Copyright outkick
The World Health Organization disgraced itself during the COVID-19 pandemic. After decades of studying the best available evidence, in preparation for the exact scenario COVID presented, in a fit of panic, the "experts" at the WHO promptly threw it out. Prior to 2020, their guidance, referred to by countries around the world, stressed the importance of calm, rational decision-making based on minimizing societal disruption. But as is so often the case, the importance of China to their bottom line changed that prerogative. The Chinese government, likely attempting to cover up the possibility that the virus leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, went into harsh, strict lockdown to stop COVID. And for some inexplicable reason, the world, especially the WHO, believed everything they said. Lockdowns went from being abhorrent, untested theorizing to immediate global policy. They did not work. The 3.4% COVID mortality rate pushed by the WHO also proved to be monumentally inaccurate. RELATED: COVID Mortality Risk Was Nearly Nonexistent, New Study Finds Masks didn't work. School closures didn't work. Nothing the WHO pushed worked. And now they want to make sure all their ineffective policies are etched in stone and repeated forever. Makes sense. New WHO Pandemic Guidance Is A Masterpiece Of Stupidity Just a few weeks ago, the WHO published a massive new document designed to "support government decision-making on public health and social measures." This document, described as the "PHSM Decision Navigator," is meant as a blueprint to inform politicians or other leadership as they navigate another potential pandemic. Given the WHO's track record on advising governments during the pandemic, you'd be forgiven for having low expectations. After all, their performance was atrocious and indefensible at best, and purposefully misleading and disastrously ineffective at worst. They protected China on the lab leak, told politicians and the public that COVID was much more deadly than it was, leading to harmful policies, and then promoted useless interventions that had disastrous side effects. Well, no matter how low your expectations are, this document manages to be significantly worse. Immediately, the WHO makes several unsupported assumptions, then promotes policies we already know don't work. "PHSM are vital in reducing the risk and scale of infectious disease transmission and lowering hospitalization and deaths," it says. "Examples include contact tracing, quarantine and isolation, mask use, ventilation, school or workplace measures, mobility restrictions and travel requirements." None of this has been demonstrated to reduce the risk and scale of infectious disease transmission, or lower "hospitalization and death." In certain limited cases, these policies can have use. But with regards to the type of public health safety emergency that the WHO is describing, not only is there no evidence that these measures are meaningful, but there's plenty of evidence that many of them are entirely useless. Contact tracing for COVID is laughable; with a highly infectious airborne respiratory virus, tracing contacts is an utterly pointless waste of time. It's guesswork that has no benefit at reducing onward transmission. Mask use was repeatedly and conclusively shown to be completely ineffective. There is no high quality randomized controlled trial showing that masks stopped COVID. There were several, however, showing no benefit whatsoever. Which is why competent experts have published evidence reviews to that effect. School closures were a historic disaster with zero positive benefits. Mobility and travel restrictions have little chance of efficacy, outside of island settings. Even then, countries like Australia and New Zealand eventually saw dramatic, uncontrolled spread of COVID after opening their countries. Despite waiting until after they'd reached exceptional, 80-90% vaccination coverage. This is what the WHO recommends to decision-makers to deal with the next pandemic. In fact, they go as far as saying these measures as "essential" strategies. Doesn't get much worse. Lest you think this is some isolated document nobody will ever read or refer to, think again. It was, per their release, directly requested by Member States, and is intended as a "global framework' used by the WHO Director-General for future "emergency and preparedness policies." "WHO has developed the PHSM Decision Navigator, in response to the request of Member States, to provide a clear, systematic, and equitable framework in guiding governments in making these critical decisions. This work has been prioritized according to the World Health Assembly Resolution 74.7 which requested the WHO Director-General to develop a global framework to translate evidence into effective health emergency and preparedness policies." As always, they ignore that there is no evidence supporting these assumptions, instead saying the exact opposite. Yes, it might be completely absurd and profoundly wrong, but at least it's "equitable." It gets worse. One of the most harmful aspects of COVID policy was the obsessive safetyism of politicians and decision-makers. Instead of focusing on evidence, data, and quickly adapting to realities, there was an over-reliance on the precautionary principle. Essentially, because something bad could happen, we must throw every ineffective policy at the wall to see what sticks. It was one of many failures during COVID. That's exactly what the WHO promotes here. "Precautionary principle: the ‘precautionary principle enables decision-makers to adopt precautionary measures when scientific evidence about an environmental or human health hazard is uncertain and stakes are high.' This is particularly relevant at the onset of an outbreak of an unknown disease or when confronted with low-quality or contradicting research, as was the case during the COVID-19 pandemic. Identifying appropriate PHSM while awaiting new or more meaningful evidence under the ‘precautionary principle’ approach avoids so-called ‘decision paralysis’ and facilitates agile decision-making and action to save lives and livelihoods." So instead of making evidence-based decisions and minimizing harmful side effects while waiting better data, the WHO says shut everything down, rely on mandates that don't work, all because of the precautionary principle. What a disaster. They then reference the types of "personal protective equipment" that should be used as part of a decision-making process in future pandemics. First on the list? Masks. This is, of course, disinformation. Masks are not personal protective equipment. Even the most hardened masking fanatics, faced with years of failure, turned to saying that masks were meant to protect others and not individuals themselves. They obviously failed to do so, but this is the literal World Health Organization spreading a harmful lie in order to promote their specific ideology and goals. It's indefensible and dangerous. Even assuming that the imbeciles at the WHO are right and there is some value to masks, even the Anthony Fauci and CDC's of the world have long acknowledged that there is a vast difference between cloth masks and properly fit-tested and worn N95's. Does the WHO differentiate? Of course not. It's just, "masks are personal protective equipment," with no evidence whatsoever. This document is useless. It's a blueprint for failure. For more unacceptable restrictions on liberty, freedom, and evidence-based decision making. Here's how they describe it: "a vital tool" that governments and communities should rely on. "In conclusion, the Navigator is a vital tool that supports governments and communities in managing outbreaks, protecting lives and livelihoods, maintaining continuity of business and in-person learning and strengthening community resilience to better withstand future health emergencies." It's anything but. It's another entry in the long list of failures from the WHO. It's pandemic theater, policies that have no positive impacts. Instead of the "experts" admitting they're wrong, they're continuing to push permanent pseudoscience. Potentially harming millions more people than they already have.
