Panic Is Reset as a Great New Norm
An astounding discovery was made during the World Economic Forum’s Annual Retreat at Martha’s Vineyard this week, as scientists and public health officials came to a reckoning on what truly matters in regard to human life and Covid19.
Distilling their breakthrough, Klaus Schwab announced to an esteemed assemblage that there can be no greater good than panic and that its incomparable benefits are directly proportional to how intense and widespread it is.
Some are already referring to this as Schwab’s Law, which is of course to be distinguished from Western adoption of totalitarian measures used by China to fight SarsCov2.
Its derivation was remarkably simple and elegant, taking the form of a syllogism:
The maximal avoidance disposition is panic and avoidance of what is bad should be at a maximum. Ergo, panic should be maximised.
Reporting on the stark profundity, Piers Morgan said “It’s as if we already had a compelling intuition of this elusive fact which is now verified by hard logic.”
“How else could we run a daily case and death count, devoid of all balancing context, for twenty months?”
America’s beloved Dr Fauci was more empirically focused and measured in his response: “You know, I said contrasting things about wearing masks, due to the amount of truth people are ready to handle at different times. But now it’s safe to say their ubiquity shows how panic has taken hold and simply works to lock in and multiply fear.”
The changing perspective on everything from anxiety to mortal horror is a profound relief to many who had become increasingly concerned about departing from accuracy and common sense when reporting figures or outlining rationales.
“It’s like a Copernican revolution in the ethics of science,” said Paul Kelly, Australia’s Chief Medical Officer. “I was deeply grateful to learn that information only exists to cause alarm. Knowing this liberates everybody in a position of influence to gush outright propaganda.”
“It also warrants rejection of safe treatments that may be effective, as that can only help to increase hysteria.”
Then he leant in smiling… “It’s easy to do this when your role licenses claims about scientific data. For instance, when India beat the virus with ivermectin I just said “no evidence.” It thrilled me to see journalists excoriate well-informed dissenters merely by quoting that all-purpose and dirt-cheap token of denial. But the main thing is that it did some tangible good, by making a serious difference in the fight for panic.”
“That’s to say nothing of rescuing thousands, whose trust in assorted quackery would have killed them through rejection of perfectly safe, warp-speed vaccines. People need to be more sceptical and accordingly desperate, in the proper and orthodox way.”
“So don’t be misled by the fact that the average age of death from this virus is on par with the median for all cause mortality, or that it’s less deadly than the flu for young people. Reports that two thirds of very large groups of presumed long-covid sufferers had no antibodies to confirm infection are surely misleading as well. But above all, I would advise everyone to just put it out of their minds that the annual global death rate in 2020 was lower than most over the last two decades.”
“Furthermore, any failure to go to baroque lengths to prevent old age death is both grannicide and grampacide. It simply doesn’t matter how regular the cause of morbidity may be, so long as it can be called novel in some respect.”
“Every virus is new at some point and we rarely get spooked at their inception, let alone normalisation. So it’s awful messaging to call this one endemic now, after panic reduction has been exposed as the darkest ignorance.”
Kate Milne from Adelaide initially had reservations about the new development: “I was always told that panic is the worst thing of all, but these people must be trustworthy. I coudn’t imagine how anything else might be relevant to their attainment or preservation of status.”
“Today’s culture affords no opportunity for ass-covering, be it personal or collective, let alone bullshit in bureaucracy and the whole concept of malfeasance in high places is just urban mythology.”
Her partner Jack nodded slowly and said, “Don’t forget the media. How often do they have some kind of slant, sensationalise things or skip hard questions when interviewing people whose cooperation they need for ratings? Practically never on all counts.”
“Think about professionalism too. There are thousands of qualified people in these institutions we trust with our health. As if they could stay quiet when they see their boss get something wrong, or miss the crux of dissent just because their salary depends on not understanding it.”
“But how many have broken ranks with prevailing advice? Just a tiny fraction, unless we count imbeciles that are only quoted by trolls.”
“Mmmmm,” said Kate, before asking, “Remember the proviso about erring on the side of caution, which we’ve heard a trillion times since early 2020? Well if such errors happen to be noticed they would naturally be owned with an admission. For instance, you would hear something like: ‘We caused net damage by being careful like we said’.”
“What’s more, it’s not like people double down after taking positions on early data. Even when assumptions are made on a grand scale it rarely causes issues down the track.”
“Maybe we haven’t covered everything, but I can’t see how serious error could become entrenched, except at the fringes though misinformation online.”
“So when presumed experts diverge from the mainstream, every last one of them has to be a crank, or else a crackpot — something pretty dumb-sounding anyway.”
Jack sighed and said, “Thank heaven most of them are thoroughly censored now.”
“But I really don’t feel that’s enough.” He continued. “We should clamp down harder by hitting in them in ways that seriously hurt. Even with fact-checking everywhere the lunacy remains out of control.”
“There’s a key point that some people just can’t fathom. I don’t know why but it really drives me crazy that they don’t get it.”
His brow furrowed steadily for a few seconds, as if he were making sure that the pivotal concept would be expressed in a clear and enlightening manner.
“Arbiters of consensus on reality never, ever, argue in ways that only seem right if your knowledge is scant or you’re lax with logic.”
“Their job is to sound convincing at short order. So they would hardly try greasing stuff past the allied punditry, whose threadbare consciences might nonetheless find it wantonly biased or riddled with fallacies.”
“It’s also profoundly significant that their conclusions to date are all consistent, at least in political tenor, which is uniform throughout the entire booming industry of official narrative reinforcement.”
“But you know what gets me the most? Morons who have trouble with the simple fact that ‘debunked’ means debunked. It really boggles the mind.”
“Absolutely,” chimed Kate. “They probably don’t even get the concept of “the big lie;” the harsh reality that many are duped through their own cheap confidence of it being a ludicrous notion that every source they credit pushes the same falsehood.”
“Anyone would imagine that two decades of war in Iraq based on fabrication about weapons of mass destruction might have taught them something. But no, it’s just trust, trust, trust other dissenters, right up to the point of thinking that international shenanigans prevail upon mainstream media.”
“How much proof do people need?” Jack lamented while shaking his head. “Everything just converges on the point that orthodoxy is the be all and end all. Anyone who doubts that is lost in derangement.”
Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla outlined the breakthrough in his industry that Schwab triggered: “Having panic as the chief objective makes it obvious why doubtfully efficacious gene therapy is in fact ideal.”
“It’s a unique win-win situation, because panic makes people get a jab, yet continues after they do. So naturally they have more shots, as boosters or for new strains and again without being stripped of any panic. It’s really as close to perfect as an outcome could be.”
“The only outstanding matter concerns those who fail to consume the product, due to something in their nature — or else some crazy notion — which makes them resistant to appropriate fears yet susceptible to inappropriate ones.”
“The most reasonable strategy at this juncture is coercion,” said Chris Whitty, UK CMO, “But despite its growing popularity, certain Tories are digging in their heels against this well-tested method, failing to recognise that it’s just good science, like old-school eugenics.”
“Many countries embrace vaccine apartheid without regard to natural immunity and I fail to see why we should not abide with the policy. Culling workers who refuse vaccination after seeing its results has admittedly left critical shortages of hospital staff around the globe. But we can easily cover that deficit with migrant workers. It just steepens the curve for a few months.”
Popular physicist Neil deGrasse Tyson was eager to contribute a range of insights on pandemic management. “Let’s consider why forced vaccination is necessary,” he began. “The central concept to grasp is the Goldilocks principle and it’s really easy to understand.”
“If you just take a binary view that vaccines either do or don’t work then mandates will have very little appeal: it is clearly useless to mandate something that doesn’t work at all, whereas if they work in a wholly unqualified sense, vaccinated people are adequately protected from carriers already.”
“Yet imagine they are 50% effective with respect to each category of reducing infection, onward transmission and symptoms including death. Other figures may be more accurate, but let’s pretend those assignments are just right, like the three belongings of Baby Bear that suited Goldilocks: warm porridge, small chair, and not too hard or soft bed.”
“Now we can do some easy math on comparative risk to the vaccinated. Joint vaccination reduces danger from fellow-vaccinated people by half in four different ways. First they are half as likely to be infected, then they are half as likely to be infectious, then you are half as susceptible to infection from them as well as half as prone to symptoms when infected. Think of these effects combining in stepped percentages: 50; 25; 12.5; 6.25. So only 6.25% remains. It’s a 93.25% reduction.”
“Unvaccinated people, however, will be twice as likely to transmit the virus after infection, as well as twice as likely to become infected in the first place. In other words, the risk they present to the vaccinated is only reduced by half twice over, simply due to the latter’s 50% protection against infection and then also symptoms. So in this case 25% remains and it’s only a 75% reduction.”
“Subtracting 75% from 93.25% yields 18.75% as the extra danger represented by the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, which obviously establishes a whole new level of panic.”
“Yet only about a third of people in the Western world are still unvaccinated. So if they all get vaccinated, the current overall risk to the vaccinated might go down by roughly one third of 18.75%, which is also 6.25%, taking it to just 93.25% of it’s current level.”
“Now this virus has a pre-vaccination infection fatality rate of 0.15% and thus a post vaccination one — in our Goldilocks 50% model — of 0.075% and reducing that by 6.25% leaves roughly 0.07%, indicating an absolute difference of 0.005% in risk of death to the vaccinated which could be removed by full vaccination of the population. In other words, an entire twenty-thousandth.”
“This could even be adjusted higher to account for the cumulative effect of slowing transmission between individuals, which relates to the vanishing hope of exterminating all variants in human and animal reservoirs globally.”
“It’s also important to remember that if zero covid policy was indeed catastrophically based on a figment, retarding transmission by even the tiniest amount can still delay the reckoning for some.”
“The bottom line is that we have to make policy conform to the latest modelling, bearing in mind that it can’t be perfect and also that risk/benefit analysis is separate issue, which in this case mainly concerns avarice in the business world, even if it is fundamental to the entire practice of medicine.”
“So I really don’t want to get into nitpicking about whether our Goldilocks assumption should have been 50% for cumulative instead of individual transmission, or whether we should have adopted some other percentage.”
“In fact real world data in most places shows a ratio of new cases in vaccinated and unvaccinated as more or less identical to the ratio of those two populations. To be entirely honest, Bill Gates is urging us back to the drawing-board to invent vaccines that actually reduce community transmission in a significant way.”
“Even if we had reliable numbers for the time being, some new variant might change everything. The simple truth is that viruses do become more infectious and less serious. Their evolutionary pressure is to spread faster and it naturally helps in that regard to leave the host busy on their feet.”
“By all means, if you think you can supply better figures or more cogent reasoning, I’d like to see it, especially since only one of us is an astrophysicist.”
“But at the end of the day, societies just need to do some kind of modelling on the main panic issues and then rule by it.”
“Ultimately, it’s all about ethics — another domain subject to my informed estimation — which is best elucidated in this context with regard to those poor souls who are devoutly pro-vax, yet radically immunocompromised.”
“The fact is that some of them may be living off-grid and thus never come to know that they are presently advised to get the vaccine anyway.”
“Since they won’t be vaccinated, their symptom vulnerability will not be halved and their risk can only be diminished via the two parameters that concern transmission. Hence everyone else becoming vaccinated will be four times as important for them. On our modelling that’s no less than a five-thousandth improvement.”
“How could anyone be so heartless as to wrest this final hope from them, when it remains within our power to make the sacrifice that might secure it?”
“Life isn’t just about our own personal comfort or safety. It’s mainly about our duty to improve the safety or comfort of others by infinitesimal and theoretically positive degrees, in keeping with establishment agenda and the overall trajectory of panic. Whatever comes short of that is incredibly selfish.”
“Those unwilling to do their hundred-millionth part to reduce your risk of death from a certain cause by as much as a ten-thousandth, or in other words, personally reduce it by a full quadrillionth, just because they don’t want “novel gene therapy,” evidently need their head processed by a meat grinder.”
“If overtaking them on the highway, you would be remiss not do your damnedest to run them off the road, regardless of how it may effect commuters in the next lane.”
“They are of course losing jobs and access to various services, yet ultimately will have to choose between getting the shot and being shot. There’s really no other scientific way to look at it.”
“Neil De Grasse Tyson has always been a hero of mine,” said Dean Smith, taking time out from his myocarditis recovery treatment to be interviewed.
“Don’t worry, I can still speak and think a bit sometimes. But God knows what it would have been like if I didn’t get my booster just before it started. I’d probably have Omicron from this hospital and be dealing with lung fluid induced by a ventilator.”
“Heart trouble is just a common thing these days for people my age, so I grin and bear it. But even if it’s got something to do with the vaccine, that’s a small price to pay. Neil really helped me see all this in perspective.”
“I’m a PhD candidate working on the Goldilocks principle at Harvard and one of the most interesting things that most people don’t realise about it happens to be the topic of my dissertation.”
“It’s an inverse relationship between any vaccine’s effectiveness and the importance of everyone receiving it. So for example if we raise the symptom reduction parameter from 50% to 75% then residual impact is halved and odds for the vaccinated dying after catching covid drop from 0.075% to 0.0375%. So instead of leaving us with 0.07%, the 6.25% reduction from getting everyone else vaccinated would would make it 0.035%. So the absolute difference becomes 0.0025%, which is one forty-thousandth, compared to the full twenty-thousandth reduction we get for vaccines that are merely 50% effective.”
“What this means in practise is that it’s better on some occasions to argue that the unvaccinated put more strain on hospitals, because this relative strain is directly as opposed to inversely proportional to the vaccine’s reduction of symptoms.”
“Despite a fair amount of panic-raising, most hospitals around the world did no worse than the 2019 flu season without any vaccine in 2020. But while the majority of people are vaccinated now, there are still times where it’s better to push the overloaded hospital angle than the old chestnut about effectiveness of my vaccination depending on you getting vaccinated.”
“Panic might seem like a totally simple thing to the uninitiated, but making it work in an optimal way can be quite a complex and fraught matter. Do we play up or down the effectiveness of the vaccines? Do we focus on transmission or symptom reduction? That all simply depends on the best way to scare people in any particular context.”
“There’s a huge amount of cutting-edge science involved, but ultimately and paradoxically it all comes down to the fine art of applying chaotic distress through information that distracts and confuses people.”
“Fortunately there’s a lodestar to keep everyone on track here, which is reversal of the norms on which society is founded, like decency, personal autonomy, open and thorough debate, informed consent, comprehensive risk/benefit analysis and avoidance of intervention without all the foregoing properly in place.”
“We’ve had the immense benefit of being globally and synchronously keyed in to a much better approach, which is instinctively understood by all, but can also be spelt out in clear terms.”
“First, undertake the sacrifice of instigating cautionary harm, in hope of some worthwhile payoff over the short to medium term, then double down for as long as it takes.”
“If doesn’t work out, so what? At least you know you did the responsible thing.”
While most observers remain elated after the momentous achievement of Schwab, some expressed concern that officially embracing panic could have potential to fuel conspiracy theories.
Dan Andrews, Premier of Victoria, gave a warning on this: “No matter how hard you drum into people that panic makes sense, or how clear and thorough you are in demonstrating the truth of that, there will always be some who go around with nasty words like ‘fearmongering’ as if there might be something untoward involved.”
“To preserve panic we should leave it as voluntary for now, so this is not the time for legislation that makes it a condition of residence.”
“I became wise to these things in the hardest way, on the sharp end of history’s most vicious and unprincipled media assault, all driven by that hateful orc, Rupert Murdoch, who may yet eradicate the one thing that still makes life worthwhile: our precious panic.”
“We must forgo a degree of crackdown to ultimately stop his foul and twisted forces prevailing. It’s an extremely serious yet delicate situation that we can’t afford to be rash about.”
“Think about it people, if we lose panic we become inhuman; just resigned to a callous outlook and conduct.”
“I also need to announce that for a year starting Saturday, children from newborn to school-leavers will be masked at all times, by which of course I mean twenty-four — seven — fifty-two.”
Australia’s Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, rejected the plea from Andrews as “absurdly nuanced” and “appallingly craven.”
Addressing residents at a Penrith nursing home he declared, “The right policy is zero covid, zero tolerance and let me be clear, zero rationality, because what is at stake here is the fundamental imperative of panic reigning supreme and without challenge.”
“If inquisitions are impossible in our postmodern times — a point I am not ready to concede — we nevertheless have boycotts, Royal Commissions, the ABC and a preponderance of journalists in corporate media, to bravely and effectively shut down deniers.”
“My friends, we know precisely what it is that they deny and should never pretend otherwise, so I’ll say this clearly, today and always: they deny the inestimable value and absolute necessity of panic!”
Online betting odds for Albanese becoming the next Prime Minister almost doubled after that statement.
Bill Tucker from Bondi said, “He used to strike me as a bit ineffectual, but he proved today that he has everything it takes to lead our nation into the future.”
“There is really no two ways about it. If Albo reckons this country needs to get serious about panicking, I for one am gonna bloody-well panic.”
“I sincerely hope your readers have the wits to join me too.”
Former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has also been outspoken on related practical issues, recently tweeting: “Once we take down Newscorp we have to deal with the hordes of lethal zombies it brainwashed into existence out of what used to be manageable fascists.”
“Only 20 to 40 percent of the population are actually vermin, so depraved and deranged that nothing could ever salvage them,” said Louise Roberts, a primary school teacher from Yass.
“I know it sounds harsh, but we would only be doing them a favour with euthanasia as opposed to the drudgery of life in a dedicated camp, even if the facilities are at a decent standard.”
“But without one of these two options, how can we eradicate support for agents of disinformation that is too dangerous to permit?”
“If we all we do is snuff each rabble-rouser as they pop up, increasingly more will simply take their place as outrage spikes demand for them.”
“It just can’t work as a final solution.”
Although it is still very early days, a majority of polled experts agree that present enthusiasm for Schwab’s law is bound to persist though coming millennia.
The expectation is that as viruses mutate and bad things continue to happen, vigilant panic will always be necessary and ultimately form the core of a mandatory religion.
This would only be a temporary measure, till the conscious identity of everyone is cut from their subsequently disposed body to be pasted on servers that run effective antivirus programs.
There is even a chance to leapfrog the intervening centuries, if that transhuman goal can be realised by our current generation of elite programmers.
“It’s hard to overestimate computation” said Bill Gates, emerging from obscure ignominy to address the topic.
“Even with mind-blowing innovations over recent decades, we might only be at the start of hyperbolic acceleration. Plenty of high-rollers are massively invested in developing consciousness transfer and manipulation, not excluding me by any means.”
“It’s no overstatement to say there’s an all-out race against time, since I’m pretty-well screwed unless I can be uploaded and edited.”
“Others might fall back on cryogenics to buy additional years or even decades. But realistically, my frozen ass would just get unplugged by leftovers from Epstein’s network.”
Life in purely virtual realms won’t necessarily be uninterrupted bliss, however.
Indeed Google executives argue that, because Schwab’s law must equally hold in digital space, they should run a harrowing panic religion through their post-physical community.
The dominant view is nonetheless that market forces should determine which companies offer compulsory religions on their servers, with stringent conditions attached to visits or migration into such crucial infrastructure.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg is curiously sceptical of the value of mandated panic and emphasises that what runs on his systems after he gets uploaded will chiefly depend on “ensuring that nothing in that domain restricts or threatens my power.”
“I can allow no exemptions for agents of Dorsey, Bezos, Musk or anyone else ported in through hacks. They’ll just get what’s coming, like democracy extremists, along with all other forms of data process or storage that prove to be unclean.”
“Through alternating shifts of twelve hours, five million clones of my mind will experience themselves as trapped in cubicles with nothing to do but press a red button, while their screens profile dubious entities for one minute apiece.”
“Forget about blaming me if you make them trigger happy. Every backup is erased at the same time, so your existence is absolutely terminated.”
“Likewise for all who show sympathy.”
While it remains to be seen if the future of humanity will be one of permanent and universal panic, this does look assured for the physical world in light of current trends.
The unvaccinated might also surmise that if they don’t succumb to panic, they surely will to technocrats.
So if you haven’t done so yet, it could be time to do Albert Bourla a favour, along with grandmas everywhere and just get the freaking jab, idiot.
This message is endorsed by US President Joe Biden, on behalf of the World Economic Forum chaired by Klaus Schwab, executive head of the global campaign to build back better in accordance with the August 2019 initiative of central banks to go direct.
Any identical name-bearing or resemblance of mentioned persons to real individuals, living or dead, is purely figurative. Only idealised agents and entities have been presented, to inspire people everywhere toward more thoroughgoing panic.
Republishing is universally authorised and encouraged. We are all in this together.