August 16, 2022
Dear Friends and Family,
I elected to start this pandemic critique by looking at how other countries addressed Covid –19 before focusing exclusively on what we did in the United States.
Most wealthy countries adopted a Covid strategy similar to our approach. However, a few – Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Iceland followed different strategies. The primary difference, as reported, was these counties did not lockdown and yet their death rates were at or less than the average.
All countries experienced significantly higher death rates with the elderly and far fewer in number with the young people. Pre-existing conditions were of primary importance.
Following the World Health Organization’s guidelines that every deceased person who had tested positive for the virus should be entered in official records as a coronavirus death and how different counties interpreted this, severely confounds the Covid death statistics and any country-to-country comparisons.
The media’s inclination to terrify the effects of the virus combined with frequency of Covid news seemingly are universal in the Western World. Germany’s government was worse.
The sources for this segment’s excerpts were all published fairly early in the pandemic, so in the source information under each set of excerpts from a particular book, I not only show the year of publication but my estimate on the period of the year.
Next: The next segment is a critique of U.S. Public Health agencies relative to the pandemic – their readiness, analysis of the spread, guidance, reporting, and standards.
Happy Learning,
Harley
Dear Friends and Family,
I elected to start this pandemic critique by looking at how other countries addressed Covid –19 before focusing exclusively on what we did in the United States.
Most wealthy countries adopted a Covid strategy similar to our approach. However, a few – Sweden, South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and Iceland followed different strategies. The primary difference, as reported, was these counties did not lockdown and yet their death rates were at or less than the average.
All countries experienced significantly higher death rates with the elderly and far fewer in number with the young people. Pre-existing conditions were of primary importance.
Following the World Health Organization’s guidelines that every deceased person who had tested positive for the virus should be entered in official records as a coronavirus death and how different counties interpreted this, severely confounds the Covid death statistics and any country-to-country comparisons.
The media’s inclination to terrify the effects of the virus combined with frequency of Covid news seemingly are universal in the Western World. Germany’s government was worse.
The sources for this segment’s excerpts were all published fairly early in the pandemic, so in the source information under each set of excerpts from a particular book, I not only show the year of publication but my estimate on the period of the year.
Next: The next segment is a critique of U.S. Public Health agencies relative to the pandemic – their readiness, analysis of the spread, guidance, reporting, and standards.
Happy Learning,
Harley
COVID PANDEMIC CRITIQUE – SEGMENT 1
A WORLDWIDE LOOK - EXCERPTS
From: Corona: False Alarm? By Dr. Karina Reiss and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (2020 – est. fall)
A LOOK AROUND THE WORLD: Japan and South Korea were among the first countries outside of China to be affected by the outbreak. Contrary to China’s draconian measures, the mass quarantines in wide parts of Europe and in major US cities, regular life continued in Japan for a large part of the population. Restaurants stayed open – without disaster. Japan has a very small number of coronavirus infections – possibly because they did not do much testing.
Now we know that the number of infections is of no significance. So let us look at the really important issue, namely the number of deceased: this, too, is extremely low. Much wrong cannot have been done in Japan.
South Korea banked on 1) informing the public and 2) testing and tracing. Mass testing was performed in specially erected drive-through centers. Radical transparency was ensured by a tracking app that tagged the whereabouts of infected persons.
Sweden, Iceland, Hong King, South Korea, Japan – all examples have confirmed what recognized experts have said all along: lockdowns are not necessary. They cause massive social and economic damage that cannot justify any possible benefits.
Nonetheless, most countries followed the “role model” China. All of Italy was completely quarantined from March 10 by a stay-at-home order. Exceptions applied only in emergencies, for important work orders and for errands that could not be postponed. Sixty million people were under house arrest and the streets were totally empty for a whole two months. Other countries like Spain, France, Ireland, Poland undertook similar action. With what effect? The epidemic is over, so let us look at the death toll – keeping in mind that the numbers are grossly inflated because of faulty counting methods and case definition.
Did fewer people die in countries with lockdown measures? The press relentlessly emphasized that Sweden would pay a high price for its liberal path. In actuality we see that Sweden without lockdown (the number of deaths per million population at approximately 360) when compared to countries with lockdown (a mean of approximately 350). South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong as well do not conspicuously stand out with an exorbitantly high number of so called “corona deaths”. Quite the contrary is the case with all three below 210 deaths per million people.
So, what do we see: countries without lockdown measure did not slide into a catastrophe. This leads to the next important question. We know that COVID – 19 can run a fatal course in elderly patients with underlying conditions. Were high-risk groups better protected in countries with lockdown? The simple answer is, No. Approximately half of the “coronavirus victims” died in care facilities and retirement homes, no matter where you look. A sensible concept for protection of genuinely vulnerable groups compliant with ethical rules and regulations would have solved the problem.
The scenario of another “wave of infections” is typical for many countries. It is often misused to maintain fear in the population and to prolong senseless measures. In fact, the epidemic followed essentially the same course all over Europe. The effects of the lockdown were exclusively negative. So which measures would have actually been correct? Simple: a resolute protection of the vulnerable groups, those in nursing and care facilities. Period.
Regarding the Number of Deaths: A serious mistake was that every deceased person who had tested positive for the virus entered the official records as a coronavirus victim. This method of reporting violated all international medical guidelines. The absurdity of giving COVID-19 as the cause of death in a patient who dies of cancer needs no comment. This was causal fallacy, that was destined to drive the world into catastrophe. Truth surrounding the virus remained enshrouded in a tangle of rumors, myths, and beliefs.
With the emergence of a new and possibly dangerous infectious disease, autopsies should be undertaken in cases of doubt to clarify the actual cause of death. Only one pathologist ventured to fulfill this task in Germany. He performed autopsies on all “coronavirus victims” and found that not one had been healthy. Most had suffered from several pre-existing conditions. One in two suffered from coronary heart disease. Other frequent ailments were hypertension, atherosclerosis, obesity, diabetes, cancer, lung and kidney disease and live cirrhosis. The problem with coronavirus death counts is such that the numbers can be viewed as nothing other than gross overestimates.
Source: Corona False Alarm? By Dr. Karina Reiss and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (2020 – est. fall)
From: World War C by Dr. Sanjay Gupta (2021 est. October)
Within the data and graphs, it’s amazing to see such discrepancies among countries, each of which followed its own pandemic response protocol with various forms of mitigation strategies and lockdowns. Most remarkable is the difference between wealthy and poor countries, but in nearly the opposite way we have come to expect. While infectious disease outbreaks typically crush poorer countries, this novel coronavirus disproportionately devastated many of the world’s wealthiest nations. Why? The path of the disease worldwide took wild and unpredictable lurches in one direction and then another.
Former CDC director Bob Redfield thinks the general unhealthiness of the American people also played a big role in our tragic death count. It didn’t help, he says that we went into war unfit, with chronic conditions like obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disorders, among others – all of which alone demand a lot of attention from our body. These are mostly diseases of privilege – of wealthy nations. We are victims of our own prosperity. High income countries like the United States share a much higher percentage of obesity cases worldwide. The large outliers among rich countries are Japan and South Korea, where only around 5% of premature deaths are attributed to obesity (as a comparison, obesity accounts for 18% of deaths among Americans ages forty to eighty-five).
We know that the highest mortality for COVID is among elderly populations, but we can’t neglect the fact that Japan has the oldest population in the world and still has had a relatively low COVID death rate. [NOTE: One thing this author does not bring out is that island nations such as Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand, etc. have lower death rates because they can control their borders and hence the virial spread much easier than other nations]. It was difficult to watch a country like the United States fail to execute the most basic public health strategies. We are better at getting the big things right. Notably, we managed to develop several vaccines at historic speed.
Source: World War C by Dr. Sanjay Gupta (2021)
From: Corona: False Alarm? By Dr. Karina Reiss and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (2020 – est. fall)
CORONA-SITUATION IN GERMANY
The German populace should have been reassured that this country was well-positioned and that disturbing scenarios similar to those seen in northern Italy or elsewhere need NOT be feared. Instead, the exact opposite happened. The RKI [Note: Germany’s CDC] issued warning after warning, and the government embarked on a crusade of fearmongering that defied description. Anyone who dared to challenge the warning that the world was facing the greatest pandemic threat of all times was defamed and censored.
On March 11, the WHO declared the pandemic. The very next day, German governors of state voted to cancel all mass gatherings. On the same day, a report from France: all day care centers, schools, colleges and universities have been closed until further notice. Germany followed suit: one day later, the German states ordered all schools and day care centers closed from March 16. Two days later, on March 18, further restrictions to public life were announced. Public life was rapidly shut down. Clubs, museums, trade fairs, cinemas, zoos, everything had to be closed. Religious services were prohibited, playgrounds and sports facilities fenced off. Elective surgery would be postponed. The primary goal: the health care system must not be overwhelmed.
Overburdened German Hospitals: At the beginning of March, it became clear that the epidemic was sweeping through Germany. Was our health care system well prepared? Even if we had as many coronavirus infections as Italy, we had approximately 28,000 beds in intensive care units, 25,000 of which were equipped with ventilators. Even if we had conditions like in Italy, we would be nowhere near to being overburdened. But the RKI kept fostering fear. The “number of intensive care beds will not be sufficient,” was the continual report. The RKI announced: “The epidemic continues, and the number of fatalities will keep going up.”
Actually, the real explanation – kept under lock and key at that time – was quite different. It came to light in May. The shocking contents confirmed circulation rumors. The document, dating to mid-March, was the minutes of a meeting of the coronavirus taskforce. There, one was astounded to learn that fear-mongering was the official agenda created to manage the epidemic.
This strategy would enable all intended measures to be implemented with general acceptance by the public. HORRIBLE! The fact is that we were never at any risk of our health care system collapsing. In mid-April there was NO REASON for further measures. All should have been revoked immediately. The situation in other countries was similar.
SWEDEN AS A ROLE MODEL?
Sweden’s epidemiologist Professor Anders Tegnell and his predecessor, Johan Giesecke pointed out at an early stage that only the implementation of evidence-based measures made any sense. Both decided that lockdowns were not only pointless, but dangerous.
From a scientific stance, school closings are indeed known to make no sense. It did make sense, however, to count on the individual sense of responsibility of the citizens, and on informational and educational campaigns. People were informed on how to protect themselves – and they did, without fear-mongering, without panic scenarios, without lockdown, without threat of a fine, without massive restrictions on their liberties. Executive WHO director Mike Ryan called Sweden a “role model” in the fight against the coronavirus.
THE SITUATION IN ITALY, SPAIN, ENGLAND, AND THE USA
Since the end of March (2020), one sensation outdid the next: Italy had the most deaths, the fatality rate shocked us to the core; Spain surpassed Italy (in the number of infections): the United Kingdom broke the sad European record, exceeded only by the U.S. The press delighted in spreading as much terrifying news as humanly possible.
Source: Corona False Alarm? By Dr. Karina Reiss and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi.
From: Panic Attack by Dr. Nicole Saphier (2021 – est. summer)
In stark contrast to the United States, Sweden stood out as a country focused on a contrarian approach, an outcast to surrounding nations and most of the rest of the world by not implementing harsh lockdown orders early in the pandemic. Sweden’s seemingly laissez-faire approach to the coronavirus provoked a partisan response, with one hailing their individualistic method of protecting the greater good of the country while critics grew angrier by the day. Most of the changes in Sweden involved voluntary actions by citizens, rather than restrictions imposed by the government. Generalized mask-wearing was also not adopted.
When putting into context the Swedish method compared with that of the United States, the Swedes focused on SARS-CoV-2 policy that did not only consider the virus but gave thought to the rest of human life -- of avoiding panic, social unrest, missed childhood education, and severe economic fallout.
We may be massively frustrated by elected officials who refuse to bend despite growing pleas for it, as well as credentialed professionals, such as those at the CDC and WHO, who seem not to take into account factors other than the virus. As with every major event in the course of human affairs, people have displayed the usual mix of shortsightedness.
Source: Panic Attack: Playing Politics with Science in the Fight against COVID-19 by Nicole Saphier, MD (2021 – est. summer).
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
A WORLDWIDE LOOK - EXCERPTS
From: Corona: False Alarm? By Dr. Karina Reiss and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (2020 – est. fall)
A LOOK AROUND THE WORLD: Japan and South Korea were among the first countries outside of China to be affected by the outbreak. Contrary to China’s draconian measures, the mass quarantines in wide parts of Europe and in major US cities, regular life continued in Japan for a large part of the population. Restaurants stayed open – without disaster. Japan has a very small number of coronavirus infections – possibly because they did not do much testing.
Now we know that the number of infections is of no significance. So let us look at the really important issue, namely the number of deceased: this, too, is extremely low. Much wrong cannot have been done in Japan.
South Korea banked on 1) informing the public and 2) testing and tracing. Mass testing was performed in specially erected drive-through centers. Radical transparency was ensured by a tracking app that tagged the whereabouts of infected persons.
Sweden, Iceland, Hong King, South Korea, Japan – all examples have confirmed what recognized experts have said all along: lockdowns are not necessary. They cause massive social and economic damage that cannot justify any possible benefits.
Nonetheless, most countries followed the “role model” China. All of Italy was completely quarantined from March 10 by a stay-at-home order. Exceptions applied only in emergencies, for important work orders and for errands that could not be postponed. Sixty million people were under house arrest and the streets were totally empty for a whole two months. Other countries like Spain, France, Ireland, Poland undertook similar action. With what effect? The epidemic is over, so let us look at the death toll – keeping in mind that the numbers are grossly inflated because of faulty counting methods and case definition.
Did fewer people die in countries with lockdown measures? The press relentlessly emphasized that Sweden would pay a high price for its liberal path. In actuality we see that Sweden without lockdown (the number of deaths per million population at approximately 360) when compared to countries with lockdown (a mean of approximately 350). South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong as well do not conspicuously stand out with an exorbitantly high number of so called “corona deaths”. Quite the contrary is the case with all three below 210 deaths per million people.
So, what do we see: countries without lockdown measure did not slide into a catastrophe. This leads to the next important question. We know that COVID – 19 can run a fatal course in elderly patients with underlying conditions. Were high-risk groups better protected in countries with lockdown? The simple answer is, No. Approximately half of the “coronavirus victims” died in care facilities and retirement homes, no matter where you look. A sensible concept for protection of genuinely vulnerable groups compliant with ethical rules and regulations would have solved the problem.
The scenario of another “wave of infections” is typical for many countries. It is often misused to maintain fear in the population and to prolong senseless measures. In fact, the epidemic followed essentially the same course all over Europe. The effects of the lockdown were exclusively negative. So which measures would have actually been correct? Simple: a resolute protection of the vulnerable groups, those in nursing and care facilities. Period.
Regarding the Number of Deaths: A serious mistake was that every deceased person who had tested positive for the virus entered the official records as a coronavirus victim. This method of reporting violated all international medical guidelines. The absurdity of giving COVID-19 as the cause of death in a patient who dies of cancer needs no comment. This was causal fallacy, that was destined to drive the world into catastrophe. Truth surrounding the virus remained enshrouded in a tangle of rumors, myths, and beliefs.
With the emergence of a new and possibly dangerous infectious disease, autopsies should be undertaken in cases of doubt to clarify the actual cause of death. Only one pathologist ventured to fulfill this task in Germany. He performed autopsies on all “coronavirus victims” and found that not one had been healthy. Most had suffered from several pre-existing conditions. One in two suffered from coronary heart disease. Other frequent ailments were hypertension, atherosclerosis, obesity, diabetes, cancer, lung and kidney disease and live cirrhosis. The problem with coronavirus death counts is such that the numbers can be viewed as nothing other than gross overestimates.
Source: Corona False Alarm? By Dr. Karina Reiss and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (2020 – est. fall)
From: World War C by Dr. Sanjay Gupta (2021 est. October)
Within the data and graphs, it’s amazing to see such discrepancies among countries, each of which followed its own pandemic response protocol with various forms of mitigation strategies and lockdowns. Most remarkable is the difference between wealthy and poor countries, but in nearly the opposite way we have come to expect. While infectious disease outbreaks typically crush poorer countries, this novel coronavirus disproportionately devastated many of the world’s wealthiest nations. Why? The path of the disease worldwide took wild and unpredictable lurches in one direction and then another.
Former CDC director Bob Redfield thinks the general unhealthiness of the American people also played a big role in our tragic death count. It didn’t help, he says that we went into war unfit, with chronic conditions like obesity, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disorders, among others – all of which alone demand a lot of attention from our body. These are mostly diseases of privilege – of wealthy nations. We are victims of our own prosperity. High income countries like the United States share a much higher percentage of obesity cases worldwide. The large outliers among rich countries are Japan and South Korea, where only around 5% of premature deaths are attributed to obesity (as a comparison, obesity accounts for 18% of deaths among Americans ages forty to eighty-five).
We know that the highest mortality for COVID is among elderly populations, but we can’t neglect the fact that Japan has the oldest population in the world and still has had a relatively low COVID death rate. [NOTE: One thing this author does not bring out is that island nations such as Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand, etc. have lower death rates because they can control their borders and hence the virial spread much easier than other nations]. It was difficult to watch a country like the United States fail to execute the most basic public health strategies. We are better at getting the big things right. Notably, we managed to develop several vaccines at historic speed.
Source: World War C by Dr. Sanjay Gupta (2021)
From: Corona: False Alarm? By Dr. Karina Reiss and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi (2020 – est. fall)
CORONA-SITUATION IN GERMANY
The German populace should have been reassured that this country was well-positioned and that disturbing scenarios similar to those seen in northern Italy or elsewhere need NOT be feared. Instead, the exact opposite happened. The RKI [Note: Germany’s CDC] issued warning after warning, and the government embarked on a crusade of fearmongering that defied description. Anyone who dared to challenge the warning that the world was facing the greatest pandemic threat of all times was defamed and censored.
On March 11, the WHO declared the pandemic. The very next day, German governors of state voted to cancel all mass gatherings. On the same day, a report from France: all day care centers, schools, colleges and universities have been closed until further notice. Germany followed suit: one day later, the German states ordered all schools and day care centers closed from March 16. Two days later, on March 18, further restrictions to public life were announced. Public life was rapidly shut down. Clubs, museums, trade fairs, cinemas, zoos, everything had to be closed. Religious services were prohibited, playgrounds and sports facilities fenced off. Elective surgery would be postponed. The primary goal: the health care system must not be overwhelmed.
Overburdened German Hospitals: At the beginning of March, it became clear that the epidemic was sweeping through Germany. Was our health care system well prepared? Even if we had as many coronavirus infections as Italy, we had approximately 28,000 beds in intensive care units, 25,000 of which were equipped with ventilators. Even if we had conditions like in Italy, we would be nowhere near to being overburdened. But the RKI kept fostering fear. The “number of intensive care beds will not be sufficient,” was the continual report. The RKI announced: “The epidemic continues, and the number of fatalities will keep going up.”
Actually, the real explanation – kept under lock and key at that time – was quite different. It came to light in May. The shocking contents confirmed circulation rumors. The document, dating to mid-March, was the minutes of a meeting of the coronavirus taskforce. There, one was astounded to learn that fear-mongering was the official agenda created to manage the epidemic.
This strategy would enable all intended measures to be implemented with general acceptance by the public. HORRIBLE! The fact is that we were never at any risk of our health care system collapsing. In mid-April there was NO REASON for further measures. All should have been revoked immediately. The situation in other countries was similar.
SWEDEN AS A ROLE MODEL?
Sweden’s epidemiologist Professor Anders Tegnell and his predecessor, Johan Giesecke pointed out at an early stage that only the implementation of evidence-based measures made any sense. Both decided that lockdowns were not only pointless, but dangerous.
From a scientific stance, school closings are indeed known to make no sense. It did make sense, however, to count on the individual sense of responsibility of the citizens, and on informational and educational campaigns. People were informed on how to protect themselves – and they did, without fear-mongering, without panic scenarios, without lockdown, without threat of a fine, without massive restrictions on their liberties. Executive WHO director Mike Ryan called Sweden a “role model” in the fight against the coronavirus.
THE SITUATION IN ITALY, SPAIN, ENGLAND, AND THE USA
Since the end of March (2020), one sensation outdid the next: Italy had the most deaths, the fatality rate shocked us to the core; Spain surpassed Italy (in the number of infections): the United Kingdom broke the sad European record, exceeded only by the U.S. The press delighted in spreading as much terrifying news as humanly possible.
Source: Corona False Alarm? By Dr. Karina Reiss and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi.
From: Panic Attack by Dr. Nicole Saphier (2021 – est. summer)
In stark contrast to the United States, Sweden stood out as a country focused on a contrarian approach, an outcast to surrounding nations and most of the rest of the world by not implementing harsh lockdown orders early in the pandemic. Sweden’s seemingly laissez-faire approach to the coronavirus provoked a partisan response, with one hailing their individualistic method of protecting the greater good of the country while critics grew angrier by the day. Most of the changes in Sweden involved voluntary actions by citizens, rather than restrictions imposed by the government. Generalized mask-wearing was also not adopted.
When putting into context the Swedish method compared with that of the United States, the Swedes focused on SARS-CoV-2 policy that did not only consider the virus but gave thought to the rest of human life -- of avoiding panic, social unrest, missed childhood education, and severe economic fallout.
We may be massively frustrated by elected officials who refuse to bend despite growing pleas for it, as well as credentialed professionals, such as those at the CDC and WHO, who seem not to take into account factors other than the virus. As with every major event in the course of human affairs, people have displayed the usual mix of shortsightedness.
Source: Panic Attack: Playing Politics with Science in the Fight against COVID-19 by Nicole Saphier, MD (2021 – est. summer).
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
| covid_1l_a_worldwide_look_--_segment_1.pdf |