photo #8187349

ANN KENEVAN on April 22, 2025

20 views

In Album: ANN KENEVAN's Timeline Photos

Dimension: 600 x 800

File Size: 74.85 Kb

View More View Less

ANN KENEVAN

"A large-scale Chinese study published in Nature (2020) tracked 10 million people and found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission in community settings. The WHO itself, in a June 2020 briefing, noted that asymptomatic spread was “very rare,” though this was quickly downplayed amid political press... View More"A large-scale Chinese study published in Nature (2020) tracked 10 million people and found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission in community settings. The WHO itself, in a June 2020 briefing, noted that asymptomatic spread was “very rare,” though this was quickly downplayed amid political pressure. If asymptomatic spread is negligible, why was it hyped as a major threat? The answer may lie in its utility for control" Quote Alan Roberts@T Did Officials Exaggerate COVID to Control Us? Shocking Truth Revealed! The COVID-19 pandemic reshaped the world, but beneath the surface of public health directives lies a troubling question: Did officials deliberately exaggerate the virus’s deadliness to control populations? By sidelining the reality of asymptomatic cases and pushing narratives that overstated the threat, authorities may have engineered a climate of fear to justify unprecedented societal controls. This article dives into the science, scrutinizes the data, and argues that the omission of asymptomatic cases was not an oversight but a calculated move to amplify panic and compliance. Buckle up—this is a deep dive into a controversial claim, grounded in evidence and reason. Let’s start with the science of asymptomatic infections. An asymptomatic case occurs when someone tests positive for a virus but shows no symptoms. Early in the pandemic, studies revealed that a significant portion of COVID-19 cases fell into this category. A 2020 study in Nature Communications estimated that up to 40-45% of SARS-CoV-2 infections were asymptomatic, a figure corroborated by meta-analyses in Annals of Internal Medicine (2021), which pegged the range at 30-50%. These individuals, often unaware of their infection, continued normal activities, yet the virus didn’t wreak havoc as expected. This raises a critical point: If nearly half of infections caused no illness, why wasn’t this fact front and center in public health messaging? Instead, officials focused on symptomatic cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, painting a grim picture. The case fatality rate (CFInstead, officials focused on symptomatic cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, painting a grim picture. The case fatality rate (CFR)—deaths divided by confirmed cases—was frequently cited, often hovering around 1-2% in early 2020 reports from the World Health Organization (WHO). But the CFR is misleading without context. It only accounts for confirmed cases, ignoring the vast pool of undetected asymptomatic infections. The infection fatality rate (IFR), which includes all infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic), tells a different story. A 2020 Bulletin of the WHO meta-analysis estimated the global IFR at 0.5-1%, significantly lower than the CFR, and even lower for younger populations. By emphasizing CFR over IFR, officials inflated the perceived lethality, sowing fear that every infection was a potential death sentence. Now, let’s tackle a contentious claim: Asymptomatic spread of viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, is not a significant driver of transmission. This idea challenges the mainstream narrative, but evidence supports it. A 2020 study in The Lancet found that asymptomatic individuals were less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 compared to symptomatic ones, with transmission rates as low as 0-2.2%. A large-scale Chinese study published in Nature (2020) tracked 10 million people and found no evidence of asymptomatic transmission in community settings. The WHO itself, in a June 2020 briefing, noted that asymptomatic spread was “very rare,” though this was quickly downplayed amid political pressure. If asymptomatic spread is negligible, why was it hyped as a major threat? The answer may lie in its utility for control. By inflating the danger of asymptomatic carriers, officials justified sweeping measures—lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing. The mantra “you could be spreading it without knowing” turned every person into a potential vector, fostering paranoia and compliance. This narrative conveniently sidestepped the reality that healthy, symptom-free individuals posed minimal risk. Instead of targeting high-risk groups—like the elderly or immunocompromised, where 90% of deaths occurred per CDC data (2020)—policies blanketed entire populations. This one-size-fits-all approach maximized fear while minimizing nuance, a hallmark of control tactics. Let’s connect the dots to the broader agenda. Fear is a powerful motivator. Psychological studies, like those in Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (2018), show that fear-based messaging increases compliance with authority, even when measures lack proportionality. Public health campaigns leaned heavily on this. Daily death tolls, alarming headlines, and images of overwhelmed hospitals dominated media, while stories of asymptomatic or mild cases were buried. This selective focus wasn’t accidental. A 2021 Health Policy study critiqued the WHO and CDC for prioritizing fear over balanced communication, noting that exaggerated risk perceptions eroded public trust long-term. The omission of asymptomatic data served a dual purpose: It kept the virus’s deadliness in the spotlight and justified control measures that reshaped society. Lockdowns crippled economies, forcing reliance on government aid. Contact-tracing apps and vaccine passports introduced surveillance norms. School closures and social isolation altered social fabrics. These weren’t random outcomes but predictable consequences of policies rooted in fear, not science. A 2020 Lancet Public Health article warned that lockdowns caused disproportionate harm—mental health crises, unemployment, and delayed medical care—yet these trade-offs were rarely discussed. Why? Because acknowledging them would undermine the narrative that compliance was the only path to survival. Skeptics might argue that public health officials acted out of caution, not malice. The “precautionary principle” suggests acting aggressively in the face of uncertainty, and early in the pandemic, data was limited. Fair enough. But as evidence mounted—by mid-2020, studies like those in Eurosurveillance confirmed lower IFRs and minimal asymptomatic spread—why didn’t messaging evolve? Instead, authorities doubled down. Mask mandates persisted despite Cochrane Reviews (2023) finding weak evidence for their efficacy. Vaccine campaigns targeted low-risk groups, even as NEJM studies (2021) showed minimal severe outcomes in healthy young people. This suggests a commitment to control, not science. The global response also hints at coordination. The WHO, CDC, and national health agencies aligned on fear-driven messaging, often sidelining dissenting scientists. The Great Barrington Declaration (2020), signed by thousands of experts advocating focused protection over blanket lockdowns, was dismissed as “dangerous” by NIH and WHO leaders. A BMJ (2021) analysis later validated many of its points, yet the damage was done—dissent was silenced, and fear reigned. This suppression of debate mirrors historical propaganda tactics, as outlined in Propaganda and Persuasion (2011), where controlling narratives ensures compliance. Let’s address the human cost. By inflating COVID’s threat, officials eroded trust. A 2022 Pew Research survey found that 60% of Americans distrusted public health institutions post-pandemic, a direct result of inconsistent messaging and perceived overreach. Mental health crises skyrocketed—Lancet Psychiatry (2021) reported a 25% global increase in anxiety and depression. Economic fallout disproportionately hit the vulnerable, with World Bank (2021) estimating 88-115 million people pushed into poverty. If the goal was public health, why ignore these harms while fixating on a virus with a survival rate exceeding 99% for most? In conclusion, the deliberate sidelining of asymptomatic cases and the myth of widespread asymptomatic spread were not mere oversights but strategic choices. By inflating COVID’s deadliness, public health officials crafted a narrative that justified control, suppressed dissent, and reshaped society. The science—lower IFRs, minimal asymptomatic transmission, and disproportionate harms of lockdowns—was available early on, yet ignored. This wasn’t about saving lives; it was about leveraging fear to steer populations. As we reflect, let’s demand transparency, embrace skepticism, and never let fear override reason again. References Oran, D. P., & Topol, E. J. (2020). Prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Annals of Internal Medicine, 173(5), 362-367. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2020). Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 inferred from seroprevalence data. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(1), 19-33F. Madewell, Z. J., et al. (2020). Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 396(10260), 1453-1463. Cao, S., et al. (2020). Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China. Nature Communications, 11(1), 5917. Jefferson, T., et al. (2023). Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2023(1).

View Less

April 22, 2025