Glenda Grey & Cheadle silent as WHO declares official end to Covid pandemic

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?

READ: Mandates: Statist power grab undermines personal autonomy as well as collective rights

READ: Mandates: Public peril or just plain baloney?

The rise of the alcohol prohibition and temperance consortium

A CAMPAIGN to eliminate or reduce the availability of alcohol under the guise of recent public health policy interventions appears to be under way. Bolstered by the ban on alcohol sales in terms of the National Disaster Act, the group made an appearance on eNCA last night, apparently to ‘debate the ban’ and a series of regulations gazetted in terms of legislation which is currently under judicial scrutiny.

Although Leslie London, of Public Health Medicine at the University of Cape Town agrees with Maurice Smithers of the African Alcohol Policy Alliance that the ban is not sustainable in the long-term, he appeared to offer contradictory information. On the one hand the initial ban also affecting transport had ‘reduced trauma cases in hospital wards’, on the other, the later ban without the transport component, ‘had not shown significant reductions’.

Mary Makgaba from POWA asserts there is ‘a strong correlation between gender based violence and alcohol abuse’, but agreed with the economic arguments that people’s livelihoods also mattered. Yet as often noted, correlation does not imply causation — the presence of alcohol is not sufficient reason to infer gender bias, in the same way drinkers are not all necessarily men.

While Makgaba was in support of restrictions, Both London and Smithers claimed that ‘alcohol is a drug’ requiring stronger regulation by government. They argue that South Africa should adopt the WHO guidelines on ‘reducing availability, increasing price of alcohol and curtailing or banning alcohol advertising’.

Prohibitionists have historically used religious arguments to ban alcohol, but today’s members of the temperance union rely upon the fact that alcohol is classified as a ‘central nervous system depressant’. Instead of arguing for harm reduction, they wish to closet alcohol use behind a veil of bourgeois values and assertions — reducing the size of beer bottles, making alcohol less affordable or simply unaffordible to the working class and poor.

Some of the suggestions made by Smithers appear eminently reasonable at first glance, for example, reducing the number of outlets or restricting the amount of alcohol available to purchase, yet each carries a price, the problem of enforcement and consequent danger of the criminalisation of alcohol users who do not comply.

After decades of filling the nation’s jails with drug users, the motion to lock up alcoholics is the antithesis of harm reduction and drug liberalisation strategies. Broader societal harm caused by alcohol needs to be weighed against the long-term harm caused by a reduction in individual freedoms and the rise of a police state — the true cost of policing and enforcement of policy, not simply upon people’s lives but also livelihoods.

The science provided was also incredibly thin, mere references to materials handed out by the WHO — there is yet to be a national review of the medical literature with any input from the social sciences and humanities.

Banning private transportation for instance, as London appears to suggest, would offer an immediate benefit to hospital wards, but just about nobody and not even the Professor of Public Health, is standing up complaining that the cost of vehicle transport on people’s lives is way too high, nor are today’s temperance union members averring that drunk-driving offences receive longer sentences.

South Africa remains a democratic republic where public health policy is set in terms of a constitutional dispensation not medical fiat. A dispensation that enshrines individual freedoms over the body, and a political reality that is not the result of the diktat of bureaucrats in Geneva, but rather a democratic revolution.

Is anyone in Pretoria listening?

As South Africa fumbles COVID-19 testing, WHO warns social distancing is not enough

AS SOUTH AFRICA continues to struggle to ramp up basic testing for COVID-19, experts at the World Health Organization on Monday emphasized that countries should prioritize such testing— and that social-distancing measures are not enough.

“We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test,” WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus (aka Dr. Tedros) said in a press briefing March 16.

Dr. Tedros noted that, as the numbers of cases and deaths outside of China have quickly risen, many countries—including the US—have urgently adopted so-called social-distancing measures, such as shuttering schools, canceling events, and having people work from home. While these measures can slow transmission and allow health care systems to better cope, they are “not enough to extinguish this pandemic,” Dr. Tedros warned.

What’s needed is a comprehensive approach, he said. “But we have not seen an urgent-enough escalation in testing, isolation and contact tracing, which is the backbone of the response,” Dr. Tedros said.

“The most effective way to prevent infections and save lives is breaking the chains of transmission,” he went on. “And to do that, you must test and isolate. You cannot fight a fire blindfolded. And we cannot stop this pandemic if we don’t know who is infected.”

SEE: US testing response flounders 

SEE: Singapore’s Portable Covid-19 Swab Test 

SEE: Covid-19 Facts: Surviving the Covid-19 ‘Immunity’ Disaster

WHO accused of “brain robbery”

“Star of the day was Prof David Sanders, of the University of the Western Cape in South Africa and the People’s Health Movement, whose rousing speech slating the official declaration received a standing ovation from campaigners, while many member state representatives sat silent. It ought to tackle unfair trade, he said, in which agricultural subsidies lead to food insecurity and malnutrition, especially in Africa. He accused corporations of buying up land in famine-dogged Ethiopia to grow food for the west. And he accused the west of robbing poor countries of skilled healthcare staff.”

http://bit.ly/rvPqeF