The End of the World (As We Know It)
We all use the phrase “one in a million”. It was thought to originate from an individual’s chance of being struck by lightning, which is actually one in 1,222,000. Highly unlikely.
Statistics are generally accepted as truth, and they should be. Math is math. 1 plus 1 will always be two, no matter how you spin it. But statistics can be manipulated for advantage.
The lightning example is based on the annual number of individuals struck by lightning (270) in the United States divided by the population (330 million). Of those victims, only 27 die, so your chance of being killed by lightning is only one in 12 million. And where you live has an impact too. You are 30 times more likely to be hit by lightning in Montana than in California.
The COVID-19 pandemic engages us all in a game of numbers that is unprecedented. The news/entertainment media and elite globalists worldwide would have us believe they care deeply about every human life on the planet, but close scrutiny reveals their self-serving ambition. And all sides of the argument about whether we should be afraid or not, whether we should shut down the entire world economy or not, are based on numbers.
Here are some numbers (as of the date of this writing) for your consideration and perspective:
| US deaths 2018 total (not including abortion) | 2,839,000 |
| US deaths each year due to heart disease | 647,000 |
| US deaths 2016 due to abortion | 623,471 |
| US deaths 2017-2018 due to influenza | 80,000 |
| US deaths projected this year due to COVID-19 | ? |
| US deaths so far this year due to abortion | 200,000 |
| US deaths so far this year due to heart disease | 148,898 |
| US deaths so far this year due to influenza | 23,000 |
| US deaths so far this year due to COVID-19 | 685 |
Choose your own projection for COVID-19 deaths this year. The New York Times is guessing somewhere between 200,000 and 1.7 million. Of course, these are the people who guaranteed that Hillary Clinton would be elected president in 2016. And it doesn’t pass the test of reasonableness when viewed in the context of year-to-date COVID-19 deaths.
The question remains, is the cure worse than the disease? How many lives will be economically destroyed by a prolonged “shutdown” of virtually all commerce in the US and around the world? And how many deaths would result from that?
If there is bad intent behind the pandemic and government-induced economic disaster, who would benefit? All government leaders and their chosen workers would continue to be paid and gain authority and control. Hedge fund investors (can you say George Soros?) would make a killing as markets plunge.
Whenever government makes decisions for the masses, winners and losers are chosen. Which side would you land on?
Anybody who really wants to avoid death from lightning could move to the North Pole, where lightning never strikes. And if we really wanted to prevent deaths from COVID-19, we would identify who is the most vulnerable and put them in iron-clad quarantine, leaving the rest of us to live full lives, mindful of the many risks we face.
Tom Balek – Rockin’ On the Right Side
It’s the end of the world as we know it
It’s the end of the world as we know it
It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine
End of the World As We Know It – REM
Rockin' On The Right Side 
Thanks for posting this timely reminder which puts the deaths from Coronavirus in perspective. I’m not trying to minimize the dangers but what is the use of a “cure” (shutting down the states) that will kill so many more than it saves. I probably would be considered at-risk, and would be happy to quarantine myself instead of shutting down the entire economy over a handful of deaths in people who already had an underlying problem which made them vulnerable to the flu.