CDC Discusses Confinement, Internment Camps for Those at High Risk of China Virus

BY R. CORT KIRKWOOD

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/cdc-discusses-confinement-internment-camps-for-those-at-high-risk-of-china-virus/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

The Centers for Disease Control is openly discussing internment camps for individuals with a high risk of contracting the China Virus.

Although a document at the CDC website appears to refer to settings outside the United States, the suggestion that governments should erect safe zones to quarantine healthy but at-risk people should alarm Americans already faced with mask and vaccine mandates.

In New York City, for instance, hard-left Mayor Bill de Blasio has closed some public venues to those who aren’t vaccinated, and the state legislature has passed a bill to indefinitely arrest and contain those who don’t have the contagious disease. 

It’s a short step from those measures to mandated confinement of the type CDC contemplates.

Green Zones

Dated July 26, the CDC document listed under “Global COVID-19” discusses “green zones” in which those at “high risk” of contracting the virus will be housed. CDC’s euphemism for the internment is “shielding.” The goal is to “protect high-risk populations from disease and death.”

Though “this approach has never been documented,” the agency says, “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.”8/5/2021

Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings | CDC
https://www
.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html
Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the
Shielding Approach
to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in
Humanitarian Settings
Updated July 26, 2020
Print
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.
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 Approach?
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.
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.
In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small
percentage of the total population.
 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 adherence
, 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
 for full details.
Table 1: Summary of the Shielding Approach
Level
Movement/ Interactions
Household (HH) Level:
A specic 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.8/5/2021
Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings | CDC
https://www
.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html
Neighborhood Level:
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
Camp/Sector Level:
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 the 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.
Operational Considerations
The shielding approach requires several prerequisites for effective implementation. Several are addressed, including access
to healthcare and the 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
Suggested Prerequisites
*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.
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
8/5/2021
Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings | CDC
https://www
.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html
coverings, etc. for all individuals in green zones.
Thus, it is necessary to ensure minimum public
health standards
are maintained and possibly
supplemented to decrease the risk of other
outbreaks outside of COVID-19. Attaining and
maintaining minimum SPHERE
standards is difficult
in these settings for the general
population.
 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 dierent 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.
 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.
 Maintaining hygiene
conditions in communal facilities is difficult during
non-outbreak settings.
 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 maybe unacceptable or impracticable,
8/5/2021
Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings | CDC
https://www
.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/global-covid-19/shielding-approach-humanitarian.html
considering space limitations and overcrowding in
many settings.
Additional Considerations
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 sta 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%
), however in some humanitarian settings more than one-quarter of the population may fall under high
risk categories
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.
Timeline considerations
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 sta) 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) are 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 sta 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,
 movement restrictions, border closures, and decreased trucking and ights, it is
important to outline what additional resources will be needed and how they will be procured.
17

Page 1 / 7

Zoom 100%

What sounds like a blueprint for a future action describes three levels of confinement. The targeted will be “temporarily relocated to safe or ‘green zones’ at the household, neighborhood, camp/sector or community level.” Each involves isolation. 

The lucky high-risk people will be at home, but “physically isolated from other [household] members,” CDC says:

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.

The same rules will apply for the “neighborhood” level, and the “Camp/Sector Level” is next:

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.

Rules in the camp “green zone” will be tight. No one in, no one out:

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.

High-risk kids are not exempt from the “operational considerations.” They will be “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.”

“Dedicated staff” will monitor the “green zones,” meaning they code and track the movements of the “green-zone” inmates.

New York has already moved to quarantine the healthy. A newly enacted law that awaits disgraced Governor Andrew Cuomo’s signature will give him the power to lock up anyone he deems a threat, including those only “suspected” of infection with a contagious disease.

The governor or one of his underlings “may order the removal and/or detention of such a person or of a group of such persons by issuing a single order, identifying such persons either by name or by a reasonably specific description of the individuals or group being detained,” the law says:

Such person or group of persons shall be detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises.

The state has considered the idea for at least six years.

It goes without saying that certain “high-risk individuals” will not be trapped in “green zones” should the Biden Regime implement the confinement/internment plan. They include President Joe Biden and family, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her bunch, Senators Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell and their relatives, tycoons such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, and anyone else with money and power. They will remain free to do as they please.

Border Invasion

One reason Americans might be subject to confinement is the illegal alien invasion at the southwest frontier with Mexico. As The New American reported last month, official data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection show that agents have caught more than one million illegals since October 1, the beginning of fiscal 2021.

Unofficial data reported by the Associated Press put the latest monthly total for August at 210,000, not counting 37,000 who slipped into the country.

The Biden Regime is dumping those illegals, many infected with the China virus, into American communities. In some cases, they are flown into the heartland; in others, they board buses. In either case, they scatter where they wish.

On August 2, Bill Melugin of Fox News tweeted footage of buses arriving at processing centers from the border.

Biden has dumped 7,000 infected migrants in McAllen, Texas, including 1,500 in the last week.

In late July, police in La Joya, Texas, learned that illegals with the virus were freely running about town, and in one case were caught sneezing and coughing in a Whataburger.