I rubbed my eyes and had to reread this, but yes, it does say: "Feihe, China's largest infant formula maker, said sales would drop sharply in the next one to two years since many women cannot bear children within six months of coronavirus vaccination -- and thus delaying births.
I even found the link at the New Zealand Heard. The article is behind a paywall but republished here.
We are really in for it.
No worries, it's all good.
The New York Times, as of May 21, is already prepping birth dearth messaging here, just as if it were a natuarl consequence of nothing in particular: "Fewer babies’ cries. More abandoned homes. Toward the middle of this century, as deaths start to exceed births, changes will come that are hard to fathom."
But look on the bright side:
A planet with fewer people could ease pressure on resources, slow the destructive impact of climate change and reduce household burdens for women.
The World Economic Forum is celebrating, too, as Ice Age Farmer has pointed out, in this June 15 article titled: "Bye, bye, baby? Birthrates are declining globally – here's why it matters"
Cutting to the conclusion:
Why should you care about population decline? Fewer people are good for the climate, but the economic consequences are severe. In the 1960s, there were six people of working age for every retired person. Today, the ratio is three-to-one. By 2035, it will be two-to-one.
Some say we must learn to curb our obsession with growth, to become less consumer-obsessed, to learn to manage with a smaller population. That sounds very attractive. But who will buy the stuff you sell? Who will pay for your healthcare and pension when you get old?
WEF/BillGates/NWO/communist gulag guards/Big Brother, of course.
Because soon, humanity will be a lot smaller and older than it is today.
And according to Feihe, the communist baby formula company, sooner than you think.