Resett - Of Halvor Næss -11 November 2021
Before March 2020, the pandemic recommendations were that society should continue to function as normally as possible.
Quarantine was recommended for the sick and vulnerable, but not healthy. School closures were warned against and at least no more than two weeks. Boundaries should not be closed. Social distance and bandages could be assessed, but there was no evidence that these measures were effective.
Most countries in the world abandoned these plans in March 2020 and implemented measures that were explicitly discouraged by professionals before the corona pandemic. Assistant health director Nakstad has written a book, "Code red", which reveals the thinking behind this complete reversal.ad
It is obvious in the book that there has been considerable disagreement between the Norwegian Directorate of Health and the National Institute of Public Health (NIPH) about the handling of the pandemic. FHI has largely argued for measures in accordance with the old plans and been critical of new measures that involve restrictions on people's rights and that lack scientific documentation.
Nakstad is impatient with the FHI advice and criticizes FHI for refusing to change. He is concerned that epidemics have exponential growth and is afraid that there is a lack of understanding of what exponential growth entails. To me, it seems that it is Nakstad that has insufficient insight when it comes to exponential infection growth. It is true that at the beginning of an epidemic, the growth is exponential, but the big question is how long the exponential growth lasts.
We now have experience with several waves of infection. Most often they have had an initial exponential growth, but then there is a flattening and the curve falls again and together only a minority of the population is infected in each wave. We have seen this process time and time again in many countries and it is a known phenomenon from other epidemics.
Why does the exponential growth not continue until almost the entire population is infected, but stops long before in all countries whether measures are introduced or not? The book clearly states that Nakstad firmly believes this is due to the measures, and it is possible that two measures in Norway may have contributed to keeping the death toll low. Norway has managed to keep its borders closed to a greater extent than almost any other country. Our geographical location made the border closure easier.
Only island states such as Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Cyprus, Japan and a few other countries such as South Korea have had relatively effective border closures possible. The second measure is infection tracing, which seems to have worked better in Norway than in other countries. The border closure with limited "import infection" has probably made infection detection easier in this country than in other countries. But that infection tracing could eradicate the virus is utopian. For that, the dark numbers are too large.ad
Nakstad also believes that lockdown is important to prevent infection. However, there was little empirical support for this before the pandemic and experience to date show that the waves of infection are unaffected by shutdowns. It is difficult or impossible to see differences in transmission waves in countries or US states with intervention measures or minimal measures. Nakstad, on the other hand, is of the opinion that the measures "undoubtedly" work.
It is surprising to read that perception in the professional environment at Oslo University Hospital (OUS) seem to have been important for Nakstad's view of pandemic management. He himself worked as a doctor at OUS until he became assistant director of health in March 2020. He wonders whether there is a lack of clinical and intensive medical experience that explains the epidemiologists' "passive approach" compared to hospital doctors.
It may seem that doctors at OUS were in favor of intervention measures in the population in March last year. It is easy to understand doctors' concerns about hospital congestion, but to my knowledge hospital doctors are not particularly competent in assessing the cost-effectiveness of intervention measures at the national level. If it is true that the Norwegian Directorate of Health has been more influenced by hospital doctors at OUS than public health experts, it is at least frightening to me.
In another context in the book, he approvingly mentions a chief physician at the University Hospital in Uppsala who wanted "more coercion and not voluntariness to improve the situation in the hospitals". It seems that there are a number of hospital doctors who, in my opinion, have a somewhat easy-going relationship with basic human rights. Possibly this may be related to the fact that hospital doctors work in state monopoly institutions.
There are probably several reasons for the initial exponential growth of the infection waves, followed by flattening and falling long before the entire population is involved beyond the possible effect of border closure and infection tracing. One hypothesis is that the infection is mainly spread by so-called super-spreaders and when there are no longer any super-spreaders to infect, the spread of infection decreases.
Other possibilities are cross-immunity in the population, and that people voluntarily protect themselves against infection. The point here is that there is a lot we did not know in March 2020, and we do not know now either. However, this did not prevent Nakstad, the Norwegian Directorate of Health and the government from depriving the population of basic human rights in violation of the advice of public health experts.
If shutdowns work and are an important reason for the limited extent of the waves of infection, then Nakstad and the authorities must have been prepared for recurring measures for years. They could have hoped that there would be an effective vaccine, but before November last year this was uncertain. The authorities were thus last spring and autumn willing to intervene in human rights violations without a clear possibility of retreat. Australia and New Zealand are examples of countries where border closures have limited infection, but are now in a situation of serious human rights violations.
The way forward is either to continue in the same way with significant costs for the population or to realize that the measures were a political failure. If the border closure in Norway had been even more effective than it was, it is a frightening thought that Norway could have ended up in the same disability as Australia and New Zealand. These countries were praised by Nakstad in the early stages of the pandemic.
An important lesson from this book is that Nakstad announces an authoritarian approach to pandemic management where coercion and violation of basic human rights are essential tools. It seems that hospital doctors have had a great influence on this view. Another lesson is Nakstad's strong belief in uninhibited exponential infection growth without measures. We have all lost out on the fact that empirical studies or public health experts' experiences over many years had too little impact in the Norwegian Directorate of Health and the Solberg government.
The bottom line is for the people to regain their original, moral principles, which have intentionally been watered out over the past generations by our press, TV, and other media owned by the Illuminati/Bilderberger Group, corrupting our morals by making misbehavior acceptable to our society. Only in this way shall we conquer this oncoming wave of evil.
All articles contained in Human-Synthesis are freely available and collected from the Internet. The interpretation of the contents is left to the readers and do not necessarily represent the views of the Administrator. Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). Human-Synthesis will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. Human-Synthesis grants permission to cross-post original Human-Synthesis articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modifie