12bytes says: As you read through the garbage proposed by these psychopathic morons, keep in mind that all of this has absolutely nothing to do with 'the virus', much less the welfare of the 99.7+% of people that will never suffer death or long term repercussions from it. It is critical that individuals and business owners push back against this bullshit, push back now, and push back hard! For more information about this global hoax, read Coronavirus (COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2) news and resources.
"If you don't agree with Authority, no matter what deductive process/evidence used... this is now a mental disorder." -- Ethical Skeptic (source)
"[...] no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available [...]" -- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 13-Jul-2020 (source)
"It's a disease so powerful you have to get tested to know whether or not you have it." -- Ryan Dawson, researcher, activist, Anti-Neocon Report (ANC) (source)
"The truth is [...] this is a crime against humanity. This is happening all over the world and America needs to take a leadership role and stop the countries like ours that are limiting hydroxychloroquine. It's killing people not to have access." -- Simone Gold, MD, JD, FABEM, Board Certified Emergency Physician (source)
"Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus [...]" -- U.S. Surgen General (source)
"By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain." -- Russell Blaylock, MD (source)
"The level of stupidity going on here is amazing." -- Michael Levitt, biophysicist, professor of structural biology, Nobel laureate, Stanford University (source)
"Hardly anyone has died from COVID-19." -- Dr. Rashid A. Buttar, DO, FAAPM, FACAM, FAAIM (source)
"[The PCR test is] as good as that Scientology test that detects your personality and then tells you need to give all your money to Scientology." -- Dr. David Rasnick, Ph.D., Biochemist, Protease Inhibitor developer, University of California (source)
"COVID-19 PCR tests are scientifically meaningless" -- Bulgarian Pathology Association (source)
"[Surgical masks/cloth face coverings] Will not protect the wearer against airborne transmissible infectious agents due to loose fit and lack of seal or inadequate filtration." -- OSHA, COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions (source)
"There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles." -- Denis G. Rancourt, Ph.D, Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca) (source)
"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection."-- New England Journal of Medicine (source)
"It’s all bullshit […] It’s all exaggerated. It’s an acute respiratory disease with minimal mortality […] Why has the whole world been destroyed?" -- Dr Alexander Myasnikov, Russia's head of coronavirus information (source)
"These people are not dying from Covid." -- Erin Marie Olszewski, registered nurse, Iraq combat veteran, Elmhurst hospital, New York (source)
"If a patient with a knife sticking out of their chest had sneezed within 14 days of their death then they died of coronavirus." -- Dr. Vernon Coleman (source)
Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings | CDC
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.
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.
A summary of the shielding approach described by Favas is shown in Table 1. See Guidance for the prevention of COVID-19 infections among high-risk individuals in low-resource, displaced and camp and camp-like settings 1,2 for full details.[...]
A group of shelters such as schools, community buildings within a camp/sector (max 50 high-risk individuals per single green zone) where high-risk individuals are physically isolated together.
One entry point is used for exchange of food, supplies, etc. A meeting area is used for residents and visitors to interact while practicing physical distancing (2 meters). No movement into or outside the green zone.[...]
Dedicated staff need to be identified to monitor each green zone. Monitoring includes both adherence to protocols and potential adverse effects or outcomes due to isolation and stigma. It may be necessary to assign someone within the green zone, if feasible, to minimize movement in/out of green zones.[...]
Even with community involvement, there may be a risk of stigmatization.11,12 Isolation/separation from family members, loss of freedom and personal interactions may require additional psychosocial support structures/systems.[...]
Additionally, many camps and settlements host multiple nationalities which may require additional separation, for example, Kakuma Refugee Camp in Kenya accommodates refugees from 19 countries.16
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.[...]
Separating families and disrupting and deconstructing multigenerational households may have long-term negative consequences. Shielding strategies need to consider sociocultural gender norms in order to adequately assess and address risks to individuals, particularly women and girls. 18,19,20 Restrictive gender norms may be exacerbated by isolation strategies such as shielding. At the household level, isolating individuals and limiting their interaction, compounded with social and economic disruption has raised concerns of potential increased risk of partner violence. Households participating in house swaps or sector-wide cohorting are at particular risk for gender-based violence, harassment, abuse, and exploitation as remaining household members may not be decision-makers or responsible for households needs.18,19,20
Consideration: Plan for potential disruption of social networks.
Explanation: Community celebrations (religious holidays), bereavement (funerals) and other rites of passage are cornerstones of many societies. Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.21,22
Consideration: Ensure mental health and psychosocial support*,23 structures are in place to address increased stress and anxiety.
Explanation: Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.[...]
Household-level shielding seems to be the most feasible and dignified as it allows for the least disruption to family structure and lifestyle, critical components to maintaining compliance. However, it is most susceptible to the introduction of a virus due to necessary movement or interaction outside the green zone, less oversight, and often large household sizes. It may be less feasible in settings where family shelters are small and do not have multiple compartments.[...]
The shielding approach is intended to alleviate stress on the healthcare system and circumvent the negative economic consequences of long-term containment measures and lockdowns by protecting the most vulnerable.1,24,25 Implementation of this approach will involve careful planning, additional resources, strict adherence and strong multi-sector coordination, requiring agencies to consider the potential repercussion among populations that have collectively experienced physical and psychological trauma which makes them more vulnerable to adverse psychosocial consequences.