Buy new:
£16.99£16.99
£4.15 delivery Monday, 15 July
Dispatches from: Amazon Sold by: Amazon
Save with Used - Good
£6.90£6.90
£4.29 delivery 15 - 17 July
Dispatches from: momox co uk Sold by: momox co uk
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer – no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the authors
OK
COVID-19: The Great Reset Paperback – 9 July 2020
Purchase options and add-ons
- Print length280 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- Publication date9 July 2020
- Dimensions13.97 x 1.8 x 21.59 cm
- ISBN-102940631123
- ISBN-13978-2940631124
Explore your book, then jump right back to where you left off with Page Flip.
View high quality images that let you zoom in to take a closer look.
Enjoy features only possible in digital – start reading right away, carry your library with you, adjust the font, create shareable notes and highlights, and more.
Discover additional details about the events, people, and places in your book, with Wikipedia integration.
Frequently bought together

Customers who viewed this item also viewed



Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and PlanetKlaus SchwabHardcover£4.21 delivery
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings, help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonCustomers say
Customers find the book thought-provoking, timely, and eye-opening. However, some readers feel the book lacks serious solid arguments and disturbing predictions. Opinions are mixed on the reading experience, with some finding it compelling and others finding it boring.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Customers have mixed opinions about the reading experience. Some find the book compelling and interesting, while others say it's boring and unhelpful. Some readers also mention that the book has no beginning, end, or purpose.
"...to films and novels, e.g. 'The Plague' by Albert Camus, were singularly unhelpful. More serious references often failed to tell the whole story...." Read more
"...I found it to be a good read...." Read more
"...Other than that I found the book boring to read; although the topic headings did follow through as per his intentions." Read more
"Interesting book, so far, everything written in the book has come true.Therefore it's not a conspiracy theory, it's actual fact...." Read more
Customers have mixed opinions about the content. Some find it thought-provoking and timely, while others say it lacks serious solid arguments and is full of contradictory information. Readers also mention that the book makes disturbing predictions.
"...A compelling thought provoking read." Read more
"...many aspects of this that don't fit well and make it a poor analogue for basing argument...." Read more
"...It provides the reader with an insight into what these powerful, influential and incredibly rich intellectuals, who have huge drive within the WEF,..." Read more
"...amazing foresight, or inside knowledge, well written, but bla bla bla bla zzzzz" Read more
Customers find the writing style of the book poorly written and boring.
"...Schwab’s mentally deranged plan for humanity, and the fact it’s badly written and incredibly boring...." Read more
"...I disagree with power freaks and always have done. I did find it difficult to read." Read more
"Poorly translated..." Read more
Reviews with images
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from United Kingdom
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
To truly understand the message of the book, you have to know about the authors. Klaus Schwab is an economist, engineer and founder and Executive Chairman of the WEF. The WEF is an elite global non-governmental organisation based in Switzerland committed to shaping a better global future. Thierry Malleret is Managing Partner of the Monthly Barometer (for top-level business and investors) and previously founder and head of the Global Risk Network at the WEF, investment banker and economist. WEF attracts the wealthy and the powerful including those from business, politics, charity and academia, as well as celebrities and activists. Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minster, banned ministers from attending the last WEF meeting at Davos in January 2020 to focus on the people and not on champagne with billionaires. He once told the BBC that Davos was "a great big constellation of egos involved in massive mutual orgies of adulation".
Little things annoyed me about the book such as no Chapter listings at the beginning of the Kindle version giving the impression of a long rambling essay. References to films and novels, e.g. 'The Plague' by Albert Camus, were singularly unhelpful. More serious references often failed to tell the whole story. For example, one stated that most (65%) of the world agreed that: 'In the economic recovery after Covid-19, it's important that government actions prioritize climate change'. I find it difficult to understand how a survey of 28,029 people out of a global population of 7.8 billion can be a fair representation of global opinion. Also, what wasn't mentioned was that nearly half (44%) wanted action taken to help the economy recover even if it was bad for the environment. The misinformation continued with the blanket claim that working at home is climate friendly when this is only the case in the summer. Research shows a typical British commuter working at home all year round would have a carbon footprint that is 80% higher than the average office worker (WSP, 2020). For all the talk about global economics and finance, there is much missing. No mention of the implications of the dollar coming off the gold standard in 1971. No mention of Bitcoin, a well-established global digital currency, available to all. The truth about global finance cannot be found here. It can really only be found with people like Mike Maloney and James Rickards. As for climate change and the environment, there is no mention of the green washing which has inveigled its way into every facet of our lives. Recycling has spectacularly failed the world over. The devastation of the natural environment, and the death and displacement of wildlife, caused by global wind farm development is one of the most appalling crimes of the century and continues unabated. Fourteen million trees have been felled for wind farms in Scotland alone. This is the tip of the iceberg. The world is being systematically destroyed by 'green' energy development. Climate change is big business and the authors of the book are using it as leverage to push for global control.
I would have liked to have seen less self-citation from Schwab, the WEF and to a lesser extent Malleret. Referencing a book with your previous work is not a crime but doesn't sit well with a lot of people. The rhetoric regarding Covid-19, providing the opportunity for a fairer greener future where wealth will be distributed from the rich to the poor, is laughable. Members of WEF and attendees of Davos are some of the most powerful in society, mega corporations who control and shape us, they are the elite, Royalty, the bankers of the world, the cream of the crop. Presumably, these are the people we are supposed to be handing over global governance to. You would have to be seriously deluded to think that any of them will give up their wealth. In addition, they have had plenty of time to make a fairer, more eco-friendly, world but their track record speaks for itself. I fail to see any reason why we should put any faith in them and this book hasn't changed my mind. The WEF is an exclusive club and, by its very nature, excludes the majority of the citizens of the world. It's real aim is global control of the billions of ordinary people and the destruction of nation states. In other words, the imposition of a totalitarian government. The Great Reset is a sham of epic proportions. Read this book with extreme caution. It is a Trojan horse.
A well educated man but so full of his own value it's frightening. Other than that I found the book boring to read; although the topic headings did follow through as per his intentions.
I'm opting for a shorter approach as I don't think anyone is well served by reading me arguing innumerable points that I have problems with.
First off, I have to say that this book is notable in that the breadth of the subject matter is quite impressive and it often exhibits some internal consistency (but not always: for example, why are lockdowns good for slowing viral spread but closing borders bad?). In fact, it almost seems unbelievable that such a complex work could be constructed within six months of the emergence of the virus, and even less time from when the pandemic was declared, though that term features hugely in the text.
But if I was to provide an overall impression, it would be the one that is reflected in my title for this review: if everything lines up *just right* then it makes a kind of sense. But I find myself doubtful of so many of the arguments that are made for its positions that just too many things have to be lined up for it to hold water overall.
I got the Kindle version, and every time I sat down I promised myself that I was just going to read it and not take any notes. And every time, *every single time*, something that sounded outrageous would be claimed/stated that I wound up taking note after note, as if I was actually going to go back and write a detailed critique of the thing. It got on my nerves that much. By page 160 I'd written over 150 notes; that says a lot to me as to how to think about the claims made in this book.
Among the fundamental flaws here are the ways the authors try to analogise their subject matter, in particular in how they try to find see echoes of quantum effects with the interconnectedness of the world. There are many aspects of this that don't fit well and make it a poor analogue for basing argument. I would instead suggest the world is better informed by chaos science, where small changes in one place can produce large and unpredictable changes elsewhere. If this is a better model for the world than quantum science, then any given prediction of how to change some variable in the system has very low chance of producing an expected and desired outcome, and leaves one even less sure that large-scale changes won't have unintended consequences.
The book also hasn't aged very well in my opinion, in particular on some of the assumptions that it makes early on about what "good" looks like, or assumptions made regarding the origin of the virus. There's a lot of new information that calls into question things like the virus's origin, the efficacy of treatments, and the desirability of various responses. I recognise that hindsight has unique benefits, but in truth there were plenty of voices calling out of differing views on all of this early on, but they appeared to have been systematically silenced in the service of "the common good", although in retrospect many of these views have turned out to be spot on.
I'm aware of this book's position in the minds of folks who like to "connect the dots" as the blueprint for a new world order. I like data and evidence more, but at the same time I don't want to just sweep everything else away as merely coincidence. In a way, the book is guilty of a similar connect the dots mentality-- it isn't hard to think that the conclusion significantly predated the arguments, and the data was selected to fit the desired outcome, which would go a long way to explaining why I found so much objectionable. So it is worthy of consideration just to add to your overall picture of how the world could progress. But don't be surprised if you find yourself annoyed at a lot of what you read.
Top reviews from other countries
“You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy.” That is the utopian vision of the WEF and its founder Klaus Schwab. “Whatever you want you’ll rent and it’ll be delivered by drone.” Meat will be “an occasional treat,” the WEF prognosticated in a 2016 video (which has since been deleted from their website). The WEF chose the year 2030 as the date by which their vision will be imposed on the world. “Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better,” said a 2017 tweet from the WEF.
I had friends tell me that the existence of this book was nothing more than a conspiracy theory and that their impression of me was lower because I was apparently buying into it. I actually picked up my copy of the physical book and took it to them and I said here here's the actual book written by the guy who you said never wrote the book. It was mind-blowing to see the reactions and how they still denied the existence of the book even though I had the physical copy in my hands.
The other people going on about conspiracy theories about what's in the book, they were angry at me that I actually read the book. They were making up stuff about what's in the book and when I read through it it just wasn't in the book at all. I would point out to them how it isn't in the actual book and they were literally making stuff up but none of them would even listen to a single thing I had to say. They assumed that I was simply making everything up and accused me of being a sheep and all these other horrible things because I bought the book to find out what was in it.
Underlying the whole premise of this weird book is that the virus did it to us: all the suffering and economic destruction were caused by the virus. This isn't true at all. All the suffering was caused by our response to the virus. Sweden proves this point. South Dakota, Florida, and Texas do as well.
Instead of practicing a policy of least harm wherein the most vulnerable were looked after, what we did instead was harm everyone, including and especially our children, by pretending that this disease was going to kill everyone. The authors insist that an alternative policy of "focused protection" was one of sacrificing a few so that we could save the economy, but they know full well that no one who advocated such a view was in favor of sacrificing anyone: the point, which the authors are too enchanted with their grandiose "reset" vision to see, was/is to do the least harm by focusing on the most vulnerable: those are the ones who had to "stay home, stay safe," and since many of these people were retired anyhow, for many this wasn't a problem. For those without the means to stay safe or who felt too afraid to participate in society (even if they were young and healthy) then the proper role of government would have been to seek out these people and lend them aid. This would have been at far less cost than the regulations, bailouts, etc., that took place instead.
The authors give precious little time to quaint ideas like liberty and freedom, although I supposed they might in the chapters on "Individual Reset." I was mistaken. They talk about individual mental health, creativity, consumption, well-being, but not about how installing a medical police state-- which is exactly what happened throughout the world-- damages the very ideals and aspirations of people all around the world who believe that our greatest good isn't that the state tells us what to do, but that we are always, to the greatest extent possible, masters and deciders of our own fates. The Great Reset folks don't want that. At bottom, their vision is one of a collectivist "we're all in this together" mindset wherein we all pull for a greater good (which greater good the authors conveniently sketch out for us) and it doesn't include individual self-determination except within the restricted bounds that Schwab and Mallerret outline for us. Authentic self-determination would be "selfish," you see.
I can only hope that in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we'll say a polite "no, thank you" to Schwab and friends and tell them to go elsewhere with their utopian scheme. And no, many of us don't believe that CO2 warming is sound science, so I guess we're not "all in this together" on that one, either. Tsk, tsk ... we're the ones who'll have to be monitored and policed for the greater good of all, in a great reset dystopia. Slippery slope that one, or no? Who gets to decide what the "proper" outlook should be, for the greater good of all, and who would have to be monitored and controlled for the good of the collectivist whole?
Klaus and Thierry, my reply to you is,
Stay safe re-set: stay free.











