There are of course many detailed accounts and reports on the COVID19 timeline, both the official mainstream media (MSM) accounts and the lesser-known accounts that show a more realistic timeline.
In short, the MSM ‘narrative’ is that a novel corona virus ‘broke out’ in Wuhan China January 2020 from an accidental virus ‘jump’ from a bat to a pangolin (most corona viruses escape animal reservoirs and jump to humans this way). Videos of people dropping dead in the street in China emerged (later revealed to be obvious fakes – that’s not how people would die). The WHO estimated a case-fatality rate (CFR) of 3%. China tried to contain the outbreak with authoritarian lockdowns and it appeared to succeed – cases dropped a couple of months later. The virus ‘spread’ to the West in March 2020. Italy became the next ‘disaster’, with images and videos of people dying on ventilators. Morticians in Bergamo were ordered to ‘stand down’, and allow the Army to use trucks to cart away the dead. Later it was revealed that the amount of dead was not anything above normal but the imagery was frightening. This ‘allowed’ the West to utilize Chinese style lockdowns, and we employed various lockdowns to control the spread as well, continuously, off and on for 2 years, each time claiming the lockdowns (and masks) worked. All the while everyone was scared that this was the next bubonic plague similar to 1918, and 2 years of masks, lockdowns, fear, panic ensued.
Before C19 hit, back in October 2019, an event called Event 201 was held, mimicking what world governments should do and how they should react in a coordinated effort, should a new pandemic arise. This was all funded and hosted by the WEF and Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
For COVID19, in reality, the details gradually came out over the next months and year(s):
- The outbreak was discovered to have started mid 2019 or even earlier, not 2020. This based on blood doner sampling in North America showing unique C19 antibodies back to late 2019, and sewage samples from Europe showing the same.
- Prior to March 2020, most Western Health Officers were emphasizing this was a low-mortality disease. The UK Health Authority even removed C19 from its High Consequence Infectious Disease list in March 2020, citing ‘low death rate overall’. Their Chief officer, Chris Whitty, gave a televised presentation emphasizing the low risk: ‘Of those who get it, few will notice, fewer still will be ill, fewer of those will need treatment, even fewer will be critically ill, and sadly a vanishingly small number will die’…
- Somehow, with only one day of WHO review, the PCR test to detect SARSCOV2 virus in people was accepted and launched (Drosten et al). Normally such a launch would need a minimum of 5 to 20 days of WHO review. The PCR test to this point was a useful tool to confirm a disease alongside symptomatic confirmation. The PCR test amplifies patient samples using up to 25 amplification cycles to confirm which virus is present. The world used CT cycles of up to 45. Beyond 30 cycles, all experts agreed (before 2020) that the PCR test would find anything and signal it SARSCOV2 (it would signal anything you set it to). This is key since all PCR tests were used to drive the entire ‘pandemic’ numbers, cases, ‘with COVID’ etc., even in people who weren’t sick. The PCR test essentially became a tool that allowed you to ‘find’ COVID19 ‘cases’ anywhere you looked, even though you were really finding dead virus fragments.
- Another ‘leaked hypothesis’ – The outbreak was eventually tied to a lab leak, funded in part by both USA and China (Wuhan Institute of Virology). The USA funded this research, which is described as ‘gain of function’. This alters aspects of viruses to ‘weaponize’ them for whatever reason. That is, for example, taking a Coronavirus (related to the common cold and rinoviruses), which has high transmissibility, and ‘gain’ its function of lethality similar to influenza (low transmissibility). The Wuhan Institute of Virology, a joint US/China lab, funded via the CDC and Fauci, is the cause of this leak. The components and DNA makeup of SARSCOV2 virus have patents on its components going back to 2005.
- The mortality rate, confirmed by multiple outbreak samples, was settling down to more like 0.1 to 0.2%, not 3%. The WHO mixed messages with case fatality rate (CFR) and infection fatality rate (IFR). CFR being actual sick people who report to hospital, then pass away from C19 (the disease caused by SARSCOV2). IFR being deaths divided by the estimated total of all who got the virus (SARSCOV2), including those who got sick and those who didn’t. (See IFR appendix). It has yet again been revised down to 0.1% having gone endemic (per John Iaonnidis papers).
- The spread factor (“R”) was all over the place. First, it’s droplet based – low “R”, wipe down surfaces etc. Then it was discovered it was aerosolized – high “R” – even cheap cloth masks did nothing.
- Government health experts, who first said this is a mild disease, masks won’t help, small minority of infected will go to hospital, smaller fraction of that will die, suddenly said ‘everyone is at risk.’ Modelers were brought out (most famous was Niell Fergusson of the UK), indicated 500,000 will die in the UK, 3 million in the USA, and 90,000 in Sweden ‘unless we lockdown like China did’. For some reason the West suddenly trusted news and videos from China as truth, something they never usually do.
- The government measures – masks, lockdowns, distancing, closures, etc. initially intuitively felt like they did something. ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ – ‘since we did action “A”, and “B” happened, therefore action “A” caused B. E.g. we locked down and wore masks and didn’t have lots of death.
- Slowly, the opposite happened. That is, places that had hard lockdowns and mask use had same death levels as those that didn’t. (See Lockdown appendix) This has lasted for almost 2 years now (winter 2020 to winter 2022).
- Some jurisdictions, like Sweden, Florida, Texas, etc. decided to not lock down anymore, and after about a year, they had no worse outcomes than any other locked down area.
- The same modelers who said Sweden would see 90,000 deaths continued to put out such models. Even after Sweden, using their old/existing pandemic plan, ended up with 1/10th the amount of deaths. The plans almost all Western nations had, even for a 3% IFR, was to isolate those sick/vulnerable to the disease, and let rest of society continue as normal. This is because stopping society’s healthy non-at-risk people causes too many other deaths (poverty, job loss, suicides etc.) (See pandemic plans prior to 2020 appendix.)
- By the mid-point of the outbreak, approximately in October 2020, the WHO estimated 10% of the world had the infection, and at that time 1.5 million had died, yielding an IFR of 1.5/750 = 0.2%. These rough figures continued into 2021, with up to 4.5 million deaths ‘with C19’ not of, over an estimated global infection total of half the world (4.5/3750) million = 0.12%. In the same timeframe where 4.5 million died ‘with C19’, up to 85 million people died worldwide of all other causes.
- News all around world was ‘we need to lockdown to avoid the hospitals being overwhelmed’. Thousands of surgeries were cancelled and hospitals cleared out for C19 preparation. The ‘overwhelming’ did not happen. https://www.jccf.ca/alberta-governments-own-data-shows-hospital-bed-and-icu-utilization-at-five-year-low/
- Despite data showing the IFR was lower than first thought, and despite models continuing to fail, governments continued shut downs, masks, and closures all of 2020 and 2021. Keep in mind health responses even for ‘pandemics’ up to 2020 would include all health issues causing death of illness, not just any one issue. For C19, varying from country to country, the deaths ‘with C19’ were anywhere from 0% of all-cause deaths, up to 10% of all-cause deaths. E.g. Canada, at end of 2020, approximately 25,000 died ‘with C19’, while approximately 290,000 Canadians die each year. All government responses were to act as though C19 was the only deadly issue anywhere, relying on ‘well would have been 10 times worse if not for masks or lockdowns’. Again false post hoc propter hoc, disproven by places like Sweden, who used the ‘old’ pandemic plan and did just as well/poor as any other EU country. To remove ‘with’ vs ‘of’ ambiguity, appendix below shows the summary of excess all-cause mortality for major countries.
- Vaccines rolled out in early 2021 and throughout the year. Deaths and cases did not go down, they went up in both counts. This was blamed on the new ‘delta’ variant even though there are 300,000 variants, and even though delta CFR is lower (spreads more). By late Fall 2021 (October), many countries with high vaccinations rates began to see no difference in cases or hospitalizations between vaccinated or unvaccinated people. See ‘U.K. cases vs vaccination’ Appendix.
- The measures taken not only seem to not correlate to better outcomes, they seem to show that they make everything worse and extend the pandemic. Lockdown strictness is correlated to worse deaths/per million outcomes, putting ineffective masks on people for an air-borne (aerosolized) virus enabled people to be closer to one another with a false sense of security, and multiple vaccine shots during the pandemic seems to correlate to increases in cases. All fundamental pandemic plans were reversed (isolate healthy and use universal lockdowns), and to date have killed >25 million people compared to the 5 million ‘with C19 +ve test’.
- As of Oct. 2021, the narrative now is ‘the hospitals are again going to be overwhelmed’, this time due to the unvaccinated. Governments promised to add capacity over the last year, but did not. Updated data shows the hospitals are at usual levels – typically 100 to 110% capacity like all other years.