Lockdowns called wrong approach to a pandemic
By Trevor Busch on June 19, 2021.
LETHBRIDGE HERALDtbusch@lethbridgeherald.com
Lockdowns were the wrong approach to tackling the global pandemic in Canada, argues David Redman, a retired Lieutenant Colonal and former head of Emergency Management Alberta, and has led to unnecessary deaths and undue economic hardship over the past 15 months.
In an upcoming Hot Topics webinar on July 7, Redman will explore how in his view Canada’s governments, both federal and provincial, have failed to formulate the proper response to the pandemic while contending the use of lockdowns has cost lives and caused unnecessary damage to the economy.
“We knew last February that the use of non-pharmaceutical intervention – NPIs, which is what we now call lockdowns – was not recommended for this type of a pandemic,” said Redman in an interview with the Herald earlier this week.
“Things like workplace closures and closures of schools, if used, were to be used as a last resort in a severe pandemic only. This is a moderate pandemic, not severe, and we used them as first choice, not last choice.
“Now the reason they weren’t recommended was because it was known that after the first three weeks in a pandemic – when the disease becomes a pandemic – the use of non-pharmaceutical interventions has very low, if any impact on the spread of the disease.”
An expert who was instrumental in Alberta’s pandemic response plan in 2005, Redman is an authority on the subject and hasn’t been apprehensive about challenging the status quo or openly questioning the accepted narrative regarding Canada’s pandemic response.
“What lockdowns do is cause significant collateral death and damage, and by that I mean mental health, societal health, other severe illness, education of our children, and massive impact on our economy and on the debt load of our country,” said Redman.
“After the first wave, and after the second wave there has been detailed scientific studies comparing lockdown to non-lockdown countries and lockdown and non-lockdown states in the U.S. Senior scientists in infectious diseases have said there is not a significant difference between a lockdown and a non-lockdown state or country based on the use of lockdowns, on the spread of the disease.”
Redman’s fact and evidence-based approach to analyzing the pandemic will present a conflicting image of what might have been had governments decided to walk a different path in their reaction to COVID-19.
“Number one, a targeted response should have been used, it wasn’t, and therefore over 25,000 Canadians died needlessly,” said Redman. “Number two, we knew lockdowns didn’t have an effect on controlling spread of the disease, why did we use them, when number three we knew they caused massive collateral damage, and in Canada we’ve seen it. We’ve seen the jump in opioid deaths, we’ve seen severe problems with mental health, societal health. Things like spousal abuse, highest level ever. Abuse of children, highest level ever. The fact that we’re not even allowed to travel between provinces. These things will have continuing effects…and the final point of those collaterals is the economic impact.”
Former radio host and politician Danielle Smith will be moderating the July 7 event, and she hopes that participants come away from the webinar with an enhanced understanding that governments could have taken a much different approach to COVID-19.
“What happened is it seems like we got locked in to putting the health officials in charge. If you read the Public Health Act, normally health officials are supposed to be in charge for a very localized outbreak, and emergency management is supposed to be in charge for something that has wide-ranging impacts on the entire economy. So he (Redman) goes through and talks about why it would have been better to put emergency management in charge, similar to the way we had emergency management in charge during the southern Alberta floods, the Fort McMurray fire, the Slave Lake fire – instead of health officials. I think part of what he is aiming to do is to make sure that should another health issue arise, people are at least aware that we could deal with it a different way.”
There is no cost to attend the virtual webinar, but you must pre-register as there will be limited space for the live online event. Redman’s Hot Topics webinar presentation, titled Beyond the Crisis: The Real Story of Our Government’s Pandemic Response, is set for July 7 at 10 a.m. MST.
Those interested in registering for the event should visit https://event.webinarjam.com/register/140/vlxgrbm5 and fill out the form. Once accepted you will get an email confirming your registration with your own link. Space for the webinar is limited with only 250 spots available, so readers should start signing up now if they would like to participate.
Throwing down the gauntlet, Redman is currently focused on the “criminal liability” of the nation’s top elected officials in dealing with the pandemic.
“What I’m trying to do is make sure the public realizes that lockdowns should never have been used, and will never be used again for a disease of this type, or pandemic of this type. And that they demand that their leadership prove why they’re doing things, not blindly follow, and so I’m really hoping that the audience understands what was planned, what we did, why it was wrong and how to get out of it. I am now focusing on the criminal liability of our premiers and our MLAs, and the prime minister of Canada, and so I’m readying a position paper showing that they did not do due diligence, that they were criminally negligent in this response.”
Smith anticipates the July 7 webinar could be an eye-opener for many.
“I’m looking forward to it, I think it’s going to be a good conversation. He’s a very powerful speaker, and very persuasive, and I think when people finish hearing his presentation they’re going to say, ‘Gosh, I wish that guy had been in charge’.”
-2
WOW! First, thank you for your service to Canada. BUT, we do not see eye to eye on this!
The problem was not the lockdowns, the problem all the people denied or ignored the severity of the virus, and in some cases chose to follow foreign disinformation spread to stymie progress. Too many people were allowed to break the rules, with impunity! There were no active deterents!
Questions:
Why did lockdowns work so well in China, where they have been open even in Wuhan? Why do lockdowns bring down the numbers, and lower ICU numbers?
The problem was not the lockdowns in my mind, but the fact there were no deterents for those who continue to ignore mask/social distancing rules and gather in large groups, creating the perfect setting for spread the virus.
I respect your rank and your service, but we do disagree totally on this!
What a horrible thing you’ve written! You must be either already settled in life and don’t care about young people trying to make their way in the world and get married and start a family, or you must be quite young, inexperienced with a free society, and like sitting aroung wasting your life on a sofa. These lockdowns went on for more than 15 months and during this time young people couldn’t find possible parnters for marriage. If this isn’t some kind of genocide I don’t know what is? You cite China. How do you know that the data coming out of China is true or not? SInce when was China up front and honest about their numbers of deaths and infections? You must have never been to China. You talk about penalites for non social distancing and wearing masks. Even Fauci in his emails admitted that masks don’t work and social distancing was at 6 feet then changed to 3 feet by the CDC so the six feet was too much and social distancing won’t stop an airborne virus. Therefore, if you want to punish people for not following illogical rules why don’t we punish you for not following logical grammar! What punishment do you suggest for not wearing a mask when even Dr. Fauci sai they don’t work. Do you condone punishing people for not doing anything the politicians can think of? You talk of “disinformatiion.” What, is anything that doesn’t agree with your immature and perverted way of looking at things disinformation? Go to hell, or go to the hell that was created by these lockdowns with the millions of people who are suffering mental illness, broken families, destroyed mentality, and dim hopes for the future. Let’s see, if a person loses two years of their life at the age of 30 then they are 10% less likely to get married and have kids. THings must be done at a cerrtain age and if our lives were taken from us unjustly by these lockdowns then we have a right to demand the thinking that went into the policies. I am so ashamed of western leaders and never thought things were this bad that our political leaders would allow lockdowns, or I never would have come back to the west. In China, if they didn’t test people for covid the numbers of infection would bee a lot less because, if you can believe!, almost HALF of the people who get this “virus” have no symptoms. In China, mass testing wasn’t happening until much later on and by that time the communist party might have tested differently than we did in the US and Canada. SO you want to stay locked down forver? Then you must not be human.
What a whiny cherry-picking rant, Ajax! Oh so hard done by :::rolleyes::.
And this..” Go to hell, or go to the hell that was created by these lockdowns with the millions of people who are suffering mental illness, broken families, destroyed mentality, and dim hopes for the future.”
Poor baby! Gee, makes you wonder how anybody got on with their lives after WWII..or even the cold war era. You sure paint a picture of weak-willed spineless folks out there. Suck it up!