A change made by the CDC shows they are once again moving the goalposts.
The Biden run CDC is doing away with herd immunity which flies in the face of Biden’s rational for his mandate.
Herd immunity is when so many people are immune to a disease that it runs out of hosts to cause an outbreak. It’s a natural process that is as old as time but Biden believes he knows better.
So no “fact checker” can claim we made this up, the Los Angeles Times reports:
None[vaccines] has proved reliable at blocking transmission of the virus, Jones noted. Recent evidence has also made clear that the immunity provided by vaccines can wane in a matter of months.
The result is that even if vaccination were universal, the coronavirus would probably continue to spread.
Biden told us that the only way to get back to normal was to get 80% of the country vaccinated and Americans complied, then he said he is going to impose a mandate to force the vaccine on everyone, and now his own CDC is doing away with herd immunity.
Additionally, a Freedom of Information Act request filed by an attorney showed that the CDC admitted they have no data showing an unvaccinated person who previously contracted the coronavirus being reinfected and transmitting it to another person.
In response to attorney’s FOIA request, US CDC admits that it has no record of an unvaccinated person spreading COVID after recovering from COVID.
Lawyers smelling blood in the water. pic.twitter.com/ajdOuiIyjj
— Michael P Senger (@MichaelPSenger) November 12, 2021
Meanwhile, Biden’s mandate hangs by a thread. For now, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a stay and the 6th Circuit is going to conduct the constitutional review.
The Cincinnati-based court has 16 judges: 11 appointed by Republican presidents and five by Democratic presidents. Six of those judges were appointed by former President Trump.
However, it is not expected that the three judge panel will be the final authority and it is more probable that the losing side will request a hearing before all of the judges. It is also likely that the loser of that hearing would request a review before the Supreme Court.