Is Covid-19 a Fear-Mongering Operation?
According to the Centres For Disease Control and Prevention a person aged between 0-19 years of age is at a 0.003% chance of dying after contracting the Covid-19 virus.
Infection Fatality Ratio
Infection Fatality Ratio is a parameter value indicating the number of individuals who die of the disease (Covid-19) among all infected individuals. This parameter is of course not to be construed as factual evidence nor as a prediction rather instead be used for indicative purposes; to plan for the worst that Covid-19 may have in store.
The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) bases their Infection Fatality Ratio parameter on a set of numerical values for biological and epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19 illness, which is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Virus. These numerical values have been derived from various medical sources specialising in the outbreak of the virus.
The Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) parameter last updated 10 September 2020 by the CDC indicates the following:
- IFR of people aged between 0-19 years is 0.00003 (0.003%);
- IFR of people aged between 24-49 years is 0.002 (0.02%);
- IFR of people aged between 50-69 years is 0.005 (0.5%) and;
- IFR of people aged 70 years+ is 0.054 (5.4%).
*Source of Statistics embedded here.
Covid-19 Fear-Mongering?
In 2020, civilisation literally came to a standstill; the world went into lockdown for months on end. The world-wide hysteria was caused by a virus that has a 0.003% chance of killing a person aged between 0-19 years of age after being infected with the virus. 0.003% chance of causing death is no cause for concern; the least of one’s concern to say the least.
Fear-mongering
is the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue. The mass hysteria around the world over Covid-19 was caused by fear-mongering on the part of mainstream media outlets. Keep in mind the 0.003% chance of death and watch the video below.
Credit: Watch Original Video Here
Do the above statistics warrant this panic-invoking news bulletin? No of course not! Such news bulletins have been consistently published by major news media outlets in almost every country around the world for the most part of 2020. The above statistics do not warrant the scare tactics imposed by media outlets, so why instil fear? I think it is to psychologically prepare you appropriately for what is to come. Either a real deadly virus; or nuclear warfare. National militaries around the world are now more prepared than ever to engage in a nuclear war.
Covid-19 the New 9/11?
The following passage is an excerpt from the book Covid-19: The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret:
The argument put forward by those who above all fear the grip of technology on personal freedom is plain and simple: in the name of public health, some elements of personal privacy will be abandoned for the benefit of containing an epidemic, just as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 triggered greater and permanent security in the name of protecting public safety. Then, without realizing it, we will fall victims of new surveillance powers that will never recede and that could be repurposed as a political means for more sinister ends. (Pages 127- 128)
Should some elements of personal privacy be forfeited to counter a virus that has just a 0.05% chance of causing death? Mr Schwab thinks so which then begs the question: do people really need someone to help them comprehend what '0.05% chance of causing death' means? Yes but I do not blame them. When the amygdala part of the human brain senses fear, the cerebral cortex (area of the brain that harnesses reasoning and judgment) becomes impaired, reducing the ability to make rational decisions or think clearly. Mentioning 9/11 should do the trick in making people succumb to their fears resulting in the abandoning of elements of their personal privacy.
Schwab states that new surveillance powers could be repurposed as a political means for more sinister ends. More sinister than what? The Great Reset? Oh thank you Mr Schwab for proposing a less sinister agenda to prevent the implementation of a more sinister agenda. More on 'The Great Reset' here.
Opinion
Deagal has a news archive of articles in relation to the trading of military weaponry between countries. Here is a list of offensive weapons; where they were made; and the countries who have and ready to deploy them. The 3 major players in the international weapons trade are USA, China and Russia. If a world war is to breakout it would be between those three countries solely based on their military powers; and the common goal to become the next global power-state. I have not considered economic or diplomatic tensions between USA, China and Russia because those tensions do not cause the same effect as Cruise and Ballistic Missiles.
The UN's Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. How good would this agenda sound in a period where the world has been devastated by war?
Upside Down High Horse to Alleviate Fear
The internal issue hindering humanity is the reliance on expert opinion. The knowledge acquired in the pursuit of university degrees are the fundamental grounds on which expert opinions are based on. Rejecting expert opinions would cause the effect of one rejecting the knowledge gained in university. I can appreciate the undermining of self-integrity should one denounce what ought to be the absolute truth. However, should university graduates act as advocates for the experts who proclaim what truth ought to be or instead use the knowledge gained to provoke thought and encourage the development of new intrinsic ideas; to propel the prosperity of humanity? In reality the former is the truth.
Rather than automatically accepting expert opinions, subjects in all facets of knowledge should be capable of questioning the grounds on which the expert opinion is based on and individually conclude for themselves whether the expert opinion is legitimate or not. But this is not the case, subjects of all facets of knowledge religiously abide by the views of experts; forfeiting their own unique and intrinsic perspective. The main detriment of this reality is the condescending of those who have the courage to express their own intrinsic views. I have a question to those who are on their intellectual high horse: did university degrees prevent the break-out of World War I & II? The Cold War? Holodomor? Holocaust? Covid-19?
Honour, Courage and Integrity prevails over knowledge. In no way shape or form am I devaluing the importance of knowledge. Instead I am criticising the end means for which and how knowledge is applied. What good is knowledge if it is not applied in the utmost Honour, Courage and Integrity? The lack of Honour, Courage and Integrity is resulting in the subconscious facilitation of destructive underlying agendas.
Every single human being possesses an intrinsic mindset; capable of leaving their own mark on human history. That is not feasible if individual mindsets are operating in accordance with the ideal method proclaimed by experts. Experts are individuals themselves who encourage the facilitation and implementation of their own ideas. You intrinsically have the right to be your own expert; live and work in accordance with your Honour, Courage and Integrity.
If you are on your high horse the least you can do is respect views that differ from your own or should I say the views of the experts. Do not condescend out of fear of change. Listen to and appreciate differentiating views because those views might just save humanity from the impending devastation facing humanity. Do yourself a favour, realise and acknowledge your intrinsic potential that no other person possesses, not even these so-called experts such as Klaus Schwab.
Article By Adham Tebbie
Click or Tap on Opinions for more articles by Adham.
News Feed
