#Science proves that I was right (about the need for RFID chips in humans for COVID-19 surveillance)

From a physician friend, “Government’s 14-day quarantine policy is ‘fundamentally flawed’, groundbreaking report finds” (Telegraph):

The 14-day quarantine introduced by the [UK] Government is the least effective of all strategies to prevent the spread of Covid into the community, a groundbreaking study has found.

The research showed the longer the quarantine, the higher the rates of people not complying and so the greater the risk of an infected person spreading the virus into the community,

The calculations were based on modelling, confirmed by the Government’s own SAGE advisers, that as few as 28 per cent of asymptomatic individuals comply with quarantine, and just 71 per cent of those with symptoms. By contrast, Public Health England assumed a compliance rate of 100 per cent.

What would the right strategy be, according to #Science?

It found the most effective strategy for preventing further transmission of coronavirus was testing arrivals three days into quarantine and freeing them from it if the results were negative.

But this strategy is only optimum because of human noncompliance:

“But it also shows that the current 14-day quarantine policy is fundamentally flawed in ignoring human behaviour and compliance with the rules.

Thus, #Science actually proves that RFID chips in the necks of college students is the best strategy. If the healthy are quarantined, then we’re talking about a society in which civil liberties are less important than fighting the War on COVID-19. Why do things by half measures, then? Chip the citizens, residents, and visitors in the UK and #SaveLives!

Related:

7 thoughts on “#Science proves that I was right (about the need for RFID chips in humans for COVID-19 surveillance)

  1. My mother (in England) told me recently of a friend who lives in north Wales, and went across the border to England to do some shopping. Shortly afterwards the friend was issued a fine, by mail, of 1,000 pounds (about $1,300) for breaking lockdown restrictions. The authorities had matched the credit card transaction in England against the home address in Wales to detect the transgression. So chips aren’t necessary to erode civil liberties …

  2. Meanwhile, patients of the mindset here are literally dying while protesting that the disease is not real, rather than saying goodbye or being comforted. Now that’s commitment!

  3. I don’t know whether putting chips in people’s necks will help anyone in the health care system in Massachusetts, which appears to be completely overwhelmed by simple things like returning phone calls and keeping (or canceling) appointments and letting people know. I missed a third treatment session today for an illness – drove 45 minutes, walked up to an office that was bolted shut with nobody inside. Another hapless soul walked up after me. He said: “I can’t believe this. They *told* me to be here today.”

    Call the number, everything goes to voicemail boxes which are full. “Please hang up.”

    Travel another 45 minutes to a second office of the practice, just on the off chance someone, anyone is there. Office is dark, one car in the parking lot. I walk up to the door anyway. A receptionist is indeed there, in the back, with the light on. I knock on the door. She timidly approaches the door and opens it a crack, as though I might be there to firebomb the place. I tell her the story. She takes the info. and goes back inside. “I’ll call you.”

    Twenty minutes later: “They should have told you Thursday at 2:30. Not Tuesday. Our mistake. The office is closed until tomorrow because one person tested positive.”

    So they can track people all they want, but apparently cannot manage to use their appointment scheduling and robocall notification systems properly, regardless of whatever else they know. So it goes.

  4. Just put anyone who disagrees in prison.

    https://sg.news.yahoo.com/prison-recommended-chinese-citizen-journalist-040218530.html

    “Zhang is currently held at a detention centre in Shanghai where she began to refuse food in the second month of her arrest. “She was initially being force-fed and put on drips when she first started the hunger strike as she demanded to be released unconditionally,” according to a source.”

    Mimi Lau
    Tue, 17 November 2020, 11:02 pm GMT-5·3-min read
    Shanghai-based citizen journalist and ex-lawyer Zhang Zhan could face four to five years in prison for reporting on the coronavirus pandemic in Wuhan earlier this year, sources familiar with her case said.

    Zhang, 37, was arrested in mid-May by Shanghai police for allegedly “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”, a catch-all charge often used by authorities to muzzle dissent.

    Shanghai Pudong district prosecutors have recommended the maximum penalty for Zhang, citing previous offences in 2018 and 2019, according to official documents seen by the South China Morning Post.

    Get the latest insights and analysis from our Global Impact newsletter on the big stories originating in China.

    “She is now being accused of fabricating malicious and false information about the coronavirus pandemic in Wuhan and accepting interviews with overseas media,” a source said.

    Zhang, whose trial could start as early as next month, has maintained her innocence and insisted she should be released unconditionally, according to sources, who declined to be identified because of fears of retribution. “Her family and friends are gravely concerned that she will receive a heavy sentence because of her defiance,” one source said.

    Zhang is currently held at a detention centre in Shanghai where she began to refuse food in the second month of her arrest. “She was initially being force-fed and put on drips when she first started the hunger strike as she demanded to be released unconditionally,” according to a source.

    “Her cell mates eventually were told to feed her and she later resumed eating on her own.”

    Zhang travelled to Wuhan – where the first coronavirus cases were reported late last year – in February and live-streamed what she saw there on social media platforms, including Twitter and YouTube which are both blocked in China.

    “She also wrote an article critical of the official response to the outbreak in Wuhan, accusing the government of imposing measures which infringed on people’s rights, and questioned whether authorities had covered up the severity of the outbreak. Zhang also spoke out against censorship by the mainstream media.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.