CDC barely checking for reinfections of COVID-19, despite promise to “closely monitor” for them

Back in spring 2020, near the onset of the pandemic, the federal government claimed that it was closely monitoring for reinfections of COVID-19 within the populace. As it turns out, the “closely monitoring” part was a lie. Shocker.

The Informed Consent Action Network–or ICAN–an organization which monitors pharmaceuticals and medical procedures for the sake of providing the public with informed consent, contacted the CDC back in November 2021 with a request for their reinfection data. Four months later the CDC responded with a single page.

From ICAN:

The CDC’s Emergency Operations Center responded with less than a single page of results covering the period up to February 10, 2022.

Trending: JUST BREAKING: As House Oversight Chair Prepares To File Contempt Charges Against Director Wray, FBI Makes Astonishing Statement [VIDEO]

What the CDC provided showed data for only four jurisdictions: New York City, and the states of Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Utah. If that were not bad enough, these jurisdictions were not even consistent among themselves in their methods of identifying and validating reinfections. Worse yet, the CDC did not even examine the data it collected, let alone check it or analyze it. Furthermore, it told our attorneys, “Counts are provisional and subject to change.”

The four jurisdictions put together resulted in only 252, 620 reinfections. However, if these reinfections really were such a concern, then why were only four jurisdictions accounted for in their data?

Use promo code FedUp at checkout for this BOGO offer. (100 Percent Fed Up benefits when you use this promo code.)

The CDC and other health agencies have not been “closely monitoring” the situation as it pertained to reinfections, with 46 states completely unaccounted for, as well as a large portion of New York. Actual reinfection rates are unknown and difficult to estimate, based on what little CDC data there is.

Keep in mind, if data collection is so faulty and sparse in one area of monitoring, it very well could be like this across the board. And yet, the CDC has essentially steered policy for the last 2+ years, resulting in the upheaval of many lives and destruction of many businesses, not to mention assisting in setting the stage for an unprecedented stolen election. All based on what? Surely, more than just four jurisdictions, right?

The CDC’s data collection when it comes to “closely monitoring” reinfection reflects how poor the agency is at conducting its job. There is no reason to believe that the rest of their data the past 2+ years is more thorough and compelling than in this specific case.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.