Pandemic Excuse

Pandemic excuse: connections and hidden agendas

by Jonah Ohayv
April 5 - June 11, 2020

This many-sided analysis is for a better understanding of the huge change we’re all living with. Initially, I deeply examined all these issues from curiosity - to solve the puzzle of why there's been such an international (including Danish) intense set of extreme reactions to the new corona virus, when both earlier and present more serious problems motivate only small official reactions.

For those who are interested in why this is happening, my research and thoughts can be useful. I'm trying to open the mind to reasoning, based on facts and evidence. It takes courage to publicly question the official arguments given by political authorities, to oneself look into and think it all through, and not just blindly believe what one’s told and then follow orders on auto-pilot. Especially when the whole society is emotionally upset.

For those who feel very anxious about corona and mostly want to feel more comfortable, a lot of the following will be disturbing (and perhaps quickly seem unrealistic and far-fetched); if you start to feel too bad, you can always just jump to the following article "Resulting positive counter-tendancies from the corona shut-downs"!

Here are the sections of this article:

Factors affecting this corona virus's spread and deadliness, one macro-political background and news spin, questioning the top-priority status and comparing different culture's reaction strategies, contradictions in the official motivations for shut-down and emotionally ensuring people's compliance, more social control, more economic inquality, a technological advance and weakening health, misuse of wildlife as a chronic factor, and some tentative connections.

At the end of my analysis, there's a collection of many links to good articles, section by section. Of course, you can also refer to these along the way, if you like.

Factors affecting the number of corona cases, number hospitalized,
number of intensive ward and respirator patients, and number of deaths in a country/culture:

density of the local population (big cities)
how many previously weakened old people in the society
underlying serious diseases in immune-system weakened groups
smoker or otherwise weakened respiratory system
number of viral nodes in a cough or sneeze particle (how sick someone is)
having intimate proximity with someone infected (family, medical workers, etc.)
how close people normally are to each other locally, in the general public
the government decreed degree of societal physical distance
degree of voluntary or enforced isolation of serious cases or all known cases
extended family tradition (integration of old people in social activities)
number of imported cases from infected travellers
length of time the virus has been in the area
degree of deadliness of the local virus strains
seasonal temperature and humidity
degree of new type of 4G and 5G background wavelength bombardment
level of local air pollution

The rich Western countries' government-enforced model
of their national reactions to the virus, as mostly
copied whole-sale from the strategies of their own allied countries
___________________________________________________________

International economic background for the chosen news-spin: The American-Chinese trade war. Trying to get production and sales away from China, and back to inside the Western countries and economy. Western factories moved to China for cheap labour, now can't transport their products back to the West. Cheap Chinese copy-goods are unavailable, also component parts made in China.

The following analysis is about Denmark, as I've not deeply researched the differences in other countries. But a lot will be applicable in some other countries too.

Firstly, the present situation -

Leaders do not shut down a whole country both economically and socially without an underlying, background plan!

The "total shut-down" model is being used both for countries where many people have died, and those with relatively few deaths and few hospitalized in respirators, as if the above conditioning factors in both places were identical.
Danish leaders have not earlier shut the society down because of other sicknesses and widespread causes, which killed many more people, so why now?
For comparision:
424,000 people have died so far worldwide from this corona virus. In comparision, WHO reports that each year, from 290,000 to 650,000 people die worldwide from influenza.
In the influenza season of 2018/2019, 790 people died of influenza in DK.
In the influenza season of 2017/2018, 1644 people died of influenza in DK.

Så mange danskere dør af influenza
As of June 11, 2020, there were 593 corona-related deaths in DK. This includes both those dying from corona as the main cause, and those who had corona but probably died of another disease. "COVID-19 er ikke nødvendigvis den tilgrundliggende årsag til dødsfaldet (Statens Serum Institut, ssi.dk)." Forgetting this makes the daily picture darker. About 85% of the dead had been hospitalized within the last 5 years for either: diabetes, cancer, chronic lung sickness, cardiovascular (heart) sickness, or blood diseases.
Registrerede smittede i Danmark, Norge og Sverige
Nyeste tal på coronavirus: Så mange er smittede, døde og indlagte i Danmark og i Hovedstadsområdet
Why purposely ignore the differences from country to country in their environment, traditions of social physical closeness, local population densities, etc. - why haven't these been examined enough, when comparing their percentages or numbers of corona deaths?
Assuming that because Italy, Spain, France, etc. (south Europe and western Europe) are closer than East Asia, that our situation resembles theirs most - but ignoring that the other Scandinavian countries' situation is most comparable to ours, and that it's not relatively serious in any of those countries. The Italian shut-down was March 11, and the Danish shut-down came two days later.
The mass media claiming that this virus is exceptionally dangerous because 1) it's out of control in southern European countries (with other cultural conditions) 2) there's incubation time before symptoms appear (as there is with many contagious diseases) 3) there's no treatment (that's often so with a cold or flu) 4) there's no vaccination (nor is there for a cold) 5) it's deadly for the previously seriously sick elderly (that's often so with sicknesses) 6) if we end up like Italy, there might be a lack of intensive-treatment beds and respirators (but there are too few hospital cases here for that result).
In Italy, there's a different everyday culture of intimacy: a tradition for cheek-kissing, standing close while talking, hanging-out for hours together around small cafe tables, for elderly men smoking many years, for big family gatherings with the grandparents too, and 22% (2nd largest % in the world) of its population is 65 or older. The majority of people who have died have been between 63 and 95 with underlying illnesses. Lombardy has one of the highest local air-pollution levels in Europe. 3 of the 5 cities in Italy using powerful new types of background 5G wavelengths in the air form a large triangle through Lombardy.
Sweden has the clearest alternative to the Danish strategy. Grade schools, businesses, malls, restaurants, bars, gyms, swimming pools, and borders are open. Up to 50 people are allowed at an event. Like here, it's recommended for people over 70 to have less contact, and people with symptoms of a cold are asked to stay home. Sweden has had the virus 4 weeks longer than Denmark (Jan. 31 vs. Feb. 27), and has since April had a much steeper rising number of cases and deaths than in Denmark. As of today, Sweden has over 4 times as many corona-connected deaths per million inhabitants as Denmark (477 compared to 102), and over 6 times as many total deaths as Denmark (4,814 compared to 593).
Iceland however, with its 364,000 people, has only had 10 deaths (out of 1,800 cases), probably because it has tested the highest proportion of its inhabitants of any country in the world. Already early on, it tested also those with no symptoms, and then home-quarantined anyone who had the virus.
Denmark has (until early May) not copied several of the containment and preventative techniques shown to be most effective in the Asian countries which have had the sickness for the longest time (China, South Korea): wide testing to find cases, quarantining those found in special housing centers, isolating their closest contacts, cell-phone tracking of infected people's movements, sealing off whole geographical areas which have many cases, testing returning travellers. Their recovery plan is, when no more cases are found in a geographical area, getting its businesses and transportation going again. Not sending almost all their people, both healthy and sick, home from work. Not mass social distancing.
The Chinese model is opposed to basic Western-democratic institutions - there's no tradition of the individual's constitutional human rights/ menneskerettigheder; using government degrees and police enforcement.

Why have most of the country's people been sent home from work to avoid
the death of so relatively few retired, already-diseased old people?

It's not about the number of old-age deaths, as that number is comparatively small, and old-age people have in fact been consistently poorly treated for decades, and in recent years spoken of as an unproductive burden in society.

Of those people who are 70 or older (784,000 people) in Denmark, only 1 out of 1,555 have died of or with this disease.

Also, recall many politicians' earlier worried complaints about the long-term public expense of helping generations of old people (people living longer because they've been earlier treated for sicknesses).

It's not about a high-risk epidemic, because in all the Scandinavian countries, the death percentage is so low in both the total populations, among those who get sick, and even among the high-risk groups.

In Denmark as of today, only 1 out of 9,800 people have died of or with the disease (population about 5,8 million). Of all those who had symptoms and then tested positive for the virus, only 1 out of 13 needed intensive hospital ward care, and 1 out of 20 died. Only 7 people under 60 years old have died.

Udbrud med COVID-19

About the chances for getting the virus a second time, 2% of the cured corona cases in South Korea (163 of 7829) tested positive again some time after their cure. But all of those evidently had dead virus leftovers, and were not contagious for other people.

It's not about the number of virus-caused deaths, as this is minor compared to many other diseases and societal life-style deaths caused by alcoholism, smoking and overeating results, traffic accidents, etc.

It's not about the number of intensive-ward beds or repirators in hospitals and limited health equipment, as so few people are actually in intensive wards or respirators for this in Scandinavia.

In Denmark as of today, 14 are in intensive wards from corona, and of these 7 in respirators. There are 1242 respirators available (Sundhedsstyrelsens vurdering).

Sundhedsstyrelsen: Danmark har respiratorer nok

This overblown distraction from many, bigger threats is for unknown background reasons. A couple angles for guessing at hidden agendas: Who benefits by the dictated strategy? It's a rationale/excuse for which societal changes afterwards?

The exaggeration is much worsened by media bombardment and slanting, and then accelerated by the national leaders' extreme reactions and politically decreed methods.

Exploiting the population's mass wish that official political leaders solve any widespread crisis.

Exploiting the collective insecurity due to ongoing daily stress, the press of personal striving for never-ending over-consumption, feeling of helplessness about climate change and other global problems, anxiety about humanity's future and survival, fear of personal death, etc.

Exploiting the collective shock memories of the earlier widely deadly pandemics Spanish flu and Bubonic Plague, epidemics of cholera, tuberculosis, etc.

Exploiting the collective anxiety by initially progressively broadening the levels of public and private restrictions through extensive time-periods. Then confusing people by somewhat illogically lessening the restrictions (for instance, you can have sex or get massage, but keep two meters distance).

People are told that they're acting from empathy for the weak, but the actual restrictions make them see all other people as possibly infectious with a dangerous disease. Strictly following the official rules in each situation, whether they make sense there or not, hides their fear under a feeling of security.

Separating the people physically and emotionally, by limiting their normal close contact and group formation, makes them easier to manipulate. Resistance is splintered, f.ex. no public mass demonstrations become possible for law reforms, economic system changes, or sustainable life-style changes.

People are confused by big enforced changes in their daily life. People are told to abolish intimate distance and to keep at acquaintanceship-distance from all people, and this body-language is unconsciously associated with mistrusting them. Individuals feel weaker and insecure because of less group social warmth. The group solidarity in growing social movements is harder to practice.

The population as a whole is easier to control when the individuals feel insecure, are afraid of each other as possible sickness-carriers, and put their faith in top authorities from anxiety. "40 procent af danskerne svarede i en undersøgelse mandag, at coronasmitten er den mest alvorlige trussel i deres levetid (Information, March 26)." (40 percent of the Danes answered in a survey on March 23, that the corona virus is the most serious threat during their lifetime.)

So people are more prone to do whatever a strong official leader says, and now the same message has been publicly repeated by the State Minister, health minister, police chief, parliament, and the Queen.

And now a prophecy, which I sincerely hope doesn't happen: If the present strategy continues, I think that within the next coming years, the national situation could well develop in the following directions. These results would arrive through government decree and laws, combined with most people's resigned acceptance of them, due to their (encouraged) continuing anxiety. I've uploaded this article as a wake-up call for the reader's continuing awareness.

Who will benefit long-range from this?

Using a minor sickness (relatively few direct deaths) to usher in major changes.

Social control:

Resulting in easy, unquestioning obedience to the many cut-backs of historical, until-now assumed, collective and personal democratic freedoms.

When a few are in top power in a democratic country, the public's tool for pressure for change is actions with large numbers of participants. With the experience in how mass popular movements brought about widespread social change (anti-slavery, suffragite, anti-racism, atomic-energy reactors, vietnam war ending, etc.), the restrictions are also an excuse to try to defuse the very fast-growing popular youth movement against the human causes of climate-change (caused by our over-consuming lifestyle separating us from harmony with Nature, our environment).

"Vi kommer ikke til at kunne klumpe os sammen i tog og busser og metro, som vi har været vant til, eller stå rigtig mange mennesker meget, meget tæt og holde en god fest sammen. Verden er forandret, vores hverdag kommer til at være forandret," sagde Statsministeren Mette Frederiksen (kulturmonitor.dk April 6). (We won't be able to clump together in trains, buses, and the metro, like we usually do, nor have lots of people stand very, very close together, and have a good party. The world has changed, and our everyday life will come to be changed.)

"Vi skal undgå håndtryk, kram og kindkys og store forsamlinger i mindst et år, siger Kåre Mølbak, direktør i Statens Serum Institut." (Berlingske 29.4) (We should avoid shaking hands, hugging, cheek-kissing, and large gatherings for at least a year.)

Economic inequality:

The possibilities for using the government's surplus money savings and for the government making cheap huge loans, to cover the government-guaranteed helpful expenses to businesses and people during the decreed periods of over-protection, will get used up relatively fast.

If a country then just prints a lot of new money, the value of their existing money will decrease (and already invested/saved money be worth less).

Making big bail-outs, keeping the large companies alive (i.e. airlines, oil companies, tourist industries - all of which worsen climate change).

But numerous small businesses will either go bankrupt or be in long-term debt - the temporary stopping of their house-rent and sales-tax plus partial wage-supports, will not be sufficient to stop this. The usual buying public will have less money and more economic worry, and not buy as often from small businesses.

The lesser-employed must pay back the loans they'll get (for instance the students' higher level of loans).

Government-assured loans will be through the banks, and their owners will through the process become richer through collecting fees and interest.

Stocks are widely crashing, so large company-chains will survive, while the small companies go bankrupt. The rich few getting richer by buying stocks and currencies etc. cheaply during the coming years of after-results.

The general public will afterwards have to pay for much of the bailouts and the health expenditures made, through reduced public economic help for those in need, higher taxes, less vacation, etc.

An excuse to reduce the welfare system?
Statsministeren Mette Frederiksen sagde på et pressemøde d. 23. marts, "Vi må allerede nu også sige, at vi danskere ikke kan forvente at møde præcis det samme velfærdssamfund, når vi er ovre på den anden side (Statsministeriets pressemødearkiv)." (The State Minister said March 23, that we can't expect to have precisely the same welfare-system after the crisis.)

The government will have more central power, and make cut-backs through the whole welfare system afterwards, saying it can no longer afford it at the higher level.

The hospitals will afterwards be told to (long-range) cut down their medical services and expenses because the money and resources were (short-range) already used on corona.

Technological widening bringing weaker health:

I write about this factor in such length, because it's not easy to figure out without a lot of hard-to-find facts.

5G (the new technology for sending out ultra-fast electromagnetic waves through the air for mobile cell-phones etc.) has been set up in lots of countries since June, 2019. All the tele-communications companies will soon be using this.

Many researchers of 5G contend that the new network of wavelengths (from 24 to 86 GHz and also 600 MHz to 6 GHz) generates radiofrequency radiation that can disrupt cell metabolism; cause oxidative damage that can cause premature aging; damage DNA and lead to cancer; and potentially lead to other diseases through the generation of stress proteins.

Is it possible that those with an already very weak immune system, under the background constant mass exposure of strong new wavelengths, have much more difficulty in surviving this new influenza?

Some of the countries with the highest number of corona deaths, also widely use 5G. Is that wholly irrelevant? For example, China, South Korea, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany are it's present top users, whereas Scandinavia does not yet use it.

To check these comparative numbers for a country yourself, see Countries where COVID-19 has spread and then google "(the country's name) 5G usage".

Perhaps that industry discovered that the price of widespread background 5G is (temporary or long-term) weakness in collective immunity, leading to the death of a tiny percent of the population (mostly very-weak old people) - but only the virus alone gets all the blame for this?

Both 5G and a more advanced 4G are to be widely spread and used in 2020 (this might be delayed a little from so many building companies slowed down) in all the countries rich enough to have much modern technology.

Big business finds it necessary to move on to 5G, with its many thousands of satellites and with a local antenna at eventually almost every street-corner, to keep economically competitive (the wave-lengths have 10-100 times faster electronic speed). So much investment is at risk, which will not risk this technology's down-sides being discovered, before it's already set up and widely functioning.

It can be argued that whoever controls the electro-magnetic wavelengths, will long-range control the world economically (effective production and markets' trade, stock market trading), militarily (drones control, spy satellites), politically (campaign coverage, fake news, voting machines), public mediawise (fast spreading of chosen and slanted news), social media (for the consumer, speed comes first), the resulting public opinion, and much of the free-time usage (mobile-phones, TV, computers). China and USA are fighting for coming world market dominance of this tool. Europe follows the trend through its 5G consumption, Russia is number 3 with its hacking-practice, and the 3rd world is powerless.

Later planned usage of 5G is for thorough public video surveillance (mob or demonstration control, in China facial recognition cameras can already find a searched-for individual in a crowd), automatic driverless cars, war drones, "smart" homes, and remote-controlled machinery.