CDC announces detention camps:

shnarkle

Well-known member


From the State of Tennessee Executive Order 83

"18. Temporary quarantine and isolation facilities may be constructed

I. The provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 68-11-202( c )( 1 )-(8), are hereby suspended to allow for the construction of temporary structures, the plans for which would otherwise be subject to review for new construction, additions, or substantial alterations, as directed by the Commissioner of Health and the Director of TEMA in response to COVID-19; provided, that there shall be inspections of such structures to ensure safety, as necessary."

First they came for the "high risk" people...
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
These prisons are for elderly and those they deem as at risk. (document is a year old) In the Bible the lepers were placed in isolation. In modern medicine, the healthy are not placed in isolation until last year.

40% of the illegals shipped to NYC this month are infected.
 

Backup

Well-known member


From the State of Tennessee Executive Order 83

"18. Temporary quarantine and isolation facilities may be constructed

I. The provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 68-11-202( c )( 1 )-(8), are hereby suspended to allow for the construction of temporary structures, the plans for which would otherwise be subject to review for new construction, additions, or substantial alterations, as directed by the Commissioner of Health and the Director of TEMA in response to COVID-19; provided, that there shall be inspections of such structures to ensure safety, as necessary."

First they came for the "high risk" people...
lol

how exactly are you using the word “announced”?
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Infected, or already acquired herd immunity?
They are not tested for antibodies.

Forty percent of migrants released in Texas border city test positive for COVID-19, officials say​

 

shnarkle

Well-known member
They are not tested for antibodies.

I keep forgetting that even though the CDC announced that the PCR test needs to be replaced with something more accurate, they're still allowing everyone to continue to use this vague testing equipment until the end of the year. Go figure.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
Infected, or already acquired herd immunity?
What is herd immunity? Over a year ago it was people with antibodies. Then when the Vaxx came, FaoChi says immunity people plus over half vaccinated. Eventually he dumped the ones with anti-bodies that recovered from his benchmark number and scooted it up to 80%+ "vaxxed"

toni is shifty from time to time with definitions and parameters.
 

Backup

Well-known member
They are not tested for antibodies.

lol

Washington Examiner

“Accord to two local officials”

NYC=Laredo

ha ha ha ha ha
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
What is herd immunity? Over a year ago it was people with antibodies. Then when the Vaxx came, FaoChi says immunity people plus over half vaccinated. Eventually he dumped the ones with anti-bodies that recovered from his benchmark number and scooted it up to 80%+ "vaxxed"

toni is shifty from time to time with definitions and parameters.
So is the WHO evidently.

a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.


Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.”

I think the CDC has been playing fast and loose with it as well.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
I keep forgetting that even though the CDC announced that the PCR test needs to be replaced with something more accurate, they're still allowing everyone to continue to use this vague testing equipment until the end of the year. Go figure.
I see what you done did.

You noticed they sorta admitted doubt on the reliability of their "test".

We notice they are in no hurry because it may expose testing reliability problems and positive results that are a different virus.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I see what you done did.

You noticed they sorta admitted doubt on the reliability of their "test".

We notice they are in no hurry because it may expose testing reliability problems and positive results that are a different virus.
They didn't just admit the test wasn't accurate. They said alternatives had to be used by the end of the year. So what's stopping them from implementing new alternatives now? I heard there are around 50 different PCR tests already.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
They didn't just admit the test wasn't accurate. They said alternatives had to be used by the end of the year. So what's stopping them from implementing new alternatives now? I heard there are around 50 different PCR tests already.
The test results may not match the narrative.
 

vibise

Well-known member
I keep forgetting that even though the CDC announced that the PCR test needs to be replaced with something more accurate, they're still allowing everyone to continue to use this vague testing equipment until the end of the year. Go figure.
The CDC said they were replacing the original PCR test that identified covid with another PCR test that could identify covid and two influenza strains.

The PCR test remains the gold standard. Despite what RW extremists with no science background have to say.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
The CDC said they were replacing the original PCR test that identified covid with another PCR test that could identify covid and two influenza strains.

The PCR test remains the gold standard. Despite what RW extremists with no science background have to say.
More political hype. You are not a Med Tech (ASCP) The American Society of Clinical Pathologists sets standards which you fail to meet.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Inaccurate interpretation of what the CDC wrote. I fact checked here, but also read it for myself:


Kindly read the summary to this article.

Summary​

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,24,25 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. This document highlights a) risks and challenges of implementing this approach, b) need for additional resources in areas with limited or reduced capacity, c) indefinite timeline, and d) possible short-term and long-term adverse consequences.

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.


Far from pushing this approach, the CDC article is pointing out the potential problems this approach could have.

I think it was suggested in the UK for those who are displaced or homeless to protect them.

And what is "18." in your post? What does "18." refer to?
 

Bonnie

Super Member
More from the CDC summary in this report:

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

The shielding approach is intended to alleviate stress on the healthcare system and circumvent the negative economic consequences of long-term containment measures and lockdowns by protecting the most vulnerable.1,24,25 Implementation of this approach will involve careful planning, additional resources, strict adherence and strong multi-sector coordination, requiring agencies to consider the potential repercussion among populations that have collectively experienced physical and psychological trauma which makes them more vulnerable to adverse psychosocial consequences. In addition, thoughtful consideration of the potential benefit versus the social and financial cost of implementation will be needed in humanitarian settings.


So, far from promoting this approach, the CDC is pointing out the potential problems with it, and that there is no empirical evidence it will actually stop the spread. Honestly why don't people READ MORE CAREFULLY?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
More from the CDC summary in this report:
So, far from promoting this approach, the CDC is pointing out the potential problems with it, and that there is no empirical evidence it will actually stop the spread.
You don't seem to be paying any attention at all.
Honestly why don't people READ MORE CAREFULLY?
Agreed, let's start with you. The CDC isn't denying there may be problems. This isn't going to stop them either. As I've been pointing out for quite a while now, The CDC, FDA, NIH, etc. have all been pointing out that natural herd immunity is far better than what may be derived from an experimental gene therapy. They've also openly pointed out that these gene therapies have the potential to shed to the unvaccinated without their knowledge which is a violation of the Geneva Convention on human experimentation. They're not hiding anything. ?They're openly pointing out that there are going to be problems. This doesn't in any way negate the fact that they just approved this, and they're going to proceed with it anyways.

No one will be able to come back years later, and claim that they hid any of this from the public. You are all willing accomplices.
 
Top