Reader Question: Contact Tracing?

Here’s the latest reader question, along with my reply!

Tom asks: I know that contact tracing is very bad, but could use a lucid explanation to use, and a description of the dastardly concept, its ramifications, and its consequences. Thanks!

My reply: Contact tracing means what it sounds like it does. The idea is to trace anyone who has had contact with a known “case” of Corona (not the beer in the refrigerated section of the supermarket). The means by which they do this range from the old-fashioned to the state-of-the art, as by chipping people to monitor – and trace – their movements.  The less high-tech methods include making people give their names when dining at a restaurant, as a for-instance – and then tracing them if later someone at that restaurant tests positive for Corona.

Many worrisome issues attend, the obvious being the Orwellian surveillance implications but also this business of presuming anyone who got within six feet of a “case” is a de facto “case” himself. This can and I believe already is being used to force-quarantine people who aren’t sick – because they might be – because they may have been near someone who may have been sick, even if they weren’t showing symptoms.

A “positive” test is all it takes – even though these tests are known to be hugely unreliable, registering “positive” when the person isn’t.

The fundamental danger here is the premise of presumptive sickness and asserted mass death, i.e., you are guilty of something in the absence of evidence that you are and even evidence of innocence – so to speak – is irrelevant.

“Someone” might be sick. “Granny” – an archetype – might die.  Therefore, everyone must be Diapered, Vaccinated and real-time Traced.

. . .