New York takes the lead on 'Contact Tracing' - Which the WHO recommends against

in #coronavirus5 months ago (edited)

Earlier today, governor Cuomo and former NYC mayor Bloomberg did a briefing on their plan to implement "contact tracing" in New York. At one point, Bloomberg said “when social distancing is relaxed, contact tracing is our best hope for isolating the virus when it appears and keeping it isolated.”

Their plan is to create an "army" of people specifically designated to violate the privacy of others. A big army. As the governor's site puts it:

"The program will include a baseline of 30 contact tracers for every 100,000 individuals and will utilize additional tracers based on the projected number of cases in each region. The program is expected to have 6,400 to 17,000 tracers statewide depending on the projected number of cases. Contact tracing teams will work remotely with state-of-the-art software to develop a secure database of information on the spread of the infection."

Let's pretend for a moment that we can completely ignore the HUGE violation of privacy & individual liberties that these guys are talking about rolling out. Let's pretend we're all obedient little statists, and just go along with whatever the "authorities" tell us to do... If you buy into the religion of statism, who is currently the highest authority on health? The World Health Organization, right?

Lucky for us, the WHO created a document for exactly this kind of situation, just last year: Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza

How about we take a brief look at what they had to say about "contact tracing" in their recommendations, based on all the evidence they have for these NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions)....

If you scroll down to section 6.1 (page 37), the section on "contact tracing," here's what you will find:

"Moreover, currently available studies for community settings are all simulation studies – evidence of greater strength is needed to provide a more robust understanding of the effectiveness and value of contact tracing."

Wow, that sure seems like they 1) have no idea if contact tracing would even have any effect, and 2) don't recommend using it, because "there is no obvious rationale"

If you scroll farther down into the document, they've got some tables that break down ALL of the NPIs they've explored, and give an even clearer picture.

If you're thinking to yourself "Well it is an extraordinary & super-deadly pandemic we're facing, right?"... Then you must only take in the corporate media, because the evidence doesn't support that even a little bit.

The only time at which there was any "official" sense that the Wuhan Flu would be the next Spanish Flu, was when the "authorities" were simply looking at the Imperial College computer model. You know, the one that called for 2 million deaths in the US alone.

Did you know that Professor Neil Ferguson, who created that "Imperial College Model," is actually very well known for creating "models" (never open-sourced or peer-reviewed) that VASTLY over-estimate upcoming epidemics. Here's a bit of his track record (all easily found, most actually spelled out on his Wikipedia page)

  1. In 2001, the Imperial team did the modeling on foot and mouth disease which led to a cull of six million sheep, pigs and cattle. The cost to the UK was around £10 billion. But the Imperial’s work has been described as `severely flawed’. Resulted in him being fired from DEFRA (The UK's Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs)
  2. In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from mad cow disease. He said that could rise to 150,000 if sheep were involved. In the UK the death total was 177.
  3. In 2005, Ferguson said that up to 200 million people could be killed by bird flu. The total number of deaths was 282 worldwide.
  4. In 2009, Ferguson used the exact same model he did this year for COVID-19, advising the Government that swine flu would kill 65,000 people in the UK and millions worldwide. In the end swine flu killed ~12,000 worldwide.
  5. In 2020, Ferguson and Imperial released a report (still not peer reviewed) suggesting that up to 600,000 in the UK and 2.2 million Americans would die of Covid19. He has since revised that number down by more than 2500%

Now, if we step back from that hypothetical (where we actual trust governments and believe they have any sort of good intentions) and we come back to reality, it becomes almost comical the extent to which these people are contradicting themselves and their "science," in what is clearly a new kind of economic warfare.

If, somehow, you still think that your government is anything less than an evil empire, maybe read just this one piece explaining the US's history of non-consensually using humans as guinea pigs and purposefully poisoning them.

Referral links:


Neil Ferguson is a professor of mathematical biology. No doubt this means his models are based on 'big data'.

I wonder if his models show 'vastly different outcomes' based on several different variables, and it's just the media or the institutions he works for selectively picking up on the 'extreme cases' he models.

He's unlikely to hold a post in Imperial College if he's just straight up wrong about everything.

I'm sure his "models" (nobody else ever gets to see/review it, so it could simply be an .exe that says to shut down the world) show a range of scenarios, but the reports released (with him as lead author) always stress the worst-case scenario, and recommend shutting down the planet.

The thing is, not only is Imperial College on Bill Gates' payroll (~$290 Million), but Neil himself is also the acting director of the "Vaccine Impact Modeling Consortium", which is funded by The Gates Foundation & GAVI (which is itself funded by The Gates Foundation.)

It seems likely that Neil's job is less about being "right," and more about fanning the flames of BG's mandatory vaccine/RFID agenda.

Oh in that case it really does seem a clear cut case of big pharma money controlling the data.

This stuff is actually on the A-level sociology syllabus, I'll make sure I get it out there to a wider audience!