Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both? (Part 6 – Last in Series)

Marshaling an army of "Contact Tracers"

The Grand Re-opening of America may be accompanied by one or more efforts to marshal large groups of contact tracers, tasked to map a new wave of virus victims. Several such efforts are being discussed.  One by-product of the home quarantine of "non-essential" persons, regardless of age, could be the hunt for fresh victims in a second wave of infections. Herd immunity was never given the chance to be established.    The Scientific Community anticipates a new wave of virus victims coming after the nation opens up to normalcy. Some suggest The New Normal will require diligent monitoring of the population, with no end in sight.  And, their thinking is, such monitoring is best done by those trained to trace people with whom the newly infected are/were in contact.  Hence, contact tracing.  On April 18, Bill Clinton and Andrew Cuomo talked contact tracing in the context of a virtual gathering of the Clinton Global Initiative University.    Let's listen in on their unrehearsed discussion concerning contact tracing, relying on the C-SPAN transcript of the 40 min. video:

Cuomo: (24:19) "We need tracing agents in the hundreds and hundreds of people. You take a trace test – you take a test and then trace back the contact. This has never been done on this scale. This is an army of investigator and tracers, we will do that the best we can with this seven-state consortium, but it could have been done from the federal government on a tighter and more efficient {sic}." (Cuomo listed six of the seven in northeastern state "consortium": New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.) Clinton: (24:50) "I agree with you on this, this contact tracing is very important, and it could have enabled our entire country to have a real public health system, a real public health corps (indiscernible) could we make this a part of the current treatment? Is there some other way we could do it?  I'm worried (indiscernible) that they're trying to get a state contact tracing core, you have to get bodies in there, and they have to be safe while they are tracing.  You cannot just show up in your jeans and t-shirts.  You have to really know what you are doing when you are going into these neighborhoods and trying to run these needs down. Do you think maybe you could get the governors to ask congress to fund that? Or maybe we can spend some of the money, but we need a national core of healthy people who are trying to go out and do contact tracing. We need bodies."

Partners in Health (PIH) is already engaged with one state in Cuomo's consortium.  As of May 12:

"Partners in Health was recently selected by Massachusetts governor Charlie Baker to conduct Coronavirus 'contact tracing,' a process that involves teams of investigators finding out who infected people have come into contact with. The group is already 'training and deploying hundreds of contact tracers.' Some citizens fear the potential for mass surveillance posed by contact tracing, especially in light of a Democrat-introduced bill in Congress to authorize contact tracing 'at individuals' residences.' Partners In Health's involvement will not assuage many fears, considering the group has received funding from George Soros and Bill Gates organizations and counts Chelsea Clinton on its board of trustees."

PIH's 2017 Form 990, posted on Guidestar.com, reported their annual revenue as $127,157,823. On May 1, in conjunction with the move toward contact tracking, 45 House Democrats, led by Rep. Bobby Rush (IL, 1^st Dis.), proposed HR 6666, entitled "Covid-19 Testing, Reaching, and Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act." The Bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. HR 6666's stated purpose is: "To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals' residences, and for other purposes."  The Bill, a short read, is found here. It suggests $100,000,000,000 (not a typo) funding for fiscal year 2020; and, of course, "such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal year 2021 and any subsequent fiscal year during which the emergency period continues."  

A population under observation needs immunity documentation

Politico.com announced, on April 10, that:

"Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, revealed Friday the federal government is considering issuing Americans certificates of immunity from the coronavirus, as the Trump administration works to better identify those who have been infected and restart the U.S. economy in the coming weeks. 'You know, that's possible,' Fauci told CNN's 'New Day,' when asked whether he could imagine a time when people across the country carry such forms of identification." "'I mean, it's one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who 'the vulnerable people are and not,' he said. 'This is something that's being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit, under certain circumstances.'" (bolding added)

In a related comment noted by NPR, Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said:

"People are looking at all the different modern technology that could be brought to bear to make contact tracing more efficient and effective. Are there more, if you will, say, tech savvy ways to be more comprehensive in contact tracing versus the old-fashioned way? You know, currently, these things are under aggressive evaluation."  

How far and how deep might this future medical surveillance go?  On May 12, Dr. Anthony Fauci dropped a hint when testifying before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions in a hearing about reopening America. He said:

"There's no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective." 

Think of that comment as the bookend of an earlier one Fauci made at the Georgetown University Medical Center just a few days before the Inauguration of Trump. Fauci's speech was titled "Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration." He said:

"There is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases."

"No question?" None? How did he know that for sure?

Series Conclusion

There is much left to address concerning SARS-CoV-2, best seen clear in the rearview mirror. For example:

• How did the reactions of Blue and Red state governors vary?
• How did America's religious organizations react when the Government closed them?
• What can we say about the role of the print, internet, televised, and social media?
• Is there a "new normal" ahead, and what is it?
• What is the impact on public and private schools, of all ages?
• What happens the next time there's a virus event?
• Was any traditional American freedom sacrificed never to return?
• How did the nation view the leadership of Donald J. Trump?
• And critical for geopolitical issues: Why and How did the virus originate?

Regarding the question in the series' title – "Pandemic, Plandemic, or Both" – that's for you to answer.   If you're willing, go to this site's comment board and write what you think.  This remains, despite all, a free country.