Baltimore City attempts to use contact tracing and is having difficulty because people are not answering the calls. Yipee!!! Keep doing that!! The more we civilly disobey the less fear we will succumb to.
However, notice in the video that Dr Greenbaum indicates that contact tracing is already being done for other diseases and conditions. Really?? Which ones? (This is an attempt to diminish the fear and to continue to increase the control, by suggesting the control is commonplace, it happens all the time.)
Now you can help your friends and family by suddenly forgetting their contact information or by suddenly realizing that they were always 10 feet away from you. It is time that we start, right now, start protecting the others around us. If you fall victim to this tactic because you were tested and it happened to be positive, or because you were called and happened to pick up, please seriously consider stopping the spread of the tracing right now, right here with you. Don’t be a part of their control scheme.
Greenbaum also points out that a contact is defined as someone who was within 6 feet for a “prolonged period of time”. Now Collins dictionary defines that to be A prolonged event or situation continues for a long time, or for longer than expected. So what is a long time? And how about – longer than expected. This is your out folks! If you expect to be in contact with someone for 3 – 4 hours or 3 – 4 days, that is not prolonged period of time according to the dictionary definition, because it is expected!
So what does the CDC say is prolonged period of time?
***Data are insufficient to precisely define the duration of time that constitutes a prolonged exposure. Recommendations vary on the length of time of exposure but 15 min of close exposure can be used as an operational definition. In healthcare settings, it is reasonable to define a prolonged exposure as any exposure greater than a few minutes because the contact is someone who is ill. Brief interactions are less likely to result in transmission; however, symptoms and the type of interaction (e.g., did the person cough directly into the face of the individual) remain important. (Emphasis mine.)
Please take notice first to the inconsistencies in their definition and that it is not based on anything because there is not sufficient data to base it on anything. Then they go onto give the example did the person cough directly into the face! Wow you have to have that much contact in order to get this? So if I coughed onto your arm that is not very risky? That’s the way I read this otherwise why would they give such a dramatic example? If you didn’t need to be so directly contacted as being coughed directly into your face, then they would have given a lesser example like if they coughed while sitting across the table from you. Tables are usually only 32 – 34 inches, and the last time I checked that is much shorter than 6 feet by about 3 feet. So do you start to see the inconsistencies in their definitions? It’s no wonder everyone is afraid, because they are confused!
So there you have it more definitive guidelines from the center of confusion, inaccuracies and random forecasts. The very fact that they (CDC) can’t be precise in their guidelines and definitions should be a red flag that we are not getting the truth, that there are more agendas behind these processes then there are truth about safety as being claimed. As you wake up, please wake up the person standing next to you, and get close! You know now that you can!!