Covid 19: 8 Algarve Counties Now Under High Risk Restriction Measures

COVID 19: 8 ALGARVE COUNTIES NOW UNDER HIGH RISK RESTRICTION MEASURES

Yesterday the government officially announced that the list of municipalities with a high risk of transmission of covid-19, subject to more restrictive measures has increased to 191, 8 of which are in the Algarve.

The update of the list, currently with 121 municipalities, removes seven municipalities, in which these restriction measures are no longer in effect, as of 00:00 today, November 13th, and includes 77 new municipalities as of 00:00 of the next Monday, November 16th, announced the Prime Minister, António Costa, who was speaking after a meeting of the Council of Ministers at the National Palace of Ajuda, in Lisbon.

In the Algarve there are eight municipalities: Albufeira, Faro, Lagos, Portimão, Tavira, Vila do Bispo and Vila Real de Santo António, plus São Brás de Alportel.

Reassessed every 15 days by the Government, the list of municipalities with a high risk of transmission of covid-19 is defined according to the general criterion of the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of "more than 240 cases per 100 thousand inhabitants in the last 14 days ", and considering the proximity to another municipality in this situation and the exception for outbreaks located in low density municipalities.

As of 00:00 on 13 November, the following counties are no longer included in the list:

  • Batalha
  • Mesão Frio
  • Moimenta da Beira
  • Pinhel
  • São João da Pesqueira
  • Tabuaço
  • Tondela

From 00:00 on 16 November , 77 more counties will be included in the list:

  • Abrantes
  • Águeda
  • Albergaria-a-Velha
  • Albufeira
  • Alcanena
  • Aljustrel
  • Almeida
  • Almeirim
  • Alvaiázere
  • Anadia
  • Ansião
  • Arcos de Valdevez
  • Arganil
  • Arronches
  • Boticas
  • Bigger field
  • Cantanhede
  • Carrazeda de Ansiães
  • Castro Daire
  • Celorico da Beira
  • Coimbra
  • Condeixa-a-Nova
  • Coruche
  • Crato
  • Cuba
  • Elvas
  • Estarreja
  • Évora
  • Faro
  • Ferreira do Alentejo
  • Figueira de Castelo Rodrigo
  • Sword Ash with Strap
  • Grândola
  • Ílhavo
  • Lagos
  • Lamego
  • Mangualde
  • Butters
  • Mealhada
  • Me of
  • Mira
  • Miranda do Corvo
  • Miranda do Douro
  • Mirandela
  • Monforte
  • Montalegre
  • Montemor-o-Velho
  • Mora
  • Murtosa
  • In them
  • Oliveira do Bairro
  • Ourém
  • Pampilhosa da Serra
  • Penalva do Castelo
  • Penamacor
  • Penela
  • Ponte de Sor
  • Portalegre
  • Portimao
  • Proença-a-Nova
  • Reguengos de Monsaraz
  • Resende
  • Salvaterra de Magos
  • Sao Pedro do Sul
  • Sátão
  • Seia
  • Sousel
  • Board
  • Tavira
  • Moncorvo Tower
  • Vagos
  • Vieira do Minho
  • Vila do Bispo
  • Vila Nova de Foz
  • Côa
  • Vila Nova de Paiva
  • Vila Real de Santo António
  • Viseu

The following counties remain on the high risk list:

Alcácer do Sal, Alcochete, Alenquer, Alfândega da Fé, Alijó, Almada, Amadora, Amarante, Amares, Arouca, Arruda dos Vinhos, Aveiro, Azambuja, Baião, Barcelos, Barreiro, Beja, Belmonte, Benavente, Borba, Braga, Bragança, Cabeceiras de Basto, Cadaval, Caminha, Cartaxo, Cascais, Castelo Branco, Castelo de Paiva, Celorico de Basto, Chamusca, Chaves, Cinfães, Constância, Covilhã, Espinho, Esposende, Estremoz, Fafe, Felgueiras, Figueira da Foz, Fornos de Algodres, Fundão, Gondomar, Guarda, Guimarães, Idanha-a-Nova, Lisbon, Loures, Lousada, Macedo de Cavaleiros, Mafra, Maia, Marco de Canaveses, Matosinhos, Mogadouro, Moita, Mondim de Basto, Montijo, Murça, Odivelas, Oeiras, Oliveira de Azeméis, Oliveira de Frades, Ovar, Paços de Ferreira, Palmela, Paredes de Coura, Paredes, Penacova, Penafiel, Peso da Régua, Ponte de Lima, Porto, Póvoa de Varzim, Póvoa do Lanhoso, Round, Ribeira da Pena, Rio Maior, Sabrosa, Santa Comba Dão, Santa Maria da Feira, Santa Marta de Penaguião, Santarém, Santo Tirso, São Brás de Alportel , São João da Madeira, Sardoal, Seixal, Sesimbra, Setúbal, Sever do Vouga, Sines, Sintra, Sobral de Monte Agraço, Trancoso, Trofa, Vale da Cambra, Valença, Valongo, Viana do Alentejo, Viana do Castelo, Vila do Conde, Vila Flor, Vila Franca de Xira, Vila Nova de Cerveira, Vila Nova de Famalicão, Vila Nova de Gaia, Vila Pouca de Aguiar, Vila Real, Vila Velha de Ródão, Vila Verde, Vila Viçosa and Vizela.

Original article available in Portuguese at http://postal.pt/

 

Pin It

Comments  

+1 #43 Steve 2020-11-18 15:39
Quoting David:
Final part of the decision summary:

IV. Any person or entity issuing an order, the content of which is extended to the deprivation of physical liberty, on an out-patient basis, of others (whatever nomenclature this order may be called: confinement, isolation, quarantine, prophylactic custody, health surveillance, etc.), which does not comply with the legal provisions, namely the provisions of art. 27 of the CRP, will be making an illegal arrest, because it is ordered by an incompetent entity and because it is motivated by a fact for which the law does not allow it.
(Summary prepared by the rapporteur)
Two things we found out about this court decision is that the application “habeas corpus” works in the Portuguese justice system and that the PCR alone is useless as diagnostic tool. Anybody forced to quarantine because of a positive test can legally refuse to do so.
+2 #42 David 2020-11-17 13:19
Final part of the decision summary:

IV. Any person or entity issuing an order, the content of which is extended to the deprivation of physical liberty, on an out-patient basis, of others (whatever nomenclature this order may be called: confinement, isolation, quarantine, prophylactic custody, health surveillance, etc.), which does not comply with the legal provisions, namely the provisions of art. 27 of the CRP, will be making an illegal arrest, because it is ordered by an incompetent entity and because it is motivated by a fact for which the law does not allow it.
(Summary prepared by the rapporteur)
+1 #41 David 2020-11-17 13:17
Quoting Chip:
Strange that the Professor quoting the court decision in this article on the impartial Lockdown Sceptics website refused to give his identity.
I wonder why.


Because he fears he will lose his job and his livelihood if he speaks publicly. I don't call it a global fascist medical tyranny for nothing.
-4 #40 Reg 2020-11-17 09:25
Isolate the vulnerable so that others can have fun.

https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2020-11-16/gnr-shut-down-algarve-parties/56740
-3 #39 Chip 2020-11-17 00:27
Quoting Reg:
So you want to take the old and vulnerable people out of their home environment and stick them into designated quarantine hospitals. Not even knowing for how long. Well I think that is cruel.

It's worse than cruel. It's callous, selfish and morally reprehensible.
You would need to be pretty low down the food chain to endorse such a practice.
-1 #38 Reg 2020-11-16 19:12
Quoting Peter Booker:
I am sorry that Reg sees the need to use sarcasm; its use is rarely effective in reasoned debate.

Fortunately for us the dog knows how and when to go out, and as we walk together in our location, fresh air is not in short supply.

The vulnerable to my mind are those with a predisposition to suffer extreme symptoms if they do catch the Covid (such as those elderly in Britain who live in three generational housing and who are unable to go out, and those with pre-existing conditions).

Quarantine hospitals have been useful in the past in outbreaks of cholera, scarlet fever and Spanish flu. Why should we treat Covid any differently?

The figures which Steve has shown indicate that the scare over the Covid pandemic may be a hoax, and as a consequence of the stress on dealing with with Covid, people with treatable conditions are dying of other diseases.

I was not being sarcastic it was my reply to your post that you are FORCED to stay at home inside. So you want to take the old and vulnerable people out of their home environment and stick them into designated quarantine hospitals. Not even knowing for how long. Well I think that is cruel.
+1 #37 David 2020-11-16 18:43
C. The only element in the proven facts in this respect is the carrying out of RT-PCR tests, one of which showed a positive result for one of the applicants.

D. In the light of the current scientific evidence, that test alone is incapable of establishing beyond reasonable doubt that such a positive result corresponds in fact to a person's infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, for a number of reasons, including two (plus the question of the gold standard which, because of its specific nature, we will not even address):
This reliability depends on the number of cycles that make up the test;
Because this reliability depends on the amount of viral load present.

III. Any diagnosis or any act of health surveillance (such as the determination of the existence of viral infection and high risk of exposure, which are covered by these concepts) made without prior medical observation to the patients and without the intervention of a doctor registered with OM (who would evaluate their signs and symptoms, as well as the examinations that he considered appropriate to their condition), violates Regulation No. 6/2002. 698/2019, of 5.9, as well as the provisions of article 97 of the Statute of the Order of Physicians, being liable to constitute the crime of usurpation of functions, p. and p. by article 358 al.b) of the Criminal Code.
+1 #36 David 2020-11-16 18:42
Translation of decision summary

A. Prescription and diagnosis are medical acts for which a doctor is exclusively responsible and which are registered with the Medical Association (Regulation No 698/2019 of 5.9).

Thus, the prescription of diagnostic aids (such as tests for the detection of viral infection), as well as the diagnosis of the existence of an illness, in relation to each and every person, is a matter which cannot be carried out by law, resolution, decree, regulation or any other normative means, as these are acts which our legal system reserves to the exclusive competence of a doctor, it being certain that the latter, in advising his patient, should always seek to obtain his informed consent (Article 6(1) of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights).

B. In the case in question, there is no indication or proof that such a diagnosis has actually been made by a qualified professional under the terms of the Law and who has acted in accordance with good medical practice. In fact, what emerges from the facts given as evidence is that none of the applicants has even been seen by a doctor, which is frankly inexplicable, given the alleged seriousness of the infection.
-1 #35 Chip 2020-11-16 17:51
Quoting Steve:
Quoting Reg:

So how many diabetics or cancer or patients suffering from emphysema would still be alive if they had not contracted Covid on the top of their medical condition?
The question is how many would still be alive if they were allowed to get treatment.

If you look at this graph from Public Health England you will see that there are a lot more people dying at home of covid non related deaths and a great reduction of other deaths(covid non related) in hospitals.

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html#place-of-death


So deaths are indeed happening as a result of Covid. All the more erason to contain it. QED.
-1 #34 Steve 2020-11-16 15:36
Quoting Reg:

So how many diabetics or cancer or patients suffering from emphysema would still be alive if they had not contracted Covid on the top of their medical condition?
The question is how many would still be alive if they were allowed to get treatment.

If you look at this graph from Public Health England you will see that there are a lot more people dying at home of covid non related deaths and a great reduction of other deaths(covid non related) in hospitals.

https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/static-reports/mortality-surveillance/excess-mortality-in-england-latest.html#place-of-death

You must be a registered user to make comments.
Please register here to post your comments.