Monday, May 11, 2020

VIRUSES AND POLITICS



You may soon be visited by a “contact tracer” now being recruited by your state government, which is building armies of them. He or she could tell you that you’ve been in contact with a Covid-infected person and require that you be tested. They may even force you into stricter quarantine than you’re already enduring. It’s happening all over the country as you may have heard, but Maine and New Hampshire won’t need as many as Massachusetts which has far more Covid cases.


Though they have the same population, New Hampshire has twice the number of contact tracers (over sixty) than Maine has (thirty) for some reason. A former CDC Director says the entire United States needs 300,000. “The use of contact tracing is one of the oldest public health tactics, dating back centuries,” said Lori Tremmel Freeman, chief executive officer for the National Association of County and City Health Officials according to WebMD. It’s been employed at the start of almost every public health threat except one.


My last few columns have dealt with the politicization of Covid-19, but that’s nothing new for the CDC. Dr. Anthony Fauci speaks often of his experience from the earliest stages of the AIDS epidemic and is now advising the USA to implement contact tracing for Covid as a key element in the plan to reopen our economy. Try as I might, I cannot find any online reference to Fauci recommending contract tracing for AIDS. In a 2005 interview broadcast on NHPBS Fauci was asked: “What do you see as some of the missed opportunities [of dealing with AIDS] in the United States in the early years?” 

Homosexual activists blamed everybody but themselves
Fauci didn’t mention contact tracing in his response, but he did say: “It may have been better to be much more aggressive in those very early years about targeting populations, such as the gay population, about safe sex … But I can tell you, having been there, the gay population themselves were very reluctant to hear the safe-sex message, because they were concerned that they had just recently won their sexual liberation that they had fought so many years for, and they didn't want this disease to be used as a way to retarget them.”

Fauci folded under pressure
At an early AIDS conference, Fauci urged homosexuals to use condoms, but, “To my surprise, there were a considerable number of people in the audience who actually got up to the microphone and hooted me down like I was trying to impose my standards of sexual conduct on them.” Fauci hasn’t survived government service for over fifty years without being politically malleable, and he bent to pressure from homosexual activists early on.

Although HIV in the first decades of the epidemic was a death sentence, and the biggest vector for transmission was anal sex, Fauci didn’t seem to push for contact tracing. Writing in a 1993 edition of The Atlantic, Chandler Burr said that, just before the FDA approved first HIV test, two powerful homosexual lobbies filed petitions to prevent the CDC from screening homosexual men. The CDC buckled and declared it would only use HIV tests to screen the blood supply.

Ronald Bayer
"U.S. officials had no alternative but to negotiate the course of AIDS policy with representatives of a well-organized gay community and their allies in the medical and political establishments," wrote Ronald Bayer, a professor at the Columbia University School of Public Health. "In this process, many of the traditional practices of public health that might have been brought to bear were dismissed as inappropriate.” AIDS thus became the first politically-protected disease and Dr. Anthony Fauci was complicit.


Not only was contact tracing not practiced with the HIV-infected, it was actually forbidden. “During the first years of the disease,” said Burr, “legislation urged by civil libertarians [like the ACLU] prohibited physicians and public-health officials from notifying even the spouses of living people who had tested positive for HIV [emphasis mine], some of whom continued to have unprotected sex with their partners.” Evidently the ACLU was more worried about privacy rights of the HIV-infected than the very lives of their spouses. Is Fauci still more sensitive to political pressure than to science? You be the judge.

Governor Mills extends quarantine
Fauci is pushing it hard, but the efficacy of contact tracing for anyone who came within six feet of a Covid-19 infected person in an urban environment is questionable. Sex partners of the HIV-infected would have been much easier to locate, excepting anonymous bathhouse encounters.

37 comments:

KimBo said...

Not sure what the point of any of this is.

Nick Peace said...

This seems like an article intended to bash Fauci and/or homosexuals. Tom, wouldn't do that would he? ;)

HIV is completely different than Coronavirus/COVID-19 because of the transmission method and therefore the population at risk. HIV affected a pretty small section of the population. Coronavirus could affect everybody on the planet because everybody breathes.

It is also for that reason that I think that contact tracing is wishful thinking. Sure, maybe it will work in rural areas with low population densities. But in a major city? How many people visit a supermarket in a day, for example? And you are going to try to trace all those contacts and all their contacts? IMHO, it can spread way quicker than it can ever be traced.

CaptDMO said...

Contact tracer?
Let's just add that to the questionnaire for the Census, and minimize the number of
gub'mint employee paychecks drawn from the "budget" column, BEFORE it's simply shuffled to the National Debt column.

Brian said...

Tom is obsessed with homosexuality and rarely misses a chance to bash them or their lifestyle. It is a strange fixation.

Conservatives loved Fauci until he placed science over Trump's "hunches" and outright lies.

The Supreme Court decision on Trump's tax returns should be interesting. What is he so desperately trying to hide?

Reality Check said...

"In short, the Trump administration forced a catastrophic strategic surprise onto the American people. But unlike past strategic surprises—Pearl Harbor, the Iranian revolution of 1979, or especially 9/11—the current one was brought about by unprecedented indifference, even willful negligence."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/25/coronavirus-worst-intelligence-failure-us-history-covid-19/

Brian said...

Funny that Trump thinks the minions are ready to get back to work and co-mingle while he distances himself from Pence in his ivory tower.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-says-pence-will-keep-his-distance-from-trump

Funny that Trump is pushing to re-open on the early side when everything else was done too late - stopping Chinese people from entering AFTER the virus was in our country (like locking the door to your house after the intruder is already in) and having testing kits way too late, not when they would have been much more useful in the early days of spreading (and having the gall to brag about it!)

It is hard to conceive of a more incompetent, out of touch, dishonest leader.

Uber_Fritz said...

Brian, clearly you have all the answers and now is your chance to make them public. Specifically and with detail, please enlighten us as to your hypothetical course of action would have been. I don't want conjecture nor do I want speculation. Just provide a detailed plan including rough dates. Perhaps I can comprehend your argument if I read something concrete. By the way, recall that once Chinese people were infected they were immediately allowed to leave China and infect the rest of the world. So, Brian, here is your chance to be the "real" Commander in Chief." What have you got?

Brian said...

I never claimed to have ALL the answers. And it’s not just that I think I would have done a better job handling this crisis, I believe that almost anybody would have done a better job. I think any random person picked off the street would have done much better. Why? Because we would have known that we should listen to scientists and the other experts instead of letting a massive ego and politics get in the way. So, for your timeline:

Jan. 2017: After hearing the Obama transition team run me through an exercise for pandemic preparedness I would have taken it seriously and not instead proposed cutting pandemic-preparedness funding as Trump did in May 2017.

May, 2017: Warned again by Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence in written testimony before Congress about the seriousness and likelihood of a pandemic I would not have cut $1.35 billion of funding from a CDC program that monitors such health issues. I would have added to the funding.

April, 2018: I would not have fired Homeland Security Advisor Tom Bossert who had called for a comprehensive biodefense strategy against pandemics and biological attacks. I would have taken his advice.

May 2018 When Luciana Borio, NSC director of medical and biodefense preparedness, stated that “The threat of pandemic flu is the number one health security concern. Are we ready to respond? I fear the answer is no.” I would have made sure we were getting ready by making sure respirators and testing kits would be ready instead of disbanding the global health security team, which caused many, including senators and governors to warn Trump about downgrading the importance of global health security. I would have listened to them.

After receiving detailed plans by a medical manufacturer to create a new machine that would have the capacity to make protective masks at high speed specifically designed to handle pandemic-related medical shortages (part of the Obama-era preparedness plan) I would have followed through and actually done it.

October, 2019: After all those warning I would not have ended funding for PREDICT, a program designed to identify and prevent pandemics related to animal-born viruses.



Brian said...



When my advisors and health experts continually warned me to take the virus seriously in the first months of the year, I would have done so, instead of saying “we’re not worried at all. And we have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China.” I would have started letting the public know what they might expect and what actions might need to be taken. Not saying in a rally that it was “under control” at the same time WHO was declaring it a Public Health Emergency. I would tell the people the truth and let them know how important it was to avoid large gatherings, etc, not try and sell them fairy tales about it magically disappearing soon like a miracle.

In February I would have used the diagnostic tests made by WHO instead of stubbornly trying to develop our own (which had to be recalled and led to critical delays in testing)

At this point I would have invoked the Defense Production Act to require private companies to address shortages of medical masks, ventilators and other equipment; mobilized the military to construct field hospitals and organize testing centers around the country; and dispatched Navy hospital ships to New York and Los Angeles sooner.

It would not have taken me, or most anybody in charge, three more weeks of persuasion from experts that action such as closing businesses and social distancing would need to happen to control the spread.

March: I would have told the people the truth about testing rather than lying and saying anybody could be tested if they wanted. Although if I, or anybody other than Trump were in charge anybody COULD have been tested by that point.

Yes, with anybody but Trump in charge you would not have Dr. Fauci have to sadly say that “Obviously you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives. Obviously no one is going to deny that. If we had, right from the very beginning shut everything down, it may have been different.”

It could have been different. Everybody saw this coming and Trump ignored it until too late, focusing instead on the Dow Jones and his re-election prospects.

TRD said...

The US is warning China not to steal corona virus vaccine information? I don't get this. Why is there any info to steal? Wouldn't all studies and info be out in the open so that the world can collaborate and come up with a solution as soon as possible by working together? Can anybody explain this?

Unknown said...

Brian,

Your plans sound very sensible. When are you going to run office? You would get lots of votes. (smile)

Rohit Khamkar said...

Hey thanks for this amazing post. Would love to read more of such blogs. You can also have a look at Sri Lanka Visa Online for more information.

Kafir said...

The gay community is a protected class. We’re not supposed to say anything negative about their agenda of pushing the acceptance of their lifestyle on others. We have to walk on eggshells so as not to offend them or another protected class such as Muslims.

BUT, the list of federally protected classes was established to shield those on it from discrimination in housing. It does NOT mean they are immune from all criticism.

Brian said...

What exactly is the gay "agenda"? Living a healthy and happy life without being persecuted by the mean and ignorant? They are not "pushing" anything any more than straights. Just take a look at tv, ads, magazines,etc and how much glamorizing of straight sex you find. It's everywhere. Nobody has to walk on eggshells. You are free to criticize them those you are incapable of understanding. The self-pitying "woe-is-me, things are so unfair" whining that comes from conservative straight white men is pathetic. Stop being big babies and enjoy being one of the most privileged classes of people to ever exist.

Kafir said...

Haven’t we been told as nauseum that the gay lifestyle, particularly with regard to sex, is natural? So, why can’t they procreate? When did I say I’m I against them living a happy and healthy life? The issue is their objection to contact tracing even if they’ve contracted HIV. Why?

You missed my whole point....as usual. Just because a person is gay, it doesn’t mean he’s infallible or should be exonerated from all criticism.

Brian said...

NATURAL: existing in or caused by nature

"Same-sex pairing is not just normal in the animal kingdom - it's even common. Studies suggest that about 1,500 animal species are known to practice same-sex coupling - from insects, to fish, birds and mammals."

https://www.dw.com/en/10-animal-species-that-show-how-being-gay-is-natural/g-39934832

Does kissing cause procreation? Is kissing "natural"? Not sure what your point is there

Of course I missed your "point" about contact tracing as you never mentioned it in your post.

Kafir said...

Brian, So, now you are comparing the sexual activity of animals, insects, fish, birds and mammals with human beings?

I’m sure we disagree on topics 95% of the time. However, I’m 100% sure I don’t care.

Brian said...

Of course I am making that comparison, because humans are animals. That is a simple scientific fact. So you can disagree with whatever percentage of facts you want because I'm 100% sure I don't care how ignorant you are.

Kafir said...

Actually, Brian, humans are mammals. “Mammals have hair or fur, are warm blooded, most are born alive, the young are fed by the mother’s mammary glands and they have more complex brains than other animals.” The major exception to having complex brains are members of the current Democratic Party, especially the gaff machine, “Sleepy Joe”.

Brian said...

Wow, kafir. I don't know how to respond. That post was so absurdly ignorant that I don't feel right making fun of it.

Yes, Kafir, humans are mammals. Do you really not know that mammals are animals. Like dogs? Monkeys? They are mammals, surely you are not saying that they are not also animals. Like the human mammal. Wow. I feel like I am trying to explain something to a 4-year old. The same feeling I get when trying to explain all else to you. Maybe your brain is not complex enough for you to be considered a mammal?

Kafir said...

Yes, genius, humans are members of the animal kingdom with an intellect, but as mammals they’re categorized as Homo sapiens which in Latin means wise man. You’re the exception.

Getting a bit off topic, aren’t you? The whole point was that same sex partnerships do not produce offspring which is not natural. You can try parse or redefine the word all you want to suit your agenda, but it won’t change that fact. Good grief!

Brian said...

Let's back up and walk you through this.

You claimed the gay lifestyle is not natural because they couldn't procreate.
I explained the meaning of natural and showed how a gay lifestyle is common in nature.
You took offense that I was comparing humans to animals.
I explained to you that you humans ARE animals.
You said, "Actually, they are mammals"
I explained that mammals ARE animals.
You then ignored everything you just learned and jumped back to the gay lifestyle being unnatural because they can't procreate...
Right back where you started from.
So again....It is "natural" because many animals in nature have sex without reproducing. Things common in nature are "natural".
How can you not understand this?
Nothing I said is off topic about the naturalness of same sex partnership, nor did I redefine or parse anything. You are just choosing, once again, to ignore blatant facts because they don't jibe with your preconceived notions.

Kafir said...

So, when did you realize you were gay?

Brian said...

LOL

You perfectly display the common conservative mindset that it is inconceivable to defend something that you are not a part of. You are not a minority so you can't imagine defending them. What a sad way to live.

Personally, the thought of engaging in a homosexual act is very unappealing. Unlike Tom and others who think that homosexuality is a choice, I could never make that "choice". I just couldn't physically do it. I find it interesting that Tom and the rest can conceive of themselves making the choice and becoming aroused enough to engage in a homosexual act. To each their own.

So even though your homophobic, narrow-minded brain thought that insinuating I am gay was an insult, I do not take it as such.

I will not ask when you realized, because it is obvious you haven't yet, but I wonder when you will realize that you are a very ignorant person?

Kafir said...

So again, when was it you succumbed to the gay lifestyle? It’s OK to admit it in today’s culture.The marketing effort that started decades ago has now made sexual dysfunction acceptable. Come on; tell us. It’ll make you feel better.



Jared James Bristol said...

The field of psychology, prior to the homosexual revolution after the 70's (via HIV onset and gay parades, etc.) considered homosexuality as a "personality disorder". Neuroses, destructive mutations, and aberrant behaviors do occur in "nature" but they're not considered healthy, Bri-Bri. If it were healthy and we all took part, where would the human race be then? Simple question. One man, one woman, go forth and multiply...we hope you haven't.

Brian said...

Kafir, you are like talking with a brick wall. You certainly can't debate better than one.

Jar-Jar, prior to the "black revolution" blacks were considered to be property, or unequal to whites. Prior to the "women's revolution" women were considered unequal and not capable of voting. Prior to the "autism revolution" the field of psychology thought aversive punishment might cure autistic children. What is your point? That we return to these ignorant ways? Science and knowledge have improved. Are you a flat earther? Because before the "round earth" revolution...

As to your simple-minded question, the dopey hypothetical about "what if everybody did it....". What if everybody decided not to have kids? OK, so now you see that being gay is no more wrong than being a priest or otherwise not choosing to have kids. What if everyone since the beginning of humankind coupled and had 6 kids each? Earth couldn't contain them. So being gay is no more wrong than a couple who chooses to have 6 kids.

But maybe mother nature, or the Creator, has figured out just the right amount of homosexuality to put into the world. Maybe you are not smarter than the Creator.

One question for you, since I answered yours. Are you like Tom in that you could imagine yourself making the "choice" to be gay and physically perform a homosexual act?

Kafir said...

Two very intelligent gay activists, Marshall Kirk (a Harvard educated researcher in neuropsychiatry) and Hunter Madsen (held a doctorate in politics from Harvard and was an expert in public persuasion tactics and social marketing) wrote a defining book in the late 80’s to market homosexuality as “normal”. The title was, “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s”. Source: “The Marketing of Evil”, Ch. 1.

It’s not necessary to buy and read the book. Just reading the intro is sufficient.

https://www.amazon.com/The-Marketing-of-Evil-audiobook/dp/B01DAN632C/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=The+marketing+of+evil&qid=1589719182&s=books&sr=1-1

Unknown said...

This article analyzed the Trump’s presidency and U.S. positions in the world during the CONVID-19 from views of Australian government and people. It helps us to glimpse how allies see U.S currently.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/05/the-indispensable-nation-covid-19-tests-the-us-australian-alliance

Kafir said...

America is flailing? Ridiculous hit piece by The Guardian.

TRD said...

To the whole world outside of die-hard Trumpers America is flailing badly with their response.

Jar-Jar said...

Bri-Bri,
Being gay is not quite the same as a couple deciding not to have kids! Talk about simple minded. Brilliant, esteemed, psychological giants classified homosexuality as unhealthy. You, yourself are repelled by even considering taking part in homosexual acts. Good for you. I think you're healthy in that regard. Certainly not in your obcession with Tom's columns and your attempts to out "debate" conservatives who comment. Being gay cannot in any way be equated with being a priest (although many priests seem to be prone to homosexual predation of little boys) or choosing to not have kids. Not having kids for homosexuals is the result of expending one's gametes in completely unnatural/wrong/disgusting places. No, I could not choose to engage in homosexuality but a messed up child could, and a very small percentage do. They have no right to force the rest of us to accept and applaud their confusion. What they do is unhealthy. Pray tell how it's healthy?

Brian said...



Jar-Jar said: "Brilliant, esteemed, psychological giants classified homosexuality as unhealthy."

The key word here is "classified" being past tense. Tell me the percentage of todays brilliant, esteemed, psychological giants who would classify it this way. Again....what about the brilliant, esteemed, psychological giants who once thought you could punish the autism out of a child? Again....we have advanced from those archaic beliefs.

Here is the consensus among modern Psychologists from the American Psychological Association entitled "Being Gay Is Just as Healthy as Being Straight":

https://www.apa.org/research/action/gay

Sexual acts, gay or straight, are as healthy or unhealthy as one make them.

And when the argument was that homosexuality is wrong because of lack of procreation, then yes, it can be equated with priests or those that choose not to have children. For your information, there are such a thing as celibate homosexuals who don't spread their gametes anywhere. Are they unhealthy too?

You are stating that if you had swapped places with a child from a messed up situation then you might have chosen to be a homosexual? Interesting. But what about the majority of gays who were not "messed up" people, but raised in happy, "normal", sometimes religious or conservative households? They too "chose" to be gay? Could you also conceive of yourself being in their place and "choosing" to do gay acts? I don't think so. I know I couldn't. Because except for a tiny percentage who may be just bi enough to dabble or experiment, it is not a choice. It is often something they wish they could change about themselves, that they even commit suicide over. They would gladly be seen as "normal" by people like you to make things easier on themselves. Nobody is asking you to applaud them. Just don't yell slurs if you see them in the street, or drag them behind pick-ups, or chant "God Hates Fags" at them. Why do you care what "disgusting" things you imagine them doing in their bedrooms? How are they hurting you? Stop obsessing over them and get on with your own lives.


Kafir said...

Brian the Apologist. He apologizes for homosexuals. He apologizes for Muslims. He apologizes for fake refugees coming here for the freebies. He apologizes for “No Plan Jan” and the “Shills for Mills”. He apologizes for “The Squad”, for Comrade Bernie, “Sleepy Joe”, “Antoinette” Pelosi, “Shifty Schiff”, “Nasty Nadler”, “Slapsie Maxi” and so on.

What we don’t know is what Brian the Apologist actually stands for. Is he even an American citizen? Actually, who cares? No one pays attention to him except his commie friends.

Brian said...

I haven't apologized for gays...what would I be apologizing for? When did I apologize for Muslims, or refugees? I've never even mentioned Mills or the Squad or Pelosi or Schiff or Nadler, etc. You're just talking out of your a$$ because you don't know how to have real discussions.

I stand for America, the land of equal opportunity. Fantasizing about "commie friends" is like me talking about your KKK friends.

Get real.

Kafir said...

“Make a list of all the KKK Grand Dragons and Grand Kleagles from 1870 to today. 99% of them will have a “D” next to their name.” -Dinesh D’Souza

I’m a Constitutional conservative who typically votes for Republicans. I would say based on your brilliant posts that you vote primarily for Democrats.

Brian said...

I'm a Constitutional Progressive that is registered as an Independent and vote depending on the candidates merits, not their party. You are correct in assuming I could not bring myself to vote for such a morally repugnant character as Trump.

As for the KKK, you are like Jared, stuck to the past. Yes, the Republican party of the past was a great one. My grandfather was a very proud Republican. That changed shortly before his death with the corruption, greed and changing ways of the party.

In these more recent times we see the likes of David Duke as a Republican Party Chairman and neo-Nazi Holocaust denier Arthur Jones ran as a Republican candidate for Illinois’ 3rd Congressional District. And Russell Walker, a white supremacist just ran as a Republican for the state House of Representatives of NC. I could go on. But let's see you start listing some modern Democrat white supremacists.

It is quite obvious what type of people you vote for.