July 26, 2020
See Jon Rappoport's view on this document: https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/11/02/cdc-plans-covid-concentration-camps/
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.1,2 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.
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.1,2 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-19.3 In most humanitarian settings, older population groups make up a small percentage of the total population.4,5 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 adherence1,6,7, 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 1,2 for full details.
Table 1: Summary of the Shielding Approach1
Household (HH) Level:
A specific 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.
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
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 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.
The shielding approach requires several prerequisites for effective implementation. Several are addressed, including access to healthcare and 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
*As stated in the shielding document*
Considerations as suggested by CDC
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 staff 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.
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%4,5), however in some humanitarian settings more than one quarter of the population may fall under high risk categories13,14,15 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.16
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 staff) 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) is 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.
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 staff 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,17 movement restrictions, border closures, and decreased trucking and flights, it is important to outline what additional resources will be needed and how they will be procured.
Consideration: Ensure safe and protective environments for all individuals, including minors and individuals who require additional care whether they are in the green zone or remain in a household after the primary caregiver or income provider has moved to the green zone.
Explanation: Separating families and disrupting and deconstructing multigenerational households may have long-term negative consequences. Shielding strategies need to consider sociocultural gender norms in order to adequately assess and address risks to individuals, particularly women and girls. 18,19,20 Restrictive gender norms may be exacerbated by isolation strategies such as shielding. At the household level, isolating individuals and limiting their interaction, compounded with social and economic disruption has raised concerns of potential increased risk of partner violence. Households participating in house swaps or sector-wide cohorting are at particular risk for gender-based violence, harassment, abuse, and exploitation as remaining household members may not be decision-makers or responsible for households needs.18,19,20
Consideration: Plan for potential disruption of social networks.
Explanation: Community celebrations (religious holidays), bereavement (funerals) and other rites of passage are cornerstones of many societies. Proactive planning ahead of time, including strong community engagement and risk communication is needed to better understand the issues and concerns of restricting individuals from participating in communal practices because they are being shielded. Failure to do so could lead to both interpersonal and communal violence.21,22
Explanation: Additional stress and worry are common during any epidemic and may be more pronounced with COVID-19 due to the novelty of the disease and increased fear of infection, increased childcare responsibilities due to school closures, and loss of livelihoods. Thus, in addition to the risk of stigmatization and feeling of isolation, this shielding approach may have an important psychological impact and may lead to significant emotional distress, exacerbate existing mental illness or contribute to anxiety, depression, helplessness, grief, substance abuse, or thoughts of suicide among those who are separated or have been left behind. Shielded individuals with concurrent severe mental health conditions should not be left alone. There must be a caregiver allocated to them to prevent further protection risks such as neglect and abuse.
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.
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.
*Specific psychosocial support guidance during COVID-19 as specific subject areas are beyond the scope of this document.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33113270/AbstractAims of the study: Patient comprehension is a critical part of meeting medical ethics standards of informed consent in study designs. The aim of the study was to determine if sufficient literature exists to require clinicians to disclose the specific risk that COVID-19 vaccines could worsen disease upon exposure to challenge or circulating viru... READ MORE
Informed consent disclosure to vaccine trial subjects of risk of COVID-19 vaccines worsening clinical disease'...risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms...'
Category: Published Studies: mRNA Vaccines are NOT safe
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 05/15/2021
- April 28, 2021Download the .PDF belowABSTRACTThe knowledge of biotechnology increases the risk of using biochemical weapons for mass destruction. Prions are unprecedented infectious pathogens that cause a group of fatal neurodegenerative diseases by a novel mechanism. They are transmissible particles that are devoid of nucleic acid. Due to their singular characteristics, Prions emerge as potenti... READ MORE
Prions: the danger of biochemical weaponsFederal University of São Paulo
Category: Vaccine Technologies
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 04/28/2021
- April 27, 2021(Download .PDF below)"Long-term Consequences of Wearing Facemask Can Cause Health Deterioration, Developing and Progression of Chronic Diseases, and Premature Death."Note: FactCheck.org has this to say about the study:Stanford Medicine says it “strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19.” Yet viral stories falsely claim a “... READ MORE
Stanford Mask StudyFacemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis
Category: Published Studies: Masks are INEFFECTIVE
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 04/27/2021
- April 23, 2021Source: https://scivisionpub.com/pdfs/covid19-rna-based-vaccines-and-the-risk-of-prion-disease-1503.pdfABSTRACT Development of new vaccine technology has been plagued with problems in the past. The current RNA based SARSCoV-2 vaccines were approved in the US using an emergency order without extensive long term safety testing. In this paper the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was evalu... READ MORE
COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease
Category: Published Studies: mRNA Vaccines are NOT safe
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 04/23/2021
- April 23, 2021From: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32871846/AbstractBackground/aim: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). One drug that has attracted interest is the antiparasitic compound ivermectin, a macrocyclic lactone derived from the bacterium Streptomyces avermitilis. We carried out a... READ MORE
Ivermectin Docks to the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Receptor-binding Domain Attached to ACE2
Category: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 04/23/2021
Date: April 19, 2021From: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/See also: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/04/stanford-study-results-facemasks-ineffective-block-transmission-covid-19-actually-can-cause-health-deterioration-premature-death/PMCID: PMC7680614PMID: 33303303Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesisBaruch Vainshelboim?Author information&n... READ MORE
Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis
Category: Published Studies: Masks are INEFFECTIVE
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 04/19/2021
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 03/27/2021
I am herewith postng a list of a series of publicatons that have been instrumental in providing enlightening insights on the interplay between Covid-19 and the host immune system. They provide so to speak critcal pieces of the puzzle that I have been putng together. Entre puzzles are rarely published. That’s why publicatons rarely bring solutons to complex problems. For your convenience, I h... READ MORE
The science behind the catastrophic consequences of thoughtless human interventon in the Covid-19 pandemic– Geert Vanden Bossche (DVM, PhD, March 13 2021)
Category: Vaccine Safety
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 03/16/2021
AbstractA recent mathematical model has suggested that staying at home did not play a dominant role in reducing COVID-19 transmission. The second wave of cases in Europe, in regions that were considered as COVID-19 controlled, may raise some concerns. Our objective was to assess the association between staying at home (%) and the reduction/increase in the number of deaths due to COVID-19 in severa... READ MORE
Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological study
Category: Published Studies: Lockdowns are INEFFECTIVE
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 03/15/2021
Confirms that up to 78% of cancers were never detected due to missed screening over three months. If one extrapolates to the entire country, up to a million new cases or more over nine months will have gone undetected. That health disaster adds to missed critical surgeries, chemotherapy, organ transplants, presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients too afraid ... READ MORE
Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Diagnoses During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Category: COVID Health Impact
- Fielden Nolan (nolanf), 03/11/2021