Long Term Care Home Analysis – Part 4
v 4.3
The point of this is try to get a better picture of what is going on with COVID and to comment on problems as I see them. For every point we learn, there two more questions. I have lots of questions.
Continuing from Part 3 | Part 2 | Part 1 and analysis of this article:
On May 2 a new testing guidance [copy of original document (https://off-guardian.org/wp-content/medialibrary/May-2-2020-2019_covid_testing_guidance.pdf?x19699)] and a new screening guide [copy of original] were released. Both documents concede that if a person has only a runny or stuffed-up nose, “consideration should be given to other underlying reasons for these symptoms such as seasonal allergies and post-nasal drip.”
They also narrow the definition of falls considered diagnostic of a novel-coronavirus infection in people over 65, to falls that are unexplained or increasing in number.
However, they add to the symptom list another three that are very non-specific: a decrease in sense of taste, abdominal pain and pink eye.
There are enormous implications to having overly broad definitions of symptoms and outbreaks, particularly in combination with other rules put in place at the beginning of the epidemic.
The following comments by me refer to updated versions of those two documents:
COVID-19 Provincial Testing Guidance
This document is updated: Update V. 6.0, June 2, 2020
Just going to comment on what I notice in these documents:
This document’s symptom’s list makes the qualification mentioned:
Runny nose, or nasal congestion – in absence of underlying reason for these symptoms such as seasonal allergies, post nasal drip, etc.
Also it lists the non-specific symptoms that make the definitions very broad:
. . .
• New olfactory or taste disorder(s)
• Nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain
. . .
Presentation may include persistent fever, abdominal pain, conjunctivitis [pink eye], gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting and diarrhea) and rash
The following just seems very extreme. I don’t believe this was ever done with any illness in the past: a healthy person quarantined.
Asymptomatic contacts of a confirmed case should be considered for testing for COVID-19 as soon as possible after identification of the case and within 14 days from their last exposure. If they test negative and the contact becomes symptomatic, they should be re-tested.
If the test result is negative, asymptomatic contacts must remain in self-isolation for 14 days from their last exposure to the case.
What on earth has been going on for months? All these efforts should have been put into treating the SICK, not on testing “contacts” and not on self-isolating contacts. How can anyone afford to be ISOLATED for 14 days and they’re not even sick.
What sense does all this testing make. What do the tests mean?
Then there is this section which I wonder about:
1. Facility Transfers
Any patient transferred between facilities (i.e. leaving one facility and entering another, even within same multi-site organization, regardless of symptomology), should be tested upon admission to the destination facility. Examples include, but aren’t limited to:
• Admission to hospital from another hospital, long-term care home, retirement home or other congregate living setting/institution (including group homes and equivalent higher-risk settings)
• Transfers from, or repatriation to community hospitals and regional tertiary/quaternary centres
• Transfers from an acute site to a post-acute site (e.g. patient transferred to complex continuing care/rehab) within a multi-site organization
The only exclusion to the above guidance is in relation to Directive #3, outlining that tests and results should by reported prior to transfers from hospitals to long-term care, retirement homes and hospices.
That last point maybe sounds reasonable, but does this policy of testing cause any delay for transfer out of the care home to the hospital? Does the sick person in the care home have to wait for a test to be done before leaving to go to hospital? Just a question. Do they have to wait for a test result before leaving to go to hospital? Shouldn’t they just go to hospital if they are sick? What is the value of the test–hopefully it doesn’t prevent them or delay them from going to hospital.
The next section is: Testing prior to a scheduled (non-urgent/emergent) surgery
So this delays patients’ surgeries, defined as non-emergency:
. . .
o For areas with low community transmission of COVID-19, testing prior to a scheduled surgical procedure is not required.
o In areas where community transmission of COVID-19 is not low, any patient with a scheduled surgical procedure requiring a general anaesthetic, should be tested 24-48 hours prior to procedure date.
o Patients should self-isolate for a period of at least 14 days prior to a scheduled procedure.
o In the event of a positive test result, the scheduled non-urgent/emergent procedure should be delayed for a period of at least 14 days
Look at all the delay just because of these tests. Isn’t the surgery important? You would have to swear up and down to me that COVID is so virulent that my surgery has to be delayed? What if I never recover from my symptoms? What if I have no symptoms and still test positive? Were the surgeries sometimes done on sick patients or not at all during the lockdown (which is in limbo right now)? What went on over these months? The media reported that patients were neglected and important surgeries were delayed and some died. Oh, the “science” says . . . What does it say? Show me the “science.” This is theatrics to impose a new way of life–of austerity–be afraid, wait and hope despite all of this. The false “science” says “nothing is more important than COVID.” We are being lied to big time.
People need to read the novel Brave New World about the scenes relating to “science.” It is very explicit in the novel that “science” is a bunch of dogmas that suit the regime, which then censors anything in contradiction to it.
So the next point in the document:
In the event a patient develops laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, within a 14-day period where the case could have reasonably acquired their infection in the hospital, and the patient was not cared for on Droplet/Contact Precautions, asymptomatic contacts of the confirmed patient, determined in consultation with Infection Prevention and Control and Occupational Health, should be tested including:
Then it lists every possible person involved, that they should be tested–including the “essential visitors” to the hospital. Notice this term again “essential visitors” which is very similar to “essential workers.” Jay Dyer recently referred to this term being mentioned in a futurist book (I think the title was “Millenium”) in the early 1980s (co-authors included Willis Harman and Marilyn Ferguson)–and universal basic income (or the equivalent term) was part of the formula!
The name of the authority in this case is Infection Prevention and Control/Occupational Health, which makes the decisions about who to test.
It’s like a whole new way of life, a whole new industry.
So this amounts to a totalitarian system emerging. Whatever it is with all this testing, it’s not the correct way to deal with infectious illness as the sick people should be the ones quarantined and everyone sick should be treated while the healthy keep life running–they keep the economy going to produce the wealth necessary to keep people fed and healthy and treated properly in hospitals. But since Canadians have allowed euthanasia very recently to be legalized and institutionalized (not a coincidence), I think we have conceded too much to the forces of death already.
In asymptomatic persons, a negative result should not change infection control management as the individual may still be in the 14-day incubation period.
Is that what the science says? 14 days? For an asymptomatic person with a negative result?
In a footnote:
… If an outbreak is declared, additional testing recommendations are determined by the Outbreak Management Team including the local public health unit
“Outbreak” is a very dramatic term–from Hollywood. So every emergency–real or not–has become an opportunity to increase government power. Think back over the years. This is how things have “progressed.” People should see themselves as all essential to making life function smoothly–even when they are “only” looking after their own family–or helping their neighbors. This is real life–when people are empowered. Nobody was ever told to stay home!!! This is degrading. This is a diminishment of our value by talking about “essential” vs. “non-essential” workers. It is an agenda to devalue human life. Another sign of this to me was when the government legalized and promoted cannabis in Canada in such a big way (cannabis has pros and cons) it was signalling to people already, I believe, that certain people weren’t needed! They certainly weren’t going to be driving–and possibly not going to work at all. Maybe a lot of people aren’t needed according to these elites? They certainly didn’t want people going to hospitals as they scared everybody away–as in the CTV article I referred to. Think back about all the past discussions of health care costs in Canada.
Next:
In the event a resident living in a long-term care or retirement home develops symptoms compatible with COVID-19, asymptomatic residents living in the same room should be tested immediately along with the symptomatic resident.
In the event of a laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19, all staff in the entire home AND all residents in the home should be tested.
If you test so many people, what if some the tests aren’t accurate, are you going to isolate residents who aren’t actually sick? And do you send workers home who aren’t sick? They have workers there for a reason. You shouldn’t want to send them home unless they really are sick. The focus should be on isolating and treating the sick. These are my thoughts.
COVID has been the “send everyone home and neglect responsibilities” virus! This whole thing has been destructive. It is teaching us the lesson that our lives don’t matter and to follow mechanical unprincipled instructions without question–as in cybernetics. A few months ago, immune-compromised and very elderly people were dying as they normally do (too many from chronic diseases such as cancer) and nobody just stayed home from work because of a cold!! But now that’s all changed and you think this is some foundation for a future we can live with!? You have been lied to.
Next:
. . . Other congregate living settings and institutions include homeless shelters, group homes, community supported living, disability-specific communities/congregate settings, short-term rehab, hospices, other shelters.
In asymptomatic persons, a negative result should not change public health management as the individual may still be in the 14-day incubation period.
14 days is a long time and the “science” better justify it, right? Because that is time taken out of a person’s life and from whatever function they performed in society. But the “science” has been questioned!
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/20/science-behind-three-key-coronavirus-rules-does-stack/
https://www.smh.com.au/national/coronavirus-symptoms-emerge-after-five-days-20200310-p548i4.html
The next two categories: “Remote/Isolated/Rural/Indigenous Communities” and then “Workplaces and Community Settings – Enhanced Contact-Based Testing”
In the event of one laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 with exposure to a workplace or community setting (e.g. religious gathering, recreational centre) while they were infectious, individuals in the workplace or community setting, determined in consultation with local public health, should be tested including:
• Any close contacts of the case
• In settings where contacts are difficult to determine, broader testing may be required
In the event of an outbreak in a workplace or community setting, as determined by local public health, all individuals associated with the outbreak area should be tested.
Others within the workplace or community setting could be considered for testing as determined by local public health.
Local public health may also, based on a risk assessment, determine if any additional testing is required, or whether any of the above-mentioned individuals do not require testing.
In asymptomatic persons, a negative result should not change public health management as the individual may still be in the 14-day incubation period.
So, it’s like collective punishment. Someone with symptoms, someone tests positive–others could end up testing positive. And then what? They are quarantined? Is the test accurate? And they’re still stuck for 14 days even if their symptoms are gone. Their sneeze or runny nose or cough is gone but their life is on hold for 14 days!!!!
What!? If people in real life were dropping like flies from a disease that was spreading, they would be helping each other! They wouldn’t be quarantining themselves away in their homes with sniffles. But that’s where we are at! This is ridiculous. IF somebody gets very sick, they can be helped–there are cases of very sick people who are getting treated effectively. But in most place things aren’t even functioning normally at all! Everything has been screwed up at hospitals–with people following orders and receiving more funds for COVID-19 diagnoses–at least in American hospitals, that is what’s happening. What about Ontario?
Next point:
4. Other Priority Populations
Definition: Patients requiring frequent contact with the healthcare system due to the nature of their current course of treatment for an underlying condition (e.g. patients undergoing chemotherapy/cancer treatment, dialysis, pre-/post-transplant, pregnant persons, neonates).
Specific guidance (including asymptomatic groups) has been developed for the following populations:
• Newborn testing:o Newborns born to mothers with confirmed COVID-19 at the time of birth should be tested for COVID-19 within 24 hours of delivery, regardless of symptoms.
o If maternal testing is pending at the time of mother-baby dyad discharge then follow-up must be ensured such that if maternal testing is positive the baby is tested in a timely manner. If bringing the baby back for testing is impractical, the baby should be tested prior to discharge.
o Newborns currently in the NICU/SCN born to mothers with confirmed COVID-19 at the time of birth should be tested within the first 24 hours of life and, if the initial test is negative, again at 48 hours of life, regardless of symptoms.
I am concerned about the above section. What has been happening with mothers who give birth under this policy? Were the babies taken away at any point? Was there any attempt to quarantine babies separately from their mothers?
Again the focus is on testing and not on whether the baby is sick or not and needing treatment. Based on what we have seen, very few children die with the cause of death labeled as Coronavirus: https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/06/23/coronavirus-covid-deaths-us-age-race-14863.
They are not vulnerable to it.
This is all propaganda–if the government and media wanted you to focus on cancer (which many individuals have to do) or diabetes or arthritis, they would push that up in front of you and talk about it every waking minute! If there’s a war, they’ll have you focus on that perhaps–or not. Just like in 1984 by George Orwell.
Continuing:
• For patients entering a residential mental health or addiction program, testing should also be conducted prior to admission into the program.
• Testing for Cancer Patients- See Appendix A
• Testing for Hemodialysis Patients – See Appendix B
Asymptomatic cancer patients should be tested prior to starting on immunosuppressive cancer treatment. If the patient test positive, treatment should not proceed except in very unusual circumstances where the risk of delay in initiating treatment outweighs the risk of an overwhelming COVID-19 infection developing while on treatment
This statement tells us more about the types of treatments they have to offer cancer patients–they suppress someone’s immunity. I have another post on chemotherapy–many people believe there are much better treatments than what conventional medicine offers–censorship didn’t start just during COVID. But all they can offer is a DELAY in any kind of treatment. And what does the delay lead to??? Do they have a way to decide what the exceptions are?
There is a list of other types of conditions and types of patients (immuno-compromised).
They are concerned about the virus being present before the treatment but is the test result going to change at some point for the person to proceed with their treatment? Isn’t there just a delay and a hope that the person eventually tests negative? I think there must be some disruption being introduced here into medical decision-making.
And it continues like this–into other examples where patients who are very sick with other illnesses are tested for COVID–all of them. Very serious illnesses–and they’re testing them for COVID! The whole point of the document is testing people, not treating people. What for? Is it just to increase the number of “cases” or is there more to it?
The second document:
COVID-19 Patient Screening Guidance Document
This was updated also: Version 4.0 – June 11, 2020
It qualifies “runny nose or nasal congestion” in a similar way.
It qualifies “falls” as in “Unexplained or increased number of falls.”
But it has these overly broad symptom lists, including:
. . .
• Decrease of loss of sense of taste or smell
• Chills
• Headaches
• Unexplained fatigue/malaise/muscle aches (myalgias)
• Nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain
• Pink eye (conjunctivitis)
. . .
This document includes an updated series of questions for COVID screening.
This document should be used to screen people who are suspected or confirmed of having COVID-19 throughout the health and emergency response system.
The screening result is not equivalent to a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19
There are three categories: COVID Screen Negative, COVID Screen Positive and COVID Screen Unknown.
It’s not clear to me whether everyone who is screened positive is clinically tested automatically or if is a requirement at that point–they are sent home or kept out of the facility. It isn’t clear.
Whether someone is tested or not or even asked these questions should completely be a matter of choice–like all medical procedures–and like all sharing of private information. If it’s reasonable, then most people would be persuaded of something reasonable. If it’s a bunch of hokum, then most people are persuaded by an unprecedented orchestrated propaganda campaign that goes on day and night.
There should be a test for how gullible people are also–and how quick they are to give up their rights, and how quick they are to denigrate the idea of rights because an organized gang of liars told them to.
Some would rather live in such a world-where there was constant abuse of others especially (as long as it’s someone else, not them) and time-wasting and no work to do, and no economy, and no responsibility, etc.