The first words that really jump out to you when you hear the title of this document, though, are humanitarian setting. That should tell you a little bit about the context of this document and how it's about strategies that could be explored to limit the spread of COVID in settings like camps for displaced persons and refugees. Now, the title itself might make you think that this was a document that laid out plans, but it actually didn't. Instead, it discussed the pros and cons of exploring a specific strategy, the shielding approach, and it sought to explore possible challenges that one would have in implementing those. The shielding approach was basically a plan where you would have areas in these places like refugee camps that would be isolated from the larger camp. And what you would do is you'd put people who are at higher risk of developing serious COVID cases there as a way of shielding them. And this could be done on various scales. It could be done within a household even if you just had a part of the house. This is what is discussed in the document.

Jade Folsey, the CDC public affairs specialist, told FactCheck that the document itself was only prepared as a response to a paper in the London that came out from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine that argued in favor of the shielding approach. So, in response to that, they did an analysis of this.

The actual CDC document from October of last year, where they list heart swelling, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, death, liquefaction of the uterus off of what their scientists were telling him what happened. Now you know why the two-head virologist quit two days ago.

Official CDC document we covered last Monday is actively discussing the possible necessity of shielding high-risk individuals by putting them in quarantine camps or green zones. Let's say that again. People that aren't sick, but that might get sick. Being put in camps.