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.
Klaus Schwab, chief of many captains in industry, finance, culture and politics who comprise the apex group, announced on behalf of their philosophical, psychological and medical contingent, that there can be no greater good than panic and that its rewards are directly proportional to how intense and widespread it is.
Some are already referring to this as Schwab’s Law, which is indeed related to, yet more fundamental than Western adoption of totalitarian measures used by China to fight SarsCov2.
Its derivation was remarkably simple and elegant, consisting of just one 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, on account of how much 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 newly enhanced 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 liberated everyone in a position of influence to gush outright propaganda.”
“It also warrants rejection of safe treatments that may be effective, as that only helps to increase hysteria.”
Then he leant in smiling… “It’s easy to do this when your role licenses claims about scientific data. To cite a typical instance, when India beat the virus with ivermectin, I just said “no evidence.” To be frank, it was thrilling to watch the press obliterate eminent dissenters with nothing but a quote of that all-purpose and dirt-cheap token of denial. But the real importance was how it made a positive, tangible 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.”
“But we should never forget that appealing to lives lost or saved, in principle or with respect to variously questionable data points, only has meaning now with regard to stoking panic. For instance, we don’t want traditional gravity of the life versus death issue prompting recognition that most deaths occur within two weeks of vaccination when people are still classified as unvaccinated and the magic is taking its proper time to work.
“By the same token, never 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 couldn’t imagine how anything else might be relevant to their attainment or preservation of status.”
“The establishment might err at times when society is rife with fear. Yet 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, engage in sensationalism 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 we trust with our health in these institutions. 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? Not more than the tiniest fraction, unless we count idiots that are only quoted by trolls.”
“Mmmmm…exactly,” 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 constantly hear things like: ‘We caused net damage, by being careful like we said’.”
“What’s more, it’s not as if people double down after taking a position 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 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 argue in ways that only seem fair when knowledge is scant or people are lax with logic.”
“Their job is to sound decisive at short order. So they would hardly try greasing stuff past the deferring punditry. Otherwise one of such allied hearts and threadbare consciences might nevertheless register the article as wantonly biased or riddled with fallacies. Imagine the backlash if this were voiced without instant cancellation of the objector, which is always a theoretical possibility.”
“It’s also profoundly significant that their conclusions to date are all consistent, at least in political tenor, which is uniform across 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 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 enthused on the breakthrough in his industry that Schwab triggered, in terms that few have likely considered before.
“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.”
Queried in regard to such hesitancy, UK CMO Chris Whitty stated that “the most reasonable strategy at this juncture is coercion.”
“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 take a look at why forced vaccination is necessary,” he began.
“The main concept here is the Goldilocks principle, an incredibly simple solution to the following conundrum. 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 fully protected and therefore cannot be further protected by anything the unvaccinated may be forced to do.
“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.”
“This makes for the easiest 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 clearly establishes a new dimension 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%, namely 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 a difference of 0.005% in risk of death for vaccinated people which could still be removed by full vaccination of the population.”
“In other words, an entire twenty-thousandth.”
“This could even be adjusted to account for a cumulative effect of slowing transmission between individuals, which relates to an admittedly 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.”
“Yet the bottom line is how well policy conforms 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 imagine 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 effect 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 any particular cause by no less a twenty-thousandth, or in other words, personally reduce it by at least half a 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 this may affect vehicles 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 a 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 viral impact is halved and odds for the vaccinated dying after catching covid drop from 0.075% to 0.0375%. The 6.25% reduction from getting everyone else vaccinated, which Neil clarified to everyone, would then bring it further down to 0.035%, thereby making a difference of 0.0025%. That is only 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, as this burden 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 precise 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 mark a concern that officially embracing panic could have potential to fuel conspiracy theories.
Dan Andrews, Premier of Victoria, issued 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, even at the academic level of a sound and verified principle, which, if there were any justice or decency in the world, would govern every aspect of society.”
“I know that seems incredibly foolish to those who think that now is the time to pass national legislation making panic a condition of residence. But this faction will stay a minority, because most of us know the likelihood of such efforts backfiring. Pushing too hard can be a trap, regardless of what’s at stake.”
“I became wise to these things in a very hard way, on the sharp end of history’s most vicious and unprincipled media assault, 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 fully resigned to callous or even reckless outlook and conduct.”
“I also have to announce that for three years commencing tomorrow at midday, everyone from newborn to the immanently departing will be masked at all times, by which I obviously mean twenty-four-seven, fifty-two, three.”
“This is enforceable with rubber bullets, though only for a trial period of two weeks, after which regular automatic weapons are due for consideration.”
“This is what it means to take responsibility, so I would hope that everyone will pull together and do their part, because it may just be our last line of defence against utter madness.”
Australia’s Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, rejected the plea from Andrews as “absurdly nuanced” and “appallingly craven.”
Addressing residents at a Geelong 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!”
Odds for Albanese becoming the next Prime Minister almost doubled on a number of betting sites in the wake of that statement.
An explanation for this was offered by Paul Tucker from Bondi, which encapsulated what many seem to be thinking: “He used to strike me as a bit ineffectual, but he showed today that he’s got everything it takes to lead the nation to greatness.”
“Honestly, there’s 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 trust your readers are wise enough to stand beside me on this.”
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.”
He is not alone in thinking hard about the topic.
“Only 20 to 40 percent of the population are actual vermin, so depraved and deranged that nothing could ever salvage them,” began Louise Roberts, a day-care assistant from Yass.
“I know it sounds harsh, but we might 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 those two options, how should we eradicate support for agents of disinformation that is too dangerous to permit?”
“If we all we do is snuff each rabble-rouser when they pop up, increasingly more will simply take their place as outrage spikes demand for them.”
“It just can’t amount to a final solution.”
Although it is still very early days, a majority of polled anthropologists concur that present enthusiasm for Schwab’s law is bound to persist though millennia.
The expectation is that as viruses mutate and bad things continue to happen, vigilant panic will always be necessary and thus form the core of a mandatory religion.
That institution might only be temporary however, till the conscious identity of everyone is cut from their subsequently discarded body to be pasted on servers which run effective antivirus programs.
There is even a chance to leapfrog intervening centuries, if this 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, being that if I can’t be uploaded and edited, I’m pretty-well screwed.”
“Others might fall back on cryogenics to gain 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 equally holds in digital space, it is incumbent on designers to ensure that harrowing panic religion runs constantly throughout every post-physical community.
The dominant view is nonetheless that market forces should determine which companies offer compulsory religions on their servers, with stringent conditions applied for visits or migration to such crucial infrastructure.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerburg was curiously sceptical of the value of mandated panic and emphasised that what runs on his systems after he is uploaded will chiefly depend on “making sure 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 conceivable forms of data process and 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, no less appears assured for the physical world in light of current trends.
The unvaccinated may also surmise that if they don’t succumb to panic, they surely will to technocrats.
So if you haven’t already, it could be time to do Albert Bourla a favour, along with grandmas everywhere and just get the bloody jab already, 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.