Variants of Interest



Hailing from Colombia, apparently.

When ‘discovered’ in September, scientists and those in the pay of the public purse that do not hold anyone’s interests to heart but their power-lording, salary swelling, job-securing ego-boosting own, wailed we must tighten restrictions again.

The WHO stayed true to form. With their loudhailer fright of Mu having a “constellation of mutations”. Despite studies at that time showing the variant to be no more resistant to vaccines as the Eastern Cape, South Africa originating Beta.

Lest we forget, the vaccines work, people.

Yet in lesser MSM reported findings, even those WHOnatics actually now advise that lockdowns do not work.

So Mu becomes prime example of a scariant, and certainly not a new strain.


I couldn’t help but think about links to the selling ills of project or scope creep.

Which brings with it the introduction of something you’ll neither ever be able to cover nor will likely in any way be relevant to the buyer. Suddenly this becomes the key component. As those anti you, anti progress and anti loving life will infest all around them as being the indisputable case.

How do we counter it, when the scariant breaking news smothers airwaves?

The same discredited global ‘health’ umbrella shout that Mu is now their fifth “variant of interest”. Yet what the blanketing reports neglect to mention, is that ‘interest’ is not ‘concern’. Which is the higher level of danger on their scale. And Mu is not it.

There’s naturally a wikipedia page listing these. Yet this has the effect of ‘disappearing’ The Pre-Alpha. China must be wetting their pants laughing. Well done on global quango capture, CCP.

“A variant a day keeps the doomers in play”

As Prof Francois Balloux, director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, wrote on Twitter.

SARS-Cov2, still has pretty much the same spike protein, the same M.O., the same signature.

And that’s perhaps the key to our resetting of buyer goalpost shiftings.

Their central problem surely remains the same.

Wouldn’t they prefer to focus on what’s core? The problem today. One that can be removed and the project legacy secured with what’s on the table, real and attainable, from us right now?

There’s always the politics to navigate when such a variant crops up during a bid.

Someone with the deep belief we are the way ahead will need to help us persuade those dissenting.

It often comes down to pure emotion, rather than enumerated fact.

An oft-drawn weapon is one of future competitor capabilities. Which means fighting an enemy that does not exist yet. That brings its own routines to expose risk.

Yet perhaps having falling out of fashion, I myself have successfully introduced ways of framing the ‘go’ decision to eliminate all but essential features. The ones in where, coincidentally, we excel.

MoSCoW being one such friend here.

A framework for assessing ‘needs’ into their four categories of ‘haves’; Must, Should, Could, Would.

The last coronavirus variant of concern was back in May.

Yet the mission-creep they represent when not treated in the way they merit thrives around us six months on.

In an interview with London’s Telegraph recently Maria Van Kerkhove, technical Covid-19 lead at the WHO, said new coronavirus variants could be named after star constellations once the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet are exhausted – an eventuality she considers likely. [sub’n req’d]

Which helpfully gives us ways to tag each distraction, hailed or introduced from a prospect personality plotting against us, in a manner that can focus the minds of those realising such intervention is misguided.

We can now ascribe our label to any new, late-arriving, supposedly must-have feature.

Starting with Alpha or Aries, if you reclaim ownership of the scariant (in our case; scope variant) with your own flag (specmark?) we can indeed reclaim the deal.

Subscribe to Salespodder

Don’t miss out on the latest issues. Sign up now to get access to the library of members-only issues.