CDC Announces "Shielding" Camps

Mods, if in wrong forum please redirect.

Operational Considerations for Humanitarian Settings

"...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."

"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..."

I'm going to throw up now. On the positive, I've lost 8 pounds in the past month. I can imagine the weight loss in these camps; saw photos of the results in similar camps in Dachau.

Where is the line? When do we say enough?
Have the BigPharma & Tech companies bought off and threatened everyone? SCOTUS et tu?

www.cdc.gov...

Luckily its been a year since its been updated and nothing has come.


Might be a good idea to archive that page nonetheless.

a reply to: UnRepentantHarlequin

Putting people in camps goes against every narrative presented thus far.

Social distance, stay home, protect yourself with a mask.

I mean that would be like putting sick people in a closed setting like a nursing home and expecting good results. Have they tried something like that before and got away with it?

a reply to: litterbaux

Andrew Cuomo might know a thing or two about that.

I wonder if it is planned for once people who refuse the jab mandates from work, lose their jobs and are no longer able to pay mortgage/rent. We are literally a captive audience.

And the CNN-Braindead have no qualms with this.

My jabbed- boss just told me today, "It's your choice", but is it really? I choose to not allow my family be injected with a medical device, doesn't that count?

originally posted by: litterbaux
a reply to: UnRepentantHarlequin

Putting people in camps goes against every narrative presented thus far.

Social distance, stay home, protect yourself with a mask.

I mean that would be like putting sick people in a closed setting like a nursing home and expecting good results. Have they tried something like that before and got away with it?

a reply to: UnRepentantHarlequin

sadly i suspect this is not too far off.

look people (by the actions of desperation like "vaccine lottery" and overt threats to "go back to lockdown) are waking up and saying NO MORE..
it started small (if you believe the press) and now is growing to a point the main stream press cant hide it anyone... they can refuse to show it, but its becoming like a snowball downhill

its getting bigger and bigger.

the last card in the covid tyranny power grab is camps

they wont call it "camps" but something soft like "temporary (yea right) quarantine camps"
where they will PROMISE it is "fully stocked, comfortable, and temporary stay"

we all have from history over last 100 years alone what WILL NOT CAN happen.
hell russia still has gulag's.... just not talked about and by another name .


people the only way you prevent history from repeating itself is to ADMIT IT EXISTS AND FIGHT TO STOP IT.

the longer we let this insanity go on two things will happen

one the restrictions and loss of rights will get worse

two the more it will cost (be effort, money and maybe even blood like in wwII) to get back to our freedoms


I hope this WILL NOT HAPPEN... but history shows what happens if you dont...

scrounger

Each green zone has a dedicated latrine/bathing facility for high-risk individuals

And there is the "special shower" spot.

a reply to: UnRepentantHarlequin
That document isn't "announcing" the policy. Just thinking it through as a possibility. As in the case of military plans, we need to distinguish between making plans for a possible course of action, and having a short-term intention of carrying it through.

a reply to: Gothmog

Fritz Haber was involved in the design work of the shower section. Critics of the work say the ventilation system was designed in the opposite way of a normal shower area. Shower area's usually exhuast the airflow out of the area. Fact checkers proved that exhausting the air out of the shower section is the incorrect way and actually injecting the area with airflow was the new standard according to new building codes cited in the Build Back Better infrastructure plan.

What is the Shielding Approach?
(...)
They would have minimal contact with family members

... is all what I needed to see. "Humanitarian Setting" my rear, this is directly from Stalin's Gulag system!

a reply to: UnRepentantHarlequin

I found this quote from the document you linked to quite disturbing in its implications. It can be found in the section titled prerequisites after latrines.

"document*

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."

It is the last sentence that says it all. According to this shielding plan documentation. The CDC states unequivocally that those who have recovered from a confirmed case of covid-19 are assumed to be immune.

So why the push to jab those individuals now if CDC assumes they are immune?

Someone's got some explaining to do down there at the cdc.

a reply to: UnRepentantHarlequin

WOW. Just wow. This is unreal!

I can't believe they're moving ahead so quickly. These are dangerous times, that's all I will say for now. I'm almost speechless in fact, which for me, is very weird.




ETA - As another poster has said, I think we will start to see the rollout of these camps when people start refusing the vaccines & vaccine boosters despite ultimatums from governments, but particularly from employers. When there is de facto discrimination against vaccine avoidance, when people start losing their jobs, the climate of fear & mandated vaccines for employment will see whole families being broken up - children removed from parents, parents made destitute & simply killed off in 'accidents' or during 'riots/looting', or in best case scenario, given UBI & assigned a place in the camp system. (I use the phrase 'best case scenario' with a high degree of irony)

The camp system will probably involve a series of tiers, where the external tier seems not too bad, some freedoms of movement & places to spend money/credits, and to interact with humanitarian observers. Then there will be a series of filters which channel certain people - perhaps agitators & the generally unwell (those with chronic health conditions) into a camp where they are considered 'high risk', as with this CDC article. They are then subject to random toxic shocks from 'outbreaks of COVID' which kill off many over time. The agitators would then be separated off & simply eliminated, their 'papers' lost in the system for months, due to the confusion of outbreaks, etc.

Who knows, maybe I'm totally wrong, but I have a gnawing feeling in the pit of my stomach when I read the article & think about the possible implications. Do we think that if the Nazis were so damn effective seventy years ago, that somehow we will be in a better situation today? The technology holds the promise of total freedom to murder at will, because screens & filters will be put up digitally to cover everyone's tracks.

a reply to: JinMI

I didn't see the date at first glance, but still, this is almost like those conspiracy theories where the elitist occultists like to divulge in advance what they plan to do with their enemies...

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.

Can anyone see here a pre-emptive excuse for why a high number of inmates suddenly died, assumedly without external oversight of what actually happened, because:

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.

With no oversight from external family & friends, they could literally trip a kill switch while residents are in the showers & 'inadvertently introduce' some sort of a toxin which mimics the symptoms of acute respiratory distress, as well as infecting them with a cut & paste 'variant' of the virus, in case someone manages to cheat the system & perform an actual autopsy somehow.

They really have thought it all out, and they pepper the document with these pre-emptive 'explanations' & 'excuses' which they can fall back on & say that they had merely been brainstorming, if anyone throws the conspiracy angle at them "Well, like we said in the document, the inadvertent spread of the virus could be fast & devastating to high risk individuals..."

#ing disgusting, and right that we should be reminded of these plans as we perceive them moving closer towards their 'final, final solution'.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

What stands out to me, is why those low-risk individuals who have recovered from a case of COVID are still in the camps, if they've recovered & are "assumed to be immune"..?

Why aren't they discharged from the camps?

Why are they instead designated a work order, to care for people who are high risk who have disabilities/ mobility issues? Is this saying that the camps will be stocked with inmates only, and no care staff?

Does "Arbeit Macht Frei" in these sorts of camps, with their reverse ventilation systems in the shower area?

At what point are the inmates considered to be safe to return to society? Are they ever going to be returned to society?

Because this very much reads like another version of the final, final solution, along the lines of my thread the other day.

Worrying indeed. I do recall having seen this last year, now I've thought more about it - but the fact that this is still up, after all that time, shows a measure of confidence & bold "couldn't care less" attitude towards the people who are assumed to be the enemy of the COVID controllers.

The 'fact' that the 'fact checkers' altered the standard protocols for building codes despite sixty or seventy years (or more) of airflow being set up in the reverse directional for shower ventilation, makes it very, very apparent that the 'fact checkers' are 100% read-in on the ultimate agenda. They would have to be, or those in good conscience would have exposed them by now, as whistleblowers. They clearly don't hire people of conscience - indeed, they're probably all staffed by agents of some alphabet group in deep black cover.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

You don't leave the camps once you are in them.

That's how I read that anyway.

originally posted by: Gothmog

Each green zone has a dedicated latrine/bathing facility for high-risk individuals

And there is the "special shower" spot.

people don't know that yet, the homeless will suddenly disappear over night and I've been saying that for some time now.
The fact is the jab in the future will be the poison to those that never took the jab in the first which also contained the anti-dote, ever wonder why china now in most parts of the country, people are NOT wearing mask and all schools are opened up.

a reply to: Stevenmonet

another thing i noticed and pray to God im being paranoid

it states IMMUNE people will fill the tasks of helping those housed there.

notice didnt say anything like "employees, contractors, miltary, ect" but immune

with tasks divided between fully able and not (which i take to mean deformity, mental status, or other problems).

to me that sounds a hell of a lot like the concentration camps and gulag's where THE PRISONERS/DETAINED are caring for the others AND NOT BEING RELEASED.


am i being paranoid or do i see history being repeated .

in any case this reminds me of hitlers mien kamph where hitler SPELLED OUT what he wanted and going to do.

we have the what and should be trying to prevent the when

scrounger

sorry flyintheointment ..
when it posted i realized you were saying the same thing

wise minds think alike

Yes, you caught that fact they slipped in there !
Double-speak.

"...designate low-risk individuals for these tasks, preferably who have recovered from confirmed COVID-19 and are assumed to be immune."

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ".

I imagine the only "care" provided are armed guards.

originally posted by: Stevenmonet
a reply to: UnRepentantHarlequin

I found this quote from the document you linked to quite disturbing in its implications. It can be found in the section titled prerequisites after latrines.

"document*

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."

It is the last sentence that says it all. According to this shielding plan documentation. The CDC states unequivocally that those who have recovered from a confirmed case of covid-19 are assumed to be immune.

So why the push to jab those individuals now if CDC assumes they are immune?

Someone's got some explaining to do down there at the cdc.

a reply to: scrounger

It also doesn't say anything about the fully vaccinated. We know the vaccine does not grant immunity.

So either the fully vaccinated are a different group all together or fully vaccinated means nothing in the future.