Via Lew Rockwell.
What changes are we going to have to make to how businesses operate to maintain our economy while providing social distancing?
Bill Gates’ answer:
The question of which businesses should keep going is tricky. Certainly food supply and the health system. We still need water, electricity and the internet. Supply chains for critical things need to be maintained. Countries are still figuring out what to keep running.
Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.
Gates’ Mark of the Beast is called “ID2020”.
Pretty bold branding move putting a specific date in the name of the organization, don’tcha think? Almost as if he knew for a certainty that the year ARSH 2020 would be the year that this would be implemented.
AND, Italy is already priming the pump, conditioning the masses to the notion that any sort of “freedom” will be tied to a license tied to “proof of immunity”.
Having the right antibodies to the virus in one’s blood — a potential marker of immunity — may soon determine who gets to work and who does not, who is locked down and who is free.
That debate is in some ways ahead of the science. Researchers are uncertain, if hopeful, that antibodies in fact indicate immunity. But that has not stopped politicians from grasping at the idea as they come under increasing pressure to open economies and avoid inducing a widespread economic depression.
The conservative president of the northeastern Veneto region has proposed a special “license” for Italians who possess antibodies that show they have had, and beaten, the virus. The former prime minister, Matteo Renzi, a liberal, has spoken about a “Covid Pass” for the uninfected. Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said that while the lockdown remained in place, the government had begun working with scientists to determine how to send people who have recuperated back to work.
“It looks like it splits humanity into two, the strong and the weak,” said Michela Marzano, a professor of moral philosophy at the Paris Descartes University. “But this is actually the case.”
From an ethical perspective, she argued, the question of using antibodies as a basis for free movement reconciles a utilitarian vision of what is best for society with respect for individual humanity, by protecting “the most fragile, not marginalizing them.”
“It’s not discriminating,” she said. “It’s protecting.”