"Inconsistent and Changing Definitions during Pandemic Created Public Confusion and Distrust"?

When the Covid "saints" go marching in...

A new “study” (an opinion piece, actually) from Canadian Covid “experts” has been published in BMJ on July 24 and is currently widely advertised in Canadian mass media: “How Canada’s decentralised covid-19 response affected public health data and decision making”:

In the absence of a coordinated pandemic planning authority, the supporting evidence and rationale for different rules in different places were often unclear. PHAC provided national guidance on infection prevention and other control measures as well as national vaccine guidelines through the National Advisory Committee on Immunisations (NACI). NACI made evidence based recommendations on covid-19 vaccine eligibility but had no responsibility for implementation. Each province or territory then created its own vaccine eligibility plans, allocation, and mandates. For example, vaccine mandates in Ontario applied only to those working in long term care homes while in New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Yukon vaccines were required for those working in healthcare, the public sector, long term care, and schools. Similarly, provincial public health authorities differed in their guidance on masks, school closures, curfews, and lockdowns. Outbreak investigation, management, and risk mitigation happened at local and municipal levels. Adding to the complexity, in some provinces, entities such as school boards and acute care hospitals implemented mandates to augment provincial public health guidance.

The authors bemoan the fact that the “pandemic” mandates and measures were not centralized across Canada:

…each province or territory devised its own interventions and timelines for protective measures such as school closures, border controls and closures, prohibition of gatherings, and masking requirements, leading to substantial variation in policy and practice across the country, widely varying hospital admission rates, and public confusion.

As the pandemic progressed, public confusion arose from jurisdictional inconsistencies in advice and case reporting.

Lack of testing had broader implications for attribution of deaths to covid, further complicated by definitions of death “with” versus death “from” covid-19 across time and jurisdiction. While these concerns could be overcome with good data documentation, or data and testing standards, inconsistent and changing definitions during the pandemic created public confusion and distrust.

So, the public confusion and distrust resulted from too much democracy? Aren’t people in China and North Korea so much more lucky with their dear leaders in charge!

It’s not that the public health and government figureheads, and their “Science”, were wrong about the “pandemic” on every turn, about the effectiveness of masks, lockdowns, “vaccines” and everything else, many times over. It’s that they could not [yet] suppress the truth about their “misguided” actions and the fakeness of their “Science”. They failed to achieve [yet] the noble goal of 1984’s total information and mind control, but boy did they try!

Maybe the continuous, blatant lies led to the public “confusion and distrust”?

And maybe it’s not “public confusion and distrust” but the public seeing through their lies? Maybe the public is not a herd to be led to whatever destination by their PTBs, but the delegator of their powers after all? Stop “trusting the Science” and stop delegating?