SPARS Pandemic Scenario, More Than Just Coincidental? You Decide

The SPARS Pandemic 2025–2028: A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical Countermeasure Communication, is a document wargaming the possible scenarios that could occur during a pandemic. The paper was written in 2017 and published by The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Here is the opening paragraph on the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security webpage, where you can download a copy for yourself.

Updated: the original link to UCF no longer resolves, I searched and it’s gone. This link is through The Internet Archive. There's also a condensed version available here at the University of Central Florida website.

The Center’s SPARS Pandemic exercise narrative comprises a futuristic scenario that illustrates communication dilemmas concerning medical countermeasures (MCMs) that could plausibly emerge in the not-so-distant future. Its purpose is to prompt users, both individually and in discussion with others, to imagine the dynamic and oftentimes conflicted circumstances in which communication around emergency MCM development, distribution, and uptake takes place. While engaged with a rigorous simulated health emergency, scenario readers have the opportunity to mentally “rehearse” responses while also weighing the implications of their actions. At the same time, readers have a chance to consider what potential measures implemented in today’s environment might avert comparable communication dilemmas or classes of dilemmas in the future.

While this document doesn't seem too odd at first, there are quite a few aspects of this document that are strangely similar to the way that things have unfolded during the current SARS-Cov-2 pandemic. Take a look at the table of contents:

It only gets more interesting after that.

So now you have this medication Kalocivir, which sounds eerily similar to Remdesivir.

They even fake Twitter posts echoing negative sentiments about the Kalocivir treatments.

This part here is the most interesting to me. Once they find out that the virus is much less deadly than originally though, and, "public interest in SPARS had begun to wane". "...the new, lower case fatality rate estimate led the public to grow increasingly hostile toward continued SPARS messaging."

Why would the government then start a public messaging campaign to make people more afraid of something that's not very deadly? What is the point of that? That, I think, is the most important question to ask about this whole scenario. Wouldn't it make more sense to just treat the outlying cases and let herd immunity take care of the rest? That's how it's worked with any other virus outbreak.

As part of this fear campaign, they begin targeting the population with an adds designed to quell doubts about the "approved" forms of treatment. They are also using the help of celebrity endorsements to push the vaccines and or treatments.

They even cover a mock interview in which a former President shows hesitation when asked about her grandson taking the treatment!

Once vaccinations start, there is confusion in the public because the prioritization of those who will first receive the vaccine.

This has to be the strangest part. There is a huge power outage that occurs. Kind of like the one that happened in Texas! But that's most likely coincidental, still odd though.

It goes on to say how Muslims didn't want to participate in the vaccine program because pigs were used in the manufacturing process.

Next it get to where we are right now.

The paper concludes with the following.

After reading this, you have to ask yourself. How much of what's happened in the last year or so was not planned? Maybe not all of it, but some of it definitely seems like it's been well thought out, the outbreak, how it would be handled, how the government needs to have messaging that thwarts opposition to whatever they (government bureaucrats) deem relevant. And what I consider the be the most important aspect. The need to scare people into believing that something which is not that deadly --is that deadly.

UPDATE: 08-31-21

Now there are people in the FDA who are "stepping down" AKA "retiring" because they have taken issue with what's gone on thus far.

Two of the FDA’s most senior vaccine leaders are exiting from their positions, raising fresh questions about the Biden administration and the way that it’s sidelined the FDA.

Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research & Review and 32-year veteran of the agency, will leave at the end of October, and OVRR deputy director Phil Krause, who’s been at FDA for more than a decade, will leave in November. The news, first reported by BioCentury, is a massive blow to confidence in the agency’s ability to regulate vaccines.

The bombshell announcement comes at a particularly crucial moment, as boosters and children’s shots are being weighed by the regulator. The departures also come as the administration has recently jumped ahead of the FDA’s reviews of booster shots, announcing that they might be available by the week of Sept. 20.

A former senior FDA leader told Endpoints that they’re departing because they’re frustrated that CDC and their ACIP committee are involved in decisions that they think should be up to the FDA. The former FDAer also said he’s heard they’re upset with CBER director Peter Marks for not insisting that those decisions should be kept inside FDA. What finally did it for them was the White House getting ahead of FDA on booster shots.

FDA’s former acting chief scientist Luciana Borio added on Twitter, “FDA is losing two giants who helped bring us many safe and effective vaccines over decades of public service.”

“These two are the leaders for Biologic (vaccine) review in the US. They have a great team, but these two are the true leaders of CBER. A huge global loss if they both leave,” Former BARDA director Rick Bright wrote, weighing in on the news. “Dr. Gruber is much more than the Director. She is a global leader. Visionary mastermind behind global clinical regulatory science for flu, Ebola, Mers, Zika, Sars-cov-2, many others.”

So there are people stepping down from the FDA because they disagree with approving the shots for children. This was also in the SPARS Pandemic Scenario paper. It goes on to say, "As the investigations grew in intensity, several high-ranking officials at the CDC and FDA were forced to step down and withdraw from government in order to "spend more time with their families." Exhausted employees of these agencies, many of whom worked long hours six or seven days a week throughout the pandemic, simply wanted to put the whole respond behind them."

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"

The QR code below links to WindUpRubberFinger.com for easy sharing.