I’ve listened to many folks who minimize the potential impact of CoVid19 (Wuhan Coronavirus) by comparing it to the annual US flu. They conclude that more die from the regular flu than the “mere 1,800” or so that died so far from CoVid19 – so why the worry.
Yes, it is true that more die annually from the annual flu in the US than from CoVid 19, so far.
From Microsoft News:
Flu season is hitting its stride right now in the US. So far, the CDC has estimated (based on weekly influenza surveillance data) that at least 12,000 people have died from influenza between Oct. 1, 2019 through Feb. 1, 2020, and the number of deaths may be as high as 30,000.
However, let’s compare some vital facts:
Flu in the US kills around 0.002% (2 in 100,000) of those who contract it. For the most part, the “standard” flu infects others only after symptoms appear enabling timely self-quarantining.
On the other hand, CoVid19 is reported to kill 2.5% of those who contract it. That is a mortality rate 1,200 times that of the standard flu in the US.
Even more concerning is the fact that symptoms manifest themselves anywhere from two to 24 days after contracting the virus. During this period, the virus is transmissible. So people who show no symptoms can and do unknowingly transmit CoVid19 to others.
Add to this the fact that the current tests for CoVid19 frequently show a false negative meaning that even though the test is negative, the person tested is actually a carrier.
Now let’s pivot over to what is a significant “super spreader” of pandemics: Globalism.
I introduce to you Laurie Garrett, who, according to Wikipedia, is a noted
“…American science journalist and author. She was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism in 1996 for a series of works published in Newsday, chronicling the Ebola virus outbreak in Zaire.
She is interviewed in a current YouTube video, HERE, where she discusses various aspects of CoVid19. The one plus hour video is factual and helpful up till five minutes before its conclusion where she reveals her strong globalism bias.
I am not the only one who was struck by her politics. Here are two comments about her interview:
At around 1 hour 8 minutes - I can NOT believe she equated quarantine policies with racism.
Same here. I was actually enjoying her talk and then she went to the racism bullshit. The general population has been so brainwashed on this whole diversity bullcrap that all they see around them is the racism they've invented in their minds. This cancerous thinking can't die fast enough.
Throughout her interview she described how air travel, international cruises, and an open, global society spread this particular virus. But at the end she added that anti-globalization is going to be a big impediment to suppressing an outbreak. Sounds like forked tongue, trying to have it both ways. Then she called those who are against globalization “racists.”
No, no, it's not racism. It's looking at facts. It's looking at who - what region, what nation - is the potential carrier based on the source of infection. Damn, she sounded really credible until the last few minutes of the interview. Then she sounded like every other socialist democrat, an anti-nationalist, a globalist, a fund the UNist, a one-worlder. The global spread of viruses is an effective justification for increased nationalism.
Heck, look at our medical supply chain. 90% of medical supplies, prescription medicines, latex gloves, protective suits, face masks, respirators; all made in one nation, China, the source of the outbreak. When a nation does not make its own essential supplies, whether medical or defense related, that nation is exceedingly and unnecessarily vulnerable and exposed.
Who does Laurie Garratt, this globalist expert, work for? Low and behold, her employer is the Council on Foreign Relations, the foremost promoter of globalism on the planet.
Yes indeed. The source of one’s income certainly does bias one’s politics – even to the extent of saying one thing during most of a one hour interview, and concluding with the opposite in the last five minutes.
In the bulk of her interview Garrett explained all the ways CoVid19 is spread through open borders, international flights, international cruise ships, and wide open international trade, and concludes that globalism is fantastic.
Sure, it is wonderful for medically advanced nations to assist those nations that are not as fortunate to help avoid or minimize the impacts of pandemic. But that benevolence does not argue for globalism any more than desiring secure borders and promoting nationalism makes one a racist.
At this point it is more appropriate than ever to promote secure borders, to vet those who cross those borders not just for their political and cultural intentions and compatibility, but now more than ever, to determine what disease they are carrying across the border. CoVid19 is not the first formerly “eradicated” disease to cross our border. World Net Daily reports…
Cramped conditions and the spread of difficult-to-treat diseases has doctors worried in the wake of a massive influx of children coming across the Mexican-U.S. border, many of them from Central and South America. Outbreaks of scabies, lice, dengue fever, tuberculosis and other diseases – many of them contagious – are already being documented among the children and in some border agents who work among them.
Whether they are legal or illegal border crossers, a 14-day minimum quarantine period is essential.
Call it “nationalism”; call it whatever. Stronger borders, not “globalism” is the way to maintain not only a healthier nation, but a more prosperous and self-sufficient one.
Is this pandemic another nail in the coffin of globalism? If it isn’t, it should be.