The World Health Organization is abruptly changing its policy recommendations from being notably anti-lockdown to suddenly being pro-lockdown.
The Brownstone Institute reported that “The World Health Organisation intends to make lockdowns and other non-pharmaceutical interventions intended to curb viral spread part of official pandemic guidance.”
“The revelation comes in a report scheduled to go to the WHO’s World Health Assembly later this month,” the Brownstone Institute noted. “This is not part of new pandemic treaty and does not require the endorsement of member states. The report says the implementation is already underway.”
“Many have raised the alarm about a new WHO pandemic treaty,” the researchers add. “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.”
As Becker News has alluded to in prior reporting, “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 United States’ Covid policy responses that include quarantining, masks, and social distancing, as well as the ‘lockdowns,’ have failed to produce statistically significant results fighting Covid, but caused serious damage to the economy and violated Americans’ rights.
An exhaustive Johns Hopkins University comparative analysis published in January found that strict lockdowns failed to significantly reduce Covid-related deaths.
“Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University,” the Washington Times reported. “The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.”
“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.
“Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the authors conclude. “Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, ‘Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission’.”
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Biden administration’s top Covid official, recently testified before Congress and denied that the United States had implemented “lockdowns.”
“There were restrictions, obviously, but there were not lockdowns,” Fauci added. “China is now going into a real lockdown. So I would disagree.”
The damaging effects of lockdowns can be seen in recently leaked video footage from Shanghai that showed forced quarantine prisoners fighting back, reportedly due to starvation conditions.
Watch: Shanghai residents finally break free of their enforced quarantines and begin fighting back against the Chinese communists imprisoning them.
The starving prisoners have been held hostage by the CCP for over a month under brutal Covid lockdown measures. pic.twitter.com/7Ryi49C4xn
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) May 22, 2022
A study reported in The Economist estimated that there will be 800,000 more global deaths in the next 15 years resulting from the Covid lockdowns, as well as 1.76 child deaths for every Covid-related death averted by the policy.
The World Health Organization is now supporting lockdowns after previously stating that they were mostly ineffective and damaging to economies. It raises further questions about whether the WHO is basing its decisions on sound science or on pure politics.
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.