The complete lack of specifics in these "predictions" are masked by the giving of dates.
Let's take one example..
"There will be a huge catastrophe in March 2011"
Well, yes. Now here is Wikipedias list of events tagged as "natural disasters in 2011". That's natural disasters only, it overlooks terrorism, industrial and other kinds, which are too numerous for Wikipedia to list individually.
Now let's also factor in, some basic statistics,sorry for the maths, I'll keep it brief. Suppose there are N "disasters" in the whole of 2011. How big does N have to be, before there is more than a 50% chance of a "disaster" specifically happening in March 2011? The answer mathematically is
1 - (11/12)N > 0.5
Or solving this equation, N >= 7.966.
In other words, if there are only 8 "disasters" or "catastrophes" in 2011, the odds are more than 50/50 that one disaster/catastrophe will occur in March 2011. Wikipedia suggests that there are more disasters a year than it can count.
We can label any sizeable disaster we choose, as a "huge catastrophe", or any sizeable disaster between say, February and April 2011 as "very close to March 2011" as well, if we need to, and claim she "must" have seen it.
I'm completely unimpressed as a result. It looks like I could name virtually any future month and say theres a "huge catastrophe" and if needed I'm close enough on scale (close enough to "huge"?) or time (close enough to that month?),and it's virtually guaranteed that there will be some event that someone can argue "must" have been the one I "foresaw". Spooky, eh?
Actually, let's take a second example too...
"around 2020, an unknown virus will appear, reaching its peak in April; it will then vanish"
Let's consider this as an example of what I was saying above, about how people say "its close enough so I must have 'foreseen' it". A novel virus did appear, although in 2019 not 2020 it hit the world stage in 2020. It didn't "reach it's peak" in April, and didn't "then vanish", but we can conveniently choose to ignore those. Wow! Did she somehow foresee it?
Err. No. Not likely.
Novel (previously unknown/new) virii emerge all the time. Heres a partial list of some examples, all serious and lethal, and the dates of first known occurrence, as examples of how often a "new virus" appears - and these are only from among the serious, lethal, new virii......
- Spanish Flu (1918)
- H2N2 ("Asian Flu", 1957)
- Marburg virus (1967)
- Lassa (1969)
- H3N2 ("Hong Kong Flu", 1968)
- Ebola virus (1976)
- HIV (discovered 1981,virus reported 1984, now known 1959 or earlier)
- Ravn virus (1987)
- Taï Forest (1994)
- H1N1 ("Swine Flu", 2001)
- SARS (2002)
- Bundibugyo (2007)
- Lujo (2008)
- MERS (2012)
- H7N9 (2013)
- SARS-Cov-2 (2019)
Others also emerged as "new virii" (or new to science) but didnt cause a big or lethal outbreak, such as London1_novel CoV/2012
So yeah. Colour me not very impressed again. "Around" any time, depending how "around" you want to be", a new virus emerges. And those are only the lethal ones. So thats hardly stunning foresight. What do we know about this "foreseen virus"? Just 2 statements, both clearly not realised: that this virus would "peak in April" and "then vanish". Spooky accuracy again! Well,no. Fail, really.
In other words one statement that could hardly fail to come true, or had very reasonable chances of it (depending how "around" you want to be), and two incorrect statements.
As so often the case with scams, pseudoscience, "mind reading", "fortune telling", and wishful thinking....
The lack of detail is telling. A totally not hard to foresee "catastrophe" but no specifics. A totally not hard to foresee "virus" but no specifics.
If she had posted up a specific eruption or tsunami, or whatever, or the city of Wuhan, or told us the world would go into lockdown over it, or that it would have pangolins as a natural reservoir (or whatever), or some specific convincer (such as that masks would be a worldwide cultural change for the duration, even in countries they were never previously widely worn, or that Brazil's president would deny a virus' seriousness in 2020-21 and have protests), I'd be a little more curious. But as so often, no.