Many aspects of ‘pandemics’ changed for COVID19, when comparing to what was done before for other pandemics and compared to our plans already in place.  None of these topics were discussed as to why they changed, governments (except Sweden) just made the change without explanation or data.

1. Pandemic planning.  Prior to 2020, most Western nations had pandemic plans in place for high IRF diseases.  These were mainly for influenza outbreaks ‘or similar death-rate diseases.  The basics of the plan were similar to the Great Barrington Declaration.  Find out who the disease targets for death, isolate these groups and the sick, and basically let the rest of society function as normal.  Above all, keep the public calm and respectful.  Societal breakdown (lockdowns, closures, etc.) have long been known to cause more harm than the disease due to poverty, suicides, despair deaths etc.  The use of complete lockdowns could be argued as needed for initial C19 waves due to the precautionary principle (i.e. until we get more data on IFR), but after that, with IFR data in-hand and knowing it affects the elderly with health issues, we should have re-evaluated.  This never happened and no explanation was given by any government as to why we can’t discuss this, it was only perpetual lockdowns, until a vaccine arrives.
2. Definition of ‘pandemic’.  Prior to 2009, the WHO would declare a pandemic for any new virus that emerged that came with high cases and high death rates.  After 2009, the qualifier of ‘with high death rate’ was removed.  In addition, as of April 2020 (just during the first wave in the UK), the UK government removed C19 from its list of ‘diseases of high consequence’ list.
3. PCR test cycles.  The PCR test is/was a useful tool to detect a virus in a patient if the patient is presenting specific symptoms of a disease.  For example, if a patient shows typical flu symptoms (nausea headache fever) and influenza is suspected, the PCR tool is used to take a sample, and can be set to detect typical influenza viruses by amplifying the patient sample up to a maximum of 25 cycles (cycle meaning ‘to the power of’ – exponentially increases per cycle).  If no virus is found within 25 cycles, then the test is negative.  Experts all agreed (even Fauci Drosten etc.) that beyond 25 cycles, if the virus is detected, it is either false ‘noise’, or the virus is dead or fragmented, which means it can’t be causing illness anymore.  For the worldwide rollout of C19 testing, the PCR CT was set to 38 to 45 is almost all countries, making it meaningless.  The entire world used this PCR test method to allow the WHO to declare C19 a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ – acronym pronounced ‘fake’.
4. Asymptomatic spread.  Prior to 2020, experts (again Fauci and many others) continuously said asymptomatic spread is possible but very rare, so rare versus symptomatic spread that even Fauci clarified ‘asymptomatic spread is NEVER the driver of an epidemic.’  For C19, the flipped this and said ‘everyone can spread’, which was justification in their plan to lock away healthy people.
5. Masks.  Same experts right before C19 said masks don’t do anything for respiratory disease spread that is aerosolized (as with C19).  There are/were countless videos of almost all health experts stating ‘masks do nothing on healthy people for respiratory viruses.  If you’re sick, go ahead and use one’.  But they made everyone wear them anyway after March 2020.  All throughout 2020 and 2021, data was shown that masks and/or mask mandates made zero dent or change to any traceable signal – C19 deaths, hospitalizations, ICU levels, cases – there was zero correlation among multiple countries/states with or without mask use.
6. Lockdowns.  Same experts right before C19 said there is no reason to lock down healthy people, only isolate sick and vulnerable.  In addition, leaders and health experts said ‘we can’t use lockdowns in a free democracy’.  Niell Fergusson said ‘we thought we couldn’t use lockdowns, until we saw we could.’  (speaking of using them first in China, then Italy.)  Then, March 2020, they said lockdowns for all.  But just 3 weeks.  It’s been 2 years now of waves of lockdowns with no explanation.  Health experts go on TV during government updates, right as the number of cases/deaths starts to naturally decline, and take credit – ‘see, our lockdown worked’.  Never admitting that the cases/deaths were coming down days or weeks before the lockdown anyway.  And, also never acknowledging that places like Sweden or Florida also saw cases/deaths come down in the same fashion (called the Gompertz curve, or Farr’s Law), even though they did not use harsh lockdowns.  Appendix shows how after 2 years, there is NO correlation to lockdown use and reduced C19 deaths).
7. The measures taken that were never in any pandemic plans will become normalized and accepted as effective measures.  Masks, lockdowns, vaccine mandates all have been correlated to either worse or no different outcomes for spread.  Regardless – government committees and analysis has already been set to show that they are now the best tools and they worked well.  This sets the precedent for them to be default responses for any future emergency – climate issues included.
8. Dying ‘with’ versus ‘of’ COVID19.  For new diseases, deaths ‘with’ the disease are counted regardless of any underlying condition.  That is, if someone has heart issues, diabetes, and gets flu/pneumonia and dies, the cause of death would be heart failure brought on by…  For C19, for that same example person, C19 would be the cause of death.  In the UK, a C19 death is ‘any death for any reason within 28 days of a positive PCR test for C19.’  This guidance came from the WHO, and was abused in places like the UK and the USA, where incentives were given to mark deaths ‘with’ as ‘of’ C19 to get more hospital funding per patient.
9. Definition of ‘immunity’.  The CDC and WHO at one point changed the immunity definition from ‘immunity from either natural infection or vaccination’ to just ‘immunity from vaccination’ without explanation.
10. Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.” https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254111268.html#storylink=cpy
11. The term “vaccine” also got a makeover. The CDC’s definition changed from “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease” to the current “a preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases.”  Furthermore, Fauci then updated what ‘fully vaccinated’ meant:  “We’re using the terminology now ‘keeping your vaccinations up to date,’ rather than what ‘fully vaccinated’ means. Right now, optimal protection is with a third shot of an mRNA or a second shot of a J&J.”  This sets one up psychologically to accept a ‘subscription’ service to your health.
12. In early to mid 2021, during the aggressive vaccine rollouts, both President Biden and CDC Director Wallensky said on live TV that those who have the vaccine will not get COVID and are protected from getting the virus.  They slowly backtracked later to admit the opposite.  It was implied by comparing to measles, polio, and small pox that the mRNA therapies were ‘sterilizing’ – they kill and stop the virus – when in fact they are somewhat protective for a limited time – reduce C19 illness (as their trials tried to show).
13. The moral case for using ‘the noble lie’ against the public.  In many areas of life, the public necessarily needs to be led or tricked into doing one action, in order to obtain a separate outcome for their own good or the good of society.  This could be used for example to hide some negative aspects of certain vaccines, that are very rare, in order to ensure high uptake for the sake of protecting others.  This occurs with vaccines for measles, smallpox, polio, etc.  Those diseases kill young people at a very high rate, and, because a normal society values younger lives more than elderly due to potential ‘years of life lost’, it is worth it to supress any bad side effects from such vaccines so that the majority take them, and protect others.  This is the case for ‘sterilizing’ vaccines – they kill the virus and completely halt transmission and spread, which almost guarantees herd immunity.  The safety of these vaccines have decades of data in their profiles – the risk of adverse effects is known to far outweigh the risks of an outbreak.  And so since the science on these is settled (high efficacy, stops transmission, very low adverse reaction rates), ‘tricking’ the public into taking them is justified.  The opposite is true for C19 vaccines.  Safety is not yet known, the adverse reaction rate is high (approximately 50 to 100 times higher than existing vaccines), there is no long-term safety information, and, it only reduces symptoms – does not prevent spread.  Therefore, there is no trade off for justifying the ‘noble lie’ to coerce the public to taking it.  This is especially true for people under 30.
14. Focused vaccination on the vulnerable.  This used to be the norm- identify the at-risk group, in this case the elderly and those with co-morbidities, and prioritize them for protective vaccines.  Today, the message is, even if not at risk, get your shot.  This is never done unless the vaccine is sterilizing (kills the virus and transmission).  If young and healthy, a protective vaccine adds nothing to building herd immunity.
15. Prioritizing the young over the old.  All animal species disproportionately protect their young at the expense of the older and weaker.  This is a natural survival instinct – we value the potential of the young to continue the species and family line.  This is also done with immunization programs.  Small pox, measles, polio – these all affect and kill the young at a much higher rate than C19 (C19 is even less fatal than flu for those under 30).  And so due to ‘life-years-lost’ of our youth compared to the elderly, we concentrate on them.  Quite the opposite for C19, through media campaigns of fear, we are shaming the young and enraging the public to ‘get them all vaccinated’ even though children have next to zero risk from C19, and the vaccines do not stop spread.  We have scared the public into thinking it’s okay to sacrifice healthy children (masks, missed school, depression, suicides), for a false sense of protecting the elderly.

From Jeffrey A Tucker (AIER.org).  How to create society-destroying mass panic in five claims:

1) there’s a killer virus loose (the public still thinks death rate is 10-20 times higher than actual)

2) everyone is equally susceptible (95% of vulnerable are 65 old or older with health issues)

3) not sure if natural immunity works (it does, studies show it’s better than vaccines)

4) it spreads without symptoms (very rarely, 20 time less likely than with symptoms)

5) even if you don’t die, you suffer forever if you get it. (rare- happens with flu as well)

6) suppress anything or anyone who doesn’t believe 1-5.

Many jurisdictions’ Health Offices warned against using lockdowns and NPIs.  Following established pandemic planning science, keeping societal health as normal as possible is paramount so as to avoid other worse outcomes.  As an example, via freedom of information act, the Ontario Civil Liberties Association obtained Montreal Public Health’s warnings about using lockdowns.  They know/knew these would result in much worse outcomes as opposed to just protecting the at-risk (elderly, infirm, known by as early as April 2020).

Quebec implemented its 2nd curfew knowing it had zero scientific basis, and did it against ethical advice AND against a strongly-worded email from Montreal Public Health, which listed many serious reasons not to have another curfew.  Following this, the QC public health director resigned.

Montreal Public Health’s reasons not to have curfew:

• No evidence it works.
• Uncertainty about duration.
• Pandemic fatigue of population.
• Collateral impacts, many of them tragic, disproportionately affecting fragile populations.
• The death of a homeless person during the last curfew, following which the curfew was ended.
• Domestic violence.
• Increase in social isolation.
• Exposure of children and teens to domestic violence.
• Increased difficulty of accessing housing services.
• Some workers in precarious situations sleeping at the workplace to avoid being arrested by police due to the curfew.
• Decrease in access to services for monitored drug use and increased risk of overdose.
• Increase in social tension and negative interactions between police and the population.
• A rigorous, transparent ethical examination is required in order to promote public confidence in such decisions.

Since the effects on societal health are well-known, and the IFR and age-risk of the vulnerable was already well-known, it is either that these governments were inept or did this on purpose.  Almost ALL Western nations did this, so the explanation of ineptitude is naïve.

All of this was done on purpose by all governments, at the behest of orders higher up, to the WHO, UN, and WEF.  It is clear now that the WEF and WHO have even started legislation to bypass sovereign nations’ Constitutional laws in order to enact pandemic plans directly on all countries.