Warned “compliance” may be an issue when separating people from the rest of society.
The CDC published a COVID-19 planning document that suggested relocating “high-risk individuals” to “green zones” or “camps” in order to keep them away from the rest of the population.
Yes, really.
The document is called Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings and was originally published on the CDC’s official website on July 26, 2020.
The purpose of the strategy document 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”).”
According to the CDC, in order to achieve this, “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.”
The shielding approach would take “high-risk” individuals, meaning older people or people with underlying health conditions, and set about “physically separating high-risk individuals from the general population.”
These high-risk individuals would be relocated to “camps,” meaning “shelters such as schools, community buildings” where as many as 50 individuals would be held in each “green zone” where “no movement into or outside the green zone” would be allowed.
The document takes into account considerations on hosuing “different ethnicities, socio-cultural groups, or religions” within such “green zones”.
“Isolation/separation from family members, loss of freedom and personal interactions may require additional psychosocial support structures/systems,” states the document, noting that those who are isolated may face “stigmatization.”
The summary at the end of the document warns that “compliance” may be an issue when isolating people in such a manner because while “the shielding approach is not meant to be coercive, it may appear forced or be misunderstood in humanitarian settings.”
Commentator Candace Owens didn’t hold back when expressing her concerns about the implications of the document.
“Holy shit. The CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to “shield” low risk people from them,” she tweeted.
“No— this is not a joke, and yes, every single person who has made a reference to 1930’s Germany is vindicated.”
6 comments:
Try to jab me, try to grab me, the result will be the same. Firefight, pile of empty brass, I'm dead, they're dead. Still wanna play this game?
Your move, assholes.
This is beyond fucked up!
'And how we burned in the camps later, thinking:
What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.'
Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This kind of talk from the Leviathan is exactly why we must NEVER surrender our 2A!
Truth but bread and circuses. They make this public on purpose.
History repeats itself if you let it!!
Post a Comment