead author of the study, told the Global Times that "type A isn't fitting quite well with most locals' immune systems in Wuhan" but has "become adapted to American and Australian immune systems."

The prevalence of variant type B virus in Wuhan may also result from a "founder effect," Forster said.

The study was published in the journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

To trace the pandemic origins, apart from the paper that was published on the PNAS, Forster told the Global Times that they also finished an analysis of 1,001 genomes, which is still unpublished.

Forster said he understands the topic of the viral origin is a "hot potato" after the political dispute between China and the US, but neither the PNAS paper nor the unpublished paper could offer a clear explanation for it.

But their study has evidence that the virus mutation rate is significantly faster outside China and the spread of the disease among humans likely occurred between September 13, 2019 to December 7, 2019.
 
This may have been said already, but one thing that has surprised me is the lack of critical and objective discernment by Sputnik News and RT, Sputnik being slightly more naive than RT. I’m not sure why this is, either they are ‘playing it safe’ not wanting to feed the ‘Russian disinformation’ propaganda or they are just surprisingly ignorant. From what I can tell, I’m afraid the reason is the latter.
You're not the only one to notice it. It seems that challenging local medical establishment is a forbidden territory for any state funded media in Russia. If RT would have started to ask uncomfortable questions "outside" Russia, then it would have to change its narrative "inside". Last Friday I watched an excerpt of Russian TV show where high rank official Popova stated that there's no specific cure for COVID-19 and isolation + vaccination is the only hope. Well, I still hope the official view to change since China sent its specialists to Russia last week. Testing IV vitamin C on the "battlefield" now would make a real change next time when pandemic would be really dangerous.

One crucial reason, as Niall and Keit stated earlier, is the fact that the editor in chief of RT has bought into it and probably put this up as a editor guideline. The other big component is very likely the fact that Putin himself stated from the get-go pretty clearly that false information about this should be combated. And as said, many of them might just be authoritarian followers at the end as well.
 
Without strong support from kindred spirits, wouldn't a lone individual who knows what is happening be discouraged by the madness happening around him?

i am grateful for all i have learned here. If not for this network and everyone here, i would have been like my fellow countrymen- ignorant of what's really going on and maybe even a little hysterical. Wishing everyone here well and stay safe.

Malaysia lockdown extension consent
Yes, as was my case, I was preparing myself for death because I couldn't bring myself to bear any further interaction with this life and almost succeeded in 2005. By 2007 I didn't have the will to live anymore.

Spurred on by the little voice inside me, I made one last attempt at living. It was through the search that ensued, I was able to find Laura and the C's communications.

The rest is history and I am still here.
 
I am not sure if this has been posted up on one of the many pages on this thread which I may have skipped, but Bill and Melinda Gates are running a new clinical trial on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of Covid-19.

They are going to compare it against a placebo intervention. And guess what that placebo is? Ascorbic acid (vitamin C)!

Oh, man, this is priceless. They will surely be surprised by the results and most likely make them secret. They cannot afford to let the cat (Vitamin C) out of the bag into the open. Will this backfire on them? I truely hope so!!!!!
 
As a student of history, this has happened many times. STS forces have no qualms about sacrificing those who serve them if it suits their overall greater agenda, which is to consolidate greater control over us. Just look at what happened with Napoleon in France, who was used and then thrown away at Waterloo so that the Rothschilds could cement their grip on the banks of five different countries. Could we be seeing such a set-up now?

@Ketone Cop the highlighted part on your comment drew my attention. I would appreciate it if you could point me to some books around this subject and if anyone knows any books that would touch on a similar situation: I see a resemblance here with how maybe Hitler was used later?
 
Some more regional news from Russia. Like I mentioned earlier, our regional government allowed all citizens involved in industry and construction to resume their work a week ago.

Now they have also allowed citizens involved in services (including hairdressers, beauty salons, etc.) to resume their work too starting tomorrow.

So basically we had only one week of mass quarantine here so far, when many people were only allowed to leave their homes to go shopping and such.

Which is interesting because the number of daily CV cases is growing here.
 
I think I understand where you are coming from and think that it is prudent to follow up on what is happening close to where we live, what the laws are and what our rights are. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. There is also a difference where one lives and as you live in a country which once was a penal colony with a strong vaccination lobby it makes sense to be prepared with protocols of what to do and how to mitigate the effects IF vaccination will be forced.

At the same time as others have mentioned then not to fix such an outcome in place as the definate timeline, but to allow for an open universe. Who knows there might be a splitting of timelines, where some will live in a totalitarian world with forced vaccination ruled by pathocrats and others will live in another world where creativity, knowledge, awareness, service to others, love, joy, free will and respect for your fellow man are the values.
It sounds a nice place, that world you mentioned in the last paragraph. I hope that will come to pass.

However, at the moment it looks all 'gloom and doom' to me. Like the rising tide is up to our necks and some people tell me: "Don't tell me I'm going to drown, until after I drown! You're being anticipatory!" It seems to me that a person in this situation is more at risk, by this approach. Perhaps they are waiting for the tide or the weather to change so they don't drown? This is where luck plays it's part.

I would hope that people wake up and do something - whatever that may be - something small, or something large. In the end, its probably not their actions that have the most effect, but a change to their consciousness and determination. It's like saying "No!" to STS. This sentiment, coming from many people (I believe) has the power to stop STS in their tracks. It seems to take away most of their power. It's hard to explain.

I saw this by Amazing Polly. She is making some interesting connections. I wonder if it is all too late for the world now we're in 'lock down'? This sure isn't Kansas anymore. Maybe it's just one giant global penal colony .... :-(?

 
This may have been said already, but one thing that has surprised me is the lack of critical and objective discernment by Sputnik News and RT, Sputnik being slightly more naive than RT. I’m not sure why this is, either they are ‘playing it safe’ not wanting to feed the ‘Russian disinformation’ propaganda or they are just surprisingly ignorant. From what I can tell, I’m afraid the reason is the latter.
You're not the only one to notice it. It seems that challenging local medical establishment is a forbidden territory for any state funded media in Russia. If RT would have started to ask uncomfortable questions "outside" Russia, then it would have to change its narrative "inside". Last Friday I watched an excerpt of Russian TV show where high rank official Popova stated that there's no specific cure for COVID-19 and isolation + vaccination is the only hope. Well, I still hope the official view to change since China sent its specialists to Russia last week. Testing IV vitamin C on the "battlefield" now would make a real change next time when pandemic would be really dangerous.
One crucial reason, as Niall and Keit stated earlier, is the fact that the editor in chief of RT has bought into it and probably put this up as a editor guideline. The other big component is very likely the fact that Putin himself stated from the get-go pretty clearly that false information about this should be combated. And as said, many of them might just be authoritarian followers at the end as well.

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that here there is possibly some kind of "pull back to stretch the rubber and get a boost to take advantage of when some kind of special circumstance comes along" here (I'm referring mostly to the case of the Russian media). Perhaps it is time to stand still while there is not enough 'evidence' for a definitive strike, so that the PTB lets down his guard and falls more into his own illusion of security and everything under control. But at a certain moment, or event, the "bomb" can go off that can turn the whole narrative on its head.
"Wait and see"
 
I know this is long and you're all trying to catch up on this epi(demi)c thread (pun overload), but I had to get some ideas out of my head and on 'paper'. You can take this as another 'article' of sorts.


So I've been thinking about what to do about all this stuff. This stupidemic is a 9/11-level event with potentially even more massive consequences, depending on how it unfolds. And how it unfolds depends a lot on how the 'normal' people will react. So far they've mostly bought into it, but many are starting to see the problems with the narrative, and the longer this continues, the more of the problems they will see.

The initial shock is what the PTB have going for them, and that's going to be wearing off. As the hysteria subsides, we can expect two things to happen. People will see the negative consequences of the lockdown (many already are), and they will be more open to looking at the whole situation more rationally. So the longer this madness continues, the more people will have an issue with it. After all, the pandemic is fake, and the lockdown consequences are real, and what people will experience in their daily lives is the real.

The masses that buy this nonsense are simple in their thinking and reactions, but that also means some things that will not be in the favour of the PTB. For example, you can only scare people with the same thing for so long until they get bored. A pandemic can't be shocking and scary forever, especially since the numbers of the infected and dead have to go down at some point. The PTB can fake the numbers, but then there will be real statistics showing no excessive deaths compared to previous years, so the room for faking is limited.

In a way, the more the PTB overshoot with their measures, the better. Because the obvious result will be that more people will realise that this is wrong. I think some of the things the talking heads have been talking about aren't really planned just yet. A part of the show is scaring people with really extreme measures, then introducing less extreme ones (which was the goal in the first place), and having people think "well at least they didn't do those things" and accept the measures more easily. So they're trying to throw all kinds of things out there to see how far they can push. But scaring people with really extreme and stupid stuff might also shake some of them out of their slumber. In this sense, it may be good if the PTB try to go too far.

The difference that I see between 9/11 and this is that most people had no chance to figure out what really happened back in 2001. It was too sudden and traumatic, too unclear, too chaotic, and evidence was easily being hidden. Here the evidence is in plain sight, and people are being hypnotised basically by claims that thousands are really millions. So once the shock wears off, it shouldn't be that hard to explain to them that thousands are really only thousands. And in 2001, the whole world wasn't ordered to stay home, and millions of people worldwide weren't losing jobs because of 9/11.

And I think another point is that 9/11 was mostly an American problem (that really had no observable consequences for me here, for example), while this is global, so there are that many more people available to push back. 9/11 affected mostly lives in the middle east and freedoms in the US. This pandemonium affects everyone, and the effects are only negative.

We know more or less what the PTB are trying to do and why, so the plan is fairly clear. What is not clear is whether it will work, or to what extent. And while this could potentially be much worse than the fallout of 9/11, I think it also has a far greater potential for backfiring. Unlike what happened on 9/11, what happened now is pretty simple. The world was forcibly stopped because people are dying of an ordinary virus in ordinary numbers while we are being told that this is really bad, even though it's perfectly normal. Which, of course, doesn't make any sense.

So as I see it, our situation is something like this:
1. The fraud is easy to see. (We saw through this immediately.)
2. Many people aren't seeing it, though, so why?
3. The reason is a massive propaganda campaign and manipulation of numbers. (Though people's view of the numbers is being manipulated much more than the numbers themselves - there's no emergency even if the numbers were real.)
4. We want as many people as possible to see this is a fraud.
5. How can we make them see that?

And the last point is what I've been thinking about. Not so much because I decided to, but rather because it's just playing in my head and my mind keeps analysing it, and it probably won't stop until I write it down, so that's what I'm doing. So how to best convey the information we have so that people who don't get it start getting it?

Of course this is what we've been doing here all along, collecting and spreading information. But there are many layers or levels of that, and I'm focused on a more specific area. We've had just about anything we could on Sott, and that's great for Sotters, but most Sotters saw through this bullshit on their own anyway. I've seen very few comments on Sott that seemed even remotely fooled by the MSM narrative.

I'm more concerned with the people who don't get it. Without them, it's just the usual small group of people that doesn't have sufficient impact to stop the elite's madness. As we've discussed in this thread, any proper awakening is not likely, but I think what's needed is fairly little. People just need to understand that all this bullshit with staying home, keeping a distance, wearing masks, and suffering economic losses was completely unnecessary.

Once they get that much, they'll act on their own. There were protests everywhere last year, and that needs to come back, but people need to have a clue about what the real problems are. They need to fight this bullshit about the "new normal", because this new normal is their enslavement. There's nothing normal about that.

One significant factor that I see in deciding what to tell people is actually what not to tell them. Because there are so many things that just switch people off (or trigger them?) and then you can't get through to them at all. We can easily lose track of what the typical person knows or believes. You have to realise that all of you reading this post and this thread are super-informed compared to most people. So you're sharing information that's totally obvious to you, but it's not to other people.

I can even see the difference between me and my brother. He reads the sessions and he reads Sott, but he has a much more normal life than me, three kids and all that. So while he understands everything he needs to understand, I'm still seeing some differences. He's exposed to the mainstream media, I am not. He's much more exposed to the general population. And he of course doesn't have time to read things like this thread. So when we compare news, he tells me some things he's heard that I know are bullshit or I see what exactly is distorted about them, and I tell him things that I find obvious that he wasn't aware off. Also his information is much more local while I don't look at my country any more than at all other countries. (Actually I usually know a lot more about global events than about anything that goes on in my little country.)

Now, my brother knows that I do a lot of research and that my information is pretty reliable even if he hasn't heard about any of it, but the point is that most people don't have the same attitude and can be much more disconnected from reality than we can even imagine. I remember when I started reading this thread, after the lockdown started (not enough time before that), I had a pretty good idea in general about what was going on and that it was nonsense and lies. But after just two days of reading this thread, I felt like I hadn't known anything before that. The difference was just huge. Not that I had anything particularly wrong before, but simply the level of awareness went off the charts rather quickly. And that was some 150 pages ago.

What I'm getting at is that if we try to talk to normal people on a similar level we talk to one another here, we may not even realise how far that is from their level of understanding. So getting through to them may be more about how much we don't tell them than about how much we do tell them.

For example, the moment you mention something like 'a push for mandatory vaccination', most people immediately switch to 'oh, a crazy anti-vaxxer' and then they don't listen to anything else you say. The issue for us is whether there will be push for mandatory vaccination (well, we know there will, as always when they get a chance), but the issue for 'normal' people is whether mandatory vaccination is bad, which many of them think it isn't. So if you need to convey to them they're being enslaved on false premises and you mention mandatory vaccination, you fail to convey even the basic information about this lockdown being unnecessary, because once they put you in a certain category, all your information falls on deaf ears.

So I think when you post on social media for the ordinary people, the information needs to be kinda simplified and dumbed down and filtered so that they don't get triggered by some minor details into rejecting the whole thing. After all, we've seen plenty of examples of stupid reactions from FB posted here.

So I was trying to filter out what's really the essential information that's important, easy to prove, and non-controversial. I ended up with these three points:

1. COVID-19 is no worse than the flu.

2. People aren't dying any more than usual.

3. The lockdown does not 'save lives' like we've been told and isn't necessary at all.


The first two points are completely obvious even by looking at mainstream information with a clear head. The clear head is what people are lacking due to the media hysteria, but the facts are there. The two points are closely related, but I think separating them can simplify things if we focus on one at a time.

The third point is not that simple, but it's important, because "we have to do this to save lives" is an emotional argument that many people understandably fell for, and it needs to be dealt with delicately. If people feel like this is what it's about, then it's about care for other people and helping those who need it, and they need to understand that while that thought is good and right and important, it's not what's actually happening.

I will break down the points one by one.


COVID-19 is no worse than the flu

This viruscare couldn't work with just the ordinary flu. We've always had the flu and never turned the world into Palestine because of it. So the media must convince people that COVID-19 is much more dangerous. Fortunately for us, this is clearly not the case. So people need to be repeatedly faced with the facts and statistics. Here are some points that can be presented either together or each on its own:

• There are still more deaths from flu this year than from COVID-19 (though the gap is closing), even if we believe the official numbers for COVID-19. Why isn't anyone worried about the flu? What's so special about COVID-19?
• The reporting of COVID-19 deaths is being distorted by counting anyone with the virus as dying from it, no matter what other diseases they had. This has been admitted by government officials, and doctors in the US are being instructed by the CDC to list COVID-19 as the cause of death even when it is only assumed that it contributed, and we see the same going on in many other countries. This inflates the case fatality rate many times. It is not standard practice. It doesn't happen with the flu. It's only done with COVID-19. Cancer + flu = death from cancer. Cancer + COVID-19 = death from COVID-19. Why?
• It has been reported than in Italy only 12 per cent of death certificates of people counted in the COVID-19 death statistics have shown a direct causality from coronavirus. [link] This gives us some idea about how much the death rate is being inflated. The real death rate could be 8-10 times lower, which brings the CFR down in Italy to 1.2-1.6%, in the US to 0.3-0.4%, and in Germany to 0.2-0.25%. This is absolutely not a reason to lock down any country, much less almost all of them.
• Aside from inflating the death count, one thing we know for sure is that there are more cases of COVID-19 than just the confirmed ones from people who were tested. The CDC estimates that as much as 100 times more people have the flu every year than there are confirmed cases. That's a huge difference, and that's how the 0.1% CFR for the flu is calculated. The CFR for the flu from only confirmed cases (like it's done for COVID-19) is actually 10%, according to CDC's own data. If it's 10% for the flu and 4% for COVID-19 globally, there's a good reason to believe the death rate for COVID-19 is actually lower than for the flu, and that's not even considering the 8-10 times increased death rate reporting for COVID-19. We can't be sure how many times more cases of COVID-19 there are compared to the confirmed number, but it's extremely likely to be at least 2-3 times as much, and if the estimates are 100 times more for the flu, it's not unreasonable to expect it to be 10 times more for COVID-19, if not more. If that were the case, then we have a reported CFR of about 4% globally, which goes down to let's say 0.5% when considering how the counting of deaths is done, and that goes down to 0.05% if there are 10 times more infected than we know of. We don't know the exact numbers, but even 1% would definitely not be a reason for keeping everyone at home, and the reasonable estimate is that the real CFR is well under that 1%.
• As has been reported, the vast majority of people infected with COVID-19 experience mild or no symptoms. This shows that the virus isn't particularly dangerous or aggressive.
• As has been reported, 99% of the people who died in Italy had at least one underlying disease, 80% had at least two, and over 50% had three or more. Additionally, the average age of the deceased was over 80. These people would have died just as easily from the flu or any other infection, and most of them would have died soon even without any infection. There are almost no young and healthy victims of COVID-19, so again, this virus isn't any more dangerous than the flu, and there is no reason for the extreme measures that have been taken.
• We also know of at least two reasons why Italy, and Northern Italy in particular, has been affected more than other countries. One, Italy has the second oldest population in the world, so more people are vulnerable to a virus infection, and two, Northern Italy has lower air quality than most places, which is a significant factor for a disease that involves difficulty breathing. This is also the case for Wuhan. There is no reason to expect the same numbers to manifest everywhere. (And we have seen that only a fragment of these people actually died from COVID-19.)
• If you hear of a particular case of COVID-19 that sounds unusually bad, know that unusual cases also exist for the flu and everything else. There are always a few people who seem healthy and die from something that didn't look too deadly.

Summary:

We still haven't reached a point where COVID-19 deaths would overtake flu deaths for this year. By governments' own admission and countless reports, anybody dying with COVID-19 (often only assumed) is counted in the statistics as dying from COVID-19. This may inflate the number of deaths by a factor of 8-10. The people dying are almost exclusively old and sick. Almost no young or healthy people have died as a direct consequence of COVID-19. There are many more cases of COVID-19 than we know of. The vast majority of people haven't been tested. There may very well be 10 times as many cases as the confirmed ones (just like with any virus), including many people who have had the virus without even noticing. For most people, the symptoms are mild or even none at all. This means the actual case fatality rate is likely at least 10 times lower than currently reported, quite possibly 100 or more times lower, which, together with over-reporting deaths, means the measures taken by governments worldwide are completely out of proportion to the problem and absolutely unnecessary. All of this is easily available information, confirmed even by authorities even if not clearly and comprehensively, and can be easily checked.


People aren't dying any more than usual

The death rate of COVID-19 only seems high to people who have no idea about usual death rates.

• Even if we were to believe the numbers for COVID-19 deaths, these are still nothing special. Currently, 110,000 people have died with COVID-19 this year (though only a fragment of that died from it). 136,000 people have died from the flu this year. We also have 470,000 deaths caused by HIV/AIDS, 275,000 deaths caused by malaria, 700,000 deaths caused by alcohol, 2,300,000 deaths caused by cancer, and 300,000 suicides, as of April 12. COVID-19, even if we were to believe the numbers we are getting, is nothing special. You can check these numbers at Worldometer - real time world statistics
• People die every day. In fact, about 150,000-160,000 of them. COVID-19 hasn't globally killed that many in three months, even with the numbers being significantly inflated. All the deaths from COVID-19 so far are less that one day's worth of deaths on planet Earth. 27,000 people die only in China every day. That's some 1,125 every hour. So the 3,300 people who died with COVID-19 in China, that's how many people normally die in China in 3 hours. Is this a good enough reason to turn the whole planet into a police state with restricted movement and limited rights for all people?
• Long term statistics for total deaths in any particular region show that there are no more deaths this year than in previous years in any country. For the most affected countries, a rise in mortality can be seen for 2-3 particular weeks, but there are also other weeks when there were much fewer deaths than previous years, and when we look at a period of 2-3 months, there is no significant increase in deaths compared to previous years anywhere. You can check euromomo.eu for statistics for European countries. Comparisons with the Black Death are absurd. If the media weren't doing what they're doing, nobody would have noticed this 'pandemic'. (Also, if the media followed for example suicides the way they follow COVID-19, it could very well look like we're all about to commit suicide by the end of next month. Media focus completely distorts reality, since most people have incredibly poor awareness of things that are not in the media.)
• Since Italy is constantly being shown as the worst case, we may look at the statistics there. It's been reported that 167,000 people died in Italy during January-March 2020. Is that a lot? What do statistics for previous years show? According to demo.istat.it, 186,000 people died in that same period in 2019, 185,000 in 2018, and 192,000 in 2017. So Italy needs 20,000 more deaths to compare to previous years. Again, euromomo.eu shows that while there's a clear uptick in a period of a few weeks, overall the death rate is comparable to previous years. Statistics from around the world show similar trends.
• It may also be noted that while we have death rates for COVID-19 that we never had before due to this particular virus being 'new', death rates for other diseases, especially ones similar in symptoms to COVID-19, appear to be unusually low in various places. This is unsurprising when people dying with for example pneumonia, who would normally be counted in the pneumonia statistics, are almost exclusively counted in COVID-19 statistics this year. Sadly, even people with heart-attacks are being counted in the COVID-19 statistics, which is illogical, only serves to increase fear, and distorts our understanding of the situation we're dealing with. There's no increase in overall deaths. There is only a shift in ascribing a portion of them to COVID-19, often quite illogically.

Summary:

Any notion that an unusual number of people are dying of COVID-19 can only exist on condition of complete ignorance of numbers of people dying from other causes and of people dying in general. There is no change in overall mortality worldwide compared to previous years. 150,000-160,000 people die every day - more than have died with COVID-19 since the beginning of the 'pandemic'. If 6,000 people die with COVID-19 globally in one day, it's only about 4% of total deaths on that day. (Compare to 15% for cancer and 33% for cardiovascular diseases. And again, the vast majority of the 4% did not even die from COVID-19.) In China, over 1,000 people die every hour, so 3,000 dead with COVID-19 doesn't even register in overall statistics. 650,000 people per year die from seasonal flu. The COVID-19 'pandemic' would never be noticed by most people if the media didn't sensationalise it 24/7. There is absolutely no reason to close schools, make everybody stay home, avoid approaching other people, and wear masks like we're in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where the air itself could kill us any minute.


The lockdown does not 'save lives' like we've been told and isn't necessary at all

We've been told that we must close schools and all non-essential businesses, stay at home, and avoid one another in order to 'save lives'. But is this really true? Does it make any sense? Are we saving any lives?

• People who are old and sick are dying during the lockdown anyway, so it doesn't seem like they're being saved.
• People who are not old or sick are clearly in no more danger from COVID-19 than from the flu, so they don't need saving from anything.
• Countries like Sweden and Belarus show that without quarantine and without lockdown, their rates of infection and fatality rates aren't any different from other countries. This shows that the lockdown and quarantine are doing nothing to prevent the virus from spreading and nothing to save anybody's life.
• Measures introduced by governments vary from country to country, and according to many experts, aren't particularly helpful anyway. The 2m distance is completely arbitrary and does a lot more in terms of harassing people than protecting anybody. Wearing masks when people aren't trained in how to do it properly is not only pretty pointless, but can actually make things worse.
The strategy taken isn't even aimed at 'saving lives'. It's aimed at slowing the virus down so that hospitals don't get overloaded. But we've seen that almost all hospitals everywhere have fewer patients than usual and less work. Most of the population will get infected sooner or later anyway - nobody who's even remotely honest is denying that. So the people who are weak enough to succumb to COVID-19 now, will be just as vulnerable later. Their lives are not being saved. Their deaths are just being slightly postponed at massive costs.
• Due to complete focus on COVID-19, patients with all other health problems are being relegated to lower priority, even though most hospitals are empty. This inevitably results in deaths due to lack of medical attention. So whether or not the lockdown is saving anyone, it is also killing people. It is also clear by now that many COVID-19 patients are being given the wrong treatment and die as a result of that. This is partly because doctors are being given guidelines to follow instead of using their own judgement, and the guidelines were written with incomplete understanding of what we're dealing with and pushed onto everyone.
• The lockdown has resulted in many deaths due to increased alcoholism, domestic violence, homicides by people who are losing their mind being locked at home, suicides of people who have lost their jobs or businesses, and so on. And this is only the beginning. It is unclear whether the lockdown is saving any lives at all, but it is clear it's taking many.
• We all know the economy will suffer massive damage. But people say, "Who cares about money? Lives are more important!" But the economy is not just about money. As has been written, economies are actually made of real people. The quality of their lives will decrease in many ways, children will suffer, and people will die because of this. Thinking that failing economy is only about money and not people's lives is like thinking that decreasing quality of roads is only about damage to cars and not people's lives. And while a virus is killing the old and sick, i.e. those who were at great risk of dying by any cause in the first place, the economic destruction will kill the young and healthy just as much as the old and sick. Why are people so convinced this is a trade we 'have to' make?

Summary:

The lockdown could possibly be efficient if the virus could be stopped completely and most people prevented from ever being infected. But even the authorities agree that we won't get rid of the virus and it's probably here to stay with us, like the flu. So whom exactly are we saving? And how? Stopping the virus isn't even the goal, so talking about 'saving lives' is just a trick to get people to accept totalitarian measures. The old and sick people who are likely to be killed by a virus are dying under lockdown anyway, and young or healthy people benefit in no way from the lockdown. On the contrary, the lockdown is resulting in many deaths due to alcoholism, domestic violence, suicides, etc. Sooner or later, most of us will get infected anyway, and the weak will die regardless of measures taken by the governments. Sweden and Belarus have refused to lock their respective populations at home, and yet neither the infection rate nor death toll in those countries are any different from other countries. There is no evidence that this lockdown is saving any lives. It is, however, taking many, and its consequences will be long-lasting, resulting in even more deaths.


Do not accept the 'new normal'

One extra point I would make is about this insidious 'new normal' crap.

The talk about the 'new normal' is conditioning people to accept their limited freedoms and a police state as 'normal', like after 9/11 in the US. There is no need to limit anybody's freedom. There is no need to stay home. There is no need to keep a distance from other people. There is no need to wear a mask if you're not sick. Nobody is in more danger than they were last year, at least not from a virus. The only danger are the governments taking away your rights and limiting your freedom. Do not accept the so-called 'new normal'. There is nothing normal about it. Fight for your right to go wherever you want and to socialise with as many people as you want. Approach other people without irrational fear. They are not dangerous. Governments taking away your rights are dangerous. They are the enemy, not the people around you. Those are just like you. If you don't believe you are a danger to them, you shouldn't believe they are a danger to you. We are all the same, and we all got tricked by the same criminals into avoiding one another. That has to stop, and the criminals have to be held accountable for all the damage, physical and psychological, that they have caused.




OK, I think that's it. Rather than writing an article and preaching to the choir on Sott, I wanted to break things down to simple, easily understandable points that can be shared one at a time or a few together, whatever any opportunity calls for, with people who don't quite 'get it'. I have zero presence on social media, so this is for those of you here who do and who may not be able to put the things they feel into words as well as they would like, or just don't have the time to dedicate to that.

I tried to identify key points that I think we can focus on and make people understand without getting into anything too controversial. The summaries are supposed to provide a short text for each point that can be used when you don't expect the people you're talking to to read anything longer. You can modify any of this any way you want. These are just my ideas from my limited perspective and could certainly be improved and expanded upon. Particularly I think there's much more to point 3 than I was able to put together right now.

The bullet points may be useful on their own, or they may serve you as reminders of all the information that's available to you. Just do with this whatever you want. If you find that something I've written is not quite accurate, feel free to correct it and post it here for others.

Sorry to make this thread longer than it already is. I know well how hard it is to catch up with it every day. I can barely manage myself. Then again, this is kind of what we've all been waiting for. This is our war, and we all have out roles to play. Things are finally starting to get really interesting, so enjoy the madness.
 
I posted this on social media:

Thought experiment. Imagine you were told that if you keep using your car, within the next couple of years you would have a high probability (lets be super generous and say 70%) of being involved in a 'traffic incident'. However, if you were, there would be an 80% chance that such an incident would be so insignificant that you would not even notice. For example, your tire might hit the curb lightly, or the car behind you might bump into yours softly and without damage.

Suppose that if you did have such an incident and it was noticeable (20% of incidents), there would be a 2% chance that you or anyone involved (like family members riding with you) would die. That is, even if you crashed and there would be damage to the car needing repair, 98% of the times all people involved would survive. According to my calculations, that means that overall, if you kept using your car, there would be a 0.0028% probability that someone would die within the next couple of years - either you, a family member, or a stranger involved in the incident. That means, 99.9972% chance that no one will die.

Of course, considering the overall population, that means that we can expect that 0.0028% would indeed die in a traffic incident within the next couple of years, whether you are personally involved in any or not. Suppose that you live in a city of a million people, then that means that 28 people will die in a traffic incident within the next couple of years.

Now here's the question. Knowing these figures, would you quit using your car or would you simply drive more carefully? Should the government ban cars altogether or should it improve laws and regulations to make car driving safer?

Because most of you are quite happy 'quitting your cars', and most governments are quite happy 'banning cars' nowadays.
 
It does seem that, despite the many, many people raising the points about the absurdity of the lockdown, many more are being captured by the propaganda and turned into lemmings. It's the damndest thing I've ever witnessed.

Authoritarian Followers! Sheesh! We knew about it, but we never thought it was this bad!

In fact, I doubt that if I have seen that in a movie that I would have believe that it could really happen in real life.
 
I'm way behind on this thread, but I thought I would post the new directive, by our Health Minister this morning...

“It’s more and more [unlikely] that we’re going to be able to get back to full normal life — which I miss a lot — before at least the summer, and then we need to start preparing ourselves for the potential of a second wave in the fall,” she said.

The above is pretty interesting since an internal document from the german government has been leaked too in which exactly the same script has been proposed. So it very much looks like many governments received a similar script from certain „experts“ on how to exactly to handle the situation and how the future scenarios are supposed to look like. One wonders though who exactly those „experts“ are that are advising governments how to act?

See the german „leak“ here:

A document has been published in Germany - internal instructions. Testimony from a psychopathic government

I read this through with all the probabilities, statistics and the worst point for me is point 4.


4. Conclusions for action and open communication
4 a. Clarify worst case!
We have to get away from communication centered on the case mortality rate. When the mortality rate, which sounds insignificant in percentage terms, and which mainly affects the elderly, many then think subconsciously and admittedly: «Well, we can get rid of the elderly who are pulling our economy down, we are already too many on earth anyway , and with a little luck I inherit a little earlier ». These mechanisms have certainly played down the epidemic in the past. In order to achieve the desired shock effect, the concrete effects of a screening on human society must be clarified:
1) Many seriously ill people are brought to the hospital by their relatives but are refused, and die painfully at home struggling for air. Choking or not getting enough air is a primal fear for everyone. The situation in which there is nothing you can do to help relatives who are in danger of life is also the same. The pictures from Italy are disturbing.

2) "Children will hardly suffer from the epidemic": Wrong. Children will get infected easily, even with exit restrictions, e.g. with the neighboring children. Then when they infect their parents and one of them dies painfully at home and they feel guilty because, e.g. forgot to wash your hands after playing, it's the most terrible thing a child can ever experience

3) Consequential damage: Even if we only have reports on individual cases so far, they paint an alarming picture. Even those who seem to have healed after a mild course can apparently experience relapses at any time, which then suddenly end in death, due to cardiac infarction or lung failure, because the virus has found its way into the lungs or heart unnoticed. These may be isolated cases, but will always hover over those who have been infected like a sword of Damocles. A much more common consequence is fatigue and reduced lung capacity for months and probably years, as has been reported many times by SARS survivors and is now the case with COVID-19, although the duration cannot, of course, be estimated

In addition, historical arguments should also be used, according to the mathematical formula: 2019 = 1919 + 1929
One only has to illustrate the figures shown above with regard to the assumed mortality rate (more than 1% with optimal health care, i.e. well over 3% due to overloading with infection), compared to 2% with the Spanish flu, and with regard to the expected economic crisis in the event of containment failure, then this formula will make sense to everyone.
 
Back
Top Bottom