In a two hour podcast interview at The Six Cents Report, Nick Hudson (around the 50 minute mark) refers to the reason that previous pandemic plans were replaced with untried and untested outbreak control responses for Covid-19. The culture of favouring centralist solutions explains the political ideology leading the global lockstep behaviour promoted by players such as those who coordinated Event 201 in October 2019. They have effectively propagandised swathes of the global population to believe that lockdown practices in some way have merit in pandemic control.
“Early on in the pandemic, an academic who was a silent supporter of Panda put us in touch with the Gates Foundation. Because we were pointing out that one of the many things that was going by the wayside in the haste to lockdown in South Africa, was that childhood vaccinations were being suspended. And we thought that the consequences of that might be greater than the benefits of lockdown. Just that single factor alone. And he thought that the Gates Foundation might be interested in hearing our perspectives, not only on that specific thing but more generally on the failings of policy as it was being rolled out at that stage, in May to early June last year.
It was a very interesting engagement. They had done some homework, they’d listened to one of our first public webinars … And even though we contradicted the bulk of their narrative in what we were saying, the thing that upset them the most was …. when asked what I thought of the US government’s federal response, which is to say Trump’s response, I said I was actually quite delighted that there wasn’t a uniform federal response in the United States. It meant that every state would make up its own mind about what to do and when the dust had settled on the epidemic, we would be able to take a look back and see what methods worked and what methods didn’t work. And by the way, that prediction has actually come to pass. We now can see that the states that implemented mask mandates had no better outcomes than the states that didn’t. The states that had more draconian lockdowns had no better outcomes than the states that had mild ones or didn’t have any lockdowns at all …
But the staffers at the Gates Foundation were absolutely incensed by this perspective. It upset them much more than our observations about the inadequacy of their models and their misapprehensions of general risk. That spoke volumes to me, about the ideological presuppositions of the people on the other side of this fence“.
The below graphs show why counting a single mortality cause at a single point in time without looking at the bigger picture, is bad public health practice. Using one disease to generate fear is the worst public health practice imaginable. Lockdown is not a public health intervention and has no merit as a pandemic control response.
Follow The Mask Science is an excellent resource for anyone interested in the public health literature relating to use of masks as a control measure against respiratory viruses.