Home Top News Vaccine does not start economic growth – Echo24.cz

Vaccine does not start economic growth – Echo24.cz

Vaccine does not start economic growth – Echo24.cz

The Covit-19 vaccine has been around for months – and still is considered large – and is seen as a complete breakthrough that is said to bring life back to normal.

So it is not surprising that the economic outlook of most official organizations for 2021 is promising thanks to the vaccine. The International Monetary Fund has improved its previous outlook by even a third. Now the world economy is expected to grow by 5.5%. At the same time, emerging economies are expected to grow by 6.3% and developed economies by 4.3%. China will push up. While the US economy is growing at 5.1%, the Chinese economy is expected to grow at 8.1%. By 2022, the International Monetary Fund estimates that the economy will slow. It grows from a high base and does not have the so-called miracle of vaccination. Its effect is exhausting. So the global economy will grow “only” 4.2%.

But is that true? Will this good fairy tale come true? The International Monetary Fund – like other similar sophisticated or national institutions – is very promising and exaggerates the effect of the vaccine. Let me tell you the reason for that.

But first let’s take it a little further from the jungle. According to the International Monetary Fund, the vaccine is called the universal public good, which saves lives and protects taxpayers’ money in all countries.

This is not credible to many, but this report certainly shows that the International Monetary Fund is not an economy, but only a global and political authority. His definition of a public good is not even a valid act.

In theory, three: (1) it is indivisible in consumption, (2) it is indivisible for consumption, and (3) it has a zero margin cost for each additional consumer. However, the vaccine does not meet any of the above. When they want to explore the economic vocabulary, they can write to the International Monetary Fund about what is called a positive exterior to the vaccine. However, this is something completely different from a “common good”. In doing so, the International Monetary Fund only proved its ignorance – while the vaccine has a political and ideological dimension rather than an economic dimension.
However, there is another political dimension to the vaccine. Since the vaccine against measles does not fully protect others, we must come to the frightening conclusion that the health of the vaccinated person will be considered a public good only if the vaccinated person is willing to accept the IMF statement. Or a man is considered a public good. An individual’s life has value only to the partnership and it is not considered a value! So it has a very, very collective dimension. It finally reveals a way of thinking that can lead many companies to misunderstand the consequences of vaccinating the economy.

See also  At least 100 dead in the Mexican heat wave

Here are the main mistakes that lead to false economic expectations:

First, each vaccine has limited efficacy, meaning that effective antibodies are never produced in 100% of the vaccinated population.

Second, just because a person gets antibodies through the vaccine does not mean that they are not infected. This means that if he becomes ill, the course of the disease will not be serious. It can become contagious, but the disease does not erupt. Thus, tests will consistently show a higher number of infections.

Third, whenever a new (mutant) variant of the virus appears, many may become re-infected, but because lymphocytes are similar to different types of corona viruses, they act quickly after vaccination, so the disease is not serious. This does not mean that the disease does not occur. The tests did not show any positive results.

Fourth, since a person who has been vaccinated can also become infected (the vaccine does not protect against infection, but against the onset of an acute course of the disease), such a person can continue to spread the virus.

Fifth, the already denied mistake is returning to the public mind, when the situation was clinically misunderstood at the beginning of the epidemic, which led to erroneous economic conclusions: first, the virus was considered globally destructive. The initial motivation for isolation in the first quarter of 2020 is to stop the spread and completely eradicate the virus. The assumption that it will succeed is the expectation that economic growth will be in the form of a “V”: first, a sharp decline in GDP due to isolation, and then a sharp rise after isolation. However, the exact interpretation was different and only occurred very slowly in 2020: Kovit was ineffective due to its characteristics. In the field of epidemiology, viruses with certain characteristics are destructive: for example, they have clearly identifiable symptoms, infection is always symptomatic, i.e. there is no asymptomatic course, they are highly lethal and the like. This did not apply to Cowboy from the beginning – which is why economic growth estimates are so clear that it was clearly established in 2020. How does it relate to the vaccine?

See also  "The Stars Summer House": Are these the first couples for 2021?

This is because if a virus can be eradicated, it makes more sense to vaccinate as many populations as possible so that the virus can actually be eradicated, thus protecting groups at risk. But if we knew that this eradication would never happen, we would never create such an immune shield for endangered groups; We can slow down the spread as much as possible. But we will never completely avoid the risk of infection. But that changes the perception of the vaccine. In the case of antivirals, the widespread vaccine acts as a “good” for the whole population, while indestructible, the vaccine is only “good” for those who are directly at risk, because we can not trust a flat immune shield. Do you need a specific example? Flu vaccine! Everyone understands that it does not make sense for 100% of people to be vaccinated and try to prevent the disease of dangerous soups – not just how it works.

Now the important thing is: if restrictions on economic life (in locks, veils, etc.) are to be designed for measures against the cow, the number of deaths or severe cases due to the cow, the vaccine is expected to remove or completely eliminate these restrictions.

The main problem, however, is that closures around the world are officially justified by various multicriteria samples (such as Czech PES), which do not primarily rely on the number of deaths or severe cases of Govt. These criteria are not the result of vaccination, but fall sharply only after the natural infection has subsided.

See also  Cultural appropriation: Mexican Minister of Culture challenges fashion chains like Zara

Therefore, the vaccine (if it happens quickly) will certainly reduce the number of deaths and severe cases, but it will not lead to a significant reduction in the PES score, i.e. not even until the end of economic closures!

I emphasize: the vaccine, of course, makes sense to alleviate the course of the disease (especially for at-risk groups) – but we need to explain this meaning correctly. Alternatively, exclude logically correct epidemiological measures from it. However, a system of antiviral measures is now in place in most developed countries to respond to parameters other than those that can be vaccinated. Instead of logical conclusions, it is fenced off by ideology as a “public good”.

The ideology on the subject of vaccination is gaining strength, while rational economic calculation is becoming increasingly scarce. The case filed by the United States, the first case of dismissal for refusing a vaccine, speaks for itself. The restaurant fired an employee who feared the impact of the vaccine on a planned pregnancy. Other states also suggest other possibilities for dismissing employees for refusing the vaccine. It is becoming increasingly clear that the vaccine is in fact considered a “public benefit” or “group protection” and in the case of Govt, we have already stated that this concept is technically incorrect.

Therefore, the topic of compulsory vaccination is currently moving around the world – and financial markets, individual economists and various international organizations, under the guise of these reports, are deciding that the vaccinated world will begin to grow rapidly economically. Footbridge error. A vaccinated world will reduce deaths. However, this does not reduce the hysteria that results from the fact that the number of positive tests – and most importantly – will be even higher! As long as there is hysteria, the economic recovery will be behind the old sandals.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here