"15 Days to Slow the Spread"
16 March 2020 | What was this, exactly?
Yesterday marked the five-year anniversary of the 15 Days to Slow the Spread - a difficult-to-define action around which nearly every data point in the fraudulent New York City Spring 2020 mass casualty event hinges.
What It Was
On the most basic level, 15 Days is the bold phrase atop The President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America. Released three days after the unwarranted National Emergency declaration, the document was essentially a set of behavioral directives (Glynn, 2020) that, alongside Stay Home, Save Lives - functioned as the marketing arm for an illegal mass quarantine order and reinforced the necessity of school and (selective) business closures.
The legality of such a decree—how it falls within the bounds of executive power—and the federal government’s ability to declare a threat without demonstrating its existence before taking emergency action have never been fully explained. Equally puzzling is why the document refers to "coronavirus" despite SARS-CoV-2 having been officially named four weeks earlier.1
What It Said
The key word in 15 Days to Slow the Spread is spread—the implication being that a new coronavirus causing a unique disease was actively spreading. At the time, the claimed mechanism of this “spread” was person-to-person via droplet transmission. Saying then or later that “it” was aerosolized or airborne does’t change the fundamental claim: a coronavirus is spreading, and its spread needs to be slowed.
The guidelines opened with an unmistakably authoritarian directive: Listen to and follow the directions of your state and local authorities. Translation: Obey your leaders, citizens!
Two of 15 Days “guidelines” make basic sense: wash your hands and stay home if you’re sick.2 Nearly everything else reinforced the notion that something was spreading between humans—justifying the idea that people, especially the elderly and those with certain conditions, should avoid as many human interactions as possible. Do Your Part served as a psychological tool, guilting the public into a collective “war effort” against an Invisible Enemy.
Much attention has been given to individual governors—their decisions, the timing of their orders—but a closer look at the fine print of 15 Days makes it clear: the executive branch was dictating and/or ‘blessing’ actions to state and local leaders while pushing unverified claims about viral spread.
School operations can accelerate the spread of the coronavirus.
Governors of states with evidence of community transmission should close schools in affected and surrounding areas.
Governors should close schools in communities that are near areas of community transmission, even if those areas are in neighboring states.
In addition, state and local officials should close schools where coronavirus has been identified in the population associated with the school. States and localities that close schools need to address childcare needs of critical responders, as well as the nutritional needs of children.
Older people are particularly at risk from the coronavirus. All states should follow Federal guidance and halt social visits to nursing homes and retirement and long-term care facilities.
In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.
Such directives came perilously close to being unconstitutional; dressing them up as “guidelines” did little to justify the executive branch overstepping its authority.
The Strangest Falsehood
The strangest falsehood in 15 Days by far is this one:
Even if you are you are young, or otherwise healthy, you are at risk and your activities can increase the risk for others. It is critical that you do your part to slow the spread of the coronavirus.
The WHO delivered a similar message at a media briefing that day:
This is a serious disease. Although the evidence we have suggests that those over 60 are at highest risk, young people, including children, have died.
Even those who still believe a novel coronavirus was spreading should be deeply disturbed by officials telling young and otherwise healthy people, including children, that they were at significant risk3
It’s difficult to dismiss this as mere one-time fear-mongering designed to secure compliance from working-age adults when the message was central to the New York narrative, embedded in the city’s official data, and reinforced by the CDC’s death certificate guidance:
New York City remains a domestic and global outlier in the number of younger-adult deaths—and specifically younger-adult COVID-19 deaths—during spring 2020 (Verduyn et al, 2023; Hockett, 2024) - a phenomenon implicitly being excused as the work of “spread” and ignored by the Norfolk Group, House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, and the Trump administration.
15 Days and the Simulation Hypothesis
In many ways, the events of March - May 2020 make far more sense when viewed through the lens of World War III exercise. 15 Days to Slow the Spread may have been a euphemism which activated a domestic or global “drill” or simulation. This wouldn’t mean the slogan and its accompanying document lacked other purposes, but rather that they played a more covert role—one possibly unknown even to those who repeated the phrase.
A full case with supporting evidence is beyond the scope of this article. However, some of the reasons for this suspicion—along with clear examples of the pretense of war—are outlined in this overview under “The Appearance of a Staged Event”.
With the exceptions of Wuhan, Iran, and Lombardy, Italy — all of which (I believe) were strategically-timed “inciting incidents” leading up to a planned pandemic declaration on 11 March 2020 — official death curves in countries around the world began to increase after the U.S. said 15 Days to Slow the Spread.4 Similarly, leaders in a number of other countries appeared to do a volte-face on their attitude toward the coronavirus after 16 March (e.g., UK, Germany, Alberta). An earlier euphemistic signal for “Get ready to run the simulation for real, everyone!” may have been the January 2020 calls for a coordinated response.5
One artifact of 15 Days to Slow the Spread came in the form of postcards mailed to over 100 million American households, which, through the lens of a simulated attach, can be seen as part of the broader effort to mobilize and prepare the public. The decision sparked some controversy at the time, with debates over whether they constituted political campaign material. For those, like myself, who argue that no novel ‘coronavirus’ was spreading and thus nothing needed to be slowed or responded to, the mailers were a waste of taxpayer funds, regardless of their intent. Viewed through a War Simulation lens, however, they take on a different significance—reminiscent of airborne leaflet propaganda.
It Was Never Going to Be 15 Days
Simulation or not, 15 Days was bait—a highly effective strategy for creating the illusion that a pandemic had gripped the globe. “Two weeks” was presented as a harmless amuse bouche, quickly consumed by most, especially those whose industries and professions weren’t negatively affected by the drastic measures taken.
It doesn’t matter what the still-unapologetic President Trump said:
The shutdown was never, ever going to be “two weeks.” This is crystal clear simply by reading the CARES Act.6 Extending the period 30 more days on 2 April 2020 - a move reportedly influenced by the [staged] events at Elmhurst Hospital in Queens7 - was not an organic decision but rather a built-in feature of activated plans.
There was no pandemic and the claim about a sudden-spreading, dangerous virus causing of a new disease is still unsubstantiated. Lab, market, cave, Wuhan, Carolina, Wisconsin, Ukraine, leak, release, jump, jet stream - it’s all distraction.
The only thing "spreading" that needed to be not just slowed but stopped dead in its tracks was—and remains—lies.
Post-Publication
referred me to his October 2020 thread on the UK volte-face, which was republished by The Daily Sceptic at the time. He wrote:On 19th March the UK 4 nations public health HCID group made a decision that COVID-19 is NOT a high consequence infectious disease (HCID): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid
Note this important statement: “The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP) is also of the opinion that COVID-19 should no longer be classified as an HCID.”
In the UK an HCID is defined as an acute infectious disease, with high case-fatality rate requires an enhanced individual, population and system response.
Professor Neil Ferguson is a member of The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens (ACDP). https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/advisory-committee-on-dangerous-pathogens
I understand the committee reached the UNANIMOUS view, that COVID-19 is NOT a HCID, at a meeting on 13th March 2020.
Despite this the UK SAGE group published a document on 14th March recommending enhanced individual, population and system responses to COVID-19: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-from-sage-delay-phase-modelling
The SAGE group, Whitty and Vallance made this decision on 14th March – the day after the ACDP committee decision and five days before the HCID group’s decision.
They therefore made this decision despite, and in contradiction to, official scientific advice.
What happened between 13th and 14th March? Why did Ferguson, Vallance and Whitty change direction before the 4 nations HCID group made their decision on 19th March?
Professor Neil Ferguson is a member of SAGE and a member of the ACDP. How can he make a decision one day and then contradict it the next?
For your own benefit.
Presumably, this means “at risk from the harmful coronavirus we are alleging is spreading” but the statement doesn’t say.
Corrections welcome, if I am mistaken.
See documentation in this thread.
Passed 25 March 2020; signed 27 March 2020. One only needs to read the education-related section to see it.
On March 31, 2020, The Wall Street Journal reported, "Ultimately, Mr. Trump was convinced [to extend ‘social distancing guidelines’] by the numbers and reports about refrigerator trucks being used to hold the bodies of people who have died of the virus at Elmhurst Hospital in New York City, according to aides.”
"Scientists Say NIH Officials Told Them To Scrub mRNA References on Grants"
by Arthur Allen
March 16, 2025
https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/nih-grants-mrna-vaccines-trump-administration-hhs-rfk/