Continuing from Part 1
Back to the article:
One week later, April 8, a Provincial Testing Guidance Update was issued. It included the following list of symptoms (most of which are highly non-specific): fever, any new or worsening acute respiratory illness symptom – for example cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, runny nose or sneezing, nasal congestion, hoarse voice, difficulty swallowing – and pneumonia.
The document also listed several symptoms that are “atypical” but “should be considered, particularly in people over 65” [italics added]: unexplained fatigue/malaise, acutely altered mental status and inattention (i.e., delirium), falls, acute functional decline, worsening of chronic conditions, digestive symptoms (e.g., nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain), chills, headaches, croup, unexplained tachycardia, decreased blood pressure, unexplained hypoxia (even if mild) and lethargy.
So the document is here:
Ministry of Health COVID-19 Provincial Testing Guidance Update April 8, 2020
Notice the focus on testing. There doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on treating the sick and quarantining the sick:
Additional guidance is expected to be provided in the coming days to increase the testing of Ontarians. This will initially focus on vulnerable populations and congregate settings, and then include broader population groups to better understand disease spread in Ontario
So the goal is spelled out I think. To do as many tests as possible in Ontario. It doesn’t put a time limit on it.
That’s one of the things I sensed right away when COVID started. I could tell they were just trying to give people the suggestion that maybe it would only be for two or three weeks, and that’s how people bought into it. But I could tell it was something more because they kept saying it was something more.
The first section:
1. Hospital Inpatients and Residents Living in Long-Term Care and Retirement Homes
• Long-term care/nursing homes: Health care homes designed for adults who need access to on-site 24-hour nursing care and frequent assistance with activities of daily living
• Retirement homes: Privately-owned, self-funded residences that provide rental accommodation with care and services for seniors who can live independently with minimal to moderate support
Following active surveillance, any patient/resident with the following, should be tested:
Symptomatic patients/residents in line with the provincial case definition,who are experiencing one of the following symptoms revised from previous guidance:
• Fever (Temperature of 37.8°C or greater); OR
• Any new/worsening acute respiratory illness symptom (e.g. cough, shortness of breath (dyspnea), sore throat, runny nose or sneezing, nasal congestion, hoarse voice, difficulty swallowing, new olfactory or taste disorder(s), nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain); OR
• Clinical or radiological evidence of pneumonia.
Atypical presentations of COVID-19 should be considered, particularly in elderly persons. For a list of potential atypical symptoms, please see Appendix.
So quoting from the Appendix:
Atypical Symptoms/Signs of COVID-19 Seen in Older Adults
• Unexplained fatigue/malaise • Delirium (acutely altered mental status and inattention) • Falls • Acute functional decline • Exacerbation of chronic conditions • Chills • Headaches • Croup
• Unexplained tachycardia • Decrease in blood pressure • Unexplained hypoxia (even if mild i.e. O2 sat <90%) [reduced oxygen supply–ironically(?) (sometimes) “authorities” want us wearing masks] • Lethargy, difficulty feeding in infants (if no other diagnosis)
So they throw in the kitchen sink–because it’s about the numbers. The more people they test, the more positive test results to count.
For “Asymptomatic patients:
Asymptomatic patients transferred from a hospital to a long-term care home or retirement home should be tested prior to transfer. A negative result does not rule out the potential for incubating illness and all patients should remain under a 14-day self-isolation period following transfer. [seems reasonable]
In the event of a symptomatic resident in a long-term care home or retirement home, asymptomatic residents living in the same room should be tested immediately along with the symptomatic resident. [Seems like the wrong emphasis–shouldn’t the symptomatic resident be isolated from the others? But the emphasis is on testing everyone, well, . . . ]
In the event of an outbreak of COVID-19 in a long-term care home or retirement home asymptomatic contacts of a confirmed case, determined in consultation with the local public health authority, should be tested including: [Again, emphasis is on testing everyone they can somehow logically justify testing]
• All residents living in adjacent rooms
• All staff working on the unit/care hub
• All essential visitors [Has this term been used in the past?] that attended at the unit/care hub
• Any other contacts [so already they were doing contact tracing. Was this ever done in Ontario before and in what situations?] deemed appropriate for testing based on a risk assessment by local public health
Local public health may also, based on a risk assessment, determine whether any of the above-mentioned individuals do not require testing (e.g. a resident that has been in self-isolation during the period of communicability)
This emphasis on testing all these people is CONTRADICTED BY A REMINDER AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LAST PAGE:
• Testing of asymptomatic patients, residents or staff is generally not recommended.
• Clinicians should continue to use their discretion to make decisions on which individuals to test.
Possibly because the tests cost money but also because they know that the tests have limited value in terms of their accuracy! I think that is probably the normal situation, but they’ve gone beyond that.
So it’s total double think: “Use your own judgment but test.” AND “Don’t test asymptomatic patients but test them.” It’s what you would expect from a scam and from an Orwellian type of regime.
Anyway, section 2. is
Healthcare Workers/Caregivers/Care Providers/First Responders
This section applies to healthcare workers, caregivers (i.e. volunteers, family members of residents in an institutional setting), care providers (e.g., employees, privately-hired support workers) and first responders.
All healthcare workers, caregivers, care providers and first responders, should be tested as soon as is feasible, if they develop any symptom compatible with COVID-19, including atypical symptoms (see Appendix).
The emphasis is on testing and on numbers. The symptoms list as you can see is very diverse and it includes a lot symptoms that people experience as very mild and are used to living with–and, serious or mild, they could be due to many other causes than COVID. It doesn’t seem like a big deal to test symptomatic people, but what does the testing procedure involve? Two swabs up the nose? Is it accurate? Is it a normal thing to do with influenza for example?
To me, I think one of the main points of the test is to subject people to the test–as well as to collect DNA possibly. And to track and trace them–X% ON and Y% OFF–they don’t care about the symptoms perhaps or whether someone’s actually that sick and what they’re sick from. They want the numbers and they want to impose a procedure on people and train them to get used to it–and to impose the surveillance on everyone–and it won’t stop with COVID.
Section 3 is:
Same symptom list
In this case, there is a condition on when they can consider tracking down asymptomatic contacts:
In the event of a confirmed case of COVID-19 in a remote, isolated, rural or Indigenous community testing of asymptomatic contacts should be considered in consultation with the local public health authority.
I haven’t seen any discussion of the seriousness of COVID in the document. I think we’re supposed to just assume that in order to justify the use of these resources for testing and tracking contacts! Don’t we already know that large number of seniors die from respiratory illnesses during flu season? Shouldn’t they be better protected from exposure than they are? And what are the statistics for deaths this spring during COVID compared to the same time last year [for seniors and for care homes/retirement homes]? I think the answer to these questions will tend to reveal a situation that is much worse and is not specific to COVID.
COVID is the scapegoat that gets the blame for everything bad from now on–a wrecked economy, etc. I can see it in various media stories. Also it is the Reason for the new system that is being celebrated as the proper way to do everything–and last year “we” just weren’t doing things properly. We were eating too much and consuming–and not subjecting everyone to medical tests for having a cold or diarrhea. However, if we have less money and less fuel, and less food, we will have more dead people. This is common sense and I think that’s the problem with the power of media.
The truth is they don’t want people living past a certain age. They don’t want to spend money on proper treatment. The truth is that human life has been devalued and Brave New World policies have been pushed on our society for a long time! And they have ramped up in recent years with introducing euthanasia. The elderly are not treated properly.
I’m sure many or most personal care workers do their best, and there are always good people with any system (in the past anyway). But putting the elderly in the hands of strangers (however they are paid) is the root and this is the result of the removal of the family from the center of our lives and replacing that with institutions. George Bernard Shaw gave an explicit expression of the formula his group wanted to impose on us.
If you look at the Kissinger-sponsored report on population (search the term “old age”), over and over they talk about taking the onus off the family for care of seniors in order to discourage adults from having more children to care for them in old age.
This is an anti-“Christian” system you might say. This is the Fabian, “satanic” type of system that devalues human life. It was so unnatural and invasive, that it required gradual introduction over a century. It’s the Fabian socialist side of the elite capitalist coin–same coin. H. G. Wells wrote about it also in The Open Conspiracy. It is about treating humans as objects. That’s why there are have been all these changes to “ethics” when it comes to biology and genetics.
Section 4 is:
Priorities in Situations of Resource Limitations
. . . Where there are shortages of testing supplies [swabs], the following groups should be prioritized for testing within 24 hours to inform public health and clinical management for these individuals:
• Symptomatic health care workers (regardless of care delivery setting) and staff who work in health care facilities
• Symptomatic residents and staff in Long Term Care facilities and retirement homes and other institutional settings e.g. shelters, mental health institutions, prisons, hospices and other congregate living settings (as per outbreak guidance)
• Hospitalized patients admitted with respiratory symptoms (new or exacerbated)
• Symptomatic members of remote, isolated, rural and/or indigenous communities
• Symptomatic travelers identified at a point of entry to Canada
• Symptomatic first responders (i.e. firefighters, police)
• Individuals referred for testing by local public health
So these were the rules on April 8 anyway. I am not just commenting on this document. I’m commenting on the whole situation. This last section seems reasonable in a way, but what if people just have mild symptoms which could just be a cold? Is it really necessary to test them? If COVID is everywhere, testing doesn’t stop it from spreading. The focus with illness should just be on the sick and especially on the seriously ill. The common sense world is gone and now we live in this world of people whose common sense has been removed by systematic propaganda, and also by money. You can see evidence of the money that has been undemocratically invested in COVID by noticing the corporate and government COVID messages in your face on every corporate website and social media platform.