THE head of the UN World Health Organization (WHO) has declared an end to COVID-19 as a public health emergency, stressing that it ‘does not mean the disease is no longer a global threat’. The move vindicates Medialternatives earlier prognosis based upon historical public health data indicating that respiratory epidemics ‘last no longer than two years on average’.
In this respect, extra-Constitutional proposals for compulsory, involuntary vaccination ( a removal of patient consent under article 12), mooted by Glenda Grey and that legal huckster Halton Cheadle, appear to have been made in haste and sans consideration of the overall impact upon our democratic and free society. You can read my earlier pieces directed at creeping totalitarianism and its crackpot advocates such as Pierre de Vos, who was amongst the first to lump ordinary citizens within the ranks of the criminally insane.
The WHO announcement should give democracies pause to consider the cost and effectiveness of containment strategies rolled out during the height of the pandemic back in 2020, and cause all of us to reconsider the legal ramifications of a hasty resort to draconian ‘special measures’ under the rubric of public health and solidarity? Need I remind readers of the National Coronovirus Council and its special state of disaster?
The economic impact of successive lockdowns is still being felt by those countries like our own, which unlike Sweden, embraced containment as a public health strategy, with serious socio-economic consequences.
As much of the world shut down early in the COVID pandemic, Sweden remained open. The country’s approach was controversial writes researcher Emma Frans, with some calling it “the Swedish experiment”. But more than three years after the pandemic began, what can we say today about the outcomes of this “experiment”?
Frans explains Sweden ‘largely stuck to its pandemic plan, originally developed to be used in the event of an influenza pandemic. Instead of lockdowns, the goal was to achieve social distancing through public health recommendations.”
‘Swedes were encouraged to work from home if possible and limit travel within the country. In addition, people aged 70 or older were asked to limit social contact, and people with COVID symptoms were asked to self-isolate. The goal was to protect the elderly and other high-risk groups while slowing down the spread of the virus so the healthcare system wouldn’t become overwhelmed.’
‘As the number of cases surged, some restrictions were imposed. Public events were limited to a maximum of 50 people in March 2020, and eight people in November 2020. Visits to nursing homes were banned and upper secondary schools closed. Primary schools did, however, remain open throughout the pandemic.’
Although Sweden was hit hard by the first wave,” Frans who is a “senior research specialist, C8 Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institute” says, the country’s total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic, “were actually among the lowest in Europe‘.’
While noting the plan was not without its flaws, and the ongoing controversy over the overall impact upon the elderly and infirm, at least during the first stages, Frans concludes: “the focus of Sweden’s strategy was to reduce the spread of the virus, but also to consider other aspects of public health and protect freedom and fundamental rights. While the Swedish strategy remains controversial, today most countries are taking similar approaches …”
It remains to be seen whether South Africa’s resident ‘experts’ on health and legal matters, those who made headlines during the pandemic, proposing draconian extra-constitutional measures without much opposition nor debate, will retract their former pronouncements?