(Edited: September 13, 2020)

Coronavirus: Ontario elementary students to return full-time, hybrid learning for most high schools Streamed live on Jul 30, 2020

This was an Ontario government press conference focusing on the new school year.

36m30: Ontario’s deputy chief medical officer of health Dr. Barbara Yaffe answers a question about why testing isn’t mandatory for teachers

You know, I think a lot of people think that testing is going to really solve the whole problem and it isn’t. It’s one component of a response. If you test somebody today, you only know if they’re infected today, and in fact if you’re testing in a population that doesn’t have very much COVID, you’ll get false positives almost half the time. That is, the person actually doesn’t have COVID, they have something else, they may have nothing. So it will just complicate the picture. On the other hand, if we have evidence of a case, even a suspect case in a school, all the contacts of that case, be it a child or a teacher would be tested regardless of whether they’re symptomatic or not. That is something we’ve learned with COVID. It’s very important to do that. That is when we might be identifying people who are asymptomatic and infected that need to stay home and wait till they’re cleared by public health. Doing testing on all the teachers would be a huge amount of resources taken away from the need for quick access to testing when somebody may be symptomatic. We also need to do screening for symptoms and everybody needs to be educated about the symptoms to look for, and not go to work if you’re sick, or not go to school if you’re sick. Those are the things that are important along with hand washing, distancing, masking, all the things we’re talking about. Testing will not actually achieve anything other than take resources away from other places they need to be. Thank you “

Just to elaborate on all of this:

1. First of all, whoever is really listening, she just shattered the validity of COVID-19 testing. This is not new information. We have already hear this, but let’s get the word out. I don’t think they really care about the confusion this causes. Conditioning minds to accept confusion and contradictions seems to be part of the process (described in “1984”) of conditioning the public to stay consistent with the idea that truths and reality come directly from institutions (government, media, corporations), and not from nature, our senses and personal experience and judgment.

2. When they see “evidence” of a “case”, what does she mean? That could mean the magic list of never-ending symptoms for the only disease in existence (until they say otherwise), but she also means someone who tests positive, never mind what she just said the second before. She just doesn’t want all the teachers to be tested. I think that’s because they actually want one or two teachers to come in to work, that’s my guess, or they want to keep them all on edge-same with the children. Also, I think she wants them all contact-traced and as many children as possible also along with their families.

3. “All the contacts of that case” would be tested. That refers to a very important thing that has been introduced in our lives. I don’t know how many people have had to go through this, but we should all try to refuse to cooperate with this. This is just an elaborate excuse for setting up a spying and surveillance-informant system. Someday soon it will be for another reason other than COVID. She just said that the tests are useless in so many words and a waste, they’re 50-50 correct/incorrect. It doesn’t matter. It allows them an excuse to trace the person’s contacts. That’s what government resources are used for now–along with testing, even though she just said it was useless. It’s useless but it’s not. It’s ON and OFF at the same time.

4. So she says that the contacts will all be tested regardless of whether they’re symptomatic or not, even though the teachers won’t all be tested, but aren’t all the teachers at the school going to end up being contacts and contact-traced if one teacher presents “evidence”? And then all the families of those teachers and the families of many of the students too? The school year presents plenty of opportunities for the government to send “contact tracers” to peoples’ homes as the WHO talked about early on.

5. She emphasizes that “it’s very important,” we have “learned” that we need to do testing–because someone might be “ASYMPTOMATIC” – that means they have no symptoms–even though half of them will be false positives? But doing “that” (testing contacts) is very important? Getting 50% false positives is very important?

6. One reason she gives is that people will have to stay home from work! So staying home from work is the answer to all problems. How do the rules apply to “essential” workers? Do they have to be symptomatic to be told to stay home even if they test positive? It’s not clear to me. (https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/preventing-covid-19-workplace-employers-employees-essential-service-workers.html). That is just the start of a maze of contradictions if you try to make sense of all this.

So, if one of the cabinet ministers tests positive or has symptoms, then are they all, as contacts, told to stay home or are they all tested? And then would that mean that half didn’t really have COVID because she just said there were 50% false positives. How can the federal government keep doling out money forever? It won’t without conditions and rationing. The end of all this is the further destruction of the economy we are used to and the introduction of a new type of system. I think a major reason for testing people is to find “positive” “cases” and force as many people to stay home as possible with a minimal income so that they do not have anything saved up for the near future (in anticipation of a controlling universal basic income system). And a lot of the teachers would end up being tested anyway in this scenario and being told to stay home. The whole press conference sent the message that teachers didn’t need to come in if they didn’t want to. Most people don’t get the point yet of what’s being done to them. Our whole value system and world has been turned upside down in a few months. We are expected to make sense of all of this? Don’t try to do that too much. It’s nonsense. People have been brainwashed.

7. She literally says doing testing for all teachers would be a huge amount of resources taken away from doing testing when someone is symptomatic, even though she just got through talking about asymptomatic contacts being important. And how on earth are the teachers all going to avoid being contacts of someone who “has COVID” and not end up being tested?

8. So anybody with any kind of COVID symptoms – cold and flu symptoms and beyond–all sorts of symptoms–is told to stay home from work, and stay home from school. That’s the point. That’s what they want. One of the really bad scenarios here is that they’re not letting people do anything again until they have a “vaccine” or somehow they declare us “immune.” And then there will be all the other illnesses and “vaccines” next time around.

9. Everybody must be “educated” about something as simple-minded as COVID symptoms? Isn’t there anything else that has priority in our lives as far as education? Nothing? Wow. Standards have dropped. But the press conference is about “education.” What is anybody going to need that for? To read a card that says: “runny nose, sneezing, fever, rash, “positive”, . . “?

10. So the point at the end is the biggest of all. Testing takes up resources (after saying it gives 50-50 false positives), then she disses testing and says it takes resources away from where they need to go! Well, to effectively treat patients with cancer, diabetes and other illnesses? No? You mean resources that need to go to educating people about how to be scared of COVID and how to wash their hands and tell if they have a runny nose or headache or not, so they can stay home?

I think people who can see the problem need to focus their resources on two things: 1) educating and trying to reason with people, including officials of all kinds (government, media, corporations) and 2) planning how to help each other survive the winter with this economy.

I notice how the press conference is presented. Because of the “physical distancing”, it becomes an elaborately choreographed presentation of standing in the right place. It gives off a sense of unreality. It’s like a display of power, like soldiers going through an elaborate drill ceremony for a superior officer, a ‘higher’ cause. When does it end? Possibly they will try to force people to surrender the old system of rights and freedoms, and submit to regular “vaccines” and immunity passports.

---