Cities AND countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit 5G installation as well as issue moratoriums due to severe health and safety warnings (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10. 11, 12). In fact, the majority of scientists worldwide oppose deployment until studies prove it’s safe. Of course, proving it’s safe is unlikely to happen any time soon since there are already studies that prove it’s NOT SAFE.
Opposition to 5G is worldwide. Many in Australia have been protesting deployment and continue to do so. One municipal council has agreed to conduct a safety investigation because of this.
DESPITE their admitted lack of the required scientific expertise, Mornington Peninsula Shire officers have been ordered to investigate alleged health issues surrounding the 5G telecommunications network.
The councillors’ decision to investigate what is essentially a federal government responsibility was made in response to 700-signature petition expressing concerns that the introduction of the 5G technology could endanger health.
Fears of health risks from 5G have sparked street protests in Australia, including Melbourne, where marches have often been combined with those opposing vaccines.
Donald Trump has repeated a claim that the coronavirus is going to “just disappear”, a day after the United States announced a record number of new cases.
“I think we’re gonna be very good with the coronavirus. I think that at some point that’s going to, sort of, just disappear — I hope,” Mr Trump told Fox Business on Wednesday.
The president’s comments come as more than 48,000 coronavirus cases were announced across the country on Tuesday, the highest daily number since the pandemic began.
On the same day, eight states reported single-day highs: Alaska, Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.
It is not the first time Mr Trump has made the claim that the virus will vanish on its own, contradicting his own expert advisors. Speaking in February, when just over a dozen cases had been confirmed on US soil, Mr Trump said the virus was “going to disappear.”
“One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear,” he said at a reception in the White House.
Then, and now, public health officials said the opposite. Dr Anthony Fauci, the country’s top infectious diseases expert and a key member of the White House coronavirus task force, told Congress on Tuesday that the US could soon witness 100,000 new cases a day.
“I can’t make an accurate prediction but it’s going to be very disturbing,” Dr Fauci told senators in a hearing held by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. “We are now having 40-plus-thousand new cases a day. I would not be surprised if we go up to 100,000 a day if this does not turn around, and so I am very concerned.”
Mr Trump also praised the economy, despite the country entering a recession in February and with around 13 per cent of the country unemployed.
“Retail sales are at a record number, especially when you talk about increase. When you look at percentage increase nobody has ever seen anything like it,” Mr Trump said.
These are daunting figures and serious problems. But in some ways, they are not the worst part of the story. The United States, after all, is an incredibly wealthy nation. The vast majority of the poorest among us are still relatively well off from a material perspective, with access to shelter, running water, food, and other amenities and forms of assistance. It’s a fact often unspoken that the poorest counties in the US struggle with obesity.
Obesity is a serious matter, but many parts of the world struggle with a more severe form of malnutrition: hunger. Sadly, many of the most economically depressed parts of the world stand to see tens of millions of more people slip into extreme poverty, a new World Bank study says.
“Poverty projections suggest that the social and economic impacts of the crisis are likely to be quite significant,” the report states. “Estimates based on growth projections from the June 2020 Global Economic Prospects report show that, when compared with pre-crisis forecasts, COVID-19 could push 71 million people into extreme poverty in 2020 under the baseline scenario and 100 million under the downside scenario.”
Most of the increase will occur in places already suffering from high poverty and hunger. Projections show that roughly half of the individuals falling into extreme poverty—which the World Bank defines as “living on $1.25 or less a day”—live in South Asia, while more than a third come from Sub-Saharan Africa.
South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa already are the poorest regions in the world. In fact, a separate World Bank report shows that the five most populous countries in these regions—India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh—account for half of the world’s extreme poor.
The new figures are even worse than a previous World Bank analysis, published in April, that projected the COVID-19 crisis would push about 50 million people into extreme poverty.
Whether the total ends up being 50 million or 100 million, the surge in extreme global poverty would be the first increase since 1998.
Some might argue 100 million people pushed into extreme poverty is simply collateral damage in the greater war against COVID-19. Pandemics are not wars, however. They can’t be defeated, only endured and, at best, mitigated.
The World Bank is careful to say the economic fallout stems from the “COVID crisis,” but that’s a bit euphemistic. The economic fallout stems primarily from the global reaction to COVID—mass economic lockdowns—not the virus itself.
We know this because we can compare the economic carnage to past pandemics. Via Ryan McMaken at Mises Wire:
Specifically, we can look to the pandemic of 1957–58, which was more deadly than the COVID-19 pandemic has been so far. We can also look to the 1918–19 pandemic. Yet we will see that neither produced economic damage on a scale we now see as a result of the government-mandated lockdowns.
This thoroughly undermines the claims that the lockdowns are only a minor factor in economic destruction, and that the virus itself is the real culprit.
The CDC estimates that as of May 18 this year approximately ninety thousand Americans have died of COVID-19. Adjusted for population size, that comes out to a mortality rate of 272 per million. This is (so far) less than half the mortality rate for the 1957–58 flu pandemic. In that pandemic, it is estimated that as many as 116,000 Americans died. Yet, the US population was much smaller then, totaling only 175 million. Adjusted for population size, mortality as a result of the “Asian flu” pandemic of 1957–58 was more than 660 per million.
That’s the equivalent of 220,000 deaths in the United States today.
Yet, Americans in 1957 did not respond by shutting down commerce, forcing people into “lockdown,” or driving unemployment up to Depression-era levels. In fact, reports show that Americans took little action beyond the usual measures involved in trying to slow the spread of disease: hand washing, staying home when ill, etc.
Despite the large numbers of cases, the 1957 outbreak did not appear to have a significant impact on the U.S. economy. For example, a Congressional Budget Office estimate found that a pandemic the scale of which occurred in 1957 would reduce real GDP by approximately 1% ‘but probably would not cause a recession and might not be distinguishable from the normal variation in economic activity.’
The Spanish Flu offers a similar scenario. The deadliest pandemic of the 20th century “left almost no discernible mark on the aggregate US economy,” write economists Efraim Benmelech and Carola Frydman. “According to some estimates, real gross national product actually grew in 1919.”
The economic costs of the lockdowns are relevant considering there is widespread discussion as to whether the US should once again close its economy in light of recent increases COVID cases, even though deaths continue to decline and evidence suggests COVID-19 is weakening.
There is certainly room to debate the effectiveness of lockdowns, but while doing so we should not ignore lockdown costs—economic and psychological, both of which carry severe ramifications for human beings.
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results,” the economist Milton Friedman famously said.
If the first round of lockdowns ends up thrusting 100 million people into extreme poverty, that is a cost too severe to ignore—whatever the intentions of those enforcing them.
The big bad and evil billionaires stole your money when you were not looking. They came in to your home in right front of your eyes and took your cash disguised as virus. They knew the virus was coming and they all resigned at the beginning of 2020 to execute their plan to seize your life savings, your retirement funds and that of kids. Really you say?
Before the stock market Armageddon they sold their stock in the companies using this insider trading knowledge. More than 500 billion! You will never see that again. Oh they also received billions in grants from the government while you got a thousand bucks! Go figure I say.
Amazon’s business went up while your bakery folded or lost bucket loads of cash and now you are struggling or out of business because your shop was not critical. Why is that? But wait there’s more. This was not the first time. He. He. He. They have been doing it for decades. Oh if you want to join the club it will only cost your – SOUL – Because they are all Luciferians. Do your research.
As a bonus I found this from here. We Are Witnessing A Nightmarish Technocratic Reengineering Of Our Lives Under The Guise Of COVID-19
New research provides some initial evidence that certain antagonistic personality traits are associated with ignoring preventative measures meant to halt the spread of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.
“On March 31, 2020, Dr. Deborah Birx, the coordinator of the U.S. government’s Coronavirus Task Force, said, ‘There’s no magic bullet. There’s no magic vaccine or therapy. It’s just behaviors. Each of our behaviors, translating into something that changes the course of this viral pandemic over the next 30 days.’ My experience as a psychological scientist as well as a practicing psychologist has convinced me that the importance of psychology and behavior in the prevention and management of a wide range of health problems is enormous,” said study author Pavel S. Blagov, an associate professor and director of the Personality Laboratory at Whitman College.
Stanford professor John Ioannidis published an overview of Covid-19 antibody studies. According to his analysis, the lethality of Covid19 (IFR) is below 0.16% in most countries and regions. Ioannidis found an upper limit of 0.40% for three hotspots.
In its latest report, the US health authority CDC reduced the Covid19 lethality (IFR) to 0.26% (best estimate). Even this value may still be seen as an upper limit, since the CDC conservatively assumes 35% asymptomatic cases, while most studies indicate 50 to 80% asymptomatic cases.
At the end of May, however, Swiss immunologists led by Professor Onur Boyman published what is probably the most important study on Covid19 lethality to date. This preprint study comes to the conclusion that the usual antibody tests that measure antibodies in the blood (IgG and IgM) can recognize at most one fifth of all Covid19 infections.
The reason for this discrepancy is that in most people the new coronavirus is already neutralized by antibodies on the mucous membrane (IgA) or by cellular immunity (T-cells). In most of these cases, no symptoms or only mild symptoms develop.
This means that the new coronavirus is probably much more common than previously thought and the lethality per infection is up to five times lower than previously assumed. The real lethality could thus be well below 0.1% and hence in the range of strong seasonal influenza.
In fact, several studies have now shown that up to 60% of all people already have a certain cellular immunity to Covid-19, which was acquired through contact with previous coronaviruses (common cold viruses). Children in particular often come into contact with such coronaviruses, which could help explain their insensitivity to Covid19.
The new Swiss study may also explain why antibody studies even in hotspots like New York or Madrid found infection rates of at most about 20%, as this would correspond to an actual rate of nearly 100%. In many regions, the actual prevalence might already be well over 50% and thus in the range of herd immunity.
Should the Swiss study be confirmed, the assessment of Oxford epidemiologist Prof. Sunetra Gupta would apply, who predicted early on that Covid-19 is very widespread and its lethality below 0.1%.
Despite the comparatively low lethality of Covid-19 (deaths per infection), the mortality (deaths per population) can still be increased regionally and in the short term if the virus spreads rapidly and reaches high risk groups, especially patients in nursing homes, as indeed happened in several hotspots (see below).
Due to its rather low lethality, Covid-19 falls at most into level 2 of the five-level pandemic plan developed by US health authorities. For this level, only the “voluntary isolation of sick people” is to be applied, while further measures such as face masks, school closings, distance rules, contact tracing, vaccinations and lockdowns of entire societies are not recommended.
Regarding contact tracing, a WHO study on influenza pandemics from 2019 also came to the conclusion that from a medical point of view this is “under no circumstances recommended”, since it is not expedient for easily communicable and generally mild respiratory diseases.
It is sometimes argued that the rather low lethality was not known at the beginning of the pandemic. This is not entirely true, as data from South Korea, the cruise ships and even from Italy already showed in March that the risk to the general population is rather low.
Many health authorities also knew this, as leaked emails from Denmark in mid-March show: “The Danish Health Authority continues to consider that Covid-19 cannot be described as a generally dangerous disease, as it does not have either a usually serious course or a high mortality rate.”
Some media nevertheless continue to calculate an allegedly much higher Covid19 lethality rate of sometimes over 1% by simply dividing deaths by “infections”, without taking into account the age and risk distribution, which is absolutely crucial especially for Covid19.
The latest data from the European mortality monitoring Euromomo shows that several countries such as France, Italy and Spain are already entering a below-average mortality. The reason for this is that the average age of Covid19 deaths was very high and fewer people than usual are now dying in this age group.
Nursing homes played an absolute key role in the Covid 19 pandemic. In most countries, one to two thirds of all Covid19 deaths occurred in nursing homes, and up to 80% in Canada and some US states. Even in Sweden, which did not impose a lockdown, 75% of deaths occurred in nursing facilities.
It is all the more worrying that some authorities have obliged their nursing homes to admit Covid patients from the clinics, which has almost always resulted in numerous new infections and deaths. This happened in northern Italy, England and the heavily affected US states of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
It is also known from northern Italy that the widespread fear of the virus and the announced lockdown of the country led to the flight of the predominantly Eastern European nurses, which further accelerated the breakdown of elderly care.
In the United States, at least 42% of all Covid19 deaths are accounted for by 0.6% of the population living in nursing homes. Nursing homes require targeted protection and do not benefit from a general lockdown of society as a whole.
It is well known that even common corona viruses (cold viruses) can be very dangerous for people in nursing homes. Stanford professor John Ioannidis pointed out already in mid-March that coronaviruses may have a case mortality rate of up to 8% in nursing homes.
In addition, it is often not clear whether these people really died from Covid-19 or from weeks of stress and total isolation. For example, there were approximately 30,000 additional deaths in English nursing homes, but in only 10,000 cases, Covid19 is noted on the death certificate.
The second central factor regarding infections and deaths, in addition to the nursing homes, are the hospitals themselves. A case study in Wuhan already showed that around 41% of hospitalized Covid patients had in fact contracted Covid in the hospital itself.
Contagion in hospitals also played a decisive role in northern Italy, Spain, England and other regions that were severely affected, meaning that the clinics themselves became the main place of transmission of Covid19 to already weakened people (so-called nosocomial infection) – an issue that had already been observed during the SARS outbreak from 2003.
Based on current knowledge, those countries that managed to avoid outbreaks of infection in nursing homes and hospitals had comparatively few deaths. The general lockdown of society, however, played no role or even a counterproductive role (see below).
An additional factor is the sometimes fatal medical mistreatment of Covid patients with aggressive drugs or invasive ventilation, the risks of which experts have been warning about for months. In the US, for example, there have been questionable financial incentives to connect Covid patients to ventilators, a practice that is now being investigated in several states.
Yes it is true the virus has political persuasion. It hates capitalism and wants to indoctrinate you with all kinds ideologies. Who could possibly created such an advanced A.I like bio-entity. Could George Soros be behind it? Perhaps but I think we have nailed that down to Billy G because he already patented a solution 5 years ago. (He called it – with his own words – the final solution)
I once read a very popular series where a virus infected both machines and people. Could the the founder of Microsoft who knows about virus (as windows is one) have created something like this?
Why do all of these wonderful people like George invest pharmaceuticals? (that have roundup in their products – true but hard to believe) Also all of these billionaires have close link to…you guessed it Wuhan. Oh and the Chinese Communist Party is somehow linked to the virus as are a good many big pharma companies – seems like all roads lead to Wuhan.
What has Greta Thunberg go to do with Covid-19? Probably nothing but perhaps…
The coronavirus pandemic has re-introduced the conversation around mandatory vaccinations and, believing that their civil liberties are at stake, many have taken to social media to discuss the matter and their fears about it. But there are also large groups of people that are spending hours each day to flag anti-vaccine content on social media platforms and they’re about to organize.
With the pandemic and lockdowns having had a large effect across the world, governments as well as pharmaceutical companies are now ramping up their efforts to develop a vaccine at the soonest.
That being said, a recent survey found that 7 in 10 people worry about the safety of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Mandating that people must get inoculated with “new” vaccines is (still) pretty much a no-go in any semi-decent democracy. So what else can be done? Maybe convincing people to take part of their own volition?
The ocean is coming in and you cannot resist. You will drown. But the pools are closed so I can’t practice!
China is locking down again!
Are we next?
Update: Yes the Australian media is now saying that Victoria is on the verge a of second wave after the…wait for it….mass protests! Meanwhile unemployment rises to 7% and it will get much worse – perhaps 10%. All for something that is not a pandemic and basically a flu. Originally I predicted this news on the 19th April 2020. How is it possible that someone like me could do that? I wonder?