FAUCI PANDEMIC PLAN EXPOSED – Tucker Carlson Was RIGHT
Video available on:
- Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic were a global policy failure.
- Governments used fear campaigns and inaccurate models, leading to panicked decisions.
- A meta-analysis of 20,000 studies found minimal health benefits and significant costs from lockdowns.
- Former UK Health Secretary advocated for stricter lockdowns despite evidence of harm.
- Sweden’s approach challenged the narrative, emphasizing the balance between public health and personal freedoms.
Lockdowns, implemented as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, have been deemed as a colossal global policy failure by a team of international researchers. These researchers argue that governments were swayed by fear campaigns and inaccurate models, resulting in disastrous consequences. In their comprehensive analysis, published in the book “Did Lockdowns Work? The Verdict on Covid Restrictions,” they examined nearly 20,000 studies to assess the benefits and harms of various health mandates, including lockdowns, school closures, and mask mandates.
According to economist Steve Hanke, one of the co-authors of the study, reliance on mortality models from sources like the Imperial College of London (ICL) was a significant factor driving countries into panic and implementing draconian policies. These models presented exaggerated and unrealistic numbers, suggesting that millions of deaths could be prevented through extensive lockdown measures. As a result, pre-existing pandemic plans were hastily discarded, and flawed modeling became the basis for decision-making, leading to a series of repeated mistakes.
The study’s meta-analysis, although screening thousands of studies, found only 22 of them to be useful for their research. Focusing on mortality rates and lockdown policies in 2020, the researchers discovered that lockdowns had minimal health benefits but imposed severe economic, social, and political costs on society. The discrepancy between the ICL’s predictions and the actual outcomes was stark. While the ICL models projected that lockdowns could prevent millions of deaths in the United States, the meta-analysis indicated that lockdowns only prevented a range of 4,345 to 15,586 deaths—a far cry from the initial claims.
Despite mounting evidence that lockdowns were a failure on a massive scale, it is disconcerting to see individuals like Mr. Hancock, the former Health Secretary of the UK, advocating for even stricter and harsher lockdown measures. Mr. Hancock, who held office from 2018 to 2021, claimed that failing to plan for restrictions on civil liberties was a flaw in the government’s pandemic strategy. However, the detrimental consequences of lockdowns, such as the negative impact on mental health, delayed medical treatments, and a struggling economy, are well-documented.
Critics, like David Davis, another former Cabinet member, argue that lockdowns were poorly conceived and based on guesswork rather than scientific evidence. They question the lack of evidence supporting Mr. Hancock’s proposal for earlier lockdowns, pointing out that the initial decision to impose lockdowns was also based on limited evidence.
The inquiry into pandemic preparedness, currently underway, has shed light on the flawed assumptions and projections made by institutions like the Imperial College of London. This institution has a history of generating exaggerated numbers and fear-based narratives. For example, during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in 2001, the Imperial College models predicted 420 daily cases, while the actual number was just over 50. Similar discrepancies were observed in predictions related to mad cow disease and the H5N1 bird flu.
The authors of the study suggest that these models may serve as fear-generating machines, allowing politicians and governments to capitalize on public fear to exert more control. This phenomenon aligns with H.L. Mencken’s observation that practical politics aims to keep the populace alarmed by a continuous stream of threats.
Sweden stands out as a rare exception in terms of its response to the pandemic. Unlike many other countries, Sweden refrained from implementing strict lockdowns and mask mandates. Sweden’s lead public health official, Dr. Anders Tegnell, held contrasting views to those of Dr. Anthony Fauci in the United States. Dr. Tegnell described lockdowns as an overreaction, stating that it felt like the world had gone mad with its rush to impose stringent measures on its population.
Sweden’s approach also stood in stark contrast to the actions of left-leaning states like California and New York, which maintained strict regulations and even introduced vaccine passport systems. The United States’ federal system prevented nationwide lockdowns, but President Joe Biden issued vaccine and mask mandates upon taking office, although these mandates were later deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court.
Sweden’s constitution, the Regeringsform, provided protections against health mandates, stating that personal liberties should be safeguarded unless exceptional circumstances like a state of emergency occur. This protection allowed Swedish citizens to retain their freedom of movement and make their own health decisions.
The global response to the pandemic has been characterized by a remarkable shift in governments’ approach, with an inclination towards enforcing behaviors that had not been recommended in previous pandemics. The pandemic has prompted 194 nations to negotiate a global pandemic accord and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), which aim to centralize pandemic response within the World Health Organization (WHO). However, these agreements largely overlook civil liberties and personal protections against potential abuses by the state.
In conclusion, the analysis conducted by the international team of researchers highlights the failure of lockdowns as a global policy. Governments’ reliance on flawed models and fear campaigns led to severe economic, social, and political consequences while providing minimal health benefits. The case of Sweden, with its alternative approach, challenges the prevailing narrative and raises important questions about the balance between public health measures and personal freedoms. Moving forward, it is crucial to learn from these mistakes and ensure that future policies are based on solid evidence and prioritize both the well-being and rights of individuals.