analysis, data

[Data/Study] Cashless society in Europe: a winding road

“Money, money, money”, ABBA sang in 1976 about all the things you could do with a little money. Industry experts believe that today, ABBA’s home country of Sweden is set to become the world’s first “cashless society”, a place where digital financial transactions, either through cards or mobile devices, completely replace cash money. This model is expected to take shape by March 2023, but consumers are already increasingly paying less with cash, and banks and retailers are handling less banknotes and coins.

Executive Summary

I have tried the cashless “revolution”. I placed my banking information into my mobile phone “wallet” and proceeded to live a life of bliss with no receipts to review or change to handle. I did not like it. My cashless moment lasted a mere two months. After my brief encounter, I deleted my banking information from my mobile and happily skipped to the ATM to dispense some green.

The idea of going without physical cash is one that concerns me. I understand that the cool factor as well as security concerns are easy to share as propaganda. But I am quick to remind myself of the phrase, Ignorance is bliss. For a genuine look into the cashless revolution should dispel the myth and comfort of security. How quickly can one’s mobile device be pilfered and scavenged for information? How quickly can a banking institution refuse and withhold money from an account holder? What of the population that does not use or own mobile devices? What happens to them? How will they continue to purchase goods, food, and materials to maintain their survival? How quickly will they experience segregation from the affluent members of society who can not only purchase the advantageous mobile devices but also swipe left or right to determine which goods they purchase?

Europe is on the verge of crossing the thresh-hold. Or nearly so, as the document from Statista implies. Countries in Asia are likely to follow, or are mere steps behind. Japan has been at the forefront of this electronic marvel for decades now.

Europe’s digital payment options (p. 44)

A DossierPlus document from Statista: Cashless society in Europe: a winding road. The PDF is available to download for free.

“Contactless”, however, is a vast term, encompassing different types of payments through different means. A debit card with an NFC chip is one way. Other examples include smartphones or wristbands with an NFC token built in, or apps that decipher a QR code. These types of contactless payments are fairly new in their development and typically
require a mobile device (a smartphone, tablet, or a wearable device or token) in their use. To avoid overlap, this latter type of contactless payment has been classified “mobile payment” and will come back in chapter five.

Contactless in Europe: round one (p. 34)

Standard
analysis, data, scientific study

[Data/Study] Review of scientific reports of harms caused by face masks, up to February 2021

This is a treat. For me, and for anyone who is interested in hearing the other side, in questioning the status quo. Within the past two months, I have come across more scientific studies emerge from the woodwork, the smoke, nay, the veil of deceit. Strong words, I know. But the phrase, “believe the science”, has been abused and incorrectly persuaded millions upon millions of people, worldwide. It is easy to follow where the herd is heading. The idea of seeing others move along and together in unison can be comforting. But what is the end goal of the march towards this “comfort”?


It is a testimony to the power of propaganda, institutional capture, and the desire to socially conform that masking of the general population has successfully been imposed during the COVID-19 era. The harms from this imposition are palpable, and potentially long-term and gargantuan, not the least of which is the psychological training of the public to comply with an absurd measure that has direct personal negative impact. I review the mounting evidence of the obvious: Universal masking harms people and society, without any detectable benefit. – Summary


Vainshelboim B. (2021). “Facemasks in the COVID-
19 era: A health hypothesis”. Medical Hypotheses. 2021;146:110411.
doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2020.110411 —-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/


Green, Janet et al. “The implications of face masks for babies and
families during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discussion paper”. Journal of neonatal nursing :
JNN vol. 27,1 (2021): 21-25. doi:10.1016/j.jnn.2020.10.005 –
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7598570/
Table 2: Green, Janet et al. “The implications of face masks for babies and
families during the COVID-19 pandemic: A discussion paper”.

Matuschek, C., Moll, F., Fangerau, H. et al. “Face masks: benefits
and risks during the COVID-19 crisis”. European Journal of Medical Research 25, 32 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-020-00430-5

…might be critically increased.

How convenient! A critical increase of infections in the population, and how to ensure it? Consider wearing two, no, three masks? Consider wearing masks at home amongst your family. Consider wearing masks at all times, outside to walk your dog, when jogging or running, on a bicycle. Consider wearing masks while having intercourse with your spouse or significant other. Please, please, whatever you do, humanity, do not prevent the possibility of critically increasing the number of infected around you.

Signed, Your Masters Above You.


Citation and Abstract:

Rancourt, D.. (2021). Review of scientific reports of harms caused by face masks, up to February 2021. 10.13140/RG.2.2.14294.37448. A review of scientific publications, up to February 2021, about measured and potential harms of face masks imposed on workers, children, and the general population.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349518677_Review_of_scientific_reports_of_harms_caused_by_face_masks_up_to_February_2021

Note: The white/paper study is available for download as a PDF from the link.

Standard
analysis, data, scientific study

[Data/Study] SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data

An interesting analysis of SARS-CoV-2 published in May 2020. This may be old news for some but it still rings remarkably relevant to me. Could this study have been buried under more notable peers, institutions, or studies with greater amounts of data? Could it have been cast aside as the narrative of this particular study dismisses the narrative bellowed to the masses? I’ve included screenshots of the study to compliment this post. Below is the link to the location of the article on Elsevier.

Link: SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data

Disclosure: Highlights and Abstract were copied and pasted from the article’s location at Elsevier.


HIGHLIGHTS

• Comparison of incidence and mortality rates of four common coronaviruses circulating in France with those of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries.

• As of 2 March 2020, 90 307 patients had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 worldwide, with 3086 deaths (mortality rate 3.4%).

• As of 2 March 2020, among OECD countries, 7476 patients had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with 96 deaths (mortality rate 1.3%)

• As of 2 March 2020, in France, 191 people had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, with three deaths (mortality rate 1.6%).

• In OECD countries. the mortality rate for SARS-CoV-2 (1.3%) is not significantly different from that for common coronaviruses identified in public hospitals of Marseille, France (0.8%; P=0.11).

• The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus from China, is spreading around the world, causing a huge reaction despite its current low incidence outside China and the Far East. Four common coronaviruses are in current circulation and cause millions of cases worldwide. This article compares the incidence and mortality rates of these four common coronaviruses with those of SARS-CoV-2 in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. It is concluded that the problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably being overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.


"... in permanent circulation."

So, how does this affect the global population with the current roll-out of speedy vaccinations from speedier pharmaceutical labs? What I also find of interest is the name change, from SARS-CoV-2 to COVID-19. I arrived at a video by Professor Emeritus Doctor of Medicine Sucharit Bhakdi sometime last year where he expressed this query. I will have to locate that video and post it sometime this week.



“Fear could have a larger impact than the virus itself….”

The authors note that there are 16 endemic viruses in “common circulation” along with SARS-CoV-2. These do not include the “2.6 million deaths from respiratory infections (excluding tuberculosis) per year… noted in recent years worldwide.” The 16 common circulation viruses are:

Adenovirus

Bocavirus

Cytomegalovirus

Enterovirus

Influenza A H1N1 virus

Influenza A H3N2 virus

Influenza B virus

Metapneumovirus

Parainfluenzae virus 1

Parainfluenzae virus 2

parainfluenzae virus 3

Parainfluenzae virus 4

Parechovirus

Picornavirus

Rhinovirus

Syncytial respiratory virus


What can be attributed to the fear generated around a common circulating virus? Since coronaviridae is a common circulating virus, should we, the public, expect to see more things and activities fall under the umbrella of “common”? Common mask mandates. Common lockdowns. Common travel itinerary cancellations. Common restrictions on group, social, and family gatherings. Common shutdowns of religious gatherings inside and outside of a religious facility. Common suicides from fear generated from a common circulating virus.


The citation, always important, is generated from Elsevier:

Yanis Roussel, Audrey Giraud-Gatineau, Marie-Thérèse Jimeno, Jean-Marc Rolain, Christine Zandotti, Philippe Colson, Didier Raoult,
SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data,
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, Volume 55, Issue 5, 2020, 105947, ISSN 0924-8579,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105947.
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300972)

Standard