We have previously reported on the totalitarian social credit scores in use in China that are being planned for global use in The Great Reset by elite leaders around the globe. While the Wuhan Virus is very real, many people believe that the hysteria and response surrounding it have been designed by globalists politicians as a means to implement a communist-style social credit score in The West. That is not just conspiracy theory anymore. It is a fact, as we will detail below.
But, one courageous Michigan county and its commissioner are fighting back.
“The Board of Commissioners of Livingston County has scheduled a special committee meeting to vote on a resolution calling on the Governor to adopt a policy that bases vaccine allocation on medical needs, not social needs. This special virtual meeting will be held on Thursday, February 18, 2021, at 5:30 pm. Meeting details can be found here.”
This was the latest update from Livingston County Commissioner Wes Nakagiri. But why would such a meeting be necessary? For a year, the government officials have been demanding that people follow so-called medical expert data on Covid-19. So, aren’t vaccine allocations–designed by the same government–already based on scientifically proven medical needs? If not, what are the possible implications for the other mandates and executive orders made by these same government officials?
The answers will surprise you.
In Michigan, County Commissioner Wes Nakagiri released a report detailing the dangerous and “outrageous” ways that Michigan is seeking to implement a “Social Vulnerability Score” (SVI) into the administration of experimental Wuhan Virus ‘vaccines’. A resolution was then drafted by Mitch Zajac, Chair of Livingston County’s General Government Health and Human Service Committee titled Resolution Calling Upon the Governor and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services to Retract their SVI Social Factor-Based Plan and Replace it with a Scientific Medical Factor-Based Plan that results in a Pro-Rata Uniform Distribution to Michigan’s Most Medically Vulnerable Population.
Well, that is quite a lot to take in.
So, we caught up with Mr. Nakagiri, Chairman of the Livingston County Board of Commissioners, to discuss his findings and explain just what is going on in Livingston County, MI.
“We are likely to be the first county to raise this question. I looked through state data that was published on how much vaccine has been distributed to which county. I looked at the Social Vulnerability Index to determine how each of these factors is weighted and it is shocking. It really is. I’m not sure these counties who are getting shortchanged know why they are being shorted.”
Nakagiri is referencing experimental Covid vaccine availability in his county, which was extremely (and inexplicably) scarce.
Then, on January 31s a document was released by the state.
“Then it becomes clear why Livingston County–the 10th largest county in Michigan–is getting less than its fair share. There are very few minorities here and a higher per capita income.”
But what does race or income level have to do with vaccine distribution?
“The CDC published an index called the Social Vulnerability Index. It is designed to be used in times of emergency–such as hurricanes or tornadoes.” The purpose is to focus relief efforts on more blighted areas that might not be able to get help or mobilize easily. “The belief is that the physical effects of emergencies would be more devastating in areas with lower per capita income and things like that.” This system is used for “disaster planning” and mitigation. But now, according to the state’s report and Nakagiri’s report, Michigan’s Govern Whitmer plans to use a similar system to decide who is allowed to receive experimental Wuhan Virus vaccinations. Nakagiri lays out several very troubling problems with this.
Essentially, the system is an algorithm that takes 15 disparate factors and weights them to determine who is worthy of getting a vaccine. And, as Nakagiri describes, there is nothing scientific or medical about the weighting system.
“It is an algorithm that has 15 variables,” Nakagiri said. “But these factors have nothing to do with your likelihood of catching Covid or the likelihood of severe symptoms or death. The only one of the 15 variables that actually make any sense to be included as a factor is whether or not the person is elderly. But–and this is the most egregious and outrageous thing–out of 100%, it is only weighted 6.25%!”
So, does that mean that the other 93.75% of the decision to allow the state to allocate a vaccine to someone is based upon highly political factors rather than medicine or science of any kind?
Almost exclusively, yes. In the algorithm, “whether or not you own a car is weighted at 5% of the total score. That is ridiculous on its own. But, it is magnified when you consider that it is being weighed nearly as important as the 6.25% significance given to those 65 or older.”
“What does car ownership have to do with your Covid symptoms and the severity of those symptoms?” asks Nakagiri.
That isn’t even the wildest totalitarian absurdity about all of this. There are many more.
“Minority status and English language ability are weighted as 25% of the total score.”
Think about that: “That’s precisely four times more significant according to the algorithm than old age. But old age should probably be the most important factor, given what all the scientific data shows about elderly vulnerability to the virus.” says Nakagiri.
The CDC data agrees with Nakagiri:
Fully 80% of all Covid deaths are in the elderly, 65 or older! The CDC doesn’t seem to mention anything about automobile ownership or poor English skills being a risk factor. So, rest easy bilingual readers. If you somehow catch The Wuhan Virus while speaking Spanish, your symptoms are unlikely to be any more severe, regardless of what Whitmer’s SVI chart might suggest.
That 80% fatality percentage for Covid-19 is eerily similar to the normal flu in the 2018-2019 season of 75%. So, at the very least, all doctors should have suspected from all scientific experience that the Wuhan Virus would also affect the elderly worst. Yet, instead of treating the elderly kindly during the pandemic, Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer funneled them into nursing homes with complete disregard for the health and safety of the person. This is very similar to New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Look at how that turned out for him: many covered up unnecessary deaths of elderly patients who died in tortured isolation.
This is all absurd. But it gets even more outrageous:
If you are 65 or older, you have a 90 times greater chance of dying from the Wuhan Virus than young adults. That is bad. Yet, it barely factors into the equity score given by Michigan’s Whitmer.
However, if you are 85+, you are about 630 times more likely to die than a young adult. Yet, despite being perhaps the most deleterious factor for one’s viral prognosis, this factor is not even considered in Whitmer’s unscientific totalitarian social credit score that progressives call “equitable.”
Why aren’t these factors the predominant factor in this algorithm? These factors are so obvious that one must question the true motives of this social credit score in the first place.
And what about pre-existing conditions?
“They also ought to use underlying conditions,” says Nakagiri.
That is because a study produced by the CDC showed that 94% of Wuhan Virus deaths had 2 to 3 comorbidities, while a study done in New York showed similar results. This is well-known data to everyone. Yet, these underlying conditions are not even considered by Whitmer’s highly political social credit score in Michigan.
So, not only have state and federal governments designed and implemented totalitarian social credit systems, but the credit systems have nothing to do with actual medicine. It is as though the virus is arbitrary to these people and normalizing unconstitutional social credit scores is the true purpose.
But the blatant contempt shown to average citizens, successful people, and The US Constitution does not end there. Instead, Whitmer prioritizes criminals, illegals, and drug addicts over average or successful citizens.
“Michigan’s plan specifically identifies the importance of vaccinating citizens who are incarcerated, citizens who are IV drug users, and non-citizens. It is unconscionable that people residing illegally in Michigan receive priority attention from Lansing. Michigan’s plan also enables MDHHS to poach vaccines from “out-of-favor” population groups and redistribute them to “favored” or special population groups.”
So, the chosen factors are designed specifically to advantage traditionally democrat voting demographics, noncitizens, and criminals while penalizing the successful or conservative demographics. Is any of this constitutional?
“It is punishing our residents for being successful, hard-working, and paying taxes,” says Nakagiri. “Those people go to the end of the line…Whitmer has chosen these 15 social factors instead of medical factors because they are fixated on social equity rather than fixing this medical problem.”
And, it is not just Michigan that is implementing this kind of absurd scoring mechanism. Many progressive and craven leaders in numerous states have done the same thing:
“One of the exhibits in my report references the Kaiser Family Foundation…they comment that roughly half the states use social equity and race prioritization. These politicians are focused more on social equity than medical conditions and factors. It needs to be based upon medical needs, not social needs.”
Did he just say that half of American states are basing allotments of possibly lifesaving medicine on scoring systems derived primarily on race? Isn’t that the definition of racism? One might argue that this is some form of eugenics.
In his report, Nakagiri summarizes the Kaiser Foundation exhibit and explains how an SVI as a vaccine allocation method only furthers an already incoherent narrative by progressives concerning this pandemic. He believes it will create far worse results than basic common sense methods similar to those used during the H1N1 pandemic a decade ago:
“The Kaiser Family Foundation has reported it is up to the individual states to prioritize the distribution of COVID-19 vaccine to its citizens. Some states, including Michigan, have incorporated Social Equity into their distribution plans.
The current Administration in Lansing has concluded that Social Equity is needed to protect its Socially Vulnerable citizens. This begs the question, with its concern about Socially Vulnerable citizens, why didn’t the Administration use the SVI to protect citizens throughout the COVID-19 pandemic? If Social Vulnerability is such a concern, shouldn’t the Administration have imposed stricter lockdowns in areas with high Socially Vulnerable populations? Or conversely, shouldn’t the Administration have relaxed lockdowns in areas with fewer Socially Vulnerable populations?
Will the application of SVI in vaccine distribution produce optimum results with respect to protecting vulnerable senior populations? The analysis provided in this report suggests not. Further, recent history suggests that proven methods such as Fairness, not Social Equity, are well suited for addressing a pandemic. About a decade ago, during the HINI pandemic, experts did not rely on Social Factors and Social Equity to address the needs of vulnerable persons. Instead of Social Equity, experts used traditional fairness and common sense to guide their decisions.”
Livingston citizens are quite upset about this. Until now, they did not know why access has been so limited, but they are feeling the effects of it every day, regardless:
“I have gotten a lot of calls from elderly citizens that say they are having a difficult time getting access to this vaccine…We have a waiting list that has over 30,000 people on it. And then we find out that the state of Michigan has this convoluted score for the various counties. The committee chairman scheduled a special meeting. We have not held a special meeting in years. This is a big deal. This is a big issue.”
And the implications for Michigan are significant:
“If we can change the algorithm to make it more fair, it should change it for the entire state since the same algorithm should be used around the state.”
None of this should be construed as advice about whether the vaccine is efficacious or safe at all. What Wes Nakagiri wants is constitutional fairness, critical thinking, and the right to choose for all Michiganders:
“This should not be construed as advocacy for or against the vaccine. People need to make their own decisions. I am not advocating that people do or do not get the vaccine. I am saying it is your individual choice what you want to do. What I am annoyed with is that the government has their thumb on the scale of which county gets more and less based upon a social vulnerability index that has nothing to do with medicine.”
Since there are no long term studies on any of the experimental biological agents now being described as Covid vaccines, we cannot know with any certainty whether they will save lives or ruin them. Or some mixture of both.
If the vaccines do work and save lives, is an SVI at all lawful or moral? Governmental officials are picking which groups of people they want to survive based upon highly political and racial factors rather than medical need.
If the vaccines do not work and are dangerous, wouldn’t the same questions and fears still be reasonable?
And, if they are some mix of good and evil as everything in life seems to be, that just makes it all the more complicated.
The only solution to this problem is to make them available to everyone. Allow them to freely choose, based upon open knowledge and discussion of viruses and vaccines, whether they wish to take the vaccine or not.
Instead, we have been implementing frightening social equity scores. They are eerily similar to Chinese social credit scores used to determine your value as a human being in the eyes of a totalitarian corporatist government.
This needs to stop.