A Global Pandemic, Global Aging And A Cover Up

 Op by Sunlit7

It didn't escape my attention when all of a sudden climate change wasn't the urgent dire prediction the governments of the world were all proclaiming it to be when they pushed back the climate agenda deadline to 2050. Once they got their trillion dollar plus infrastructure deal passed where a fraction of it actually went to infrastructure then declared climate change wasn't as urgent as once thought then exactly what was 2030 all about. The urgency wasn't climate it was global aging.

This report paints a compelling picture of the impact of population aging on nations. It provides
a succinct description of population trends that are transforming the world in fundamental
ways. We hope this information will stimulate dialogue about biomedical, economic, and
behavioral issues and encourage international study to determine the best ways to address
this universal human experience. We trust that members of the global community will be
inspired to share their recommendations and their experiences so that we can all plan for the
aging of our world’s population. We are, after all, planning for our own futures.

"We are, after all, planning for our own futures", wasn't that the base argument for climate change? I am going to go through several highlights that proceeded the letter the above paragraph was taken from. As you go along imagine if you will if we take several of the highlighted portion as having a similar ring to it as the talking point of climate change and the undeniable link to the year 2030. The article put out by the National Institute of Health, The National Institute on Aging and the Department of Health and Human services can be found here: https://www.nia.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2017-06/WPAM.pdf

We are aging—not just as individuals or communities but
as a world. In 2006, almost 500 million people worldwide
were 65 and older. By 2030, that total is projected to
increase to 1 billion—1 in every 8 of the earth’s inhabitants.
Significantly, the most rapid increases in the 65-and-older
population are occurring in developing countries, which
will see a jump of 140 percent by 2030

There's your magic date right there, it'll pop up more as I go along. To be frank it didn't take me long to decipher what was so important about 2030, they've been talking bout it for decades. What we are/were really facing was a global aging problem not global warming that made 2030 so urgent.

"While global aging represents a triumph of
medical, social, and economic advances over
disease, it also presents tremendous challenges.
Population aging strains social insurance and
pension systems and challenges existing models of
social support. It affects economic growth, trade,
migration, disease patterns and prevalence, and
fundamental assumptions about growing older."

Many of the listed items have a direct correlation to the climate change arguments. When you think about it in reality if you are planning on a mass extermination of a specific problem because you failed miserably over decades to deal with it you going to have to have something to run cover for such an operation.

The overall population is aging. For the first
time in history, and probably for the rest of
human history, people age 65 and over will
outnumber children under age 5

That means there will not be enough people working to sustain a growing elderly population. Instead of spending decades building up a social infrastructure plan for the day baby boomers retire they spent decades wasting money on pork barrel projects. Medicare will be insolvent by 2026 and by 2030 benefits paid out will have to be substantially reduced to keep the system from going into bankruptcy.

The number of oldest old is rising. People
age 85 and over are now the fastest growing
portion of many national populations

Noncommunicable diseases are becoming a
growing burden. Chronic noncommunicable
diseases are now the major cause of death
among older people in both more developed
and less developed countries.

Patterns of work and retirement are shifting.
Shrinking ratios of workers to pensioners
and people spending a larger portion of
their lives in retirement increasingly strain
existing health and pension systems.

Social insurance systems are evolving. As
social insurance expenditures escalate, an
increasing number of countries are evaluating
the sustainability of these systems.

New economic challenges are emerging.
Population aging will have dramatic effects
on social entitlement programs, labor
supply, trade, and savings around the globe
and may demand new fiscal approaches to
accommodate a changing world.

In other words all the medical advances that has extended life expectancy has only accelerated the impact that global aging will have on the world. They've done kicked the can so far down the road there simply isn't any time left for new fiscal approaches. This is something that needed to be address decades ago.

This one was under the title The Cost Of Waiting...which I found rather ironic.

Global aging is a success story. People today are living
longer and generally healthier lives. This represents
the triumph of public health, medical advancement, and
economic development over disease and injury, which
have constrained human life expectancy for thousands
of years.

But sustained growth of the world’s older
population also presents challenges. Population
aging now affects economic growth, formal and
informal social support systems, and the ability
of states and communities to provide resources
for older citizens. Nations must quickly recognize
the scope of the new demographic reality and
adjust current policies accordingly.

While Europe currently has four people of working age for
every older citizen, it will have only two workers
per older citizen by 2050 as a result of the baby
boom generation retiring and life expectancy
increasing. Given current policies, the pension,
health, and long-term care costs associated
with an aging population will lead to significant
increases in public spending in most member
states over the next half century. Gross domestic
product growth rates are projected to fall across
the EU, and in the absence of policy changes, the
potential EU economic growth rate will be cut in
half by 2030.

Like I said it's not like this is a new problem it's been projected for decades but instead of taking money and investing it to help alleviate the significant expected increases they were to busy spending money on studies as to why politics stress people out or why bugs hang around lightbulbs.

Since the beginning of recorded human history, young
children have outnumbered older people. Very soon this
will change. For the first time in history, people age 65
and over will outnumber children under age 5 (Figure 1).
This trend is emerging around the globe. Today almost
500 million people are age 65 and over, accounting for
8 percent of the world’s population.

By 2030 the world is likely to have 1 billion older
people, accounting for 13 percent of the total
population. While today’s proportions of older
people typically are highest in more developed
countries, the most rapid increases in older
populations are occurring in the less developed
world. Between 2006 and 2030, the number of
older people in less developed countries is projected
to increase by 140 percent as compared to an
increase of 51 percent in more developed countries.

Their own negligence to deal with this issue over the decades is now why they decided it would be easier just to cull the herd.

Some nations experienced more than a doubling of average
life expectancy during the 20th century. Life expectancy
at birth in Japan now approaches 82 years, the highest
level among the world’s more developed countries, and
life expectancy is at least 79 years in several other more
developed countries.

Recent research raises other questions about
the future of life. Researchers have been able to
experimentally increase lifespan in insects and
animals through gene insertion, caloric restriction,
and diet. It remains to be seen whether similar
increases can be replicated in humans.

Evidently they've placed a lot of hope in this new gene therapy as to it's ability to allow them to pick the winners and losers.

An important feature of population aging is the progressive
aging of the older population itself. Over time, more older
people survive to even more advanced ages. For research
and policy purposes, it is useful to distinguish between the
old and the oldest old, often defined as people age 85 and
over. Because of chronic disease, the oldest old have the
highest population levels of disability that require long-term
care. They consume public resources disproportionately
as well.

The oldest old constitute 7 percent of the world’s 65-
and-over population: 10 percent in more developed
countries and 5 percent in less developed countries.
More than half of the world’s oldest old live in six
countries: China, the United States, India, Japan,
Germany, and Russia. In many countries, the oldest
old are now the fastest growing portion of the
total population. On a global level, the 85-and-over
population is projected to increase 151 percent
between 2005 and 2030, compared to a
104-percent increase for the population
age 65 and over and a 21-percent increase for
the population under age 65 (Figure 5). Past
population projections often underestimated
decreases in mortality rates among the oldest old;
therefore, the number of tomorrow’s oldest old may
be significantly higher than anticipated.

The percentage of oldest old will vary considerably
from country to country. In the United States,
for example, the oldest old accounted for
14 percent of all older people in 2005. By 2030, this
percentage is unlikely to change because the aging
baby boom generation will continue to enter the
ranks of the 65-and-over population. In Europe,
some countries will experience a sustained rise in
their share of oldest old while others will see an
increase during the next two decades and then a
subsequent decline. The most striking increase
will occur in Japan: By 2030, nearly 24 percent
of all older Japanese are expected to be at least
85 years old. Most less developed countries
should experience modest long-term increases
in their 85-and-over population.

While people of extreme old age—that is,
centenarians—constitute a small portion of
the total population in most countries, their
numbers are growing. The estimated number
of people age 100 and over has doubled each
decade since 1950 in more developed countries.
In addition, the global number of centenarians
is projected to more than quintuple between
2005 and 2030 (Figure 5). Some researchers
estimate that, over the course of human history,
the odds of living from birth to age 100 may
have risen from 1 in 20 million to 1 in 50 for
females in low-mortality nations such as Japan
and Sweden.

Given that we now see why the oldest old have become the biggest targets of "gene therapy". The following will reflect upon why the medical advances that extended life expectancy is now considered "burdensome" and how some "migration", in coordination with a bit of gene therapy of course, might solve that which they consider ills us.

In the next 10 to 15 years, the loss of health and life in
every region of the world, including Africa, will be greater
from noncommunicable or chronic diseases, such as
heart disease, cancer, and diabetes, than from infectious
and parasitic diseases. This represents a shift in disease
epidemiology that has become the focus of increasing
attention in light of global aging.

By 2030,according to projections, the share of the burden
attributed to noncommunicable diseases in low
and middle-income countries will reach 54 percent
while the share attributed to communicable
diseases will fall to 32 percent (Figure 6). If we
restrict attention to older ages, noncommunicable
diseases already account for more than 87 percent
of the burden for the over-60 population in low-,
middle-, and high-income countries. The critical
issue for low- and middle-income countries
is how to mobilize and allocate resources to
address noncommunicable diseases as they
continue to struggle with the high prevalence of
communicable diseases.

There is extensive debate about the relationship
between increased life expectancy and disability
status. The central question is: Are we living
healthier as well as longer lives, or are our additional
years spent in poor health?

While the global population is aging at an unprecedented
rate, some countries are witnessing an historically
unprecedented demographic phenomenon: Simultaneous
population aging and population decline.

More than 20 countries are projected to experience
population declines in the upcoming decades.
Russia’s population, for example, is expected to
shrink by 18 million between 2006 and 2030, a
decrease of nearly 13 percent. Nine other countries
are projected to experience a decline of at least 1
million people during the same period (Figure 7).
While Japan’s total population is projected to
decrease by 11 million, the population age 65 and
over is projected to increase by 8 million between
2006 and 2030. The proportion of older people in
Japan should therefore grow from 20 percent in
2006 to about 30 percent in 2030.

Population declines in more developed countries
are primarily the result of low fertility. Russia
and Japan, for instance, have total fertility
rates of 1.4 births per woman, significantly
below the rate needed to replenish a population
in the absence of migration. In contrast, less
developed countries facing population declines
are experiencing increased mortality largely due
to HIV/AIDS. Life expectancy in South Africa fell
from 60 years in 1996 to 43 years in 2006, and
current projections suggest that South Africa
could lose nearly 6 million people between 2006
and 2030. Clearly, reversing the trend toward
population decline in South Africa and other
affected nations will depend on the pace of
innovations targeting HIV/AIDS, particularly
with regard to the efficacy of antiretroviral
drug regimes.

In the face of overall population decline, officials
and policy planners must be especially attentive
to age-specific changes within populations.
In Russia, for example, the population under
age 60 is likely to decrease in size between
2006 and 2030 as the size of older age groups
increases (Figure 8). It therefore appears likely
that the demand for health care services in
Russia will outweigh the need to build more
schools. Most notable is the large decline in
the number of younger adults of working age.
The working-age population, which contributes
to economic growth and the pension system,
is shrinking at the same time that the older,
nonworking population is increasing. As a
result, economic expansion could be hampered
as businesses struggle to attract new workers.
This shift in age structure is seen in many of the
more developed countries, including those that
are not expected to face population declines
in the near future. Both France and the United
Kingdom, for example, will experience population
increases between 2006 and 2030; nevertheless,
their age structure is expected to shift much
like Russia’s with nonworkers outnumbering
workers. These changes have many implications
for the development and funding of social
programs, including those addressing potentially
contentious issues such as fertility and
international migration.

You seeing the trends, 2030, migration and the need for a.....

Population aging will strain some national budgets.
Countries with extensive social programs targeted
to the older population—principally health care
and income support programs—find the costs of
these programs escalating as the number of eligible
recipients grows and the duration of eligibility
lengthens. Further, few countries have fully funded
programs; most countries fund these programs
on a pay-as-you-go basis or finance them using
general revenue streams. Governments may
be limited in how much they can reshape social
insurance programs by raising the age of eligibility,
increasing contribution rates, and reducing
benefits. Consequently, shortfalls may need to be
financed using general revenues. Projections of
government expenditures in the United States
and other OECD countries show major increases
in the share of gross domestic product devoted to
social entitlements for older populations. In some
cases, this share more than doubles as a result of
population aging.

Deadly Virus!

They've been talking about this issue for at least the last fifty years. This isn't about climate change, this isn't about not being able to feed billions of people in the future, or even controlling the worlds population growth, this is about them dealing with a hand they dealt themselves and their failure to adequately deal with it. So instead of doing the right thing they want to tear it all down and build back better. That plan only includes those who are the healthiest among us and the rest will be eliminated to the best of their ability through basically what amounts to a designer virus that rids the world of those who are the weakest links, the elderly, sick and those predisposed to disease.

I call it a designer virus because it seems to inflict the greatest harm to the oldest population and the top two diseases across the world. Heart disease and diabetes. I did a post awhile back that explained how our immune system works and that not all people know they have a immune disorder. Most at some point in their lives will develop into the future, these are what would be considered people predisposed to disease. At some point in their life, whether through a family history or some other unrelated reason are predestined to a disease. This can be said of heart disease and it's rather ironic how many getting the vaccine who are younger are dying of heart related deaths. I guess you can say I am not the type of person to easily take out any equation's, especially how little we are given to know about the vaccine. You have a virus that seems to particularly like to inflict great damage upon certain individuals and populace then why not a vaccine? We simply have no idea what else besides insects they've been experimenting on.

Overall though if you really want to go there, of which I just did, to find a cover to commit genocide, climate change makes a great cover because they just walked off with billions of dollars to that which much of it's stated to be applied doesn't have any compatible means to a end proven result. In other words we really don't where much of this money is going outside of feel good climate initiatives in a time where they are finding millions of dollars to hand out to health facilities, which make them more than happy to follow government directives. You throw that in with the incredibly genius way they ran a psyop operation making people feel the government compassionately cared about them by giving them something for free while charging insurers and using taxpayers funds, in essence getting them to pay for their own demise, the apple didn't have to fall far from the tree for me to realize where I need to look as to why 2030 was so pertinent, the only thing missing was the cover up.