CDC concentration camps for the elderly?

a reply to: IAMTAT

I'm in!

a reply to: St Udio

God bless you.
I think we will eventually overcome this crap.

a reply to: zosimov

Yes, it is chilling, especially as I am in my mid 70s.
I just don't think this is anything more than one of many ''considerations'' put into the mix by those who make plans.

"Humanitarian" being a codeword for perception management - i.e. making the immoral deprivation of civil liberties look charitable, or in the interest of the greater good. The policymakers are well aware of the severely negative social consequences of separating families from their homes and each other and forcing them into concentrated detention camps or "camp-like settings". Of course, that is the objective. Prolonged isolation leads to psychotic psycho-emotional regression back to an infantized state of being and thus provides more compliant subjects for the advanced stages of totalistic indoctrination.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2
Yes, lots and lots of plans and most of them go unexecuted.

And FEMA. I remember my fist impressions of FEMA back in the early 80s. They drew up an nuclear bomb evacuation plan for the SF Bay Area. Those in the south would go south and those in the north would go north.

Those in the middle would have to go east. West bay would have to make their way across a couple of bridges into the East Bay. Then with all the people of the East Bay would have to drive up over the Hayward hills on a freeway into Livermore Valley and then up over Altamont Pass and into the central foothills of the Serra's.

A fair plan I guess but for one major problem. In the Livermore Valley was one of the major nuclear science laboratories, The Livermore National Laboratory. A major target for anyone's bombing list. FEMA, yeah, those guys.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: BenjanonFranklin
I saw this on a CDC website. It sounds like someone making plans for concentration camps for the elderly. Pretty scary concept. What are your thoughts?

www.cdc.gov...

Do they have a swimming pool?

Yes, but they'll make you take a "shower" first.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

If its a prime target TerryMcGuire, as im inclined to believe the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories would indeed be.

The area would probably be targeted by a couple of ICBM with multiple warheads a piece.

Meaning i don't imagine there would be many people or places left standing once that nuclear fire rolls across the valley.

The area would be glassed mate plans for evacuation or not.

Evacuating major metropolitan areas from ICBM swarm attack is a pipe dream.

FEMA and TPTB know that just fine, probably do more harm than good attempting to evacuate the populace considering a right good few souls are going to go outside and try and run for the hills with only 5-15 minutes warning.

a reply to: BenjanonFranklin
AS in the case of military plans, we have to distinguish between "making plans to prepare for possible eventualities" and "having an immediate intention of doing something".

a reply to: andy06shake

That is exactly how it struck me at the time. Why pretend. Living in the East Bay, I looked around me and figured even with a ''bugout'' what were the chances I could round up my family, get to the car and beat it up over the hill only to find myself needing to get past Livermore and a couple of hundred miles up and over the Sierras to any kind of safety .

I think it was that charade of an evacuation plan that sealed it for me. We are all in this sh$thole we have dug for ourselves together, swim or sink. Early in the 2000s I got out and moved north to a rather rainy area with my own water supply and stuff and now twenty years later find myself in what might be the next major fire area. This is because it seems that EVERY area might be the next major fire area.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I'm just down the road from Faslane naval base(HMNB Clyde) TerryMcGuire, I'm of similar thinking as to yourself.

In the city through so wild fires are not much of a concern just yet.

a reply to: andy06shake

That seems a pretty scenic area huh? Here in Oregon people used to stay away from here because the old notion that it always rained. I recall back in the sixties it did. We bought a nice little place on a river that flowed year round and for a number of season would come up to the bank a couple of times a winter.

That has not happened for the last five years. We are lucky to get enough water flow in winter to carry off the dead trees and stuff from up river like we used to. We have a calm river in summer with a nice array of rocks on the opposite bank that would emerge for three or four months a summer. Now they are hardly submerged for a couple of months in winter.

This summer we have been fortunate to have the winds in our favor as the biggest fire in the US has been well to the East of us, the one that has been creating it's own weather patterns and drifting smoke all the way across the continent.

What do you do in Clyde?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Anywhere outside the cities in Scotland is generally breathtakingly beautiful, loads of rolling hills and mountains in the distance type affair.

It's Glasgow I'm from Terry, the Clyde is just a big river that winds its way through the city and then into the Firth of Clyde estuary.

Been a nice summer here thus far, as to what ive been doing, its the school holidays.

So attempting to entertain 2 weans most days, whilst pottering around in the garden. LoL

We get our fair share of rain here also mate, and then some.

a reply to: andy06shake

Weans, then you are a youngen yourself. Temperature for the next week here is venturing into the record books. Starting Monday projections are for 100+F and by Thursday 106+F. The whole week might be over a hundred. Records for sure.
Damn records.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I'm 46 mate, ile take youngen. LoL

Been near enough 75-80F here for a few weeks now, day in day out, for us that's not half bad, even without the Sun is still clammy as muck till about 9pm. Taled off a little this week but supposed to get even hotter in the coming weeks.

Gez'oh through 106+F, i think i would melt.

Take it the humidity is murder also?

a reply to: andy06shake

Fortunately the humidity here is not so bad. Occasional but not much. I lived in Kansas City for a year, that was bad humidity. Moisture in the air and hot. Chicago for a year too. That was bad humidity.

46, yeah youngen. I'm moving in on 75 and always figured I would be ready for it. Wrong. Crap breaking down that I never thought about. Finding that for most of us even though we thought we were keeping fit and healthy it just don't matter. Other than my mum who lasted until 97 all rest of my family elders were gone by 70.

46 and I was just heading into my second spurt of life Exercising and working and stuff. Got here at 56, got to retire early and spent my summers in the river as a rock miner. In ten years I pulled out bunches of beautiful stones, large and small from the river to ornate my landscaping. That lasted about 10 years until I was around 65 when all of sudden a summer came along and my shoulders were gone, lost all my lifting power. Shame I loved that period. I look at my rock gardens now and wonder how in the hell did I do that. Kept me fit though.

My avatar? That's one from the river bed. Took me days to dig it out of the bed with my snorkel and trowel. Another day or two to roll it from the deep up to the edge of the river bank. Took me and my truck and my neighbors tractor to lift it into the bed and bring it home. It's about 700 lbs.

Ah, those were the days. No boss to answer to other than my own spirit, and my gal of course.
Not getting into the river much any more as at my age, all the grandkids are grown and off to other places and to go down into the water alone is not the smartest thing I could be doing. One time a few years ago I was digging out a boulder and got my hand stuck under one and almost could not break free. That was another sea change for me.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Aye your avatar is very pretty, nice one.

You take it easy with they big boulders all the same.

Life is all about change eh.

It's apt to be in the post at some point.

Not much we can do about that.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

it is stated that it is a consideration.

it shouldn't even be a consideration. once they classify one group what group is next.

then there is this, makes me think that something ain't right.

from the link,

In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.

first off just three years ago another government agency said that the U.S. population was getting older and that by 2034 people over 65 would out number people under 18 by half a million 77 mil to 76.5 that's 13 years from now, and the number would continue to grow. then in 2060 they predict that one quarter of the population would be 65 and older.

Already, the middle-aged outnumber children, but the country will reach a new milestone in 2034 (previously 2035). That year, the U.S. Census Bureau projects [PDF] that older adults will edge out children in population size: People age 65 and over are expected to number 77.0 million (previously 78.0 million), while children under age 18 will number 76.5 million (previously 76.7 million).
The U.S. Joins Other Countries With Large Aging Populations

then at the bottom of the page of the link above there's this,

With this swelling number of older adults, the country could see greater demands for healthcare, in-home caregiving and assisted living facilities. It could also affect Social Security. We project three-and-a-half working-age adults for every older person eligible for Social Security in 2020. By 2060, that number is expected to fall to two-and-a-half working-age adults for every older person.

so could the Shielding Approach have been conceived to stem the cost that a older population will place on the government and insurance companies when it was written, and that covid is just what the Dr. ordered.

it is a well establish fact that old folks in nursing homes don't fair well against covid. what makes them even think that any thrown up shelters are going to be any better?

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

As I mentioned somewhere in this thread, I'm almost 75 and certainly in that target group. I started wondering about population control of this nature when I was in my 30s. wondering how my generation of boomers would be able to survive in old age. It was pretty clear to me then that sooner or later my generation would be a drag on any economy. We learned to be wasteful and build our lives around unsustainability. My generation partied to much and to many of us didn't prepare for our futures. I did but even then I knew that my insurances and my pensions and all those other things depended upon the next generations having to support those investments and stuff.
I wondered at the time, would I know when my time was drawing to a close? Would I know when I was no longer an asset to my society and instead a liability?

The culling of the tribe used to be taken care of by each individual who knew when their time was up, when they have reached that point. In the movie Dancing With Wolves, the old grandma knew. Rather than taking the season trek to the winter hunting grounds, she knew it was time to go off by herself to the burial grounds and make her peace.

We no long see to have that notion in our society. Live as long as you can regardless. Have younger people push you around in wheel chairs and feed you from a spoon while your mind drifts off into dementia. Have a young person wipe your tushy for you. My mother was one of those. Should have passed at 80 but waited until she was 97 and for what. She couldn't hear any more, couldn't work her own TV. She would get in the morning and get to the bathroom and then sit in her chair until nap time, and go back to bed. Get up and back to her chair until bed time.

My sister moved in with her when she was 80 and took care of her for 15 years. It nearly killed her, my sister.
So I can understand the sentiment that our aging generations not only can but are a drag, a life threatening drag on everyone around them .

Is it the government's job to take care of us old folk? No, it's our job. But are we as individuals smart enough to end our lives in a proper time. I think not. Maybe I am, and maybe I am not. I'm wondering that now more and more. Will I know before that young government worker comes to my door to take me off like they did with Edward G Robinson in Soylent Green?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Apparently the UN Population Division report of 2019 projects our world population will continue to increase.

Although at a steadily decreasing rate, and reach about 11 billion by the year 2100.

By which time the growth rate will be close to zero.

Here is the thing through, our coal and oil supplies will be just about done by then or thereabouts, possibly even sooner.

If we have yet to devise a means to meet our energy, food and clean water demands by then, we will be left with a planet full of 11 billion souls, in direct competition with one another, that can only support about 1 billion people.

They will tear each other apart at the seams over a power card or ounce Soylent green.

a reply to: andy06shake

I was 17 in 1964 when I read a newspaper article. It talked about this think tank of ''smart'' people. I don't know how smart they were or recall the name of the think tank. I do know they were futureologists, people who seriously tracked human history and trajectory. This was before there were think tanks on every other corner funded by every other political position.

Anyway, this article posed the question of how do we want our society to be in the year 2000. It laid out a graph of possible social and political conditions we could have by the year 2000, 36 years in the future from 1964. On the top of the graph on one side was utopian, a nation of harmony, equality, wealth and political freedom. On the other side of the graph, along a spectrum of potential conditions was fascist dictatorship.

On the bottom of the graph was where we were in 1964. By year, in between 64 and 2000 were changes that we needed to make to reach what ever desired future we wanted to reach by that year.

In order to have a full blown fascist state, all we needed to do was to do nothing. Change nothing and just continue on as we had. To achieve that more utopian state, the changes we would need to make were dramatic and immediate.

Guess what? We only made a few of those changes and the time line was a bit off.

Then of course there was Robert Malthus a 18th century futurologist who was the first to really address population growth. Basically his theory stated ''that food production will not be able to keep up with growth in the human population, resulting in disease, famine, war, and calamity.''
www.investopedia.com...

His projections were naturally way off in realization but still pretty heady stuff at the time as well as for an emerging into adulthood 18 year old when I first read him.

I often think about projections that say, by 2100 and am torn between laughter and tears. Tears over how bad it could be in 79 years and laughter at the concept of making predictions that far away in the first place. There is so much going on now with technology and environment and pharmacology etc that tracking tends based on stable conditions is next to impossible. I think anyway. No telling what those modern cats in all those ''think tanks'' are projecting and just not telling us about any more.