The comments below are in response to a CDC article entitled, Operational Considerations for Humanitarian Settings. As citizens with sovereign rights, we need to be aware of the “operational considerations” being discussed by policymakers & influencers, because there is not ONE reference to, or acknowledgement of, the individual right of self-determination or rights of families to make decisions for themselves.
Leave it to the public health theorists, who truly believe it’s their job to war-game these scenarios (and then make our decisions for us) to miss the obvious.
Like, for instance, the fact that things rarely turn out optimally. Their planning should not only acknowledge that reality, but the ACTUAL final plan should assume bad stuff happens and reflect that reality in its design.
But alas, that’s not what we get with Green Zone Shielding Approach to those at high risk for COVID19.
As a person with common sense and a hopeful future, you would not store kindling in same box as flammable accelerants. Nor, would you stow all weapons & ammunition in same cache; or invest all funds in the same asset class. No, you wouldn’t protect your precious resources that way; you would minimize your risk by using strategies designed to diversify, shield, obscure your cargo from theft, devaluation or damage.
To be fair, the CDC acknowledges…“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.” They seem confident that careful central planning can mitigate that risk.
So here’s an excerpt from a CDC article about humanitarian issues pertaining to shielding approaches for those at high-risk for COVID. The article’s stated purpose was to give the CDC’s perspective on and challenges to…“implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings.”1,2
It goes on to state, “High-risk individuals would be temporarily relocated to safe or “green zones” established at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level…”
- “Neighbors “swap” households to accommodate high-risk individuals.”
- “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.”
- “No movement into or outside the green zone.”
- “Plan for an extended duration of implementation time, at least 6 months.”
- “Ensure safe and protective environments for all individuals, including minors and individuals who require additional care whether they are in the green zone or remain in a household after the primary caregiver or income provider has moved to the green zone.”
Note the focus on “camps, displaced populations and low resource settings.” No one should be comfortable with the historical images conjured up by that quote. Need I say more?
In the summary section, the CDC authors admit the shielding approach is “ambitious” but offer no proof of concept.
Specifically they state, “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.”
What could possibly go wrong?
Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings | CDC