Emergency Update: CDC Updates Plan to Quarantine Citizens in Camps, Admits No Evidence for Intervention, FEMA Conducting Classes for Widespread Rural Quarantine Program:
Recommended Companion Blog: Extensive Issues with Vaccine Safety Documented in Last Week's Headlines, Several Teen Death Reported, Media Silence:
Sharing post sent in by blog reader with notes from sender:
The CDC has come out with a plan that focuses on segregating our elderly and 'high risk' populations from society. Medical segregation is a tactic of war utilized in Nazi Germany, and all citizens should denounce public health agencies plans to turn our homes, neighborhoods, and communities into segregated zones. This is the language of war, not public health protection.
The document admits it has NO EVIDENCE for such actions as a means to contain spread of disease:
(go to web page for full document, this post features highlights)
Updated July 26, 2020
Intro (no evidence for intervention)
"This document presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.1,2
This approach has never been documented and has raised questions and concerns among humanitarian partners who support response activities in these settings. The purpose of this document is to highlight potential implementation challenges of the shielding approach from CDC’s perspective and guide thinking around implementation in the absence of empirical data.
What is the Shielding Approach1?
The shielding approach aims to reduce the number of severe COVID-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (“high-risk”) and the general population (“low-risk”).
High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level depending on the context and setting.1,2 They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.
Current evidence indicates that older adults and people of any age who have serious underlying medical conditions are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.3 In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.4,5 For this reason, the shielding approach suggests physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population to prioritize the use of the limited available resources and avoid implementing long-term containment measures among the general population.
In theory, shielding may serve its objective to protect high-risk populations from disease and death. However, implementation of the approach necessitates strict adherence1,6,7, to protocol. Inadvertent introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission among the most vulnerable populations the approach is trying to protect.
Plan is LONG TERM DURATION:
Consideration: Plan for an extended duration of implementation time, at least 6 months.
Explanation: The shielding approach proposes that green zones be maintained until one of the following circumstances arises: (i) sufficient hospitalization capacity is established; (ii) effective vaccine or therapeutic options become widely available; or (iii) the COVID-19 epidemic affecting the population subsides.
Given the limited resources and healthcare available to populations in humanitarian settings prior to the pandemic, it is unlikely sufficient hospitalization capacity (beds, personal protective equipment, ventilators, and staff) will be achievable during widespread transmission. The national capacity in many of the countries where these settings are located (e.g., Chad, Myanmar, and Syria) is limited. Resources may become quickly overwhelmed during the peak of transmission and may not be accessible to the emergency affected populations.
Vaccine trials are underway, but with no definite timeline. Reaching the suppression phase where the epidemic subsides can take several months and cases may resurge in a second or even third wave. Herd immunity (the depletion of susceptible people) for COVID-19 has not been demonstrated to date. It is also unclear if an infected person develops immunity and the duration of potential immunity is unknown. Thus, contingency plans to account for a possibly extended operational timeline are critical"
NO EVIDENCE FOR INTERVENTION
"The shielding approach is an ambitious undertaking, which may prove effective in preventing COVID-19 infection among high-risk populations if well managed. While the premise is based on mitigation strategies used in the United Kingdom,24,25 there is no empirical evidence whether this approach will increase, decrease or have no effect on morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 epidemic in various humanitarian settings.
This document highlights a) risks and challenges of implementing this approach, b) need for additional resources in areas with limited or reduced capacity, c) indefinite timeline, and d) possible short-term and long-term adverse consequences.
Public health not only focuses on the eradication of disease but addresses the entire spectrum of health and wellbeing. Populations displaced, due to natural disasters or war and, conflict are already fragile and have experienced increased mental, physical and/or emotional trauma.
While the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings. As with many community interventions meant to decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, compliance and behavior change are the primary rate-limiting steps and may be driven by social and emotional factors. These changes are difficult in developed, stable settings; thus, they may be particularly challenging in humanitarian settings which bring their own set of multi-faceted challenges that need to be taken into account".
No evidence for effectiveness and forcing family segregation in household, neighborhoods, and communities is stated as 'not meant to be coercive'. It couldn't GET more coercive.
Update: Reader just sent in documentation of class for large scale rural quarantine administered by FEMA/DHS training provider:
This 8.0-hour, instructor-led course is designed to provide the knowledge necessary to begin planning for situations requiring the isolation and quarantine (I&Q) of a large portion of a local, rural population. This training will provide public- and private-sector emergency managers, community policy makers, public health, and public safety personnel with the general knowledge necessary to begin planning for situations requiring the isolation and quarantine of a large portion of a local, rural population. A rural community’s ability to collectively respond to an emergency requiring isolation and quarantine is not only essential to minimizing the negative impacts to the community at risk, but also to minimizing the long-term negative economic and health effects on the American public as a whole. Register for a class by selecting a class date from the Training Schedule, click on the Registration link above the course description to access a registration form for that class. Request a new class to be scheduled in your area by submitting a Request a Course form.
Share this with all family and friends. Our government has now documented a plan to enact mass medical segregation , in a document that ADMITS there is no empirical evidence to support its implementation as effective for preventing the spread of disease. Sars CoV2 diagnosis is based on testing which public health organization evidence and international panel peer review deem 'useless' for detection of the virus. The FDA has just quietly announced it is pulling Emergency Use Authorization for PCR tests by the end of the year.
Vera Sharav , Child Holocaust Survivor Warns About Covid-19 Policy Medical Segregation Policies: