# Falls Sie eine Website erwarten, aber diesen
# Abschnitt lesen können, löschen Sie bitte das
# _index.htmx_CDCC
# vom Ende der Adresszeile. Danke!



Lang: en
Title: Cecti, Ceizi, Cozi: Corona divided cities concept (CDCC)
Short-Title: Corona divided cities concept
Publication date: 2020-03-23

Meta: de
Title: Cecti, Ceizi, Cozi: Corona Divided Cities Concept (CDCC) (auf englisch)
Short-Title: Corona Divided Cities Concept


+INTRO-0
+INTRO
+ FAQ
+ FAQ2
+ sonstiges
+VERSION


>>INTRO-0 en

<H2>Idea</H2>

<P>
EDIT: <span style="color: #a02200">Caution! CDCC may fail in mid-term if
the virus undergoes genetic mutations on his journey. </span> But it may
success even in this case. It depends on the numbers.
</P>

<P>
Concept may also fail in case of possible re-infections, see "mixed topic"
below.
</P>

<P>
In the meanwhile please refer to the 
<B><A HREF="../CCfC/">CCfC concept (CityConcierge for Corona)</A></B>!
</P>


>>INTRO-0 de

<H2>Idee</H2>

<P>
EDIT: <span style="color: #a02200">Achtung! CDCC könnte mittelfristig
fehlschlagen, falls der Virus auf seiner Reise genetische Mutationen
erfährt. </span> Aber das Konzept könnte auch Erfolg haben. Das kommt
auf die Zahlen an.
</P>
<P>
Das Konzept könnte außerdem fehlschlagen, wenn Re-Infektionen möglich sind,
siehe unten "sonstiges"
</P>
<P>
In der Zwischenzeit schauen Sie sich besser das
<B><A HREF="../CCfC/?userlang=de">CCfC-Konzept (CityConcierge for Corona)</A></B> an!
</P>


>>INTRO


<H1>Corona divided cities concept (CDCC)</H1>

<P>
Now the world has seen (more or less) abrupt action for preventing the SARS-CoV-2 to do (more) harm. Now in many places there's high danger of infection and the possibility to participate in social life nearly vanished. Hearing newer reports, the measures include a high amount of privacy-opposed techniques for mass surveillance.
</P>
<br/>
<P>
We now have two options:
</P>

<OL>
<LI>After the big threat is banned, the measures are loosened. The government tries to trace down lots of cases at once, with urgent surveys for private information (thus inaccurateness, as people probably don't know what kind of informatino in this situation helps best), and the need for mass surveiiance. I heard the assumption that there will occure waves of the CoViD-19. Maybe this city will be affected, maybe that villages, maybe this chat provider is down, maybe that DIY store must close because all their staff is sick / under quarantaine.
<LI>To proactively plan and distribute the infection load and danger with three-grade-communities: a protective community, a epidemic community and an over community. Inside the respective community, you can live all your social life. Across the community, you have personal connection prohibited. Good thing is: eventually, everybody can join the over community, so there's no prohibition then. At neither time you need anti-privacy measures.
</OL>


<P>
This little article is about the second option. Terminology is: 
</P>

<UL>
<LI>Corona protective city (Cecti) - lot's of not-immunized people which have never seen SARS-CoV-2
<LI>Corona epidemic city (Ceizi) - people which are carriing SARS-CoV-2 or who will do soon
<LI>Corona over city (Cozi) - people which already had SARS-CoV-2 and are immune
</UL>


>>FAQ


<H2>FAQ</H2>

<P>
I don't want to tell you too much prosa - here's an "FAQ" on the concept (although no-one had ever chance to ask any question at this time of writing):
</P>


<H3>How is living in the Corona protective city (Cecti)?</H3>

<P>
Corona protective city (Cecti) has lots of not-immunized, "healthy" people.
There is a medium amount of disinfectous measures which you already know from
everyday use: not coughing into the public, using gloves, washing hands
regulary, etc.
</P>
<P>
In case you get sick in Cecti, you and your near flatmates/friends/collegues <B>must</B> leave this community instantly for Ceizi. There's no excuse.
</P>
<P>
In case a person has met new friends in some event, it shall perform some balanced form of self-quarantaine for five days.
</P>
<P>
The Cecti is undergoing regular statistical memory-cell tests (which don't need to be tracable). You can assume that there are 0-10% of memory-cell pervasion across people here.
</P>


<H3>How is living in the Corona epidemic city (Ceizi)?</H3>

<P>
In Corona epidemic city (Ceizi) you are a bit in danger because you will be infected with the virus. But - relax, take it like holidays or a calm cure. If you are unstressed the virus will not harm you too much. And if it will - there are sufficient medical facilities which will try their best to heal you.
</P>
<P>
In this way of thinking, don't have fear to meet other people.
</P>
<P>
After having lived for a certain time span (~4 month?) in Ceizi, you are probably immune against the virus. If you are not sure, you can be tested. Now you can leave for Cozi.
</P>


<H3>How is living in the Corona over city (Cozi)?</H3>

<P>
Corona over city (Cozi) is a safe place - nearly everybody is immune (~85% of memory-cell pervasion). Social life is normal, and nobody has a thought about the virus. Here you can plan your (new/old?) garden, make up your worklife, go to parties, and live in peace until the next natural disaster. [EDIT]
</P>


<H3>I don't ever want to get SARS-CoV-2</H3>

<P>
Few people are allowed to go to Cozi and use the heard protection. But if too much people do that, Cozi isn't a safe place any more. So politics have the duty to make good decisions on whom to be allowed to go over to Cozi. 
</P>
<P>
Typically this permission should be given to people in high risk groups (people which get severe diseases from SARS-CoV-2 virus)
</P>

<P>
But keep in mind that:
</P>
<UL>
<LI>Even if you are in a high risk group, the probability that you die of it individually is probably not too high. (... we all must constantly watch for statistics ...)
<LI>Maybe people which are not in the high risk groups can die too.
<LI>You are nowhere totally safe of getting infected.
</UL>


<H3>That has lots of downsides!</H3>

<P>
Yes.
</P>

<UL>
<LI>Nearly everyone has to get the virus
<LI>Separation of former communities
<LI>Need for more resources? - Careful! We need to save our environment, biodiversity, climate coolness. [But maybe it's the most resource efficient strategy anyway? I mean compared to the alternatives - hecticness also destroys environment!]
</UL>


<H3>I don't want to leave the family property, my cheap rented flat, my houseboat, my friends, my beloved subway system, ...</H3>

<P>
-&gt; This problem is difficult to solve. You probably will have to leave the house/flat/... but maybe you can come back after city has changed it's status. (Maybe it's all over after two years)
</P>
<P>
There must be a social contract which ensures a just distribution of financial
and social hardship. Of course this social contract must be designed and
ratified by the people.
</P>


<H3>We don't need all this, there will be a vaccination soon! (1)</H3>

<P>
Yes, maybe. But until that, we must live together somehow. We humans need social proximity, and the Cecti-Ceizi-Cozi concept is a good approach. As soon as there's a vaccination, the Cecti and Ceizi people can directly enter Cozi state. (So society must somehow decide who must go to Ceizi first in a fair manner)
</P>
<P>
No, maybe not. Then it's month / years later and there's still uncertainity and social distancing and we will face at least scattered health system overload events.
</P>


<H3>We don't need all this, there will be a vaccination soon! (2)</H3>

<P>
Yes, it's not too unprobable that further diseases will face us. If the concept works out well for SARS-CoV-2, we have good guidelines for the next disease.
</P>



<<FAQ
>>FAQ2 en

<H2>FAQ (2)</H2>

This is the second set of questions. These actually have been asked.


<H3>Will there be a German translation?</H3>

Hopefully soon. 


<H3>Why shan't mix people from third phase [Cozi] mix with people from first phase [Cecti]?</H3>

(self answered) I see, 3. phase is needed for the risk groups of persons which
should not get infected.


<H3>Why cann't change people from phase 3. [Cozi] to phase 1. [Cecti] and back?</H3>

Of course from an individual health point of view you can change from third
to first phase. It is problematic because of bad overview possibility. Nobody
will know how many of the already immunized are on which side of the fence.
They will probably manque (be missing) in Cozi for heard protection.

Also it is not so convenient in Cecti (1.) compared to Cozi (3.) because 
of annoying hygiene rules. (even if they are not too hard). [EDIT]

Furthermore this measure prevents that Ceizi (2.) has an too bad image where
"others", "ill" people shall reside but not "me". It works better if 
everyone goes there.


One of the main originating problems is what to do with people who have colds
on a regular basis. They would go into 14-day self-quarantaine regulary and/or
avoid other people and/or wear masks. It would be better for them to quickly
make their way 1.-&gt;2.-&gt;3.. Others would make this way later then.

Another matter is the isolation of the absolute neccessary activities like
buying food, going to dentis, .... A common strategy of the waiting withoud
city-division forces lots of people and facilities towards extensive isolation
measures. With CDCC concept just Cecti (1.) would have to be somewhat more
hygienic, while Ceizi and Cozi (2./3.) are as indifferent as normal.

Yet another problem is the pre-planning. If you want to participate in some
important bicycle tour/event/festival in summer e.g. you could already 
now (in spring) move to Ceizi (2.) to get risk-free in summer.



<H3>What about non-municipal living people? <A HREF="people">rural</A></H3>

Here are creative analogue solutions to be found. When the knowledge holders
of a agricultural plant have an suspicion of beeing infected the whole
workforce must be more relaxed and virtually change to "Ceizi city". In other
words, there must be phase 2. issued over the plant.

For preparation it may make sense to develop an exchangable farm format (EFF)
so agrarian skilled people can fastly adapt onto the farm. Problem may be that
this may limit a small-pieced strategy which directly addresses the local
conditions. But exactly such local strategies are needed for more
sustainability (humus building, water saving, biocide avoidance).



>>sonstiges en


<H3>mixed topic</H3>

What wasn't said but should be told of:

Some scurrile side effect is that you have to keep the infection running in
Ceizi (2.) - actually the infection you want to get rid of in society ;-)
This is the reason why it is needed to have a transit of lots of people there.
(This concept makes up just because SARS-nCoV-2 is "harmless")

An advantage of CDCC is that you don't need too many tests.


KDCD (South Korea) says that as of 10th of April
<A HREF="https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&bid=0030">91 cases have re-tested positive after beeing discharged from isolation</A>
(thanks to newspaper "taz" for the hint)
If it is possible to be re-infected this would change the game.



>>FAQ2 de

<H2>FAQ (2)</H2>

<P>
Dies ist der zweite, tatsächlich gestellte Fragensatz.
</P>

<H3>Gibt es eine deutsche Übersetzung?</H3>

<P>
Hoffentlich bald, sobald ich die Zeit dazu finde.
</P>

<H3>Warum sollen Leute aus der dritten [Cozi] sich nicht mit welchen aus der ersten [Cecti] vermischen?</H3>

<P>
(selbst beantwortet) Achso, die 3. braucht man für die Menschen, die sich
möglichst nicht infizieren sollten (Risikopersonen).
</P>

<H3>Eigentlich können doch Leute aus der 3. [Cozi] auch in die 1. [Cecti] und wieder zurück wechseln?</H3>

<P>
Also, aus individueller gesundheitlicher Sicht kann man natürlich von der
dritten Phase in die erste
gehen. Das Problem ist die Unübersichtlichkeit. Ich gehe davon aus, dass dann
niemand mehr den Überblick hat, wie viele der schon immunisierten Personen
auf welcher Seite sind. Sie fehlen dann in der 3. für den Herdenschutz.
</P>
<P>
Außerdem ist 1. nicht so bequem, weil vmtl. doch ein paar nervige
Hygieneregeln zu befolgen sind, die man in 3. sparen kann.
</P>
<P>
Außerdem wird so vermieden, dass die 2. zu negativ gesehen wird; diese
ist dann nicht einfach die Abseite für die Kranken, die man persönlich
vermeiden will, sondern es ist klar, dass alle da durch müssen.
</P>
<P>
Ein Problem, das dem Ganzen zugrunde liegt, ist die Frage, wie man gerecht mit den erkältungsbehafteten umgeht. Die Menschen, die häufig erkältet sind,
müssten ständig für ~14 Tage in Quarantäne zu gehen oder Menschen meiden
oder Masken zu tragen o. ä.. Diese würden also relativ schnell den
Weg 1.-&gt;2.-&gt;3. machen. Bei anderen würde das vmtl. später passieren. 
</P>
<P>
Ein weiteres Problem ist die Frage nach der Isolation bei notwendigen 
Tätigkeiten (Einkaufen, Zahnarzt, ...). Wenn man eine Abwarten-Strategie 
ohne Trennung verfolgt, zwingt man ganz viele Menschen und Einrichtungen
zu aufwändigen Isolationsmaßnahmen. Mit dem CDCC-Konzept müsste nur 
Cecti (1.) ein bisschen geschützt werden, in Ceizi und Cozi (2. und 3.)
ist es so "egal" wie sonst auch.
</P>
<P>
Noch ein weiteres Problem ist die Planbarkeit: Wenn man sich z. B. wünscht,
im Sommer bei einer wichtigen Radtour/Event/Festival mitzumachen, könnte 
man sich schon jetzt in den 2. Bereich begeben und wäre dann im Sommer 
kein Risiko mehr.
</P>


<H3>Was ist mit nicht-städtisch lebenden Menschen?</H3>

<P>
Hier können kreative analoge Lösungen gefunden werden. Wenn z. B. die 
Wissensträgö eines landwirtschaftlichen Betriebs den Corona-Verdacht haben,
muss die Belegschaft des ganzen Betriebs entspannter arbeiten und quasi 
analog in die "Stadt" Ceizi überwechseln, d. h. es wird die Phase 2. über
dem Betrieb ausgesprochen.
</P>
<P>
Zur Vorbereitung kann es sinnvoll sein, für Bauernhöfe ein EFF (Exchangable
farm format) zu entwickeln, sodass sich landwirtschaftlich vorgebildete
Menschen schnell in die neue Farm einfinden können. Das Problem ist, dass
dadurch ggf. eine kleinteilig auf die vorliegenden Verhänltnisse ausgerichtete
Strategie verhindert wird, wobei genau solche Strategien für mehr
Nachhaltigkeit (Humusaufbau, Wassersparen, Biozidvermeidung) gebraucht würden.
</P>


>>sonstiges de

<H3>sonstiges</H3>

<P>
Was bisher nicht hier stand, aber mal gesagt werden sollte:
</P>
<P>
Ein skurriler Seiteneffekt wäre, dass man in 2. die Infektion am Leben halten muss, die gesamtgesellschaftlich beseitigt werden soll ;-) Deswegen ist dort ein breiter Durchlauf an möglichst vielen Menschen nötig. 
(Diese Konzept geht nur, weil Corona so "harmlos" ist)
</P>
<P>
Vorteil ist auch, dass nicht so viele Tests benötigt werden.
</P>
<P>
KDCD (Südkorea) hat bekanntgegeben, dass bis 10. April 
<A HREF="https://www.cdc.go.kr/board/board.es?mid=a30402000000&amp;bid=0030">91 Personen nach ihrer Quarantäne erneut positiv getestet worden sind.</A>
(Dank an die taz für den Hinweis)
Falls es möglich sein sollte, sich nach durchlaufener Krankheit erneut
anzustecken, würde das eine Neubewertung des Konzepts nötig machen.
</P>


<<FAQ/sonstiges

>>VERSION

<H2>Version information</H2>

<P>
23. 3. 2020: initial
</P>
<P>
24. 3. 2020 early: use of "live" instead of "die" in Cozi description, add natural disaster
</P>
<P>
24. 3. 2020 late: replacement of "antibody" by "memory-cell" , FAQ2+mixed topic (german+english)
</P>
<P>
25. 3. 2020 early: clearer words to describe non-immunized persons
</P>
<P>
25. 3. 2020 late: thread -&gt; threat...  and further
</P>
<P>
1. 4. 2020 late: added relativization in consideration of the news about a genetic change of the virus
</P>
<P>
10. 4. 2020: moved from sonstiges/covid19 to sonstiges/covid19/CDCC, and clearance of two confusing numbers. Added re-infection information.
</P>