Why did any country believe lockdowns would "stop" COVID19? A Feb. 24, 2020, WHO memorandum, "Press Conference of WHO-China Joint Mission" answers this question.

Governments were ENTRAPPED by China's BAD DATA and FLAWED LOGIC, and the WHO's rubber-stamp.

Team Leaders for the Joint Mission included Bruce Aylward, senior advisor to WHO Director-General; and Liang Wannian, Head of Expert Panel of COVID-19 Response of China National Health Commission (NHC). They provided COVID19 management recommendations for world governments.
Objectives of the Joint Mission included "to learn the prevention and control measures taken by the Chinese government and in different provinces and the effectiveness of these measures," and "to propose recommendations on outbreak response for the international community."
In this thread, I will present the conclusions of the Joint Mission--which were not debated, that I can see--in order, followed by rebuttals.
Conclusion 1: the substantial "familial clustering" of COVID, in Guangdong and Sichuan (78-85% of confirmed cases were from familial clusters) means "the prevention and control measures in these provinces are highly effective."
Rebuttal 1: Transmission could have been even lower if people had been allowed to circulate freely outside their homes. We cannot rule out this possibility because there is no control group or baseline for this "novel" virus.
Conclusion 2: "Since the coronavirus is a new pathogen, people of all ages do not have special immunity to it, and it can be inferred that all the populations are susceptible to this new coronavirus."
Rebuttal 2: Coronaviruses are not new--there are at least four others in circulation. China/WHO either knew or should have known it was *likely* that the community would have some level of preexisting immunity. Numerous studies have now confirmed this. doi.org/10.1101/2020.0…
Conclusion 3: "There is no question that China's bold approach to the rapid spread of this new respiratory pathogen has changed the course of what was a rapidly escalating and continues to be deadly epidemic."
Rebuttal 3: Since this is a new virus, it was impossible to rule out the possibility that this was simply the natural course of the disease; it was reckless and superstitious to attribute the outcome to government mandates and behavior changes.
Rebuttal 3 cont'd: All existing published science rejected large-scale quarantine; the U.S. CDC stated that non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing rapidly decline in effectiveness once a disease infects 1% of the population. cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-r…
Conclusion 4: "And very rapidly, multiple sources of data pointed to the same thing, this is falling and it's falling because of the actions that are being taken." (See rebuttals 2 and 3).
Conclusion 5: "Our assessment is that this approach, what we call an "all-of-government, all-of-society" approach, very old-fashioned, too old in some ways, has definitely reverted, and probably prevented at least tens of thousands, but probably hundreds of thousands of cases."
Rebuttal 5: See rebuttals 2 and 3: there is no way to rule out that this wouldn't have happened in the absence of draconian government intervention.

Because you did a rain dance and it rained, you haven't proved that it wouldn't have rained otherwise.
Conclusion 6: Here are depictions of disease curves from various regions of China. "[Wuhan] is a much flatter curve than the others. And that's what happens when you have an aggressive action that changes the shape that you would expect from an infectious disease outbreak."
Rebuttal 6: Testing protocols could also have affected the "shape" of the epicurves. Bottom line, they cannot rule out that this would have happened even without their actions.

The offering to Helios may or may not have affected the sun's behavior--we just don't know.
Conclusion 7: "The risk from China is dropping, and what China can add to the global response is rapidly rising. The world needs the materials of China...If countries create barriers in terms of travel or trade, it is only going to compromise everyone's ability to get this done."
Rebuttal 7: Because China was dealing with a brand-new virus only seven weeks old, it cannot both say "this virus is so deadly that the world must lock down," and declare that the epidemic is over for good in China.
Rebuttal 7 cont'd: The Joint Mission also stated, "The most important message is don't be complacent as cases decline . . . Thinking you've beaten this virus is the single biggest risk." But other countries should not close borders to China, because the risk is dropping?
Conclusion 8: The Joint Mission repeatedly states that lockdown is required to "beat" COVID19: "What this country has demonstrated is this can work." "Let's innovate and stop this virus and save lives. And that's what they've done." "China has slowed the spread without a doubt."
Conclusion 8 cont'd: "What China has demonstrated is, you have to do this. If you do it, you can save lives and prevent thousands of cases of what is a very difficult disease." "Wuhan said this is our duty, we have to protect the world...we need to thank the people of Wuhan."
Rebuttal 8: The virus escaped Wuhan, so why are we congratulating China? China never adopted a nationwide lockdown, yet it seems to know it won't ever have to--the virus moved on to other countries, which are now the WHO's focus.
Conclusion 9: "The single biggest lesson is speed. Speed is everything. And what worries me most is that has the rest of the world learned the lesson of speed? China learned a lesson [in Wuhan], and the other 30 provinces have not gotten out of control. It is extraordinary."
Rebuttal 9: Peru imposed a military-controlled lockdown less than two weeks after detecting its first case. It presumably took Wuhan much longer than two weeks to realize it had a "new" pneumonia on its hands. Peru has the highest death rate in the world. npr.org/2020/09/08/907…
END: Wuhan's curve wasn't flat because of the draconian lockdown, it was flat because of natural factors such as pre-existing immunity.

China's dictator did not "eradicate" a virus with NPI's.

The world took China/WHO at their word. Their word was FALSE.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Stacey Rudin

Stacey Rudin Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!