The pandemic response has failed
2022-01-10
The head of the Swedish Public Health Agency, Anders Tegnell, said the following on TV in the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, in April 2020, about the 2019 annual conference on preparedness for pandemics. "Everyone agreed on how to tackle the pandemic" he said, "then everyone went home and did the opposite!"
https://justidag.info/what-is-happening-in-sweden Here is what the international epidemic experts agreed upon at the conference 2019. As can be seen there is very little prior scientific evidence for the measures that were taken – i.e. what became “the opposite” as the Swedish delegate expressed it.
Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza
GLOBAL INFLUENZA PROGRAMME WHO ISBN 978-92-4-151683-9
© World Health Organization 2019
…..
2. Summary of recommendations
The eighteen recommendations, which fall under 15 measures, are summarized in Table 4. The recommendations are based on the quality of evidence, which is indicated within the table, and on the other indicators (i.e. values and preferences, balance of benefits and harms, resource implications, acceptability, feasibility and ethical considerations).
| Measure | Strength of recommendation | Quality of Evidence |
| Hand hygiene | Recommended | Lack of influence in reducing influenza transmission |
| Respiratory etiquette | Recommended | None |
| Face masks for asymptotic people | Conditionally recommended | Lack of influence in reducing influenza transmission |
| Disposable surgical face masks for symptomatic individuals | Recommended | Lack of influence in reducing influenza transmission |
| Surface and object cleaning | Recommended | Lack of influence in reducing influenza transmission |
| Installing UV light in enclosed and crowded places | Not recommended | None |
| Increasing ventilation | Recommended | Very low |
| Modifying humidity | Not recommended | None |
| Contact tracing | Not recommended | Very low (unknown) |
| Isolation of sick individuals | Recommended | Very low |
| Quarantine of exposed individuals | Not recommended | Very low |
| School measures and closures | Conditionally recommended | Very low |
| Workplace measures and closures | Conditionally recommended | Very low |
| Avoiding crowding | Conditionally recommended | Very low (unknown) |
| Travel advice | Recommended | None |
| Entry and exit screening | Not recommended | Lack of influence in reducing influenza transmission |
| Internal travel restriction | Conditionally recommended | Very low |
| Border closure | Not recommended | Very low |
So, all the political mandates we have seen: Face masks, quarantine, lockdown, border closures, travel restrictions and others have had very little scientific backing.
The world has seen a diehard combo:
Pharmaceutical experts have rejected all proposed cures of “COVID-19” as lacking in scientific evidence.
Politicians have been left to nonpharmaceutical interventions that have no scientific evidence but seem to project initiative, ability to act and strength. Today, two very important tools have been added to the toolbox: vaccines without scientific evidence and vaccine passport with even less scientific evidence.
Early warning from WHO already in September 2019 against interventions for political reasons
As a consequence of the conference WHO felt itself obliged to publish the following warning against interventions for political reasons
“WHO and other public health authorities should have the capacity to provide risk/benefit analysis to national governments, driven by scientific evidence where it exists, before NPI*s are initiated in a crisis.
During an emergency, it should be expected that implementation of some NPIs, such as travel restrictions and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes by political leaders, rather than pursued because of public health evidence. WHO should rapidly and clearly articulate its opposition to inappropriate NPIs, especially when they threaten public health response activities or pose increased risks to the health of the public.”
*NPI = Nonpharmaceutical interventions
The quote is from: Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic September 2019
https://www.gpmb.org/annual-reports/overview/item/preparedness-for-a-high-impact-respiratory-pathogen-pandemic
The warning from WHO apparently had little effect and all kinds of restriction were introduced by politicians of all creeds, lauded by compliant “experts” and promoted in a rather unexpected way by the entire international media.
The efficiency of nonpharmaceutical interventions questioned already at an early stage by many scientists – in line with WHO:s early misgivings
“Conclusions: While small benefits cannot be excluded, we do not find significant benefits on case growth of more restrictive NPIs. Similar reductions in case growth may be achievable with less- restrictive interventions.”
(December 2020). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13484
“Conclusion: This suggests that the costs of continuing severe restrictions are so great relative to likely benefits in lives saved that a rapid easing in restrictions is now warranted.” (August 2020). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijcp.13674