Posted in big government, CDC, Dependency, Education, Government Regulations, Liberty, Organizational structure, Patient Choice, Patient Safety, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Prevention, Protocols, Rule of Law, Uncategorized

The CDC Perspective on COVID Shielding Approaches and Green Zones: A Humanitarian Oxymoron?

Manitoba Metis Federation minister of energy and infrastructure minister Jack Park hosts a video tour of a 96-room camp the federation is setting up for people who may need to isolate or quarantine if the coronavirus hits a high number of people. (Screenshot)

 

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.”

Other considerations:

  • “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

Posted in CDC, Disease Prevention, Education, Free Society, Government Regulations, outcomes, outcomes measurement, Patient Safety, Policy Issues, Poverty, Prevention, Protocols, Uncategorized, Unsettled Science

Modelers Were ‘Astronomically Wrong’ in COVID-19 Predictions, Says Leading Epidemiologist—and the World Is Paying the Price | Jon Miltimore

Three months ago, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University predicted dire social consequences if states enforced social distancing measures to curb a virus scientists didn’t yet understand.

“I feel extremely sad that my predictions were verified,” Ioannidis said in a recent interview with Greek media.

“There are already more than 50 studies that have presented results on how many people in different countries and locations have developed antibodies to the virus,” Ioannidis, a Greek-American physician, told Greek Reporter. “Of course none of these studies are perfect, but cumulatively they provide useful composite evidence. A very crude estimate might suggest that about 150-300 million or more people have already been infected around the world, far more than the 10 million documented cases.”

Ioannidis said medical data suggest the fatality risk is far lower than earlier estimates had led policymakers to believe and “is almost 0%” for individuals under 45 years old. The median fatality rate is roughly 0.25 percent, however, because the risk “escalates substantially” for individuals over 85 and can be as high as 25 percent for debilitated people in nursing homes.

“The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed,” Ioannidis said. “For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially…”

“Major consequences on the economy, society and mental health” have already occurred. I hope they are reversible, and this depends to a large extent on whether we can avoid prolonging the draconian lockdowns and manage to deal with COVID-19 in a smart, precision-risk targeted approach, rather than blindly shutting down everything…”

There’s little question that the lock-downs have caused widespread economic, social, and emotional carnage. Evidence that US states that locked down fared better than states that did not is hard to find.

Though not yet certain, the COVID-19 pandemic may well turn out to be another example of central planning gone wrong.

As I previously noted, it’s a sad irony that many of the greatest disasters in modern history—from Stalin’s “kolkhoz” collective farming system to Mao’s Great Leap Forward and beyond—are the result of central planners trying to improve the lot of humanity through coercive action.

“This is not a dispute about whether planning is to be done or not,” Hayek wrote in The Use of Knowledge in Society. “It is a dispute as to whether planning is to be done centrally, by one authority for the whole economic system, or is to be divided among many individuals.”

Source: Modelers Were ‘Astronomically Wrong’ in COVID-19 Predictions, Says Leading Epidemiologist—and the World Is Paying the Price | Jon Miltimore

Posted in CDC, Disease Prevention, emotional intelligence, Government Regulations, Leadership, outcomes measurement, Patient Safety, Philosophy, Policy Issues, Prevention, Stress, Uncategorized

Memento Mori: Fear in the Age of Coronavirus | Intellectual Takeout

Some perspective…

[In late 1968]…the Hong Kong Flu was sweeping through the country, eventually killing around 100,000 Americans, most of them over the age of 65, at a time when the United States had more than 100 million fewer people than it does today.

Life went on as usual. Schools, churches, and businesses remained open. Neighbors held backyard barbeques, Scout troops continued meeting, we shook hands and shared hugs

When we compare ourselves to the British who endured the torments of the Blitz or to the Americans who seemed almost oblivious to the Hong Kong Flu, why are we so terrified of this virus?

I ask these questions sincerely and without rancor, and have no real answers, only conjecture.

Perhaps our 24-hour news cycle has inflamed our apprehensions.

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/memento-mori-fear-in-the-age-of-coronavirus/

Posted in CDC, Disease Prevention, Education, Evidence-based Medicine, Government Regulations, outcomes, outcomes measurement, Patient Safety, Policy Issues, Protocols, Uncategorized, Unsettled Science

COVID-19 Among Workers in Meat and Poultry Processing Facilities ― 19 States, April 2020 |CDC.gov/mmwr

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6918e3.htm

mm6918e3_MeatpackingFacilitiesCOVID19_IMAGE_01May20_1200x675-mediumLet’s get this under control and protect workers for sure. But this is also an ideal opportunity to get some very important data regarding factors which influence spread within these meat plants and within homes/contacts of these infected workers.

We desperately need data to validate the reliability of various antibody tests on the market, those approved, waived and unapproved. I would encourage local/state governments to partner with universities to acquire this vital information.

And these cluster outbreaks are a perfect setting to get more information regarding true number of asymptomatic cases, how long people are pre-symptomatic and timing of immune responses to infection.