You are correct, Mr. McCarville, that that link provided by Bass goes nowhere at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (JH) website. (The URL does work – it does produce the document – at (some of) the captures in the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/.)
Having said all that, searching for the document/the report by its title ("Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic") at the JH site (https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/publications) DOES turn up the 84-page report. THIS is the correct/current URL:
I will add that I am perplexed as to why Mr. Bass provided that reference in the manner that he did. The "2006" quote* Bass provides appears twice in the 2019 report. But, the report (as linked) is dated September 2019 – NOT 2006 (as Bass confusingly/misleadingly states in the sentence in which he provides the dead link). Maybe it was a brain furt?
Moreover, the 2019 report provides no direct attribution/footnote/reference for the statement*. In fact, a search for "2006" at the report yields only 2 results. I do believe (based on my previous general knowledge; I do NOT want to take time to investigate) that one of these "2006" hits** may be the source of the notion (as found in the 2019 report) that certain NPIs are possibly subject to whims beyond legit Public Health and/or ineffective/not recommended.
Why Bass represents the source(s)/citation(s) as he does is probably best explained by him.
* This is the quote/statement (from the JH report and reproduced in this Bass article):
"Some NPIs [non-pharmaceutical interventions], such as travel restrictions and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes by political leaders, rather than pursued because of public health evidence."
** If interested in pursuing, this is the link for the 2006 report/study/paper (that may or may not be relevant to Bass's thesis/theses and/or citations/errant citations):
One of the authors was Don Henderson, who is one of the most important obscure people in history. He was most responsible for eliminating smallpox in the world, and this paper describes how all of the stupid things that were done to protect us would be a disaster, just like they were.
I do indeed read the Brownstone Institute, a Facebook friend of mine, Steve Templeton, wrote ‘Fear of a Microbial Planet’ and even mentioned me. He has some association with them, I’m not sure what.
It will be a tough sell about the existing plans for lockdowns, although any light that can be shined is welcome. I’ve heard one hypothesis that Bush 43 read John Barry’s book, Great Influenza, and set things in motion that led to what happened. Henderson, according to that hypothesis, wrote what he did to say ‘slow down!’.
It looks to me like Trump got played by Scarf Lady, who really was a lunatic.
I just replied to you, but it had to be broken in 2 parts (too long for what Substack permits, apparently). So please log in to the comments if you want to read both parts (thank you):
See this official paper from April 2017 that was published by HHS as companion to the HHS 2017 pandemic plan (too much for me to contextualize, though you can investigate and figure out its official context):
I can't paste screen pics and graphics here (and the paper is a readability mess, regardless), so I'll have to settle for these (selected) direct quotes from the text that tend to support my thesis. I strongly encourage you/other readers to scan thru the entire document (and do take note of Figure 1, which should look very familiar to the not uninitiated). A fair reading will note that the pandemic planning from HHS 2017 does not -- I repeat: DOES NOT -- repudiate "invasive" "lockdown" measures/strategies/policies to "slow the spread" (which is not to say that Trump/Birx [et al.] didn't get carried away):
--------(quoting from the paper...)---------
When a novel influenza A virus with pandemic potential emerges, nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) often are the most readily available interventions to help slow transmission of the virus in communities, which is especially important before a pandemic vaccine becomes widely available. NPIs, also known as community mitigation measures, are actions that persons and communities can take to help slow the spread of respiratory virus infections, including seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses.
These guidelines replace the 2007 Interim Pre-pandemic Planning Guidance: Community Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Mitigation in the United States — Early, Targeted, Layered Use of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions…. Categories of NPIs include personal protective measures for everyday use (e.g., voluntary home isolation of ill persons, respiratory etiquette, and hand hygiene); personal protective measures reserved for influenza pandemics (e.g., voluntary home quarantine of exposed household members and use of face masks in community settings when ill); community measures aimed at increasing social distancing (e.g., school closures and dismissals, social distancing in workplaces, and postponing or cancelling mass gatherings); and environmental measures (e.g., routine cleaning of frequently touched surfaces).
---------
… These 2017 guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of NPIs in mitigating the effects of pandemic influenza. These guidelines update and expand the 2007 strategy.
---------
Specific goals for implementing NPIs early in a pandemic include slowing acceleration of the number of cases in a community, reducing the peak number of cases during the pandemic and related health care demands on hospitals and infrastructure, and decreasing overall cases and health effects…. A more difficult decision is how and when to implement community-level NPIs that might be warranted but are more disruptive (e.g., temporary school closures and dismissals, social distancing in workplaces and the community, and cancellation of mass gatherings)....
---------
In 2016, the evidence supporting the effectiveness of NPIs, both when used alone and in combination, was more substantial and included controlled studies evaluating different NPIs. New modeling studies based on data collected during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic response also became available. This update is based on approximately 191 journal articles written in English and published from 1990 through September 2016 that focused on personal protective measures in general; school closure effectiveness and unintended consequences; school absenteeism; spread of disease in child care facilities, colleges, and universities; impact of mass gatherings; and role and impact of NPIs in non–health care workplace settings….
---------
… Personal protective measures reserved for pandemics include voluntary home quarantine of exposed household members and use of face masks in community settings when ill. Community NPIs might include temporary closures or dismissals of child care facilities and schools with students in grades kindergarten through 12 (K–12), as well as other social distancing measures that increase the physical space between people (e.g., workplace measures such as replacing in-person meetings with teleconferences or modifying, postponing, or cancelling mass gatherings) ….
---------
… the difference between the guidance issued in 2007 and in 2017 is the clear delineation of NPIs into two categories: 1) NPIs recommended at all times and 2) NPIs recommended for use only during pandemics (based on the level of pandemic severity and local conditions). The 2017 update also provides additional evidence to support the NPI recommendations.
---------
The 2009 H1N1 pandemic provided an opportunity to test, in practice, the key concepts of NPIs in mitigating the impact of an influenza pandemic, just 2 years after the publication of the 2007 guidance. As the experience from 2009 has shown, NPIs can be a critical component of pandemic influenza mitigation. Although well-matched pandemic vaccines remain the main tool in reducing the risk of acquiring infection and in controlling the spread of a pandemic virus, vaccines might not be widely available for up to 6 months after the emergence of a pandemic influenza virus, given current vaccine production technology. Furthermore, as during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, antiviral medications might be prioritized for treatment but not used for widespread chemoprophylaxis because of concerns about antiviral resistance and limited stockpiles of antiviral medications. Therefore, NPIs might be the only prevention tools readily available for persons and communities to help slow transmission of an influenza virus during the initial stages of a pandemic. However, individual NPIs might be only partially effective in limiting community transmission when implemented alone. Thus, the most efficient implementation involves early, targeted, and layered use of multiple NPIs….
Again, check out the several links I've provided (they are particularly pertinent to Fed-Govt/HHS pandemic plans featuring interventions to mitigate/to intervene against spread of/infection by contagion). Just because these plans don't explicitly say to, for example, use yellow caution tape to wall off toys and garden seeds at Michigan Walmarts or close gyms/athletic clubs in New Jersey, does NOT mean that these slow-the-spread mitigation measures were, by extension/implication, contrary to official guidance/policy. (Iterations of "social distancing," for example, are limited only by the imaginations of various authorities, authors, and glorified Karens in the breakroom on a random Tuesday afternoon. The lot of it was no better or more legitimate than a typical HOA Board of busybodies blessed by deference to bureaucracies-gone-wild….)
I really must exit this discussion (even though I value it). The "last" thing I'll say at this time is that it is shocking (and criminal malpractice) that Birx (and the rest of the clowns ruining our lives because of the low-severity [and alleged] covid contagion) never cited any sources for their "skip to my flu" regimens. All of Birx's g-damned slides/charts were about (dubious) data, not sane objectives/outcomes/etc. And dunce Trump has never once (tbomk) revealed what pandemic plan(s) he and his reetardead Task Force (and national-security advisers) followed (or didn't follow). I actually think that this (non-references to/non-appeals to pandemic plans) was due to (in part) the presumptions assumed* by pretty much everyone then (and to this day!!) that must-not-get-infected was the by-default prevailing mantra.
*"Assumed" to such a great extent that the fundamental must-not-get-infected pillar/premise of (wrongheaded) preexisting pandemic plans/thinking was so "obvious" that it didn't need to be stated directly (nor defended). This has been a bee in my bonnet for 4 years!!!
In short, we (whole of society -- individual and collective alike) were conscripted into a "live exercise" worst-case pandemic-threat-response scenario for mostly un-delineated reasons/purposes/ends and standards/criteria. But, again, the lockdown mitigation measures had been officially entertained since ~2006 by "experts" across the land and across the globe.
The primary (though not the sole) reason for all the pandemic catastrophizing was, has been, and is -- imo -- on behalf of the vaccine enterprise (which Trump was 100% on board with/very and demonstrably enthusiastic about). We can nibble at its edges or we can endeavor to SLAY the pandemic beast that has us trapped until/unless we cut it off at it knees on rational and evidence-based** grounds. Good place to focus is on the premise of "must not get infected" and all that that premise predicates. (Do you realize that Govt acts as nature/god/God under cover of pandemics? Govts even lay claim to our personal bodily systems [including breathing system and immune system]. This is intolerable and unacceptable, but they call it "Public Health." They are nazzis….)
**"Evidence based" is my nominee for most abused/exploited term/concept of the past decade and counting. Beware of the inkblot/shorthand of "evidence based." Rule of thumb: Common sense is more reliable than "evidence based." "Evidence based" is cover for just more tyranny (including expansion of the technocrat class).
BTW, the other two pillars of pandemic (/biodefense) plans (in addition to "suppress the spread") have been deployment of pharmaceutical interventions/MCMs (medical countermeasures), and protect/preserve critical infrastructure/key resources -- in essence, Public Health and National Security rationales for unlimited governance and general authoritarianism/totalitarianism under color of pamdem!c$. It is the assumptions/premises of pandemics that are the chains and bars of our enslavement. Which is why I resent and resist the credential of "Public Health." I have (from afar) a love-hate relationship with, for example, Dr. Jay B. He is a good person, but. When he admits that his PH credential is party to a criminal and unConstitutional enterprise, then I'll align my disdain for his professional participation proportionately.
I didn't realize that my "pubmed" link to the 2006 "Disease mitigation measures in the control of pandemic influenza" paper was just the abstract (I was trying, and failing, to rush/hurry/be quick).
Here is another link to that paper (this one isn't blurry):
Not sure if you are a Brownstone Institute reader, Mr. Charles, but they've covered Donald Henderson/his scholarship fairly extensively (put Henderson's name in the search at https://brownstone.org/). The B.I. coverage includes this article (May 10, 2022 by Dr. Kheriaty):
Related (though sort of off topic and more than I can get into here), the Brownstone Institute brain trust has taken a firm position over time and to this day that lockdowns (and/or specifically universal quarantine -- quarantine of healthy/uninfected) were never prescribed -- were never part of USA pandemic plans (and/or HHS/public-health recommendations/guidelines for pandemics and DHS/national-security recommendations/guidelines for pandemics).
It would be hard for me to exaggerate how much I admire and respect (and rely on) the Brownstone brain trust (including but not limited to the GREAT Jeffrey Tucker, though not including Mr. Bass I'm sorry to say). But, I think their position that "lockdowns" were proscribed rather than prescribed as an official mitigation-of-spread measure is overstated. It's especially overstated when the term/concept "lockdown" is used more generically/fluidly/broadly.
The claim -- essentially that Trump (et al.) went against known/established and rational/reasonable pandemic plans -- is highly debatable and/or refutable by review of pandemic plans (in the USA over the past ~20 years [though my argument can be extended to other plans such as from the WHO]).
I have been working on a project to make the case that "lockdown" measures implemented in Spring 2020 were not, in fact, entirely "novel" or unprecedented theoretical policy. It is NOT my objective to defend Trump (I deeply resent and loathe the man, though I did vote for him twice) or the envisioned responses to pandemic. My primary objective is to expose (wrongheaded but "official") pandemic-planning orthodoxies/premises (particularly though not exclusively regarding nonpharmaceutical mitigation measures) in order to reject them in pandemic plans and thinking going forward.
I do not understand why Brownstone (writ large) is so wedded to the contention that lockdown measures implemented Spring 2020 were "AMA" ("against medical advice" if you will). This position (also maintained by others -- beyond Brownstone) is, in my not-baseless opinion, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE as well as pretty much inaccurate (the admonitions of Don Henderson et al. notwithstanding). The lockdown measures can be strongly and rightly condemned without rewriting/mischaracterizing/misrepresenting (to the detriment of the cause of the rational-dissenter side) pre-covid thinking/planning.
Sorry that I just can't take the time (and space) to flesh all this out right here, right now. "Nobody" me has a big case to make, and its status is a work in progress (not ready for thorough/"official" publication). For now, just to whet the appetite, I'll leave you with two links (among many I can catalog). The first is the HHS pandemic plan of 2017 (not superseded at time of the covid scamdemic -- though whether it was followed by Azar et al. [including Birx] is a different question). The second is the HHS pandemic plan of 2007 that is the basis of the updated plan of 2017.
The link to the 2006 report has been removed from the Johns Hopkins site.
Commenter Charles McCarville writes:
"The link to the 2006 report has been removed from the Johns Hopkins site."
Since Kevin Bass has not (yet) responded to your comment, I'll tell you what I know related to that "removed" link.
It is in this sentence of his article that Bass provides the link in question:
"A 2006 report on pandemic science from researchers at Johns Hopkins hints at the answer:"
This is the exact URL that is linked at the underlined word "hints" in Bass's sentence:
http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2019/190918-GMPBreport-respiratorypathogen.pdf
You are correct, Mr. McCarville, that that link provided by Bass goes nowhere at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (JH) website. (The URL does work – it does produce the document – at (some of) the captures in the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/.)
Having said all that, searching for the document/the report by its title ("Preparedness for a High-Impact Respiratory Pathogen Pandemic") at the JH site (https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/publications) DOES turn up the 84-page report. THIS is the correct/current URL:
https://centerforhealthsecurity.org/sites/default/files/2023-02/190918-gmpbreport-respiratorypathogen.pdf
Why Bass gave a bad/defunct link, I do not know.
I will add that I am perplexed as to why Mr. Bass provided that reference in the manner that he did. The "2006" quote* Bass provides appears twice in the 2019 report. But, the report (as linked) is dated September 2019 – NOT 2006 (as Bass confusingly/misleadingly states in the sentence in which he provides the dead link). Maybe it was a brain furt?
Moreover, the 2019 report provides no direct attribution/footnote/reference for the statement*. In fact, a search for "2006" at the report yields only 2 results. I do believe (based on my previous general knowledge; I do NOT want to take time to investigate) that one of these "2006" hits** may be the source of the notion (as found in the 2019 report) that certain NPIs are possibly subject to whims beyond legit Public Health and/or ineffective/not recommended.
Why Bass represents the source(s)/citation(s) as he does is probably best explained by him.
* This is the quote/statement (from the JH report and reproduced in this Bass article):
"Some NPIs [non-pharmaceutical interventions], such as travel restrictions and quarantine, might be pursued for social or political purposes by political leaders, rather than pursued because of public health evidence."
** If interested in pursuing, this is the link for the 2006 report/study/paper (that may or may not be relevant to Bass's thesis/theses and/or citations/errant citations):
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17238820/
Good work on the googling, I tried to do the same but didn’t get as far. Your last link led me to this:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6841076-2006-11-Disease-Mitigation-Measures-in-the.html
One of the authors was Don Henderson, who is one of the most important obscure people in history. He was most responsible for eliminating smallpox in the world, and this paper describes how all of the stupid things that were done to protect us would be a disaster, just like they were.
I do indeed read the Brownstone Institute, a Facebook friend of mine, Steve Templeton, wrote ‘Fear of a Microbial Planet’ and even mentioned me. He has some association with them, I’m not sure what.
It will be a tough sell about the existing plans for lockdowns, although any light that can be shined is welcome. I’ve heard one hypothesis that Bush 43 read John Barry’s book, Great Influenza, and set things in motion that led to what happened. Henderson, according to that hypothesis, wrote what he did to say ‘slow down!’.
It looks to me like Trump got played by Scarf Lady, who really was a lunatic.
Mr. McCarville,
I just replied to you, but it had to be broken in 2 parts (too long for what Substack permits, apparently). So please log in to the comments if you want to read both parts (thank you):
https://kevinbass.substack.com/p/the-great-lockdown-reversal-part-68a/comments
Will do, thanks.
"Tough sell"?
See this official paper from April 2017 that was published by HHS as companion to the HHS 2017 pandemic plan (too much for me to contextualize, though you can investigate and figure out its official context):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5837128/
Also found at:
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/45220
I can't paste screen pics and graphics here (and the paper is a readability mess, regardless), so I'll have to settle for these (selected) direct quotes from the text that tend to support my thesis. I strongly encourage you/other readers to scan thru the entire document (and do take note of Figure 1, which should look very familiar to the not uninitiated). A fair reading will note that the pandemic planning from HHS 2017 does not -- I repeat: DOES NOT -- repudiate "invasive" "lockdown" measures/strategies/policies to "slow the spread" (which is not to say that Trump/Birx [et al.] didn't get carried away):
--------(quoting from the paper...)---------
When a novel influenza A virus with pandemic potential emerges, nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) often are the most readily available interventions to help slow transmission of the virus in communities, which is especially important before a pandemic vaccine becomes widely available. NPIs, also known as community mitigation measures, are actions that persons and communities can take to help slow the spread of respiratory virus infections, including seasonal and pandemic influenza viruses.
These guidelines replace the 2007 Interim Pre-pandemic Planning Guidance: Community Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Mitigation in the United States — Early, Targeted, Layered Use of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions…. Categories of NPIs include personal protective measures for everyday use (e.g., voluntary home isolation of ill persons, respiratory etiquette, and hand hygiene); personal protective measures reserved for influenza pandemics (e.g., voluntary home quarantine of exposed household members and use of face masks in community settings when ill); community measures aimed at increasing social distancing (e.g., school closures and dismissals, social distancing in workplaces, and postponing or cancelling mass gatherings); and environmental measures (e.g., routine cleaning of frequently touched surfaces).
---------
… These 2017 guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of NPIs in mitigating the effects of pandemic influenza. These guidelines update and expand the 2007 strategy.
---------
Specific goals for implementing NPIs early in a pandemic include slowing acceleration of the number of cases in a community, reducing the peak number of cases during the pandemic and related health care demands on hospitals and infrastructure, and decreasing overall cases and health effects…. A more difficult decision is how and when to implement community-level NPIs that might be warranted but are more disruptive (e.g., temporary school closures and dismissals, social distancing in workplaces and the community, and cancellation of mass gatherings)....
---------
In 2016, the evidence supporting the effectiveness of NPIs, both when used alone and in combination, was more substantial and included controlled studies evaluating different NPIs. New modeling studies based on data collected during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic response also became available. This update is based on approximately 191 journal articles written in English and published from 1990 through September 2016 that focused on personal protective measures in general; school closure effectiveness and unintended consequences; school absenteeism; spread of disease in child care facilities, colleges, and universities; impact of mass gatherings; and role and impact of NPIs in non–health care workplace settings….
---------
… Personal protective measures reserved for pandemics include voluntary home quarantine of exposed household members and use of face masks in community settings when ill. Community NPIs might include temporary closures or dismissals of child care facilities and schools with students in grades kindergarten through 12 (K–12), as well as other social distancing measures that increase the physical space between people (e.g., workplace measures such as replacing in-person meetings with teleconferences or modifying, postponing, or cancelling mass gatherings) ….
---------
… the difference between the guidance issued in 2007 and in 2017 is the clear delineation of NPIs into two categories: 1) NPIs recommended at all times and 2) NPIs recommended for use only during pandemics (based on the level of pandemic severity and local conditions). The 2017 update also provides additional evidence to support the NPI recommendations.
---------
The 2009 H1N1 pandemic provided an opportunity to test, in practice, the key concepts of NPIs in mitigating the impact of an influenza pandemic, just 2 years after the publication of the 2007 guidance. As the experience from 2009 has shown, NPIs can be a critical component of pandemic influenza mitigation. Although well-matched pandemic vaccines remain the main tool in reducing the risk of acquiring infection and in controlling the spread of a pandemic virus, vaccines might not be widely available for up to 6 months after the emergence of a pandemic influenza virus, given current vaccine production technology. Furthermore, as during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, antiviral medications might be prioritized for treatment but not used for widespread chemoprophylaxis because of concerns about antiviral resistance and limited stockpiles of antiviral medications. Therefore, NPIs might be the only prevention tools readily available for persons and communities to help slow transmission of an influenza virus during the initial stages of a pandemic. However, individual NPIs might be only partially effective in limiting community transmission when implemented alone. Thus, the most efficient implementation involves early, targeted, and layered use of multiple NPIs….
###
CONT'D
Again, check out the several links I've provided (they are particularly pertinent to Fed-Govt/HHS pandemic plans featuring interventions to mitigate/to intervene against spread of/infection by contagion). Just because these plans don't explicitly say to, for example, use yellow caution tape to wall off toys and garden seeds at Michigan Walmarts or close gyms/athletic clubs in New Jersey, does NOT mean that these slow-the-spread mitigation measures were, by extension/implication, contrary to official guidance/policy. (Iterations of "social distancing," for example, are limited only by the imaginations of various authorities, authors, and glorified Karens in the breakroom on a random Tuesday afternoon. The lot of it was no better or more legitimate than a typical HOA Board of busybodies blessed by deference to bureaucracies-gone-wild….)
I really must exit this discussion (even though I value it). The "last" thing I'll say at this time is that it is shocking (and criminal malpractice) that Birx (and the rest of the clowns ruining our lives because of the low-severity [and alleged] covid contagion) never cited any sources for their "skip to my flu" regimens. All of Birx's g-damned slides/charts were about (dubious) data, not sane objectives/outcomes/etc. And dunce Trump has never once (tbomk) revealed what pandemic plan(s) he and his reetardead Task Force (and national-security advisers) followed (or didn't follow). I actually think that this (non-references to/non-appeals to pandemic plans) was due to (in part) the presumptions assumed* by pretty much everyone then (and to this day!!) that must-not-get-infected was the by-default prevailing mantra.
*"Assumed" to such a great extent that the fundamental must-not-get-infected pillar/premise of (wrongheaded) preexisting pandemic plans/thinking was so "obvious" that it didn't need to be stated directly (nor defended). This has been a bee in my bonnet for 4 years!!!
In short, we (whole of society -- individual and collective alike) were conscripted into a "live exercise" worst-case pandemic-threat-response scenario for mostly un-delineated reasons/purposes/ends and standards/criteria. But, again, the lockdown mitigation measures had been officially entertained since ~2006 by "experts" across the land and across the globe.
The primary (though not the sole) reason for all the pandemic catastrophizing was, has been, and is -- imo -- on behalf of the vaccine enterprise (which Trump was 100% on board with/very and demonstrably enthusiastic about). We can nibble at its edges or we can endeavor to SLAY the pandemic beast that has us trapped until/unless we cut it off at it knees on rational and evidence-based** grounds. Good place to focus is on the premise of "must not get infected" and all that that premise predicates. (Do you realize that Govt acts as nature/god/God under cover of pandemics? Govts even lay claim to our personal bodily systems [including breathing system and immune system]. This is intolerable and unacceptable, but they call it "Public Health." They are nazzis….)
**"Evidence based" is my nominee for most abused/exploited term/concept of the past decade and counting. Beware of the inkblot/shorthand of "evidence based." Rule of thumb: Common sense is more reliable than "evidence based." "Evidence based" is cover for just more tyranny (including expansion of the technocrat class).
BTW, the other two pillars of pandemic (/biodefense) plans (in addition to "suppress the spread") have been deployment of pharmaceutical interventions/MCMs (medical countermeasures), and protect/preserve critical infrastructure/key resources -- in essence, Public Health and National Security rationales for unlimited governance and general authoritarianism/totalitarianism under color of pamdem!c$. It is the assumptions/premises of pandemics that are the chains and bars of our enslavement. Which is why I resent and resist the credential of "Public Health." I have (from afar) a love-hate relationship with, for example, Dr. Jay B. He is a good person, but. When he admits that his PH credential is party to a criminal and unConstitutional enterprise, then I'll align my disdain for his professional participation proportionately.
Note: EDIT was for one humble typo.
Thank you for your reply and additional info.
I didn't realize that my "pubmed" link to the 2006 "Disease mitigation measures in the control of pandemic influenza" paper was just the abstract (I was trying, and failing, to rush/hurry/be quick).
Here is another link to that paper (this one isn't blurry):
https://www.aier.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/10.1.1.552.1109.pdf
Not sure if you are a Brownstone Institute reader, Mr. Charles, but they've covered Donald Henderson/his scholarship fairly extensively (put Henderson's name in the search at https://brownstone.org/). The B.I. coverage includes this article (May 10, 2022 by Dr. Kheriaty):
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-public-health-prophet-we-did-not-heed/
Related (though sort of off topic and more than I can get into here), the Brownstone Institute brain trust has taken a firm position over time and to this day that lockdowns (and/or specifically universal quarantine -- quarantine of healthy/uninfected) were never prescribed -- were never part of USA pandemic plans (and/or HHS/public-health recommendations/guidelines for pandemics and DHS/national-security recommendations/guidelines for pandemics).
It would be hard for me to exaggerate how much I admire and respect (and rely on) the Brownstone brain trust (including but not limited to the GREAT Jeffrey Tucker, though not including Mr. Bass I'm sorry to say). But, I think their position that "lockdowns" were proscribed rather than prescribed as an official mitigation-of-spread measure is overstated. It's especially overstated when the term/concept "lockdown" is used more generically/fluidly/broadly.
The claim -- essentially that Trump (et al.) went against known/established and rational/reasonable pandemic plans -- is highly debatable and/or refutable by review of pandemic plans (in the USA over the past ~20 years [though my argument can be extended to other plans such as from the WHO]).
I have been working on a project to make the case that "lockdown" measures implemented in Spring 2020 were not, in fact, entirely "novel" or unprecedented theoretical policy. It is NOT my objective to defend Trump (I deeply resent and loathe the man, though I did vote for him twice) or the envisioned responses to pandemic. My primary objective is to expose (wrongheaded but "official") pandemic-planning orthodoxies/premises (particularly though not exclusively regarding nonpharmaceutical mitigation measures) in order to reject them in pandemic plans and thinking going forward.
I do not understand why Brownstone (writ large) is so wedded to the contention that lockdown measures implemented Spring 2020 were "AMA" ("against medical advice" if you will). This position (also maintained by others -- beyond Brownstone) is, in my not-baseless opinion, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE as well as pretty much inaccurate (the admonitions of Don Henderson et al. notwithstanding). The lockdown measures can be strongly and rightly condemned without rewriting/mischaracterizing/misrepresenting (to the detriment of the cause of the rational-dissenter side) pre-covid thinking/planning.
Sorry that I just can't take the time (and space) to flesh all this out right here, right now. "Nobody" me has a big case to make, and its status is a work in progress (not ready for thorough/"official" publication). For now, just to whet the appetite, I'll leave you with two links (among many I can catalog). The first is the HHS pandemic plan of 2017 (not superseded at time of the covid scamdemic -- though whether it was followed by Azar et al. [including Birx] is a different question). The second is the HHS pandemic plan of 2007 that is the basis of the updated plan of 2017.
1)
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/pan-flu-report-2017v2.pdf
AND
2)
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/community_mitigation-sm.pdf
But of course...