Yes, we have to learn to live with inconsistencies and that is quite a task, they are abundant, but the question of how to live with them is a second one. Every day we are confronted with all kinds of information in the newspapers and in other ways and the new habit is to say something today and then tomorrow do the exact opposite or contradict something today and then next week just do what you first contradicted. For people who try to follow the course of life with their thinking, that is a rather unpleasant thing to do and it is getting a bit unbearable because that process I just painted seems to get worse rather than better. And there was a time when you felt that you could somewhat rely on what was being said and written. And at the moment that trust is completely misplaced. To give you an example, at one point it says in the newspaper that the head of the RIVM, Jaap van Dissel, has stated that mouth caps have been scientifically proven to make no major contribution to preventing infections, then, not very long afterwards, it is announced that 1 December will see the introduction of a mouth cap obligation in the Netherlands. Although in the six months before that, it seemed that the government had been fully advised by the RIVM, this is apparently not the case when it is the opposite advice.Then, as is well known, there is a great deal of hope of the possibility of vaccinating soon. The question is, of course, an international one: will vaccination be made obligatory, or will it not? In the Netherlands, the reassuring message is 'no, the vaccination will not be mandatory'. Then there is the statement in the news by our Health Minister that it could very well be that if you do not want to be vaccinated, there will be consequences. After that, there was an enormous uproar, and people realised that this means that it is actually compulsory after all, after which this statement was withdrawn. Not very long after that, the announcement follows that the VVD is actually of the opinion that vaccination should not be made compulsory, but that refusal to have a vaccination carried out should have consequences. And then you gradually pull your hair out of your head, not to mention the fact of the content, one is torn between one thing and another, which deprives you of all confidence in reasonable leadership.
Now there has been much talk of a 'Great Reset' lately, which will come after the pandemic has calmed down somewhat. That seems to a number of world leaders to be an opportune moment to introduce certain measures that would otherwise be difficult to accept by the public, because, of course, we as a population are now used to having to follow all sorts of things that we are not be able to understand rationally, but which are simply imposed on us.
That Great Reset was announced on 3 June by two prominent people, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and the Chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab. And in that month of June, the latter wrote a book entitled 'The Great Reset' which you can read. It covers 280 pages and describes all the possibilities that exist after the pandemic, also referring to what has been described in history after pandemics. Different possibilities are described, so not a fixed reset but all kinds of possible resets that can occur spontaneously and actually in this book it is not so clear that there would exist a plan, or an intention, to force certain measures, although in each chapter an example is given of what the writer, or the writers, then see as the best form of reset.
It is clear in the course of the book that this pandemic has created a great deal of global disorder and that this is having an effect in all areas, in all areas of interdependence, and that we can expect that there will be major consequences of this pandemic, particularly in the economic field, and that it is therefore to be expected that disorder will arise, or that order will have to be created. So, let us say 246 pages long, and I have read the whole book and I did not find anywhere that it said that the pandemic could have been dealt with differently, as a result of which this disorder could perhaps have been prevented in some other way.
Then, at the end of the book, there is the conclusion, and in the course of that conclusion, there is the following:
“There is no denying that the COVID-19 virus has more often than not been a personal catastrophe for the millions infected by it, and for their families and communities.
and now you have to listen carefully
However, at a global level, if viewed in terms of the percentage of the global population effected, the corona crisis is (so far) one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experience over the last 2000 years. In all likelihood, unless the pandemic evolves in an unforeseen way, the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild compared to previous pandemics.”
And that is what I mean by inconsistencies. A book that devotes 240 pages to the terrible consequences of this pandemic, where it is not once said 'perhaps this pandemic should have been dealt with differently' and where, at the end of the book, the conclusion is that the pandemic is the mildest in the last two thousand years.
Then, as a reader, you are really stunned, and you wonder if that is what is being concluded here, and then of course it is described that this pandemic has nonetheless, of course, brought chaos to the world, but I would have expected it to be there because the assessment has been wrong, as a result of which measures have been imposed, and are still being imposed, which are causing this chaos and disorder, much more than the pandemic itself. That would have been fair and, as far as I am concerned, it would have had to be at the beginning of the book. But it is at the end of the book, in the conclusion, completely unexpected, because there is nothing in the book to suggest that the author is looking at it in that way, and then this statement turns into a justification of the chaos that has arisen because everything is intertwined, and there is no statement about the senseless disorder created by a pandemic that is the mildest in two thousand years.
COVID-19: The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab, Thierry Malleret