Call For Help - "Ruby Princess" Case Study

The "Ruby Princess" cruise ship provides us with a unique and compelling case study for why the virus was never a real threat to young healthy people. Does anyone know of an in-depth review?

“The lies, they keep on coming...”

---

Someone recently asked an interesting question on a Telegram channel:

“I need to compile a short list of the biggest lies ABOUT COVID-19 from Government or the media, where they have either had to admit they were wrong, or the evidence against them is so overwhelming that no one believes them anyway.”

The obvious answer for me was “Check Dr. Mike Yeadon’s work. He perfectly dismantles all the biggest lies with impeccable logical argumentation”

(If you haven’t listened to Mike being interviewed by Maajid, it is definitely worth it. The interview was riveting from start to finish and Mike addresses many of these points.)

In this interview he mentions the “Ruby Princess” as the perfect scenario to truly understand how infectious and deadly the virus was at the beginning of the pandemic. Keep in mind this was the original COVID strain which is supposed to be the most virulent.

The cruise ship had 2,700 passengers and a crew of 1,000.

28* people died within 4 months of disembarking.

900 were infected. (This gives us a good idea of the infection rate because the ship is a confined area that people can not escape from. Less than a third of the people got infected, and most of the passengers were relatively speaking “older”. The way the infected numbers were calculated is also dubious at best. Would really like to pull this apart properly.)

If you do a Google search for the “Ruby Princess”, you will see how the media tried very hard to make it look worse than it really was.

The question is: Has anyone done a detailed review of the Ruby Princess scenario and produced a report?

If not, would some of you be interested in collaborating on this project?

The project would be bound in scope and time and would address the following points:

• Determine the exact age and health condition of all people who died. (All 28 of them, as well as the period of time they died after disembarking.)

• We know the average age of all the people who died is high. We also know the average age of the people on the cruise ship is high, so I would be interested to figure out how many people typically die within 4 months after finishing a cruise under normal circumstances? In fact how many people die on average within a 4 month period after they reach 70 years?

There are many references already provided on this wikipedia page.

I’m hoping someone has already done all the work :-), but if not, I believe it is worth doing to help those still gripped by fear, to see how they have been manipulated by the government and media (and still are).

---

Here are the replies I gave the person who asked the original question. (Leaving this here for reference purposes):

Mike also talks about the Ruby Princess cruise ship to demonstrate that out of 2,700 passengers and a crew of 1,000 only 28* people died and 900 were infected.

All those who died where elderly. (Would really like to see the stats for this by age stratification and comorbidities. Does anyone know if this has been published anywhere?)

This scenario should have caused people to stop and realize the virus was nowhere near as contagious or lethal as the media made it out to be.

It is a great case study to also demonstrate how the media is able to spin the narrative to spread fear. Do a search for "Ruby Princess" to see what I mean.

In a sane world this example would have been used to show people that if the virus was nearly as bad as they claimed everyone on board would have been infected and most of them would have died, irrespective of their age. That was clearly not the case. In fact it should have been used to demonstrate the importance of age stratification, and the need to protect the elderly.

Furthermore, the hypocrisy of how the deaths were counted is infuriating. If you read the Wikipedia article you will notice that many people died weeks if not months after disembarking, but they are able to establish "causation" and link their death back to the Ruby Princess. Whereas when people die of a vaccine jab within 48 hours, no-one can establish causation. Remarkable! <sarc>

So we have a "virus" that is nowhere near as lethal as it was claimed, and yet they could link every deaths back to it (even if people died weeks and months later).

And we have a "vaccine" that is nowhere near as safe as they claim, and they are incapable of linking any deaths back to it (even when they occur within 48 hours).

I wonder why? 🤔

Followed by:

Would be interesting to know what the stats are for how many people die on a cruise ship under normal circumstances, and how many people die within a period of 3 months after disembarking.

Considering the number of passengers and their average age, I would not be surprised in the least if a similar number (on average) passengers die "of natural causes".

———

All the arguments they use to prove the vaccines are safe can be re-used to prove the virus was nowhere near as lethal as they claimed. (Funny how their logic only works in one direction.)