Is This Fascism

[Offthemat]

The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide
 

“The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy. 

It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.” 
 

By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided. 

The meaning of “shielding” is “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. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”

In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.“
 

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-cdc-planned-quarantine-camps-nationwide/

[nhs67]

Idiocracy probably?

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

The CDC Planned Quarantine Camps Nationwide
 

 

“The plan’s authors were unnamed but included 26 footnotes. It was completely official. The document was only removed on about March 26, 2023. During the entire intervening time, the plan survived on the CDC’s public site with little to no public notice or controversy. 

It was called “Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings.” 
 

 

By absence of empirical data, the meaning is: nothing like this has ever been tried. The point of the document was to map out how it could be possible and alert authorities to possible pitfalls to be avoided. 

The meaning of “shielding” is “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. They would have minimal contact with family members and other low-risk residents.”

In other words, this is what used to be concentration camps.“
 

https://brownstone.org/articles/the-cdc-planned-quarantine-camps-nationwide/

I am trying to decide who read less of the CDC document, you or the author of this hilariously bad article (26 footnotes? Ooooo, scary).

[Offthemat]

46 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I am trying

You could have started with making a point. 

[uncle bernard]

Conservatives love getting mad about things that didn't happen.

[Tripnsweep]

Children get removed from parents who create an unsafe environment. So not vaccinating your child for bulls*** reasons and exposing them to getting sick and dying isn't exactly some outlying reason that's politically motivated. When I enrolled at a public university, I had to show proof I was vaccinated. I wasn't allowed to register for classes until that happened. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

6 hours ago, Offthemat said:

You could have started with making a point. 

The point is that the article is jam packed with lies. There was no CDC plan. The document he references is a critique by the CDC of documents written by the London School of Hygiene about how to deal with refugees in refugee camps.

When they refer to camps and camp-like settings they are referring to the following footnotes:

1. WHO. Pandemic influenza preparedness and mitigation in refugee and displaced populations WHO guidelines for humanitarian agencies Second edition. 2008.

2. Blundell H, Milligan R, Norris SL, Garner P. WHO guidance for refugees in camps: systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9:1–7.

But you would have to actually read the CDC document and then look at the documents referenced in its footnotes and, in turn, read their footnotes to get that. All of that involves a willingness to think for yourself rather than rely on the clearly biased opinion of someone who has poorly written his article to conceal the truth. He is so general and vague in so many places that warning bells should have been ringing.

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

There was no CDC plan.

So it’s not a plan?  It’s just an outline of what to plan for when you make the plan?  There’s no denying that some form of punishment and/or quarantine was finding favor at that time, especially among dimocrats.  
 

Timeline considerations

Consideration: Plan for an extended duration of implementation time, at least 6 months.

Other logistical considerations

Consideration: Plan to identify additional resources and outline supply chain mechanisms to support green zones.

Social/Cultural/Religious Practices

Consideration: Plan for potential disruption of social networks.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

So it’s not a plan?  It’s just an outline of what to plan for when you make the plan?  There’s no denying that some form of punishment and/or quarantine was finding favor at that time, especially among dimocrats.  
 

Timeline considerations

Consideration: Plan for an extended duration of implementation time, at least 6 months.

Other logistical considerations

Consideration: Plan to identify additional resources and outline supply chain mechanisms to support green zones.

Social/Cultural/Religious Practices

Consideration: Plan for potential disruption of social networks.

No, it is not a plan. It is a critical examination of an approach used in refugee camps. 

Try reading the summary that says this is not feasible. And note the emphasis on refugees.

"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

 

This is what intelligent people do. They consider all the alternatives, examine each one critically, reject those that do not work, and provide a write up of their analysis so that others may benefit from it.

What demagogues do is write disingenuous articles about it aimed at riling up people who will not think for themselves.

Edited Wednesday at 12:43 AM by Wrestleknownothing

[Offthemat]

11 hours ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

No, it is not a plan. It is a critical examination of an approach used in refugee camps. 

It’s not a critique of past practices, it’s a plan for future applications, with some references to experiences from information collected from refugee camps in the past.  That’s what the footnotes are, like always, references.  Some, but not all, of the references are from refugee camp experiences.  You even conveniently left out the preceding paragraph, which contains this phrase:

“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“

“May prove effective” is not a reference to the past, and where are the refugee camps in the United Kingdom?

You could have just said “yes.”

[Wrestleknownothing]

25 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It’s not a critique of past practices, it’s a plan for future applications, with some references to experiences from information collected from refugee camps in the past.  That’s what the footnotes are, like always, references.  Some, but not all, of the references are from refugee camp experiences.  You even conveniently left out the preceding paragraph, which contains this phrase:

“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“

“May prove effective” is not a reference to the past, and where are the refugee camps in the United Kingdom?

You could have just said “yes.”

Fine. If you want to be outraged over nothing, go ahead and be outraged. Twitter is the perfect place for you and Jeffrey Tucker shall be your muse.