“Omicron: such a joke that South Africa is about to dump all contact tracing and quarantine” – and complimentary articles

by Alex Berenson, Dec. 19, 2021

Scientists advising the government of South Africa – where Omicron is now the dominant strain – say tracing and quarantining the contacts of infected people is a waste of time. This cool-headed advice is exactly the opposite of the panic in wealthy European countries (and certain blue states).

Of course – unlike wealthy European countries – South Africa has tens of millions of extremely poor people. It can no longer afford to engage in viral theater to satisfy public health fanatics over a strain that looks more and more like a cold. The prospect of nationwide food riots will tend to concentrate the mind.

[NB – this is an important point: while governments are focusing so much time and money on Covid-19, they’re neglecting many more important issues that deserve their time and attention. If they were good public servants, they’d focus on what matters.]

Source. From the article:

  • Ministerial Advising Committee [of South Africa] says the tracing and quarantining of contacts of Covid-19 cases is no longer necessary.
  • In a memo to Health Minister Joe Phaahla, it said the proportion of people with immunity to Covid-19 had risen substantially.
  • It added that quarantining of contacts was no longer viable in the current social and economic climate.

A few of the 200 comments by readers on the thread:

This news will never make it into the mainstream. As Edward Bernays said: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, we are dominated by a relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”The cartel is firmly in control of the messaging.”

We are both prey and predator animals. Prey animals have a simple algorithm for survival whether it is by school, swarm, flock, herd, troop, or Karen: do what the guy next to you does – even if off the cliff. To separate requires courage – a virtue that must be nurtured.

Wise words! We may not or may not have herd immunity, but we certainly have a herd mentality.

It’s also an attack on humanity. A species-ending attack, by the looks of it, this time.I’m always reminded of Idiocracy except it’s not something caused by the working class, but by the upper class.

This will all devolve into PSAs to get annual FLU and Covid Shots by next fall. Then endemic stupidity takes over.

I’m not so sure the public is buying. Booster uptake is around 32%. Way down from the initial (dose #1) of 85%. See here.


There are several embedded articles within the comments worth sharing:

(1) The media – both news and entertainment – have now politicized nearly everything in our society. It is a mechanism of control. They are effective at manipulating the populace because most people emotionally connect their personal belief system to that of a political party [i.e., tribalism] so that any attack on their party is interpreted by their brain as an attack on themselves. Reason and logic are then abandoned as emotion takes the helm, making us susceptible to controlling influences. This is now being harnessed for the largest PSYOP in history. It is unfolding before our eyes. Source.


(2) This is Your Brain on Terrorism by Brian McGlinche, July 23, 2013 [edited]

[NB – this analysis could as easily apply to how our brains respond to the manufactured Covid crisis]

Should we surrender constitutionally-enshrined liberties for the government’s promise of security against terror? Unfortunately, our ability to reach a rational decision on this question is hampered by an aspect of human nature: the homo sapien brain is wired to assess potential threats with a greater degree of emotion (namley fear) than reason. As a result, we’re susceptible to extreme exaggeration of the threat of terrorism [and now, it seems, disease] As a result, we as a species make bad bargains, trading away essential freedoms for the illusion of security.

Our tendency to miscalculate based on fear is in our DNA. A New York Times piece aptly titled Scaring Us Senseless says “Terrorism exploits three glitches in human nature, all related to the management and perception of unusual events. The first and key among these has been observed over the last two decades by neurobiologists and behavioral scientists.” [Now the NYT, ironically, exploits that weakness in our nature by spreading an irrational fear of a disease that has very little chance of harming most of us]

As much as we think of ourselves as rational animals, risk avoidance is not governed by reason, cognition or intellect, but by emotions. When assessing the terror threat, our ability to reason is further undermined by availability bias, the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of events that are more available in our memory banks. Since availability is amplified by the emotional impact of an event and how often we hear about it, our views on terrorism are especially prone to manipulation by the media. Long ago, when human self-preservation was focused on perils like snakes and rival tribes, emotion- and memory-fueled threat assessment served us well. Today, in an era of 24-hour cable news networks and social media, it is detrimental to us. [NB – The same thing is going on today with Covid-19]


(3) Biosecurity and Politics, by Giorgio Agamben, May 05, 2020 [edited]

What’s striking about the reactions to the exceptional [Covid-19 ‘pandemic’] measures implemented in our country [Italy] is the inability to observe them beyond the immediate context in which they operate. Rare are those who try, as a serious political analysis would require, to interpret them as symptoms and signs of a wider experiment, a new paradigm.

In the book Tempêtes Microbiennes (Gallimard 2013), Patrick Zylberman describes the process by which health security, which until now has remained on the margins of political calculations, has becoming an essential part of state and international political strategies. At issue is nothing less than the creation of a sort of “health terror” as an instrument to govern what was defined as the worst-case scenario.

It is according to this worst-case logic that as early as 2005 the World Health Organization announced “two to 150 million deaths from incoming avian influenza.” This suggested a political strategy that states were not then prepared to embrace.

Zylberman shows that the strategy being suggested consists of three parts: (1) construction, on the basis of a possible risk, of a fictitious scenario, in which data are presented in such a way as to encourage behaviors that allow governing an extreme situation; (2) adoption of the logic of the worst as a regime of political rationality; (3) the integral organization of the body of citizens in such a way as to reinforce adherence to government institutions to the maximum, producing a kind of superlative civicism in which imposed obligations are presented as evidence of altruism and the citizen no longer has a right to health but rather becomes legally obliged to ensure health (biosecurity).

What Zylberman described in 2013 has now actually occurred. It is clear that, beyond the emergency situation related to a certain virus that may in the future be succeeded by another, what is at issue is the design of a paradigm of government whose effectiveness far exceeds [a degree of control over lives] that of all forms of government that have been known so far in the political history of the West.

If already, in the progressive decline of ideologies and political beliefs, the reasons of security had allowed citizens to accept limitations of freedom that they were not previously willing to accept, biosecurity has proved capable of presenting the absolute cessation of all political activity and all social relations as the highest form of civic participation.

It was thus possible to witness the paradox of left-wing organizations, traditionally accustomed to claiming rights and denouncing violations of the [Italian] Constitution, accepting without reservation limitations on freedoms decided by ministerial decrees, devoid of any legality and which not even [Italian] fascism had ever dreamed of being able to impose.

[NB – This is true all over: Leftist have essentially embraced fascism everywhere now]

It is evident — and the same government authorities never cease to remind us of this — that so-called “social distancing” [and now, mandatory vaccines] will become the model of the politics that awaits us. As the representatives of a so-called task force, whose members are in an obvious conflict of interest with the function they should exercise, have announced, they will take advantage of this “distancing” to substitute digital technological devices everywhere for human relationships in their physicality, which have become as such suspected of contagion (political contagion, of course). [He is talking about contact tracing through electronic devices]

University lectures will be given from next year onwards permanently online. We will no longer recognize each other by looking at each other’s faces (which may be covered by a mask) but via digital devices that will use biological data compulsorily taken. And any “gathering”, whether it is done for political reasons or simply for friendship, will continue to be prohibited.

At issue is an entire conception of the destiny of human society in a perspective that in many ways seems to have taken over from religions, now in their twilight years, the apocalyptic idea of an end of the world.

After politics had been replaced by economics, now, in order to be able to govern, this too will have to be integrated with the new paradigm of biosecurity, to which all other needs will have to be sacrificed. It is legitimate to wonder whether such a society will still be able to call itself ‘human’, or whether the loss of sensitive relationships, of the face, of friendship, of love can really be compensated by an abstract and presumably completely fictitious ‘health security.’

[NB – Now this has developed into exclusion of a segment of healthy people from society – those being scapegoated, which is another analysis]

1 Comment

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s