Pandemic Transparency

Written by Mathew Naismith

All we wanted from authorities is transparency, from the very start of this pandemic there was no transparency, in fact quite the opposite. It is not about being anti-vaccination or pro-vaccination or anti-pandemic or pro-pandemic, it is simply about transparency.

From the outset the phrase lockdown was inappropriate, a phrase associated with unruly prison inmates, a phrase that was going to instil fear, paranoia and hysteria, the very same reactions authorities should have been avoiding but instead promoted day in day out. This was at the same time the censoring of facts that were not pro-pandemic and pro-covid vaccine was implemented. The authorities and particular the main stream media and social media were being anything but transparent.

“So as a leader, set the example. Go first. Take risks with openness and honesty, and encourage team members to do the same. The benefits, including increased innovation, collaboration and quality, will be unparalleled! You won’t regret it, but you have to lead by example. Be brave!”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/11/30/why-transparency-and-honesty-matter-for-leadership/?sh=7e9e89003943

In all honesty, has the authorities, main stream media and social media fact checking set an example of transparency? Setting an example of transparency leads to collaboration, leading to people working together as one. From the outset this leading by example to encourage collaboration was never implemented, in fact quite the opposite was implemented. Was the phrase lockdown from the start going to induce collaboration? No, especially when the people of a country are not inmates of a prison system and especially unruly inmates of a prison system.

Would have a phrase like preventative isolation been more appropriate and responsible?

I think being transparent from the start would have created a much more collaborative environment between the authorities, MSM, social media fact checking and the people, instead it seems that anything but an environment of collaboration and transparency was being created. So as a leader of a country or state and a leader of media information, transparency to instil collaboration in times of a pandemic should have been paramount, instead quite the opposite was instilled.

In all honesty, and in relation to the degree of censorship, the level of transparency has actually diminished from the outset of this pandemic, not improved as a responsible body would do to instil collaboration and especially innovation.

Innovation is the creation of a new device or process resulting from study and experimentation. Was there transparency in relation to alternative medical treatments for the present strain of the coronavirus? Country and state authorities banned and even outlawed innovative medical treatments, while MSM totally denied there effectiveness, at the same time social media fact checking made sure very few facts about innovative medical treatments was being presented transparently.

Yes, it would seem from the start innovation was being suppressed, not just to do with alternative medical treatments but in relation to thinking innovatively outside of the authorities and MSM narrative.

So why are some people more accepting of the suppression of freedoms, information and transparency therefore innovation than other people? Because the other people are conditioned to being transparent therefore innovative mentally. The other people who are more innovative mentally will of course be more accepting of innovative medical treatments and information, this stands to reason, for example, are the followers of communism mentally innovative beyond the narratives of communism? Are the people who watch MSM constantly mentally innovative beyond MSM narratives? Now, are the people not under control of certain narratives going to be more naturally innovative mentally and physically?

The obvious suppression of innovative thinking therefore medical treatments seems to be at hand, enacted, through the lack of transparency.

Supplement: My father was trained in an international company to psychologically manipulate the workers under him. My father would often laugh at how easy the workers under him were so easily manipulated. When it looks like you are actually in the wrong, use deflective tactics to make it look like that your wrong is right and that the right is wrong.

Recently, union members protested outside a union office in Victoria Australia against the lack of support for basic human rights by their union. The union boss phoned a radio station and stated on air that the protesters presently outside their office where extremists, the unionists outside the union office heard this and reacted in accordance to the bizarre action of the union boss. They even ended up turning the water hoses on their union members, which by then was seen as simply protecting themselves against violent extremists.

The point is, to take the emphasis off yourself of being put in a bad light, manipulate the circumstances to deflect away from your own bad behaviour and put it on other people. I would say that the authorities, with the help of MSM and social media, were always going to instil disunion, in the process taking the emphasis off of themselves being in the bad light, being extremist in their own actions.

How many people have this psychological tactic duped? Ah, but the mind that is innovative is not so easily duped.