The CDC used to keep a table around that showed their estimated prevalence of Covid-19. That stopped being updated for months -- right through the middle of the "mandate screamfest" which started in the summer.
Well, it's back -- and it ruins Biden's mandate demands.
It gets worse. Note that the 5th Circuit stated that one of the primary problems with the OSHA mandate is that Covid-19 is not deadly to all but a few people. Well, in this same publication is the infection fatality rate for population segments. It's not good for the mandating folks.
It shows that for working age people -- those under 65 years old -- in no group does the IFR exceed 0.25%.
In those under 50 the IFR is no greater than 0.04%!
And in those under 18 it is 0.0009%. In other words, statistically zero.
There are about 60 million people under 18 in the United States. If every one of them got Covid-19, by the CDC's numbers, about 500 would die. This is a vanishingly small number of individuals and is dwarfed by auto accidents. Indeed six times that number of kids die from drowning every year. Car crashes are worse (drowning is the second leading cause of death in children.)
May I point out that we've known this -- that Covid-19 almost-never kills children -- since the spring of 2020?
Note that this rate of "had the illness" is roughly a double since May. How is that possible when it took over a year to reach 20% seroprevalence in the population, which we know it did because of the Red Cross data published in the NEJM?
Simple: The vaccines destroyed existing resistance to Covid-19 and thus turned those who would not seroconvert (as they never got replication-occurring infected, their immune systems being able to defeat the virus before that occurred) into susceptible individuals who then were not only able to get Covid-19 on a symptomatic basis they were wildly successful in spreading it too because it often suppressed symptoms well enough and long enough for those people to be extremely-effective inoculators of others, including others who were jabbed and thus had their existing immunity ruined as well.
But irrespective of this there is zero argument for a mandate by anyone when you have an IFR this low and prior infection this prevalent. Recommending that a previously-infected person take a jab is the definition of gross malpractice and in fact is a felony assault worthy of the same response as any other since we know that (1) the jabs do have risk, including risk of lethal outcomes, (2) they do not prevent infection, (3) they do not prevent transmission and (4) they do not prevent getting seriously ill either -- they may have some protective value in that regard but there is no evidence, and the CDC has so-admitted, that a person previously infected is able to (1) become reinfected AND (2) infect others.
Dr. Brandon, you have a call on line 1 from Mr. Hands.