This article consists of two documents; the first doc is a copy of an article that alerted me to a CDC document which describes how the CDC will recommend a Prison style lock down that will be used to separate all high risk Americans from their family and from society.
This is a death sentence, mankind was not made to be separated from society and family, the CDC will recommend a separation that includes staying in a single room and never allowing an individual to have communication with the others in the same camp or home.
I have news for the Governors of the States: You do not have the Constitutional right to decide for me whether I live or die! I alone and my Creator are the only ones that hold this power and authority. If you attempt to put me in a “Green Zone” I will defend myself and put you in a “Red Zone”. What is a “Red Zone”? You figure it out you demon possessed Tyrants!
THIS CONSTITUTES TYRANNY AND MUST BE DEALT WITH SWIFTLY!
The CDC says: People who are defined as clinically extremely vulnerable are at very high risk of severe illness from COVID-19. There are 2 ways you may be identified as clinically extremely vulnerable:
- You have one or more of the conditions listed below, or
- Your hospital clinician or GP has added you to the Shielded patients list because, based on their clinical judgement, they deem you to be at higher risk of serious illness if you catch the virus.
This group of Americans include all of the following:
- solid organ transplant recipients
- those with specific cancers:
- people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy
- people with lung cancer who are undergoing radical radiotherapy
- people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukemia, lymphoma or melanoma who are at any stage of treatment
- people having immunotherapy or other continuing antibody treatments for cancer
- people having other targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system, such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors
- people who have had bone marrow or stem cell transplants in the last 6 months or who are still taking immunosuppression drugs
- those with severe respiratory conditions including all cystic fibrosis, severe asthma and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
- those with rare diseases that significantly increase the risk of infections (such as severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), homozygous sickle cell disease)
- those on immunosuppression therapies sufficient to significantly increase risk of infection
- adults with Down’s syndrome
- adults on dialysis or with chronic kidney disease (stage 5)
- pregnant women with significant heart disease, congenital or acquired
- other people who have also been classed as clinically extremely vulnerable, based on clinical judgement and an assessment of their needs. GPs and hospital clinicians have been provided with guidance to support these decisions
Read Docs Below
CDC Article by Natural News
Article by Natural News
All-powerful CDC calls for concentration camps in America, including the invasion of homes and neighborhoods
Tuesday, November 17, 2020 by: Lance D Johnson
(Natural News) The mass surrender of individual liberties and property rights in 2020 has emboldened a dangerous merger between power-drunk government officials and public health authoritarians. An all-powerful Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is now plotting to turn American communities into concentration camps using a variety of family separation strategies.
These concentration camps are justified because the CDC is “keeping you safe.” In the name of safety, the agency now seeks to forcibly limit contact between individuals deemed “high risk” by separating them from their family and the general “low risk” population. Public health mandates are already targeting families in their own homes, mandating the number of people who can gather in individual residences during the holiday season.
CDC seeks to label “high risk” individuals, separate them from their families and the rest of society
The CDC now claims the power to separate “high risk” individuals from their families and the general population, so they can be relocated to safe camps called “green zones.” These “green zone” camps will be set up in neighborhoods at the community level. The “high-risk” individuals would not be able to make human contact with family members or others in the community, as they are forcibly separated. The goal is to destroy the family unit and cause further human suffering. The goal is to lock up and corral the weakest people in the population, suppressing their immune systems and their lives further so they can rapidly infect one another and die off. It’s genocide.
The CDC wants to take control of the community and they also want to take over each and every household. One of their “shielding” approaches focuses on separating people in their own homes, designating a specific room to physically isolate high-risk individuals from the rest of the family. The CDC warns “low-risk” household members not to enter the “green zone” established by the CDC in their own home! Inhabitants are required to wash their hands and use face coverings if they need to provide essential services to the high-risk family members cordoned off inside their own home. Furthermore, “low-risk household members must continue to follow social distancing and hygiene practices outside the house.” (Related: Are you ready to live in a medical police state – your body monitored, your movement tracked, and your family forced into home arrest and isolation?)
Contact tracers are the CDC’s army and they will be trained to take over neighborhoods and homes
The CDC is even looking to implement this “shielding” strategy at the neighborhood level, claiming ownership of every home in the neighborhood to designate a percentage of the household as a “green zone.” According to the CDC guidance, neighbors are instructed to “swap” households to accommodate high-risk individuals. A designated shelter/group of shelters (max 5-10 households) are to be designated within a small camp or area where high-risk members are grouped together. The CDC instructs these camps to have “only one entry point” for the exchange of food and supplies. This invasion will occur more readily in gated communities, apartment complexes, and HOA communities. This level of community and home control also allows the CDC to come in and force vaccinations on people.
Right now, the contact tracing armies that are being deployed throughout the US could ultimately be used to take over homes and facilitate and guard the neighborhood camps. In California, Governor Newsom is deploying up to 20,000 of these contact tracers to carry out the duties of the all-powerful CDC.
In Ohio, governor Mike DeWine ordered FEMA to install isolation camps. The camps are to detain people who came into contact with someone who tested positive after being probed by the faulty covid-19 bio-weapon test kits. Innocent people with no sign of illness are being detained as guilty subjects, as their rights and liberties are stripped from them.
The CDC has no right to label people “high risk” and isolate them from their family and community, while seizing property rights and human rights to assert their power. These acts, put forth by the CDC, are part of a larger communist takeover happening to the United States. The only way America will survive this takeover is if more people break the chains of fear placed over their mind. The only way out is if more patriots rise up in spirit and truth, overthrowing their abusive governments and public health authorities.
Sources include: AHRP.org CDC.gov NaturalNews.com
This doc has been copied directly from the CDC website, click link below so you can verify.
Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings
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. Considerations are based on current evidence known about the transmission and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and may need to be revised as more information becomes available. Please check the CDC website periodically for updates.
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.
Table 1: Summary of the Shielding Approach1
Household (HH) Level:
A specific room/area designated for high-risk individuals who are physically isolated from other HH members.
Low-risk HH members should not enter the green zone. If entry is necessary, it should be done only by healthy individuals after washing hands and using face coverings. Interactions should be at a safe distance (approx. 2 meters). Minimum movement of high-risk individuals outside the green zone. Low-risk HH members continue to follow social distancing and hygiene practices outside the house.
A designated shelter/group of shelters (max 5-10 households), within a small camp or area where high-risk members are grouped together. Neighbors “swap” households to accommodate high-risk individuals.
Same as above
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.
The shielding approach requires several prerequisites for effective implementation. Several are addressed, including access to healthcare and provision of food. However, there are several prerequisites which require additional considerations. Table 2 presents the prerequisites or suggestions as stated in the shielding guidance document (column 1) and CDC presents additional questions and considerations alongside these prerequisites (column 2).
Table 2: Suggested Prerequisites per the shielding documents and CDC’s Operational Considerations for Implementation
*As stated in the shielding document*
Considerations as suggested by CDC
Each green zone has a dedicated latrine/bathing facility for high-risk individuals
The shielding approach advises against any new facility construction to establish green zones; however, few settings will have existing shelters or communal facilities with designated latrines/bathing facilities to accommodate high-risk individuals. In these settings, most latrines used by HHs are located outside the home and often shared by multiple HHs.
If dedicated facilities are available, ensure safety measures such as proper lighting, handwashing/hygiene infrastructure, maintenance and disinfection of latrines.
Ensure facilities can accommodate high-risk individuals with disabilities, children and separate genders at the neighborhood/camp-level.
To minimize external contact, each green zone should include able-bodied high-risk individuals capable of caring for residents who have disabilities or are less mobile. Otherwise, designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune.
This may be difficult to sustain, especially if the caregivers are also high risk. As caregivers may often will be family members, ensure that this strategy is socially or culturally acceptable.
Currently, we do not know if prior infection confers immunity.
The green zone and living areas for high-risk residents should be aligned with minimum humanitarian (SPHERE) standards.6
The shielding approach requires strict adherence to infection, prevention and control (IPC) measures. They require, uninterrupted availability of soap, water, hygiene/cleaning supplies, masks or cloth face coverings, etc. for all individuals in green zones. Thus, it is necessary to ensure minimum public health standards6 are maintained and possibly supplemented to decrease the risk of other outbreaks outside of COVID-19. Attaining and maintaining minimum SPHERE6 standards is difficult in these settings for the general population.8,9,10 Users should consider that provision of services and supplies to high risk individuals could be at the expense of low-risk residents, putting them at increased risk for other outbreaks.
Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the shielding approach.
Monitoring protocols will need to be developed for each type of 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.
Men and women, and individuals with tuberculosis (TB), severe immunodeficiencies, or dementia should be isolated separately
Multiple green zones would be needed to achieve this level of separation, each requiring additional inputs/resources. Further considerations include challenges of accommodating different ethnicities, socio-cultural groups, or religions within one setting.
Community acceptance and involvement in the design and implementation
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. See section on additional considerations below.
High-risk minors should be accompanied into isolation by a single caregiver who will also be considered a green zone resident in terms of movements and contacts with those outside the green zone.
Protection measures are critical to implementation. Ensure there is appropriate, adequate, and acceptable care of other minors or individuals with disabilities or mental health conditions who remain in the HH if separated from their primary caregiver.
Green zone shelters should always be kept clean. Residents should be provided with the necessary cleaning products and materials to clean their living spaces.
High-risk individuals will be responsible for cleaning and maintaining their own living space and facilities. This may not be feasible for persons with disabilities or decreased mobility.11 Maintaining hygiene conditions in communal facilities is difficult during non-outbreak settings.7,8,9 consequently it may be necessary to provide additional human resource support.
Green zones should be more spacious in terms of shelter area per capita than the surrounding camp/sector, even at the cost of greater crowding of low-risk people.
Ensure that targeting high-risk individuals does not negate mitigation measures among low-risk individuals (physical distancing in markets or water points, where feasible, etc.). Differences in space based on risk status may increase the potential risk of exposure among the rest of the low-risk residents and may be unacceptable or impracticable, considering space limitations and overcrowding in many settings.
The shielding approach outlines the general “logistics” of implementation –who, what, where, how. However, there may be additional logistical challenges to implementing these strategies as a result of unavailable commodities, transport restrictions, limited staff capacity and availability to meet the increased needs. The approach does not address the potential emotional, social/cultural, psychological impact for separated individuals nor for the households with separated members. Additional considerations to address these challenges are presented below.
Population characteristics and demographics
Consideration: The number of green zones required may be greater than anticipated, as they are based on the total number of high-risk individuals, disease categories, and the socio-demographics of the area and not just the proportion of elderly population.
Explanation: Older adults represent a small percentage of the population in many camps in humanitarian settings (approximately 3-5%4,5), however in some humanitarian settings more than one quarter of the population may fall under high risk categories13,14,15 based on underlying medical conditions which may increase a person’s risk for severe COVID-19 illness which include chronic kidney disease, obesity, serious heart conditions, sickle cell disease, and type 2 diabetes. 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.
Other logistical considerations
Consideration: Plan to identify additional resources and outline supply chain mechanisms to support green zones.
Explanation: The implementation and operation of green zones requires strong coordination among several sectors which may require substantial additional resources: supplies and staff to maintain these spaces – shelters, IPC, water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH), non-food items (NFIs) (beds, linens, dishes/utensils, water containers), psychosocial support, monitors/supervisors, caretakers/attendants, risk communication and community engagement, security, etc. Considering global reductions in commodity shortages,17 movement restrictions, border closures, and decreased trucking and flights, it is important to outline what additional resources will be needed and how they will be procured.
Consideration: 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.
Explanation: 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.
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.
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. In humanitarian settings, small village, sector/block, or camp-level shielding may allow for greater adherence to proposed protocol, but at the expense of longer-term social impacts triggered by separation from friends and family, feelings of isolation, and stigmatization. Most importantly, accidental introduction of the virus into a green zone may result in rapid transmission and increased morbidity and mortality as observed in assisted care facilities in the US.26
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. In addition, thoughtful consideration of the potential benefit versus the social and financial cost of implementation will be needed in humanitarian settings.
*Specific psychosocial support guidance during COVID-19 as specific subject areas are beyond the scope of this document.
Why Kill The Elderly? The Truth Behind COVID
As I began to write the following, the Spirit of God began to uncover the details behind COVID. In short, the plan was to murder as many elderly voters as possible.
Make no mistake, the State does have the power to quarantine.
Under the Constitution, citizens have rights in a quarantine or isolation’s. The 14th and 5th Amendment’s gives “We The People” rights of Due Process and Equal Protection, and these public health regulations used to impose such conditions as quarantines or isolation’s can not be “arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable.”
Americans have to watch the government to make sure it is not abusing the quarantine power during this “planned”demic. If we learn that the government is quarantining individuals for any other reason other than our health and safety, we must deal with these officials swiftly and severely. There are cases where the courts have ended quarantines when this power is abused.
The history of quarantines shows us examples of abuse, look at the quarantine in San Francisco that was used to imprison all the Chinese people in Chinatown, but at the same time permitted all others to leave freely. We should not be surprised by this history, when the government is issued a blank check, those in power will be tempted to use it for their own political and financial gain. This abuse of power is most often used against the most vulnerable members of society, or against an opponent group.
Imagine if a governor orders wineries to scale down their business during a pandemic (Newsom California), once the competition has been scaled down he keeps one winery fully open for business, the one he happens to hold stock in.
Imagine a scenario where a political party knows they have no chance of winning an upcoming election. To win this upcoming election they must come up with a clever scheme to not only eliminate a large sector of voters who will vote for their opponent, but they must also find a way to create millions of votes out of thin air for their candidate.
To fulfill their diabolical plan they enlist dozens of men and women to research and come up with a way to get the results they need. The researchers come up with a plan, they have learned that the older voters age 65 and over are the group most likely to vote for Republican nominee Donald Trump; those age 18 to 34 are the least likely to vote for him. These numbers just given are factual, and just so happens to be the very age 65 and older that the COVID targets.
These evil demon possessed politicians must now figure out a way to target the elderly while at the same time preserving the younger voters who will vote for their candidate. They eventually end up visiting a lab in Wuhan China and enlist their help in this matter, which results in the production of COVID-19 myth, the “Wuhan Virus” or “China Virus” on September 17, 2019. The rest is history at that point. Also notice the age we are told are most vulnerable is identical to the age that research shows is the beginning age of the elderly who vote Republican…65
We have learned from the documents at the CDC that this evil plan is not quite complete, phase II is at hand, and if we do not rise up now and put a stop to it we will soon join our loved ones in heaven.
I got the statistics of voter trends from theguardian.com, following are also statements from the same site. These statements when viewed with what the Lord has spoken should make it very clear why the elderly were attacked with COVID.
Polling so far suggests that the 2016 candidates’ popularity (or lack thereof) isn’t a huge surprise in terms of these age trends. Voters age 65 and over are the group most likely to vote for Republican nominee Donald Trump; those age 18 to 34 are the least likely to vote for him.
In the last presidential election, 72% of Americans age 65 and over voted,
Older Americans are more likely to vote and, when they do, they vote Republican.
The reasons why older voters lean Republican isn’t necessarily their age per se. Older Americans are more likely to be white and they’re also more likely to be religious (Protestant or Catholic in particular) – and both of those demographic groups also tend to vote Republican for reasons that are quite separate from pension plans.
Think about it folks, the Left are murdering blood thirsty people who have condoned the murder of 100 million babies in America! They are very capable of murdering our elderly to steal the power of this nation.