Has McKinsey Been Crafting The Plans To Kill Off People?

The pathological elite of this country are in process of narratizing themselves through a controlled population decline. All institutions of public health seemingly accepting this top-down narrative. 

Mckinsey was the major force multiplier of the opioid crisis, and it is because of that fact that when I read this piece on the panicdemic, I'm drawn to conclude that the plan is simply to kill off people. Whether opioid addiction or viral contagion, the plan is simply to kill off unprofitable population. 

After all, it was McKinsey who advised the Sacklers how to make more money than god selling opioids legally. (coincidentally, this program coincided with the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan from whence tons of opium were exported back to the U.S.) The result was deaths of addiction and despair all across the country, by prescription. 

McKinsey gives out the usual one size fits all advice to everyone, streamline your business, make sales triple, socialize your costs, demand tax exemptions… I can even remember – less than 10 years ago – walking into same-day surgery and seeing big stickers on the floor both advertising opiod pain killers and advising to take them with caution. Laughable because when you are in serious pain post surgery, you are inclined to pop that stuff like candy. And then ask for more. I wonder if McKinsey advised Pharma to install advertisements in hospitals. 

That certainly sounds like McKinsey.  

Pharma wouldn't have dared to do so without the advice of the established business world? Similarly, cCampaigns for the commerce-favoring “Let ‘er rip” approach to the panicdemic. Thesee have included stunningly dishonest messaging, like “herd immunity” when coronavirus infection does not produce lasting protection, or “Covid is no worse than the flu” when flu doesn’t do lasting damage to survivors. The new version of this “Get happy with dying younger than you should have” are the new spins of “Learn to live with Covid” and trying to make Covid becoming endemic as not so bad.

A new article by McKinsey does a public service of sorts by putting many of these rancid arguments in one tidy piece, 

mckinsey |  Societies need to set goals for what the new normal will look like and build consensus around them. Goals will vary across locations, but three guiding principles should apply. First, goals must recognize the “whole of society” impact of COVID-19. Targets for the health burden of the disease remain paramount, but countries can also introduce targets for economic and social disruption. Targets for the burden of death or severe disease (such as hospitalizations) and the related impact on healthcare-system capacity will continue to be as important as they have been during the pandemic. But beyond death or severe disease, COVID-19 has affected daily activities (learning and working, for example, and mental health). As such, measures of workdays lost, business closures, and school-absenteeism rates should also be considered.

Defining a new normal in a world where, for 18 months, societies focused on daily cases and test positivity is a material pivot that will need to be carefully communicated. The right metrics are likely to vary by geography: places where COVID-19 exposed the fragility of the health system may choose to focus primarily on not overwhelming their hospitals, while others may embrace a more integrated mix of economic, social, and health factors. Local demographics, citizen sentiment, economic resilience, vaccination status, and other factors should inform these goals. Viewing the target for the total burden of COVID-19 relative to other diseases will be important context.

Second, goals must be realistic and balance the different needs of society. In many countries, zero cases will not be the appropriate target, since it requires ongoing public-health measures that place significant restrictions on society, particularly on businesses and schools. Some countries are, therefore, resetting their expectations: “For this outbreak, it’s clear that long periods of heavy restrictions [have not gotten] us to zero cases,” said New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern. “But that is OK. Elimination was important because we didn’t have vaccines. Now we do. So we can begin to change the way we do things.” ⁴ Goals must also be realistic, or many sectors of society will quickly lose interest. And leaders must not set goals in a way that requires the most vulnerable in society to bear a disproportionate burden—for example, by requiring low-wage frontline workers to communicate or enforce policies.

Third, leaders must build the widest possible consensus around the goals through effective communication, emphasizing the whole-of-society nature of the targets. Much of the political discord created by COVID-19 over the past 18 months has arisen from differences of opinion about the relative importance of health, economic goals, and social goals. Not everyone will agree with every target, but part of managing endemic COVID-19 requires forging a social contract that recognizes the need to control the health impact of the disease while normalizing society to the greatest extent possible. While governments will lead in setting targets, all sectors of society will play a role in providing input and helping to build support for a shared definition of the new normal. Targets will evolve over time as we continue to learn more about what works and what doesn’t, but clarity and consistency of communication will be critical.