Australia's plan for future pandemics involves targeted, individualised surveillance, quarantines, and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns.

The Expose News - com

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that Australia's future pandemic response will focus on targeted, individualised surveillance, quarantines, and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns has been circulating. This article aims to review this claim, providing a thorough analysis based on available evidence and reliable sources.</p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>The claim originates from an article published on The Expose, which discusses a report funded by philanthropic foundations outlining future pandemic responses in Australia. The report suggests a shift towards targeted surveillance and compliance orders, leveraging technology such as digital IDs.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<h3>Targeted Surveillance and Quarantines</h3>
<p>The idea of targeted surveillance and quarantines is not new and has been discussed in various contexts. For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) has emphasized the importance of targeted measures to control outbreaks. A study published in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/">The Lancet</a> discusses the effectiveness of targeted interventions in managing pandemics.</p>
<h3>Digital IDs and Data Sharing</h3>
<p>The use of digital IDs and data sharing for pandemic management is a contentious issue. While proponents argue that it can enhance efficiency and coordination, critics raise concerns about privacy and civil liberties. A report by the <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/19/necessary-and-proportionate/ensuring-human-rights-covid-19-response">Human Rights Watch</a> highlights the potential risks associated with digital surveillance during pandemics.</p>
<h3>ESG Scoring and Social Impact Investing</h3>
<p>The claim also mentions the role of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scoring and Social Impact Investing in shaping pandemic responses. ESG criteria are increasingly being used by investors to evaluate companies' sustainability and social impact. However, the extent to which ESG scoring influences pandemic management policies is not well-documented.</p>
<h2>Evidence and Sources</h2>
<p>To evaluate the claim, we reviewed several sources, including:</p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/">The Lancet</a> - Study on targeted interventions for pandemic management.</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/19/necessary-and-proportionate/ensuring-human-rights-covid-19-response">Human Rights Watch</a> - Report on digital surveillance and human rights.</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-similarities-and-differences-with-influenza">World Health Organization</a> - Guidelines on pandemic management.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that Australia's future pandemic response will focus on targeted surveillance and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns is partially true. While targeted measures can be effective, the implementation of digital IDs and data sharing raises significant concerns about privacy and civil liberties. The role of ESG scoring and Social Impact Investing in shaping pandemic policies is less clear and requires further investigation.</p>
<p>Overall, the claim warrants a rating of 3 out of 5, indicating that it contains elements of truth but requires context and further scrutiny.</p>

Claim Review: Australia's Future Pandemic Plan

<p>The term 'chemtrails' refers to the belief that certain aircraft trails are not merely condensation trails (contrails) but are instead deliberate releases of chemicals or biological agents into the atmosphere for various purposes, such as weather modification or population control. This belief has gained traction in some circles, but it is often dismissed as a conspiracy theory by mainstream media and scientific communities.</p>
<p>In the content provided, the claim is made that chemtrails are a fact and that there are widespread attempts to keep these operations hidden from the public. The article also mentions the release of an AI model by Andrew Ng, a prominent figure in artificial intelligence, which allows users to explore the effects of chemtrails. This model, called Planet Parasol, is designed to simulate the impacts of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), a form of solar geoengineering.</p>
<p>To evaluate this claim, it is important to understand the scientific context surrounding chemtrails and geoengineering. Geoengineering refers to deliberate large-scale interventions in the Earth's natural systems to counteract climate change. One proposed method of geoengineering is SAI, which involves injecting reflective particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the planet. While SAI is a theoretical concept that has been studied by scientists, it is not currently being implemented on a large scale.</p>
<p>The claim that chemtrails are a fact and that they are being used for widespread and hidden operations is not supported by scientific consensus. The trails left by aircraft are typically condensation trails, which are formed when water vapor in the exhaust of aircraft engines condenses and freezes in the cold air at high altitudes. These contrails can persist and spread out, forming cirrus clouds, but they are not the result of deliberate chemical releases.</p>
<p>The article also mentions that Andrew Ng's model, Planet Parasol, is based on real-world data. However, it is important to note that models and simulations are often based on theoretical data and assumptions, rather than direct observations of ongoing geoengineering activities. The purpose of such models is to explore potential scenarios and their impacts, not to confirm the existence of widespread chemtrail operations.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while geoengineering and SAI are areas of scientific research, the claim that chemtrails are a fact and that there are widespread attempts to keep these operations hidden from the public is not supported by scientific evidence. The trails left by aircraft are typically condensation trails, and there is no consensus among scientists that chemtrails are being used for large-scale geoengineering or other purposes.</p>
<p>For further reading on the scientific consensus regarding chemtrails and geoengineering, please refer to the following peer-reviewed studies:</p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2716">Contrail cirrus radiative forcing for future air traffic</a> - Nature Climate Change</li>
  <li><a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001418">Stratospheric aerosol injection research: From climate model experiments to integrated assessment</a> - Earth's Future</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300946">Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertainty</a> - Global Environmental Change</li>
</ul>
<p>These studies provide a comprehensive overview of the scientific understanding of contrails, geoengineering, and the potential impacts of SAI. They highlight the need for further research and the importance of considering the ethical, social, and environmental implications of geoengineering proposals.</p>

Claim Review: Chemtrails - Conspiracy Theory or Scientific Reality?

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose claims that the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the World Health Organization (WHO) employ 200 fortune tellers to find the pathogen that could cause the next pandemic. This claim is misleading and inaccurate. Let's delve into the details to understand the truth behind this claim.</p>
<h2>Understanding the Claim</h2>
<p>The article suggests that CEPI and WHO are using unscientific methods, akin to fortune-telling, to predict the next pandemic pathogen. It also implies that these efforts are driven by the vaccine industry and individuals like Bill Gates.</p>
<h2>The Truth Behind the Claim</h2>
<p>CEPI and WHO are indeed involved in efforts to prepare for future pandemics. However, these efforts are based on scientific research and collaboration, not fortune-telling. The WHO R&amp;D Blueprint for Epidemics is a global platform for research and development collaboration, focusing on medical countermeasures, including vaccines.</p>
<p>The report mentioned in the article is the result of a meeting held in May 2024, where over 200 scientists from more than 50 countries collaborated to evaluate the evidence related to 28 Viral Families and one core group of Bacteria, encompassing 1,652 pathogens. The goal is to investigate entire families of pathogens that can infect humans, develop knowledge and tools for entire pathogen families, foster research that generates knowledge, tools, and countermeasures that can be rapidly adapted to emerging threats, and encourage globally coordinated research efforts.</p>
<h2>Scientific Basis</h2>
<p>The approach taken by CEPI and WHO is grounded in scientific principles. Pathogen prioritisation is a process aimed at categorising pathogens according to their public health importance, antimicrobial resistance, and potential for epidemic or pandemic spread. This is not fortune-telling but a systematic and evidence-based approach to prepare for future health threats.</p>
<p>For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0895-3">Nature Medicine</a> discusses the importance of preparedness for future pandemics through scientific research and collaboration. The study highlights the need for a proactive approach to identify and mitigate potential pandemic threats.</p>
<h2>Addressing Misconceptions</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose misrepresents the efforts of CEPI and WHO by comparing them to fortune-telling. This is a misleading analogy that undermines the scientific basis of these efforts. The claim that these efforts are driven by the vaccine industry and individuals like Bill Gates is also unfounded. While it is true that CEPI was co-founded and co-funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, among others, this does not imply that the efforts are unscientific or driven by profit motives.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that CEPI and WHO employ 200 fortune tellers to find the pathogen that could cause the next pandemic is false. The efforts of CEPI and WHO are based on scientific research and collaboration, aimed at preparing for future pandemics through a systematic and evidence-based approach. The misleading and inaccurate claims in the article from The Expose should be disregarded.</p>

Claim Review: CEPI and WHO Employ 200 Fortune Tellers to Find the Pathogen That Could Cause the Next Pandemic

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The Expose claims that Public Health Scotland has revealed that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu. This claim is based on a study that reported an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.08% for Covid-19 in Scotland, which is within the range of the IFR for seasonal flu (0.03% to 0.1%). However, a closer examination of the data and scientific literature reveals significant misinterpretations and misinformation.</p>
<h2>Understanding Infection Fatality Rates</h2>
<p>The infection fatality rate (IFR) is a measure of the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including those who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. The IFR for Covid-19 has been a subject of intense study and debate throughout the pandemic.</p>
<p>A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/fulltext">Lancet</a> estimated the global IFR of Covid-19 to be around 0.68%, which is significantly higher than the IFR of seasonal flu.</p>
<h2>The Winter Covid-19 Infection Study</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose references the Winter Covid-19 Infection Study (WCIS), which reported an IFR of 0.0762% for Scotland. However, it is essential to note that this study has not been peer-reviewed and its methodology and findings should be interpreted with caution.</p>
<p>Moreover, the WCIS study focused on a specific time period (November 2023 to March 2024) and a specific population (participants in England and Scotland). The IFR can vary significantly depending on the population studied, the prevalence of comorbidities, and the availability of healthcare resources.</p>
<h2>Covid-19 vs. Seasonal Flu</h2>
<p>While the IFR is an important metric, it is not the only factor to consider when comparing the severity of Covid-19 and seasonal flu. Other factors include:</p>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Transmissibility:</strong> Covid-19 is more contagious than seasonal flu, with a higher basic reproduction number (R0). This means that Covid-19 can spread more rapidly and widely than seasonal flu.</li>
  <li><strong>Hospitalizations:</strong> Covid-19 has resulted in a much higher number of hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions than seasonal flu. This has placed a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide.</li>
  <li><strong>Long-term effects:</strong> Many people who have recovered from Covid-19 continue to experience long-term symptoms, a condition known as 'long Covid.' The long-term effects of Covid-19 are still not fully understood, but they appear to be more severe and persistent than those of seasonal flu.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu is false. While the IFR of Covid-19 in Scotland was reported to be within the range of seasonal flu in a specific study, this finding is not representative of the global IFR of Covid-19, which is significantly higher. Furthermore, Covid-19 is more transmissible, results in more hospitalizations, and has more severe long-term effects than seasonal flu.</p>
<p>It is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature and official public health guidance when evaluating claims about the severity of Covid-19. Misinformation can have serious consequences for public health and safety.</p>

Claim Review: Is Covid No More Deadly Than Seasonal Flu?

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Australia's plan for future pandemics involves targeted, individualised surveillance, quarantines, and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns." is Half True

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: