Here's how it works. Government spreads fear and misinformation. Media parrots same, unquestioningly. Public largely believes media. Government finds solution; a vaccine. Don't worry, they won't be mandatory, but... we know how this story ends, don't we?
As the entire Covid saga has proven to be hugely divisive, it is possible you are part of the cohort that doesn't believe this scenario. Government would never do that and the media are trained journalists who investigate and report; plus, those who won't take the vaccine are either selfish, anti-vaxxers or a combination of the two. I exaggerate, but not excessively.
Fortunately, thanks to some civic minded folks over at Big Pharma, we now have numerous vaccines, produced in record time. Experimental vaccines, unlicensed vaccines, vaccines made by companies with no legal liability for bad outcomes, but vaccines nonetheless. Let's not quibble; it's ungrateful.
So the mantra is, we must take the vaccine. It's the right thing to do. We owe it to people not to be selfish. But, it's not mandatory. It's just that those who initially refuse to take it will be won over by the Establishment's reasoning; because, without exception, they were too stupid to realize why they should do it first time around.
But how will we know they have been vaccinated? We'll need some kind of proof, because people can't be trusted. What about a vaccine passport?
Given that the narrative, from very early on, has been that this pandemic has been so severe that measures never before deemed necessary have been deployed across much of the globe and that only a vaccine could release us from the resulting purgatory, it doesn't seems unreasonable to examine said narrative and check for logical fallacies. Or, to put it another way, are we being conned? Because extraordinary measures require extraordinary times in order to invoke them.
Perhaps some historical perspective would help; a little context. After all, there is a tendency to think that whatever is happening now is the best or worst thing ever. In addition to the Spanish flu of 1918-20, there have been three viral pandemics in the past century. In chronological order, the Asian Flu of 1956-58, the Hong Kong Flu of 1968-69 and the Swine Flu outbreak of 2009-10.
You'll notice that the word 'flu' features prominently and whilst the various strains of the flu and of coronaviruses are separate entities, they are both types of viruses that cause respiratory infections. The Spanish flu was the most devastating, killing perhaps 50-100 million people, affecting young healthy adults most of all. The Hong Kong variant – a mixture of two strains, one of which was the H1N1, the Spanish flu type – killed an estimated 1 million people worldwide, with a case fatality rate of approximately 0.5%.
The Asian flu (H2N2) was in circulation for over two years, killing between 2-4 million people, disproportionately the elderly and vulnerable, and most closely resembles the current pandemic in terms of alleged outcomes. And finally, the Swine Flu of 2009. It may be that you remember that pandemic; or perhaps not. This was flu variant H1N1 again, but a mild version thereof. It is believed that around 285,000 people died from this outbreak and older people were not disproportionately afflicted.
Incidentally, the Spanish Flu achieved herd immunity, something about which we have heard much in the past year. But instead of needing 70/80/90% of the population to be infected, herd immunity was achieved once approximately 33% had been afflicted. And what about the Hong Kong Flu and the Asian Flu? The Hong Kong Flu is still with us, as a virulent part of the seasonal flu and the Asian Flu morphed into a part of the regular flu also, having gone extinct in the wild in 1968.(1)
How does Covid compare? Well, the numbers are important, especially if we are conducting policy on the back of them. So, a few key numbers to contemplate. At the present moment, the number of people said to have been killed by Covid 19 is approximately 2.8 million (2). The case fatality rate in the US is estimated to be 0.6% (3); worldwide, around 0.27%, give or take.(4)
World population is around 7.9 billion. If we were to believe the numbers, (which would be a prodigious leap of faith, but no more than for previous pandemics), Covid has killed 0.035% of the world's population. The Spanish flu apparently killed between 3-6% of world population and it is estimated that about a third of the world's population was infected.
The average age of a person allegedly dying from Covid is at least that of average life expectancy; in October 2020, the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine gave it as 82.4 years. The Centre for Disease Control explains that fatalities also have an average of 2.6 co-morbidities.
The Covid numbers are a mixed bag, to say the least. For example, most of the West has eschewed treatments, for reasons that will be expounded upon in a future article, whereas much of the rest of the world has not. Some unevenness is inevitable, for that reason alone. Nonetheless, the numbers are unexceptional. Covid is undoubtedly a pandemic, inasmuch as it has spread around the world, but it is a pale shadow of the Spanish Flu.
So, what information can we glean from these past pandemics that will provide guidance in the present? Well, we've been in this position before, several times, and usually emerged relatively unscathed. Viruses die out or become milder in their effect. Also, when you eliminate the white noise and look at the facts, it is difficult to see what all the fuss is about. Let's have a look at the vaccines next.
First of all, that word 'vaccine'. The professionals have the following definition; “Ideally, you want an antiviral vaccine to do two things . . . first, reduce the likelihood you will get severely ill and go to the hospital, and two, prevent infection and therefore interrupt disease transmission.”(5) The second part of this definition bears a close resemblance to a lay person's understanding, which is that vaccines prevent us from getting the disease we are being vaccinated against.
So, is that what these vaccines do?
“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”(6)
It turns out that all the studies just attempted to measure the efficacy of their vaccines against mild infections, as indicated by a PCR test. Given the time constraints (because of the urgency of the situation, you understand) the studies were not big enough and waiting for serious outcomes was not possible, because serious outcomes are rare. (7). They actually said that with no appreciation of the inherent irony.
All Covid vaccine trials have also excluded immune-compromised people and pregnant or breastfeeding women. Only two include children under 18 and elderly people are under-represented.(8) So, are Moderna and the others justified in thinking that the vaccine will work on those most at risk?
Well, they believe that if the vaccine can be shown to reduce symptomatic Covid in the trials, it will reduce severe symptoms, too. They base this belief on the history of influenza vaccines, claiming a similar effect. But the truth is that the science remains far from clear cut, even for influenza vaccines that have been used for decades. Although randomized trials have shown an effect in reducing the risk of symptomatic influenza, such trials have never been conducted in elderly people living in the community to see whether they save lives.
Only two placebo controlled trials in this population have ever been conducted, and neither was designed to detect any difference in hospital admissions or deaths. Moreover, dramatic increases in the use of influenza vaccines has not been associated with a decline in mortality.(9) In an outbreak of candor, Moderna CMO Tal Zaks said “Our trial will not demonstrate prevention of transmission, because in order to do that you have to swab people twice a week for very long periods, and that becomes operationally untenable.”(10)
So what we have are 'vaccines' that don't meet the definition of vaccines. They have not been demonstrated to prevent infection, or transmissibility. Nor have they been demonstrated to prevent mild infection from becoming serious.
Some questions are in order; quite a lot of them, actually. Firstly, why would a vast chunk of the population, at miniscule risk of a serious or deadly outcome, take such a vaccine? More specifically, why on earth would young healthy people vaccinate? Why would anyone who has had Covid vaccinate? Why would healthy people of any age vaccinate? Particularly when, according to the CDC itself, there have been more deaths related to vaccines (i.e. Covid vaccines) in the first three months of 2021 than there were in the preceding decade.(11)
Are these vaccines that are proven to aid those who are frail, elderly, with co-morbidities? Emphatically not. Instead, these are vaccines that have been designed to help those least at risk.
So far, we have a pandemic that is not as serious as we are being told and vaccines that are not vaccines. But, let's suspend disbelief and get back on track.
We all need to take the vaccines. But, how will people know that we've taken the vaccine? How will we, the people, prove that we are socially responsible/brainwashed? It would be foolish to trust people to tell the truth; the authorities will need verification. 'Authorities', in this context, will be seen to include a broad spectrum of people and organisations not traditionally associated with the word; like airlines, cinemas, bus companies, private entities as well as public.
Well, have you ever heard of the Covid 19 Credentials Initiative? Their mission is “bringing emerging privacy protecting technology to a public health crisis”.(12) They plan to do this with something called VC – Verifiable Credentials. This apparently protects your privacy because there is no need for direct contact between the issuer and the verifier. How this actually protects your privacy when the same information is exchanged in any event and all three parties finish up knowing the information, is beyond me.
How about Common Pass, strap-line “There is an urgent need for a harmonized, interoperable approach to safe border reopening based on global standards”?(13) Apparently. And then there's the ID2020 Alliance and GSM Inclusive Tech Lab, which aim to bring digital identities to billions of people including biometric data – guess where they're going to start?
Or Health Pass by CLEAR? As Axios helpfully explains, “before businesses can effectively reopen, workers and customers need to be assured that they're unlikely to encounter coronavirus infections. Linking COVID-19 to IDs could make that easier, but to be fully effective, it requires a more vigorous and reliable testing regimen, as well as public acceptance of a new level of tech-enabled health surveillance.”(14)
There are obvious problems with a paper passport – it might get damaged or lost. A plastic card would be better. Or how about an online one? That'll be secure and you can access it with your 'phone. But what about older people who might struggle with technology? Or the large subset of the global population who still don't have cellphones?
Perhaps, there is a further step we could take – to ensure that our data is always available. In this context, it's worth noting that ID2020 is Bill Gates' baby (his name seems to crop up frequently in the medical and climate fields, which is odd for a computer programmer) and Gates has repeatedly talked about the 'need' for some sort of implantable vaccine certificate. I'm not joking.
Of course, the international version of the passport is a given. Governments will say that they can't interfere with the demands of other sovereign nations. And, initially at least, a negative test will also suffice. But the domestic version is a different animal and much more than just a passport to fly.
It's a shame that nobody is asking what difference a vaccine passport would make. The vaccine will not stop the recipient getting the disease – as already noted, it is supposed to reduce symptoms. Reduce them enough to prevent transmission? Not designed that way and nobody knows. So, if it reduces symptoms, even to nothing, will that stop transmission? Not according to the orthodoxy; apparently, you can still be infectious even if asymptomatic. And if your symptoms are reduced to such an extent that you don't even know you have the disease, but you're still infectious, you won't be sitting at home, quarantining, which you would have been doing if you'd felt ill. Perhaps this is why we are still supposed to wear masks, even if vaccinated.
So what use is a vaccine passport? Why all the sanctimony about it being your duty to take the vaccine? To save lives, when it is not designed to save anyone's life except, possibly, your own? If someone chooses not to vaccinate, they are not a risk to anyone who has. It's their own health they're risking and it's their right to do so. However, the public is on board with shaming alleged anti-vaxxers, unable to follow the logic and not bothering to work out the difference between people who oppose all vaccines and those who oppose these vaccines. Any nuanced position is not allowed.
It's meant to feel as if these things are happening in real time, but they're not. The push to trace people has been with us for nearly a year now, back when vaccines seemed years away. Then it was called National Covid Testing Action Plan – Strategic Steps to Reopen our Workplaces and our Communities and was released by the Rockefeller Foundation, renowned for its libertarian instincts. The following phrases were contained within;” workforce monitoring...digital technologies...some privacy concerns must be set aside...” - you get the gist.
Governments know that they are on treacherous ground if they are the ones to advocate vaccine passports. They don't want to be the ones who use the word 'mandatory'. But if private business were to lead the charge, well, that's different. Now they can work with private industry to find a solution and it won't appear as if they are responsible. You will note that, at no point will government tell industry that it is against citizens' rights to require them to vaccinate before using a service. It will be as if private businesses are exempted from any requirement to abide by a Bill of Rights or a Constitution and there will be little push-back from the media. It's amazing what you can get away with when nobody is calling you out.
You may still be thinking that it isn't going to happen. But the signs are all there. The Biden administration is already 'working' with industry, the British government is in the latter stages of manipulating the public, moving from a position of denial to “I know fervent libertarians will object, but other people will think that there is a case for it.”(15) I don't think you have to be fervent to object or particularly prescient to see where it's heading, particularly when you realize that Boris Johnson brought the subject up unprompted.
The only potential problem is, as always in a 'democracy', the people. How do they persuade the people? And what if the people don't play ball and boycott private companies who demand vaccine passports? Both of these scenarios are possible, but unlikely. After all, resistance has been minimal so far and there is little sign of anything changing. Once a critical mass of people have been vaccinated and can see no reason not to be compliant, the game will be won.
Is it possible that governments don't understand the sort of anomalies and misunderstandings that I am noting? Not likely, is it? So, why are they doing it? Inexplicably, no-one in government has felt the need to pick up the 'phone and explain themselves to me, so I'll have to do a little guesswork.
They are gaslighting us and yet the facts are verifiable with a minimum of effort. I have set out a number of questions to which we have been given no satisfactory answers. Governments have been at pains to insist that they won't make vaccines mandatory, which would leave the concept of a vaccine passport somewhat moot; more of a nice to have than a must have. But, we're being softened up. They're coming and they're coming soon.
Don't be fooled by any seeming hesitancy; that is merely show. They may be paper at first, but that will change. Governments like control and, once they have it, they don't willingly give it up. Private businesses like to make money; businesses in sectors like Big Tech and Big Pharma. The journey, from a two week lock-down in order to “flatten the curve” to a vaccine passport before you can go to the cinema or fly, will be complete. It will have taken 18 months, at most.
And they won't be temporary. Don't think that, once Covid has inevitably weakened, we'll do away with them. That's not how it's going to work. That's not how it's meant to work. That would be giving up control and, as I've noted, they don't like doing that. And we are going to let them get away with it.
Citations
CDC
John Ionnades, Infection Rate of Covid 19 inferred from seroprevalence data, 13/5/20.
Peter Doshi, Will Covid vaccine s save lives? Current trials aren't designed to tell us, BMJ 21/10/20.
Ditto
Ditto
Ditto
Osterholm et al, The efficacy and effectiveness of influenza vaccine; a systematic review and meta-analysis, Lancet 2012
as (5)
CDC
Boris Johnson, Epoch Times, 23/2/21.