They can call it "N best Interest 4 u" or any other damn title to lull the sheep... had CDC, Faucci & others not jumped on the "Sky is Falling" Mantra or the perks $$$$ Hosp.'s received for every DC their coroner signed listing COVID as cause of death. Or as in past outbreaks allowed herd immunity to take a reasonable course, maybe. The title "Corona-virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)" UPDATED July 26th 2020 is all you need to see that this reeks of Agenda 20-21. Coumo & others in state or county that were in the red, took advantage of eliminating their "dead weight" populaces unburdening their deficit... only to rape the Federal piggy-bank, then squealed for more as they let there cities burn. That's a PLANDEMIC!

just call them gulags

I would like to point out, this defeats the purpose of a general population vaccine as the general public is removed from the equation. It doesn't really matter if the infection is live in the general public and actually spreading it faster in low risk people would raise herd immunity numbers without a vaccine. If you separate the high risk population into concentrated camps, then it only takes 1 infection to completely destroy that camp completely. The current situation has the high risk population spread out within the general population. This makes it much easier to manage a sudden case as each high risk case doesn't immediately spread to multiple other people that will be hospitalized. And as we have seen the hospitals are not getting crushed with the current measures, but they were crushed in NY and Italy when cases went into high risk hubs like hospice centers. This is literally putting all the eggs into one basket and hoping that basket survives.

In addition by putting high risk people in a group together, other disease considerations should be accounted for. A single tuberculous patient could kill the camp without the wuflu even popping up. This is why hospitals have such high death rates even when managed well. They must ensure that the camps do not increase the risk to patients.

If this measure is taken. The vaccine should only be given to high risk patients. The general population should have complete freedom, no social distancing or mask mandates as the risk has been minimized. And the camps should be opt in only. As there are unfortunate implications for multiple minority communities with high risk profiles. The implication of forcing HIV positive people into a camp would not be lost on the left. As would the implications of obese, large nostril people with blood cell conditions. Or say foreigners with existing respiratory issues and chronic illnesses. Because this isn't just Camp WASP Grandma, it is Camp Bugchaser, Camp fat PoC, Camp Moslem, Camp Homeless and Camp IV Drug Users. But this is positioned on a assumption of actual good intentions and not malice.

"Neighbors “swap” households to accommodate high-risk individuals"

I'm not swaping my house with anyone. Get fucked!

Poke, poke... C'mon, do something.

Shielding Approach - Videos

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 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; 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. 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.

Timeline considerations

Consideration: Plan for an extended duration of implementation time, at least 6 months.

Separating families and disrupting and deconstructing multigenerational households may have long-term negative consequences. ... 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 .. 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.

for a virus that the cdc cant even detect or analyze lawl