Published On: Fri, May 29th, 2020

Track and Trace, and the difference between Covid-19 and “from/with coronavirus”

Share This

Because the NHS always was about societal control, there should be no surprises that, yesterday in England, it launched a system that encourages people to inform on one another. Test and trace, or track and trace as some people are calling it, reads like a tool of authoritarianism the East German Stasi would deploy – although of course, the NHS can reasonably be compared to the Nazi SS, because (as previously explained) “it is in the lead in the cult by which Britain is tyrannised”.

Track and trace depends upon a person first informing on himself. In other words, on experiencing “coronavirus symptoms”, one must order a PCR test from the NHS. According to the advice (please note) the individual must commence “self-isolation” for 7 days, and anyone else in the same household must “self-isolate” for 14 days. A negative test result means that all in the household can cease “self-isolating”. A positive one means no change in terms of the “sheltering at home”. Additionally, the NHS will contact the person to interrogate him and acquire from him “the name, telephone number and/or email address of anyone [the ‘patient’ has]… had close contact with in the 2 days prior to… symptoms starting”.

For the innocents whose names are passed to the authorities, there is an expectation, after they have been contacted (the means will no doubt reflect the information obtained from the informant), to log on to an NHS website to communicate with the “test and trace” service. Alternatively, a “trained call handler” will provide instruction. Such an innocent is expected to “self-isolate” for 14 days starting from the last moment of contact with the informant. The expectation remains even if the innocent is not unwell – reasons are given on the NHS blurb, the reader should look them up for himself if he is interested. If the innocent has no symptoms, those who live with him aren’t expected to “self-isolate”. If symptoms are present, or develop, then fellow householders also must “self-isolate”, and the innocent is expected to order a test – which, even if it proves negative, won’t affect the continuation of the “self-isolation” until the 14 day duration has passed.

The bulk of this article is going to deal with an issue that should be a factor in a decision as to whether or not an individual should contact the NHS in the first instance, but there must, prior to that, be a word about the options available to any innocent, informed-upon party who doesn’t think that merely being expected to by the NHS is a good enough reason to comply.

There is an idea rumbling through the social media grapevine that the NHS has on its hands a major problem in terms of Data Protection. Usually, the subject of the data must consent to its being held and processed – and in that case, the contact to an informed-upon person in itself should conceivably be illegitimate. UK Government may have given itself emergency powers to override this right (the author hasn’t checked), and the Office of the Information Commissioner faints away when it encounters emergency powers. However, that doesn’t stop a person claiming a breach of data protection and refusing to cooperate, querying and even denying what is an uncorroborated accusation (the NHS contact tracer won’t reveal the name of the informant) and refusing to cooperate, or even simply refusing any participation whatsoever: phone calls hung up on, emails left unanswered, with no explanations given. The scheme relies on a person volunteering into it.

And as for the UK Government making the scheme mandatory, because it is in essence a Public Relations exercise (which is the impression one inevitably has when reading an account in the Daily Mail that exposes it as a shambles behind the facade of menace [one of the trained call handlers is revealed to be an ex-shop worker]), there is very little chance of that happening. To adjust the last sentence of the previous paragraph, the scheme relies on a person being conned.

The NHS, in its blurb, lists a number of symptoms, and explains that experience of at least one of them should move an individual to approach the scheme. Well, given that a high temperature and a cough on their own and even together could indicate a lot of things, there will be individuals who submit themselves, and people they have encountered in the course of their daily life, into a world of inconvenience when there really hasn’t been any need to do it. And so, for the benefit of people who might be tempted to trigger a case of track and trace, here follows an explanation, in the same vein as many others that have been offered here at FBEL, of the difference between Covid-19 and “from/with coronavirus” to help make sure that the track and trace scheme is only involved in monitoring genuine cases of the disease.

Here is a fundamental truth about Covid-19: unless a person has developed pneumonia in relation to SARS-COV to ACE2 binding at the lung, and this condition has led to death, it cannot be said of him that he died of Covid-19. Covid-19 is a specific illness, with specific mechanics that cause death. This is not a story that has been invented at this site. It is a fact regarding an observed condition, about which there is quite a lot of agreement as expressed in medical journal articles, irrespective of whether it is reported at FBEL or not.

There is no data readily available to know how many have died of this real Covid-19, but assuming that real Covid-19 patients will have had to have been treated in intensive care, the numbers released by ICNARC regarding deaths in critical care beds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland should provide a ball park figure. And in fact, as explained elsewhere at FBEL before, this number would potentially be too liberal because it includes deaths of patients with comorbidities.  If ever we could see the data, we might see proof that in fact Covid-19 deaths must at their root involve certain prescription drugs that cause a prevalence of ACE2 in the host, and in that way we would have a better idea of how many have died of Covid-19. The best guess is a number in the high hundreds to low thousands.

Because Covid-19 is most likely an illness relating to the terrain of the host, the reproductivity of SARS-COV, which is a feature that UK Government has linked to measures to mitigate the spread of the disease, is probably irrelevant. In fact, it might be said that it would be a matter of very bad luck for anyone, who would be a candidate for developing Covid-19 and dying of it, to catch SARS-COV. And by the way, at FBEL the custom to assign the coronavirus the name SARS-COV has emerged because it is felt that there is no proof of the existence of SARS-COV-2.

We see it said of Covid-19 that a high percentage of people – often cited at the 80% mark – who contract it don’t become seriously ill. Now, it must be understood that this statement is based on a misunderstanding of Covid-19. It is not referring on the whole to the real Covid-19. Instead, it is referring mostly to a faux “Covid-19”, which the reader will see routinely referred to as death “from coronavirus”.  Let us, then, rephrase the opening sentence of this paragraph: a high percentage of people who contract “from coronavirus” don’t become seriously ill.

“From coronavirus” is a term that is supposed to indicate death where an infection of SARS-COV has been instrumental. In the popular imagination, death “from coronavirus” is no doubt visualised as a case where a patient, perhaps weakened from another illness, also contracts what may be thought of as being flu-like symptoms that exacerbate the patient’s weakness and contributes to his demise. But this is not Covid-19.

The reader will no doubt have seen punditry also using the term “with coronavirus”, and this expression was meant to signify that a death had taken place and had been blamed on Covid-19, but the extent of the involvement of SARS-COV was limited to the patient being clinically diagnosed (by sight or report of symptoms) as being infected, or having been deemed as being infected by dint of a positive PCR test.

All that being understood, as we understand the very specific nature of Covid-19, it becomes clear that “with coronavirus” is only different from “from coronavirus” in terms of the development of a viral infection. “With coronavirus” is used in relation to a patient who does not exhibit the symptoms of viral illness, but yet dies of “Covid-19”. “From coronavirus” is used in relation to a patient who does exhibit the symptoms. But the bombshell revelation is that, in both cases, the viral illness doesn’t have to be, and probably isn’t, an infection of SARS-COV. We can say this because the PCR test is flawed, and can disguise the reality of the nature of a viral presence, or indeed an infection, in the host by a false positive result for SARS-COV.

Indeed, there is now growing mainstream recognition that most cases of “from/with coronavirus” are not Covid-19. Dr John Lee, who has lately been writing for Spectator, in his most recent outing, tells of how the UK Government’s changes to rules concerning death certification has created a situation where “we have no idea how many of the deaths attributed to Covid-19 really were due to the disease.” One would be hard pressed to find a more steady, middle-of-the road treatment of the subject matter than that of Lee’s, and yet he makes an astonishing statement: “So at a time when accurate death statistics are more important than ever, the rules have been changed in ways that make them less reliable than ever.”

What Lee is pointing to is an arrangement to make conditions conducive for confusion – or deception, as those less concerned about the professional ramifications of rocking the boat would call it. The condition, “from/with coronavirus”, which can be conjured from the conditions, is not Covid-19, but instead a smokescreen by which true Covid-19 death tally can be disguised and indeed distorted. It has been argued already, here at FBEL, that what the UK Government did was a deliberate act of engineering, and so there’s no need for any repetition along those lines.

However, what the reader will be asked to realise is that the track and trace system is about sustaining the grand deception regarding the distinction between Covid-19 and “from/with coronavirus”, and making the latter, in all its variety and relatively high incidence, look like the former, in all its scarcity. The illness that might compel a person to submit to the track and trace system will most likely be a cold or flu, which will become transformed into the disease “from/with coronavirus” via a dodgy PCR test. Then there will be a period of self-isolation where the patient suffering from the disease “from/with coronavirus” takes action to prevent the spread of a virus that he very likely hasn’t got, or if he has, is for all but a tiny minority of people not dangerous. Moreover, the innocents who are guilty by being informed upon will be expected to take action to prevent the spread of a virus that they probably haven’t caught either – or that isn’t dangerous either to them or to most people they encounter. Why would anyone want to instigate such a lot of terrible madness?

Further FBEL reading:

The Covid-19 science problem series:

Part One: for the sake of propaganda, there is no unified understanding of the disease (link).

Part Two: obesity theory won’t provide a solution no matter how hard it’s pushed (link).

Part Three: cover up, omission, muddle (link)

It's important to donate to FBEL - please see here to find out why
A PayPal account not required.