Coronavirus – What’s Coming Next?

Event 201 [ 2019 ]

Note: Timing of this Event is mind-boggling…  was it scenario or a script?

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201, a high-level pandemic exercise on October 18, 2019, in New York, NY. The exercise illustrated areas where public/private partnerships will be necessary during the response to a severe pandemic in order to diminish large-scale economic and societal consequences.

In recent years, the world has seen a growing number of epidemic events, amounting to approximately 200 events annually. These events are increasing, and they are disruptive to health, economies, and society. Managing these events already strains global capacity, even absent a pandemic threat. Experts agree that it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes “Event 201,” would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions.

Event 201 was a 3.5-hour pandemic tabletop exercise that simulated a series of dramatic, scenario-based facilitated discussions, confronting difficult, true-to-life dilemmas associated with response to a hypothetical, but scientifically plausible, pandemic.
15 global business, government, and public health leaders were players in the simulation exercise that highlighted unresolved real-world policy and economic issues that could be solved with sufficient political will, financial investment, and attention now and in the future.

http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/

First known case of coronavirus traced back to November 2019 in China

A 55-year-old individual from Hubei province in China may have been the first person to have contracted COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus spreading across the globe. That case dates back to Nov. 17, 2019, according to the South Morning China Post.

That’s more than a month earlier than doctors noted cases in Wuhan, China, which is in Hubei province, at the end of December 2019.

BBC News: Coronavirus: Chile to introduce controversial ‘virus-free’ certificates (May 2020)

Source>>

Chile’s government has said it will go ahead with a controversial plan to issue certificates to people who have recovered from Covid-19.
The documents would be given to people to allow them to return to work, Deputy Health Minister Paula Daza said.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has said there is “no evidence” that people who contract coronavirus are immune from being infected again. It said certificates could inspire false confidence and help it spread.

“There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from Covid-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection,” the WHO said in a briefing note on Friday. *

The body argued that so-called “immunity certificates” could even be harmful, because they could lead people to ignore public health advice and therefore increase the risk of transmitting the disease.

Comments

* In the context of this WHO narrative, mandatory Covid-19 vaccination will work better (?) than antibodies of people who recovered from the infection ??? So whoever recovered from the coronavirus will still have to be vaccinated???
 Another WHO narrative: people with no symptoms of Covid-19 infection can still spread infection – therefore they must be vaccinated as well …
although it seems that vaccine will not protect them from a second infection?  

It seems the “final solution” is “magical” vaccine that will become available sooner than expected… and it will be mandatory ( although it may not protect anyone from “secondary infection”)… 

Mandatory Vaccinations – What you need to Consider

Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development [ 2010 ]

This report was produced by The Rockefeller Foundation and Global Business Network. May 2010

Below is quote from the above document
[NOTE: This scenario seems to be more like a script that is unfolding now = 10 years later].
The entire document is available here:
http://www.nommeraadio.ee/meedia/pdf/RRS/Rockefeller%20Foundation.pdf

Scenario Narratives LOCK STEP

A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.

[ Reminder: this scenario/script was written in 2010 ]

In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain—originating from wild geese—was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.

The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter postpandemic recovery.

China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power. At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowly but steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth. Across the developing world, however, the story was different—and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed high emitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well—and in some cases tragically—in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens. There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018 World Cup, for example, wore bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national flag.
[…]

Meanwhile, in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and norms greatly inhibited entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to pursue and were guided mostly toward projects that would make money (e.g., market-driven product development) or were “sure bets” (e.g., fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research areas largely untapped. Well-off countries and monopolistic companies with big research and development budgets still made significant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained locked behind strict national or corporate protection. Russia and India imposed stringent domestic standards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers—a category that in reality meant all IT innovations. The U.S. and EU struck back with retaliatory national standards, throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion of technology globally. Especially in the developing world, acting in one’s national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that fit with those interests—whether it was gaining access to needed resources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China’s investment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments. Cross-border ties proliferated in the form of official security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size-fits-all solutions yielded few positive results. By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them.

Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized and coordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away—largely in developing countries—incited civil unrest. In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world’s governments had worked so hard to establish.

PS1 Chile lockdown: Anti-government protest broken up by police

Chilean police broke up anti-government protests in Santiago and arrested 14 people on Monday night local time, citing social distancing laws.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-52370165?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cvenzmgyg45t/chile&link_location=live-reporting-story

PS2 USA – Legal responses to Coronavirus

• H.R.748 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)Public Law No: 116-136 (03/27/2020) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act or the CARES Act ( became Public Law on March 27, 2020)
  This bill responds to the COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) outbreak and its impact on the economy, public health, state and local governments, individuals, and businesses.
  This bill was proposed Jan 24, 2019 
• H.R.6666 – COVID-19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act ( Proposed)
  To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID-19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals’ residences, and for other purposes.
  See details: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6666/all-info?r=2&s=1

Event 201 Recommendations

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation jointly propose 7 recommendations.

Item #7:

Governments and the private sector should assign a greater priority to developing methods to combat mis- and disinformation prior to the next pandemic response. Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation. This will require developing the ability to flood media with fast, accurate, and consistent information. Public health authorities should work with private employers and trusted community leaders such as faith leaders, to promulgate factual information to employees and citizens. Trusted, influential private-sector employers should create the capacity to readily and reliably augment public messaging, manage rumors and misinformation, and amplify credible information to support emergency public communications. National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages. For their part,media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including tough the use of technology.

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, The Center for Health Security was founded in 1998 by D.A. Henderson as the first nongovernment organization to study the vulnerability of the US civilian population to biological weapons and how to prevent, prepare, and respond to their consequences.

For over 20 years, the Center has aimed to ensure a future in which severe pandemics can no longer threaten our world. It conducts a series of projects, collaborations, and initiatives to push forward progress on global health security, emerging infectious diseases and epidemics, medical and public health preparedness and response, deliberate biological threats, and opportunities and risks in the life sciences.