Pandemic Performance Survey A Blatant Attempt to Justify Fed Action?

The conclusions of Public Health Canada study are illusory and far from reality


Rather than learning from the painful lessons of the past three years, it is clear that we have entered a post-pandemic phase of government-led caution.

Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), including Teresa Tam, published a study The Canadian Journal of Public Health has declared that pandemic-inspired restrictions have significantly reduced the impact of COVID-19 in Canada. “Counterfactual of the effectiveness of immunizations and public health measures on Canadian COVID-19 cases: What might have happened?” What would have happened if Canada’s public health measures had not been implemented We ask you to believe the imaginary story about

But the result is a counterfactual tale of an imaginary Canada far removed from reality.

recent discussion From this finding, Teresa Tam and her collaborators (the “authors”) are victims of a common model pitfall, the loss of objectivity that affects the model’s quality and its output. It became clear.

Instead of relying on modeling predictions, the authors rely on “backcasting” to figure out “what could have happened” or “what could have happened” if the government had not acted on our behalf. says.

However, lending credence to such dubious results very often occurs when sensational results are observed. seized The moment the response to the pandemic began. Neither the author nor anyone else can observe the simultaneous response and non-response of his experience with COVID-19 in Canada.

Their most dramatic claim is that without social restrictions and vaccines, up to 800,000 COVID-related deaths could have occurred. The figure below shows his 12-year all-cause mortality data for Canada (blue line) and the author’s ‘worst case’ overlay (red line).

For us, two things make the author’s argument irreconcilable with the rational view. Up to 800,000″ (red line) exceeds the number of Canadians who died in the 1918 influenza pandemic and his two world wars combined. The question arises: Were infectious diseases with >99% survival rates the only event with the most devastating health consequences of the last 100 years? Do readers find these results plausible? , or you can decide if you think it’s great.

Epoch Times photo

All models are impractical to some extent (although this is not a “fatal flaw”). However, the model is only as good as the assumptions it is based on. Unfortunately, the authors hang on to hypotheses that underestimate the results. acquisition, degreeand durability natural immunity vaccine-acquired immunity.

The authors also assume that the spread of infection has declined consistently with the severity of lockdowns and other social restrictions. Relaxation increased transmission. However, there is evidence that these measures did not work “as advertised”.In many states, the effect is stagnant By April 2020.

Unfortunately, this didn’t stop authors from forcing the model to respond. In their “worst case” scenario, mass infections and disease, unless leveled by top-down government action, is conveniently the foregone conclusion.Bottom-up impact on contagion, including Canadian agency and people’s natural tendencies avoid Contagion is not considered.

Their most subtle omission was their failure to disclose any conflict of interest. PHAC scientists may argue that they only provide guidance on local pandemic responses, but the interest of many federal health agencies is certainly clear.

For example, the federal purchase of the COVID-19 vaccine prior to their approval By Health Canada, some of the most restrictive measures imposed on Canadians (such as vaccine requirements for business travel) came from the federal level. As it happens, four of his authors are directly employed by the federal government. The authors of this study can hardly be regarded as having no competing interests in favorably evaluating pandemic policy.

All of this begs us to question: Was their article a genuine evidence-based analysis of government policies, or a blatant attempt to justify these policies? It acknowledges that Canada’s response to the pandemic was incomplete and that unintended consequences need to be investigated. If PHAC and its local partners materialize, it will truly be a measure of the honesty and integrity of her PHAC and its local partners.

© troy media

Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times.