World Health Organization Changes Pandemic Guidance to Favor Lockdowns, Implementation Already Underway

“The World Health Organisation intends to make lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions intended to curb viral spread part of official pandemic guidance,” Brownstone Institute reports.

The findings come in a report scheduled to go to the WHO’s World Health Assembly later this month.

This change is not part of the pandemic treaty and does not require the endorsement of member states.

According to the WHO’s report, this implementation is already underway.

The World Health Organisation intends to make lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions intended to curb viral spread part of official pandemic guidance.

https://t.co/0SgATVWxep

— Brownstone Institute (@brownstoneinst) May 18, 2022

https://twitter.com/backtolife_2022/status/1528833131922571267

This is absolute madness. WHO is set to officially recommend every country adopt COVID lockdowns and have plan to "curb viral transmission."

Page 55: https://t.co/AiqBAKekQL

Hat tip: https://t.co/hL1ISDOlNE pic.twitter.com/gPUZrCplm3

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) May 23, 2022

From Brownstone Institute:

Many have raised the alarm about a new WHO pandemic treaty. However, as I’ve noted previously (and as Michael Senger notes here), there isn’t a new pandemic treaty on the table. Rather, there are amendments to the existing treaty, the International Health Regulations 2005, plus other recommendations (131 in all) put forward in a report from the Working Group on Strengthening WHO Preparedness and Response to Health Emergencies.

Most of these amendments and recommendations relate to information and resource sharing and preparation for future pandemics; none of them directly interferes with state sovereignty in the sense of allowing the WHO to impose or lift measures. However, that doesn’t mean they’re not dangerous, as they endorse and codify the awful errors of the last two years, beginning with China’s Hubei lockdown on January 23rd 2020.

The recommendations in the report originate from WHO review panels and committees and were sent out in a survey in December 2021 to member states and stakeholders to seek their views.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions appear three times in the recommendations, once under “equity” and once under “finance,” where states are urged to ensure “adequate investment in” and “rapid development, early availability, effective and equitable access to novel vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics and non-pharmaceutical interventions for health emergencies, including capacity for testing, scaled manufacturing and distribution”.

While rapid development and early availability of non-pharmaceutical interventions sounds worrying in itself, it could be interpreted in a number of ways by states.

Where it really gets alarming, however, is in the “leadership and governance” section. LPPPR 29 states (emphasis added):

Apply non-pharmaceutical public health measures systematically and rigorously in every country at the scale the epidemiological situation requires. All countries to have an explicit evidence-based strategy agreed at the highest level of government to curb COVID-19 transmission.

*Source – Brownstone Institute*

The requirement that a country’s pandemic strategy must aim to curb viral transmission is a major change from the current guidance. The U.K.’s existing pandemic preparedness strategy, prepared in line with previous WHO recommendations, is completely clear that no attempt should be made to stop viral transmission as it will not be possible and will waste valuable resources.

The report says the recommendation to curb viral transmission will be incorporated into the WHO’s “normative work,” meaning it will be part of official WHO guidance to states in responding to a pandemic.

And the report says this strategy is already being implemented.

It doesn’t need a treaty or the agreement of member states to make this change.

This means new guidance over the coming months and years for restrictions to curb viral spread.

The types of restrictions that were an abysmal failure and created much greater havoc than the infectious disease they were aimed against.

Read the full WHO report HERE.