The Coronavirus-hysteria has gone viral. Global media outlets report nothing other than the consequences of the World Health Organisation (WHO) declaring a pandemic weeks ago. In unprecedented moves, people are told (forced) to stay home under lockdowns. Economies are being shut down, while the future consequences are largely ignored. Is the global Covid-19 hysteria fair? Are all the economic measures necessary, or are there other forces at play?

By Arthur Blok
In exceptional cases, such as the current COVID-19 crisis, where most opinions and media reports tell the same story, someone needs to look in different directions. Try to unveil untold facts, and ask the right questions.

Does the severity of the Coronavirus justify such draconian measures as social lockdowns and a shutdown of large parts of the global economy? Hourly updates on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and personal blogs almost suggest a certain excitement about these measures, even as the collective insanity continues to grow. Leading economists expect that, as a result, many small and medium-sized enterprises will go bankrupt if the economic shutdown continues far into April. A large portion of the workforce will lose their jobs and, consequently, be unable to pay their bills.

Without exaggerating, it is safe to say that a new economic crisis is upon us. A crisis that will make the financial crisis of 2008 look like a quiet Sunday afternoon in the park. Most economists appear to agree on this simplistic hypothetical post-coronavirus economic analysis.

Corona facts
Despite being classified as a once-in-a-century pandemic, the figures do not align with expectations. On March 27, globally, roughly 550.000 people have been confirmed as infected by the disease, which has killed a bit more than 24,000 people since December. Almost 125,000 people have recovered worldwide.

Among the current active COVID-19 cases (almost 400.000 people), 95% have very mild flu-like symptoms, while only 4% are in a serious or critical condition. A few days ago, the WHO reported that new coronavirus cases in mainland China had declined significantly. In the past week, fewer than 50 new cases were confirmed by officials. In South Korea and many European countries, new cases are also declining or stabilising.

Among active COVID-19 cases to date, almost 378.000 have been classified as mild; only 5% of patients have been seriously or critically ill. The WHO estimates the coronavirus's case-fatality rate at approximately 2%. For comparison, the case-fatality rates for SARS and MERS were 10% and 34%, respectively, and seasonal influenza remains far more fatal.

Every year, an estimated 300,000 to 650,000 people die in the world due to complications from seasonal influenza (flu) viruses. This figure corresponds to 800-1,780 deaths per day attributable to the seasonal flu. Despite these clear facts, the global panic is growing and being fed by both the WHO and the mainstream media.

Why not have mass media coverage and daily updates on seasonal flu deaths? Or live coverage of people who die every day in traffic accidents, or of air pollution? Why not go live to hospitals every evening on prime time to report on more than 10 million people who die of cancer annually?

Any sane person could argue: Is it necessary to shut down large parts of national economies to protect such a small percentage of people who get complications with the Coronavirus? Does it not make more sense to allocate the hundreds of billions of dollars to protect this small group and protect them intensively until the virus is under control or a vaccine is available?

Undoubtedly, it is much cheaper and easier to organise than to shut down economies and force whole nations to stay indoors without clear health benefits, and then use billions of taxpayers' money to fight the symptoms of that decision. Why do governments participate in creating mass panic among the population, instead of publicly asking the right questions?

WHO
The WHO is playing a questionable role in this scenario. Instead of slowing down the panic, it is feeding it, for example, by the daily updates from WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a former Ethiopian minister. During Tedros’ three-year campaign to win the WHO post, he was accused by health professionals of having covered up cholera epidemics in both Ethiopia and Sudan to avoid embarrassing the two African regimes.

After visiting China in late January, one of the main backers of his bid to become the WHO chief immediately commended the Chinese authorities for the way they handled the crisis. He stated that they should serve as a model for other nations. At the same time, China tried to cover up the virus’s outbreak and silenced whistle-blowers. He also did not set foot in Wuhan, the epicentre of the virus.

By that time, Hubei province and Wuhan were under complete lockdown. The head of the WHO mission in Wuhan at the time said there was no evidence of a 'hidden iceberg', but admitted he had not visited 'every single place'. Up until now, it remains unclear what has really happened. No independent investigators or journalists were there at the time to report.

After his visit, the WHO boss declared the Coronavirus a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ while at that moment only 150 cases were known outside China. Soon afterwards, on 11 March, he declared it a global pandemic.

No world leader questioned the WHO's role until that moment. Neither China nor the WHO has shared any clear scientific data to support it. What were the motivations to raise the global alarm in that way and create panic?

While serving as a minister, Tedros became close friends with former U.S. President Bill Clinton and began a close collaboration with the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative. He also developed a close relationship with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Coincidentally, both large private donors and advocates for the WHO are.

Event 201
In October last year, the Johns Hopkins Centre for Health Security, the World Economic Forum, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation hosted Event 201 in New York. Event 201 simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic Coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modelled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.

In the simulation, the disease that a vaccine will prevent begins in pig farms in Brazil, initially spreading slowly, but then spreading more rapidly in healthcare settings. When it spreads efficiently from person to person in the low-income, densely populated neighbourhoods of some mega-cities in South America, the epidemic explodes.

It is first exported by air travel to Portugal, the United States, and China and then to many other countries. Although some countries initially manage to control it, it continues to spread and be reintroduced, and eventually, no country can maintain control.

There is no possibility of a vaccine being available in the first year. There is a fictional antiviral drug that can help the sick but not significantly limit the spread of the disease. Because the entire human population is susceptible, during the initial months of the pandemic, the cumulative number of cases increased exponentially, doubling every week. As cases and deaths accumulate, the economic and societal consequences become increasingly severe. The scenario ends at the 18-month point, with 65 million deaths.

Hidden agenda
A month earlier, a similar simulation was conducted at Wuhan Airport. As with Event 201, it underscored the need for global public-private cooperation to mitigate severe economic and societal impacts when a new virus emerges.

To make it creepier, when researching Bill Gates, many disturbing articles and analyses are emerging. The man appears to be preoccupied with vaccinations and the potential threats posed by viral pandemics. He has sponsored multiple simulation events and holds substantial shares in pharmaceutical companies. As a cherry on the pie, Gates appears in a 2019 Netflix documentary predicting a killer virus that could originate in China's wet markets to infect the world rapidly. Of course, this can all be a mere coincidence.

Without jumping to conclusions, why does a WHO boss, who is funded and appointed by the same organisations that organised Event 201, basically tell everyone from day one to be very much afraid and hide? Telling young people that they ‘are not invincible, this virus could put you in a hospital for weeks or even kill you.’ At that time, there was no scientific data to support that.

The WHO is widely regarded as a credible authority on global health issues. Governments are taking its advice seriously. Founded in 1948 as a specialised agency of the United Nations, it has a broad mandate to act as a coordinating authority on international health issues.
,
Yet there is no real control over the people who work there, nor does any independent committee regulate it. It is also unclear whether private donors, such as Bill Gates, expect anything in return for their generous contributions.

Any organisation that makes such bold statements should be continuously subjected to scientific counterchecks to determine whether the information it disseminates is accurate and serves the public interest. Instead, it is led by a disputable figure who, in the case of the coronavirus, made disputable statements and instigated global panic.

Should it not be the job of the WHO to prevent such scenarios from unfolding? Is the WHO not there to help and protect global health, rather than instigating global panic?

As a result an unprecedented Coronavirus hysteria is upon us. It is widespread worldwide, with social lockdowns and national economic shutdowns as a result. The facts do not necessarily justify that. If we continue in this manner for a few more months, the damage to the global economic system will be immense. It could even be demolished. Without pointing fingers or getting into disputable conspiracies, you should ask the question, who or whom has an interest or benefit to do that?

The answer to that question should be determined individually. When doing so, take the above-mentioned figures and developments into consideration. Try to see the larger picture, and always ask the right questions.