1. When it comes the semantics of what constitutes a pandemic, unfortunately they have been made important by the existence of the Pandemic Preparedness apparatus, including the WHO accord and IHR revisions. That’s the only context in which the definition of a pandemic is important. A very broad definition, which includes pathogens that are mild, is of no use to man or beast absent that context, and irremediably perilous within it. The Covid policy response has proven that.
2. Under a sensibly narrow definition, Covid was not a pandemic. Controlling for misattribution and iatrogenic harms, its fatality rate was negligible.
3. Under any definition, the excess mortality witnessed in a few places during the Covid phenomenon was not caused by a pandemic, but by policy. The real phenomenon was a mass casualty event, not a pandemic.
4. It is extremely unlikely that a pandemic, narrowly defined, can occur. In our integrated world we don’t encounter pathogens that are novel in the sense of immune naivety, because pathogens are related to one another, and we enjoy rich immune cross-reactivity from prior exposure to related endemic ones. Even the cleverest lab scientists can’t cook up entirely new ones.
The validity of points 1 to 3 above in no way depends upon point 4 being valid. So I reject the Pandemic Preparedness construct and view pandemics as not presenting a real threat. Preparation for them is akin to preparing for invasion by the flying spaghetti monster. I cannot prove that he doesn’t exist, but I think anyone who spends a cent on that project is a dangerous lunatic.
And for clarity, even if none of the above four points are valid, all of the mandates involved in the Covid policy response were moral obscenities never to be repeated under any circumstances whatsoever.
A clarification of my views on the meaning of pandemics — Nick Hudson
American Buddhist Net 