Nineteen Eighty-Four is a novel by George Orwell (published in 1949) describing a society ruled by the oligarchical dictatorship… a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, and incessant public mind control, accomplished with a political system which is administered by a privileged elite… official deception and manipulation of the past and current events in service to a totalitarian political agenda… Could this novel be a warning about the dangers society is facing in 2020?
Note: There are 2 countries (North Korea and China) where many of Orwell’s predictions have become reality. Is the U.S. heading in the same direction?
Strange coincidence ?
Is the book of Revelation referring to our times?
Quote from the Revelation (King James Bible):
13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast,
that the image of the beast should both speak,
and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
13:17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Will coronavirus vaccination and contact tracing become a mandatory solution to the pandemic ?
Globalists are doing everything in their power to implement coronavirus vaccination and contact tracing as a mandatory solution to the pandemic… One of the main tools used to accomplish this agenda is media.
GAVI, officially Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance (previously the GAVI Alliance, and before that the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) is a public–private global health partnership with the goal of increasing access to immunisation in poor countries. GAVI brings together developing countries and donor governments, the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the World Bank, the vaccine industry in both industrialised and developing countries, research and technical agencies, civil society, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other private philanthropists. [ — Wikipedia ]
Seth Berkley has been the CEO of GAVI since 2011, as of 2020. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has donated $1.56 billion to the alliance’s 2016-2020 strategic period, as of March 2019. One of the most recently funded projects: Project to support public confidence in immunization programs; to develop a global surveillance system to identify and track rumors/misinformation related to immunization, with a particular focus on GAVI-eligible countries.
However he cautioned that there was a need for a co-ordination of production at a global level.
He advocated that the pandemic needed a global response whereby the best global facilities for separate parts of the processes should then be integrated into a global process.
He said he hoped that the G20 countries should work together with a budget of tens of billions of dollars, and that individual countries should be prepared for finished vaccines to be allocated according to greatest need.
vaccination certificate the movie “Contagion” (2011)
Covid-19 vs FluWatch Surveillance
FluWatch, Canada’s national influenza surveillance system, provides up-to-date information about currently circulating influenza strains.
Every year, worldwide seasonal epidemics cause an estimated:
- 1 billion cases of influenza
- 250,000 to 500,000 deaths
- 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness
Compare this to Coronavirus Updates
Is flu shot effective?
From the Government of Canada website
The effectiveness of the vaccine varies from season to season.
It depends on how well the vaccine matches with the circulating flu viruses, as well as the health and age of the person getting the flu shot.
The viruses circulating in the population can sometimes change during the time it takes to produce a vaccine.
When this happens during the flu season, the flu shot may not work as well as expected.
The Canadian Sentinel Practitioner Surveillance Network (SPSN) provides estimates of the effectiveness of the seasonal influenza vaccine in preventing primary care visits for laboratory confirmed influenza among Canadians of all ages but primarily those from 20-64 years of age.
Based on data collected between November 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019,VE (Vaccine Effectiveness)against any influenza, foremost driven by A(H1N1) viruses, was 56% (95% CI: 47 to 64%), and for A(H1N1) alone was 67% (95% CI: 58 to 75%).
This substantial protection against A(H1N1) was observed in all age groups. Conversely, the SPSN reported little or no vaccine protection against A(H3N2) viruses, with an overall VE against medically-attended outpatient A(H3N2) illness of 17% (95% CI: -13 to 39). Overall, the A(H3N2) VE estimate for 2018-19 was lower than expected generally for A(H3N2) vaccines (~30%), and similar to that observed by SPSN in the 2017-18 A(H3N2)-dominant season where VE was estimated at 14% (95% CI: -8 to 31).
The Serious Outcomes Surveillance (SOS) Network of the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN-SOS) provides estimates of the effectiveness of the seasonal influenza vaccine in preventing hospitalization for laboratory-confirmed influenza in adults.
Based on data collected between November 1, 2018 and June 1, 2019 among adult (?16 years of age) hospitalized cases of influenza, VE against any influenza was 43% (95% CI: 28 to 55%), and for A(H1N1) alone was 68% (95% CI: 52 to 79%). CIRN-SOS also reported little or no vaccine protection against A(H3N2) viruses, with an overall VE against hospitalized cases of influenza A(H3N2) of 19% (95% CI: -35 to 51). The number of influenza B hospitalized cases was too low to calculate an adjusted VE estimate.
NOTE: We don’t know why the Spanish Flu pandemic ended. It started in 1918 and ran through 1920, then disappeared. All without a vaccine.
FluWatch Reports (by Canadian Government )
FluWatch annual report: 2018-19 influenza season
- The 2018-19 influenza season in Canada was longer than the previous five seasons and was characterized by two waves of influenza A activity and very little influenza B circulation. The national season started in week 43 (October 21-27, 2018), peaked in week 52 (December 23-29, 2018) and ended in week 21 (May 19-25, 2019).
- A(H1N1) was predominant in the earlier part of the season (October to February) followed by a smaller wave of A(H3N2) circulation (March to April). Overall, A(H1N1) was the predominant strain nationally this season.
- Two waves of activity were observed in the number of reported outbreaks. The predominant subtype for typed outbreaks was A(H1N1) in the early part of the season (October to January), and A(H3N2) in the latter part of the season (Feburary onward).
- The annual seasonal hospitalization rate was above average compared to the previous five seasons. Adults 65 years of age and older had the highest overall hospitalization rate; however, the highest cumulative hospitalization rate shifted during the season from children 0-4 years of age (November to March) to adults 65 years of age and older (March onward), likely due to the second wave of A(H3N2).
Are vaccines safe?
Note: Although statistics show relatively low numbers, they imply that vaccines are not 100% safe.
The most adverse “events” after immunization (AEFI) are reported for children under the age of 2 years.
It is certainly debatable at what “percentage point” the cure is worse than disease.
Canada has one of the strongest vaccine safety surveillance systems in the world.
This system includes both passive surveillance of all vaccines administered and active surveillance of all childhood vaccines.
Objectives: To provide
1) a descriptive analysis of the adverse events following immunization (AEFI) reports for vaccines administered in Canada,
2) an analysis of serious adverse events (SAEs) and
3) a list of the top ten groups of vaccines with the highest reporting rates.
The Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS) is a federal, provincial and territorial (FPT) public health post-market vaccine safety surveillance system. Most of these reports are generated by nurses, physicians or pharmacists who provide immunizations or who care for individuals with AEFIs.AEFIs received by National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are reported directly to PHAC.
Manufacturers of all drugs, including vaccines, are required to report serious adverse events as well as unexpected adverse events to the Marketed Health Products Directorate (MHPD) Canada Vigilance Program within the HPFB of HC.
Active surveillance has been conducted since 1991 by IMPACT.
IMPACT is funded by PHAC through a contract with the Canadian Paediatric Society. This contract currently includes 12 pediatric centres across Canada, representing over 90% of all pediatric tertiary care beds in the country.
IMPACT screens hospital admissions for neurologic events, such as:
- vaccination site abscess/cellulitis
- acute flaccid paralysis (including Guillain-Barré syndrome and aseptic meningitis)
- other complications that may have followed immunization
Adverse events following immunization in Canada
For all years, the highest reporting rates were observed in the “less than one year” and the “one to less than two year” age groups.
Total reports and reporting rates
Of 38,364 extracted AEFI reports, 5,204 involving pandemic vaccine given alone were excluded since this vaccine was used only in 2009?2010.
Of the 33,160 reports for analysis, the distribution of AEFI (% SAE) reports by year vaccine administered was:
- 2005: 4,792 (4.5%);
- 2006: 4,417 (4.8%);
- 2007: 4,258 (5.3%);
- 2008: 4,482 (4.7%);
2009: 4,099 (5.8%);
- 2010: 4,046 (5.9%);
- 2011: 3,558 (5.8%);
- 2012: 3,508 (5.4%).
Age-specific reporting rates per 100,000 population by year vaccine administered for all of Canada are shown in Table 3.
For all years of vaccine administration,the highest reporting rates were observed for 1-2-year-old children followed closely by infants <1 year oldwith a sharp drop-off for 2 to <7 year-olds, 7 to <18 year-olds, and adults aged 18 years and older. There was a consistent downward trend in reporting rates throughout the period, most noticeable in children <7 years and for AEFI as opposed to SAE rates.
Table 1 provides the number of reports and reporting rates per 100,000 population by age group and year of vaccination. For all years, the highest reporting rates were observed in the less than one year and the one to less than two year age groups. Rates fluctuate slightly over the years in the two to less than seven year age group and for those seven years of age and older rates were relatively stable over the four years.
Here are examples of more AEFI detailed information:
Serious adverse events reports
Overall there were 892 SAE reports out of over 80 million vaccine doses distributed during the reporting period.
This represents a rate of 1.1/100,000 doses distributed and 8% of all AEFI reports over the four year time period (range: 1.0 to 1.2 reports per 100,000 doses distributed).
Figure 5 shows the proportion of SAE reports resulting from hospitalization (n=745), life threatening events (n=103), fatal outcome (n=32), residual disability (n=11) and other reasons (n=1).
Among the SAE reports, the most frequently reported primary AEFI was seizure (20.1%), followed by anaphylaxis (12.4%). The majority of SAEs were in children and adolescents less than 18 years of age (80%). Over half of these were reported in children under two years of age; which was to be expected, due to the number of vaccines provided to this age group to protect them when they are most vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.
The majority (73%) of SAE reports had fully recovered at the time of reporting. There were roughly 15% (n=137) of SAE reports where patients had not fully recovered, at the time of reporting. These reports are revised when updated information is received by CAEFISS. The remaining outcomes for SAE reports included fatal outcome (n=32, 3.6%), permanent disability/incapacity (n=10, 1.1%), outcome unknown (n=60, 6.7%) and information on outcome was missing (n=2, 0.3%).
All 32 reports of death underwent a careful review and all were found not to be attributable to the vaccines administered.
Considerations for mandatory childhood immunization programs
Outbreaks of vaccine preventable diseases occur even in countries that have unrestricted and relatively equitable access to immunizations because vaccine uptake rates are lower than necessary for effective disease control. Vaccine hesitancy is seen in many countries, including Canada, and has led to enacting or strengthening legislation requiring mandatory childhood immunization in some provinces. Although mandatory immunization may seem to be the simplest solution to this issue, it is not always as effective as anticipated. Different countries/states/provinces/territories have used different strategies to encourage parents to fully immunize their children. Definition, scope, flexibility (such as exemptions for medical, religious and philosophical reasons) and framework factors (such as strictness of application and levels of enforcement of the mandate) vary widely between jurisdictions. Surprisingly, no marked differences were seen in vaccination rates between countries that recommended versus mandated them. Unintended consequences of mandatory immunization programs—both good (increased availability of data) and bad (“gaming” of the system and disproportionate impacts on families of lower socioeconomic status) have been reported. Addressing lower vaccine uptake rates is a complex problem that needs a multipronged, more nuanced and tailored approach.
There is no standard global approach to mandatory immunizations. Which vaccines are included, which age groups are covered, program flexibility and rigidity (e.g. opportunities for opting out, penalties or incentives and degree of enforcement) all have to be considered. Mandatory immunization for childhood vaccines is no guarantor that the problem of lower-than-desired vaccine uptake rates will be overcome, although it can lead to increased uptake.
There were no strong differences in vaccination rates between countries that only recommend certain vaccinations and countries that mandate them. Context matters; different countries have implemented or not implemented mandatory immunization for different reasons, different circumstances and used different approaches. Furthermore, unintended consequences like a reduced acceptance rate of non-mandatory immunizations needs to be anticipated as well as the possibility of vaccine-hesitant individuals gaming the system.
Rigid mandatory vaccination requirements may appear, at the first sight, to be the simple solution to improving vaccine uptake rates; however, evidence does not strongly support this conclusion. Mandatory immunization is but one strategy to consider. Addressing lower vaccine uptake rates is a complex problem that needs a multipronged, more nuanced and tailored approach.
- History of Pandemics and Coronavirus
- Coronavirus – What’s Coming?
- Am I Going to Get the Coronavirus and Die?