A sign of an authoritarian state is many rules, contradicting each other, with arbitrary enforcement, mostly relying on voluntary compliance through brainwashing and herd mentality, with exceptions for the state and its leaders and cronies.
With so many petty rules to abide by, the people become weary, stop questioning the rules, and stop questioning the purpose of the rules. Justifications for the rules are no longer required or presented.
The men in white coats, the gods calling themselves “the science”, must be followed at all times. This is the technocratic element of the regime. The rule by men is being replaced with rule by “the science”. No contrary views are to be allowed, and anyone with unauthorised views must be shamed and ridiculed, called evil, selfish, stupid, dangerous, and dirty.
People comply with the rules out of habit and to avoid stressful conflicts with the new morality police force, the brainwashed idiots, snitches, and karens of the world, as well as the covid marshalls and covid compliance officers, the new brownshirts.
We are about to go back into full lockdown, and most people have already accepted it as necessary and inevitable, and at this point do not need any justification to be presented. A vague reference to a “second wave”, and a few scary looking projections, will at this point be enough to ensure most of the population complies. They will comply, even though the first lockdown turned out to be pointless, caused many deaths, and resulted in unprecedented economic destruction and misery.
I am impressed by just how quickly the global elites have been able implement the authoritarianism they have this year. Their agenda for global domination has taken a great leap forward.
In the absence of global government (for now), we have the opportunity to learn from how different national governments have responded to the Covid-19 threat.
The UK vs Sweden
The UK imposed one of the strictest lockdowns in Europe, while Sweden did not lockdown at all. Here are the charts for daily deaths per million population for these two countries:
Lockdowns were sold as a way to “flatten the curve” to “protect the NHS” in order to “save lives”. The comparison to Sweden shows that the lockdown did not flatten the curve. The two lines are the same shape: rising at the same time, peaking at the same time, and both falling to almost zero by the beginning of August. The only differences are the peak (UK 40% higher) and the slope of the line downward from the peak (UK fell slightly quicker).
The “second wave” threat
We are faced with the prospect of a second lockdown, in response to a “second wave” that the media have been fearmongering about for months. The first lockdown saved very few lives, if any, from covid. However, this evidence is apparently being dismissed and the dials of tyranny are being turned up again in the UK: meetings of groups above six are banned from this week. Lockdown is no longer to be thought of as a binary, but a sliding scale of tools the state now has in it’s toolbox to control people based on the “disease threat level”. It’s an upgrade to the old “terrorist threat level” idea, which has become stale.
Ever since the Cummings incident and the BLM protests/riots, we have been told that a second wave is right around the corner and that we citizens are to blame for it… because we were naughty and did not do as we were told. We were told that people flouting social distancing rules, gathering on beaches, going back to pubs and restaurants, refusing to wear masks, and other expressions of liberty now forbidden or frowned upon, would lead to a second wave. None of these things led to a second wave.
There is no sign of a second wave in either the UK or Sweden, according to the death rates chart. This explains the shift in propaganda messaging from focussing on deaths to focussing on cases. It is no longer about saving lives or protecting the NHS, but about “slowing the spread” of the virus, measured by case numbers.
Even if there is a second wave coming now, those imposing the lockdown can be confident that the public will continue unthinkingly accepting the pronouncements of the men in white coats. Just like in the Milgram experiment, most people will follow an order from an authority figure even when it goes against their own moral code and would be needless and cruel in normal circumstances. Most people will continue obey every command from the authorities: “keep your distance”, “small groups only”, “wear your mask”, “let us track your movements”, “take the vaccine”, and so on.
The general public must continue to believe the lie that they are too stupid to think about these subjects for themselves, and so have no choice but to slavishly follow the commands of the expert scientists the authorities have chosen to present. Most of them won’t question the rules (except to moan about inconsistencies and exceptions, as designed) and they certainly won’t question the goal.
Slowing the spread is the wrong goal
The strongest argument for trying to prevent the spread when the outbreak first occurred was the uncertainty. There was a chance the NHS might get overwhelmed. Now, there is far less uncertainty. We know that the disease is mild, along the lines of a bad seasonal flu, that it did not spread so quickly that it overwhelmed the NHS, and that lockdowns saved no lives. We also know by comparison with Sweden that trying to slow the spread of the disease turned out to be the wrong strategy. The best way to protect those at risk from covid is for the virus to spread quickly among healthy people. Once you have had the illness, you are no longer a threat to grandma.
The so-called “herd immunity” approach was taken by the UK government until the March u-turn, when social distancing and then lockdown were imposed. It was the approach used in Sweden all along. Once there is a high level of herd immunity, the vulnerable are better protected. The data show that Sweden got it right, and the UK (and most every other country) got the strategy wrong. Now, it is time to learn from the mistake and stop trying to slow the spread the virus.
(Herd immunity relies on immunity developing after having covid-19. The evidence so far suggests that those who suffer from covid-19 do indeed develop immunity to it and cannot catch it again. This immunity will probably last for many years, if not decades. See my post: How long does immunity to SARS-Cov-2 last?)
Cases are the wrong metric
Case rate charts are being used when fearmongering for a second wave in the UK. This chart compares the daily case rate for the UK and Sweden:
We can see from the Swedish line that the number of cases is not closely related to the number of deaths: deaths peaked in April and were down over 60% by June, when cases peaked. The following chart shows deaths-per-case:
In both countries, the number of deaths-per-case has fallen from a peak of around 20% to less than 1%. This could be due to better treatment or a difference in the population being diagnosed over time: more vulnerable people were hit sooner, and now most cases are in young and healthy people. It could be due to different testing policies.
Here is a chart of covid daily tests-per-thousand population in the UK and Sweden:
It is unsurprising that the number of cases has risen, given the increase in the number of tests. Case numbers can easily be manipulated by changing the number of tests, who gets tested, what type of test is used, what thresholds are used to define a positive result, and so on. When there is a divergence between the trend in cases and the trend in deaths, it should be the death chart that is considered more reliable.
There is no second wave until evidence for it appears on the deaths chart, and so far that hasn’t happened. It may happen, particularly after administration of this year’s flu shot, given the likelihood that the flu shot weakens the immune system to coronaviruses.
According to the data, the first lockdown did not save any lives from covid. We know it claimed many lives through deaths of despair, and will claim many more due to delayed medical diagnoses and postponed procedures and appointments, for example. It also wrecked the economy (although the effects have mostly been kicked down the road so far) which will cause a load more deaths, as well as poverty and reduced standards of living.
A second lockdown will be just as ineffective as the first, and even more destructive to lives and livelihoods. There are no good arguments in favour of a second lockdown, but unlike with the first lockdown, now the people do not even need to be given arguments or reasons or justifications. They will accept and support a second lockdown and do as instructed by authorities, regardless, and shame those of us who don’t. That is the power of the state’s propaganda machine.
Do people that recover from COVID-19 become immune to it? If so, how long does immunity to COVID-19 last?
Here are two recent studies have looked at this question:
Long, April 2020 showed that 100% of cases (N=47) were immune 19 days after COVID-19 symptom onset. This is based on measuring levels of IgG antibodies, with immunity, or a positive result, defined as being above a set threshold level.
Seow, July 2020 was a longer study, widely reported (incorrectly) as showing that immunity is short-lived. It looked at 65 individuals that were admitted to hospital and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus linked to COVID-19). They measured three different types of IgG, relating to three parts of the virus: the surface spike protein (S), the receptor binding domain (RBD), and the nucleocapsid protein (N). For each type of IgG, 90%-95% of subjects were above threshold after 2 months. In the few cases for which they had data beyond 2 months, it appeared that IgG levels were decreasing, but this results was not statistically significant and did not reduce the immunity level.
The evidence we have so far on SARS-CoV-2 suggests that immunity after recovery from COVID-19 is almost guaranteed for at least 3 months, but beyond that it is too soon to tell.
Other Coronavirus Studies
SARS-CoV-2 is one of seven coronaviruses. The others are:
SARS-CoV-1 (2002) – 8096 cases, 774 deaths (~10% CFR), mostly in China and Hong Kong, all in a single outbreak in 2003
MERS-CoV (2012) – 2506 cases, 862 deaths (~35% CFR), mostly in Saudi Arabia (2014) and South Korea (2015), with minor sporadic outbreaks continuing up to 2020
HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1, four viruses that are found in about 15% of cases of common cold (the majority of colds are caused by rhinoviruses), with mild symptoms and no deaths.
Studies of these other coronaviruses can give us clues about COVID-19 immunity duration:
Wu, 2007 showed that IgG antibody levels for SARS-CoV-1 were above the immunity threshold within 3 weeks in >90% of cases that had recovered from SARS, and after 3 months, 100% were immune. At 7 months it started decreasing, dropping below 90% after 2 years, and 55% after three years.
Payne, 2016 showed that 7 out of 7 patients that recovered from MERS were still immune after 34 months, based on their antibody levels, with 5 of them seeing no decrease in antibody level.
Callow, 1990 gave 10 volunteers a nasal spray of HCoV-229E, giving them an infection and a cold, triggering an adaptive immune response and the development of antibodies. 1 year later, the volunteers still had a high level of antibodies, and when given the same spray again did not get any cold symptoms.
Immunity is more than Antibody Levels
All the above studies measure antibody levels and then compare the measurements to a set threshold level, to determine immunity. This is a convenient but flawed way of defining and determining immunity. Merriam-Webster defines immunity as “a condition of being able to resist a particular disease especially through preventing development of a pathogenic microorganism or by counteracting the effects of its products” and immune as “having a high degree of resistance to a disease”. This definition is the common usage.
Then there is the more specific medical definition of immune, which is “having or producing antibodies or lymphocytes capable of reacting with a specific antigen”. This narrower definition is easy to measure, but it can be misleading when the two definitions are conflated, because antibodies are only a small part of our arsenal of resistance against pathogens.
The Innate Immune System
Our first line of resistance against pathogens, besides physical barriers like the lungs, gut and skin, is the innate immune system, which involves:
Complement: proteins synthesised to identify pathogens and tag them, attack pathogen cell membranes, induce inflammation, and attract phagocytes to the infection site.
Inflammation: changes in the blood vessels to allow phagocytes to enter tissue in the infected area more easily, and to try to prevent the infection from spreading to the rest of the body.
Phagocytosis: innate immune system cells – macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells – engulf and break down pathogens or particles. Natural Killer cells, a type of lymphocyte, target and destroy compromised host cells.
The innate immune system alone is enough to defeat most pathogens. Small infections can be cleared quickly and with only mild symptoms, if any. If we take immune to mean “having a high degree of resistance to a disease”, then having a strong innate immune system is the most important way of being immune.
The Adaptive Immune System
The adaptive immune system evolved much later than the innate immune system. Only vertebrates have an adaptive immune system. It is an add-on that exists to target specific pathogens that are causing a particularly bad infection. It involves two new types of lymphocyte, called T cells (because they mature in the thymus) and B cells (bone marrow):
T cells become specific through the process of antigen-presentation from a dentritic cell or macrophage, and then target and destroy that pathogen, in a similar way to Natural Killer cells.
B cells become specific through direct activation by a pathogen, and then produce antibodies to tag that pathogen, to assist the innate immune system in clearing the infection.
The adaptive immune system can take days to be activated due to the clonal selection process used to develop lymphocytes that can target the specific invading pathogen, never before encountered. After an infection has been cleared, some T cells and B cells become memory cells, adding to the immunological memory bank. Should the same pathogen return, the memory cells are activated, skipping the clonal selection process, so the adaptive immune system gets activated hours, instead of days.
Memory Cell Studies
It is the presence or absence of memory cells that determines whether the adaptive immune response will take hours or days to be activated. Antibodies may continue to circulate for months or years after an infection is cleared, but they decline if their target pathogen does not return. A person can have no antibodies, but still have memory cells, so an antibody-level test would declare them non-immune. Thus, antibody-testing does not even accurately test for the medical definition of immune.
A more direct way of assessing whether a specific pathogen is in the immunological memory bank is to test for a response from memory T cells. The following studies of are based on testing for SARS-CoV-1 memory T cells in survivors of SARS:
Ng, 2016 demonstrated that SARS-specific memory T cells persist in three SARS-recovered individuals at 9 and 11 years post-SARS in the absence of antigen
Le Bert, 2020 showed that memory T cells for SARS-Cov-1 remained in blood 17 years . These subjects can therefore still mount an quick adaptive immune system response to SARS-Cov-1, even if there are no measurable antibodies after so many years. The same study showed that SARS-Cov-2 is sufficiently similar to SARS-Cov-1 that an adaptive immune response even takes place in individuals that recovered from SARS 17 years ago.
SARS and MERS had very high Case Fatality Rates (10% and 35% respectively) and appear to confer immunity lasting at least a few years, if not decades. Common cold coronaviruses may confer immunity of a year or more, but not for as long as the more serious coronaviruses.
Covid-19 was initially said to have a CFR of 5% but this has been revised down to 0.26%, and is likely to be revised down again to <0.1%. Thus, it seems likely that SARS-Cov-2 will fall in the middle of the coronavirus duration-of-immunity spectrum.
These studies combine to show that the length of immunity following an infection is closely related to how severe the infection was, which makes sense given the evolved design of the immune system.
On an individual level, as shown by the Seow 2020 study, SARS-Cov-2 antibody levels are related to the severity of Covid-19 symptoms; the more severe the case, the stronger the immune response, the higher the antibody levels, and presumably the longer immunity lasts.
Thus, Covid-19 immunity probably lasts for years, rather than months, and longer in those that had severe symptoms. It will be shorter in those that had mild or no symptoms, whose innate immune systems were sufficient to end the infection.
The global elites have just announced that they are about to take complete control of the planet and all of humanity – for our benefit.
They are calling it “The Great Reset”.
Here is the full 80-minute video of the globalists announcing the plan, with Klaus Schwab and Prince Charles leading the sales pitch.
This 22-minute video by Spiro Skouras contains the key parts of the announcement, then breaks down what is really going on.
The Great Reset is the name of a planned transformation of the global economy, society, and humanity itself, to increase the power of the global elites. The globalists never let a crisis go to waste, and the COVID-19 pandemic has created the perfect opportunity for this global transformation to take place.
This is no mere tinkering around the edges of the existing socioeconomic system; it is the replacement of one socioeconomic system by another. It will happen in the 2020s. It represents a giant leap forward in the globalists’ long-term agenda for world domination.
Details will be announced in January 2021, but it is not hard to guess what the plan will contain. By “Shaping the Economic Recovery”, I expect the following power-centralising economic policies to be rolled out within the next decade, in most developed nations (and all to thunderous applause):
expanded state welfare, e.g. subsidised loan payments, furlough payments, childcare credits, income guarantees, state pension increase
cancellation of debt, e.g. student debt, third-world debt, high-interest debt, sovereign debt
bailouts and/or nationalisations of selected “too big to fail” firms and entire industries, e.g. banks, retailers, media, energy, farming, transport
price controls, e.g. rent freezes, maximum price controls on essential goods, minimum wage increases, maximum quantities of items that can be bought, profit and bonus caps
new forms of tax, e.g. automation tax, land value tax, wealth tax
public works projects, e.g. new transport, energy and communication infrastructure, house building, green cities
universal basic income, the most dangerous economic development, since it can so easily be dialled up to become universal dependency on the state
All this state expansion will require unprecedented levels of fiat money to be created in order to fund it, and some national currencies may be destroyed by hyperinflation, intentional or not. The globalists will use a currency crisis (such as in the dollar or euro) as an opportunity to transition to a one world currency that they control. They may not even need a hyperinflation to get the masses to support the idea.
The new global currency will be fully electronic; there will be a global digital central bank, with unlimited capability to create money. Control of monetary systems and central banks is a cornerstone of globalist power today, as it has been for over a century. Currency competition is the last remaining check on central banks’ capability to create money, so a one world currency would amplify that power.
The Great Reset plan is far more than just a change to the economic system. It covers these 50 domains:
Justice and Law
Future of Energy
Plastics and the
Natural Resource Security
Manufacturing and Production
Future of Food
Leadership in the
Fourth Industrial Revolution
and Social Protection
Trade and Investment
Future of Health
Cities and Urbanization
Future of Computing
and New Value Creation
Intelligence and Robotics
Future of Media,
Entertainment and Culture
Again, it is not hard to guess what The Great Reset plan will contain in these 50 domains, considering who is behind this plan and that they are trying to enslave the world. I expect the following power-centralising economic policies to be rolled out within the next decade, in most developed nations (again, all to thunderous applause):
mandatory vaccinations for children and all adults, and more vaccinations on the schedule, despite growing evidence that vaccines have subtle adverse neurological and immunological effects
expansion of the pharmacological state, promoting mass drug addiction and dependency on prescription or illegal drugs, and probably new soma-like wonder drugs sold as cures for mental illnesses
expanded climate change mitigation activity, e.g. carbon trading and taxes, land grabs for conservation, natural resource grabs
a permanent “disease threat level” control system for instructing the masses and maintaining fear (an upgrade to the familiar “terrorism threat level” ruse, but instead of being a war on terrorism it is a war on selected microorganisms, the perfect invisible enemy for a permanent war)
a social behaviour control system for easily adjusting local prevailing rules/norms on social distancing, sport and entertainment events, social gatherings, mask-wearing, business operating rules, mandatory tracking app requirements, curfews, local quarantines, etc, all based on disease threat level.
travel and access restrictions for individuals designated “dangerous” and “dirty” enemies of the state, e.g. vaccine refusers, mask refusers, those who ignore social distancing norms, requirements to prove health and vaccination status
social credit scoring, i.e. a reputation system which can be used to isolate any enemies of the state, or anyone belonging to the wrong identity group, or anyone who has broken social norms or engaged in hate speech or wrongthink.
transhumanism, i.e. bringing together digital, physical, and biological systems, e.g. identity chips, body health monitoring, body enhancements, augmented and virtual reality, direct connections between the brain and digital devices
As always, these things are not going to be imposed on the people. That would be impossible. The people are going to demand these things. It is problem-reaction-solution yet again.
Problem: a socioeconomic system that results in mass injustice, inequality, exploitation and environmental destruction
Reaction: overthrow the existing socioeconomic system
Solution: The Great Reset
The Great Reset has a dangerously appealing name. It is not what it seems. It is a great leap forward toward the dystopia of Brave New World. It is a blueprint for global enslavement.