The CDC Needs To Stop Confusing the Public (nytimes.com) 219
Dr. Zeynep Tufekci, an associate professor at the University of North Carolina, writing at The New York Times: The C.D.C. faces three major problems. The first is reality: a sustained campaign of misinformation against vaccines and other public health measures, originating mostly with right-wing commentators and politicians, and a new media environment that has upended traditional information flows.
Second, the C.D.C. is still mired in the fog of pandemic, with too little data, collected too slowly, leaving it chasing epidemic waves and trying to make sense of information from other countries. Epidemics spread exponentially, so delayed responses make problems much worse. If the response to a crisis comes after many people are already aware of it brewing, it leaves them confused and fearful if they look to the C.D.C. for guidance, and vulnerable to misinformation if they do not.
Third, the agency is simply not doing a good job at what the pamphlet advises: being first, right and credible, and avoiding mixed messaging, delays and confusion. It's hard not to have sympathy for its predicament. The previous administration undermined the C.D.C., and anti-vaxxers' deliberate misinformation assault has not made the agency's job any easier. The digital public sphere operates fast and furious, and that's difficult for traditional institutions to keep up with or to counter. All this makes it even more important that the C.D.C. properly handle what's under its control.
The response to the Delta variant has been too slow. Data from other countries made it clear months ago that it posed a great threat. Unfortunately, the United States already doesn't systematically collect the kind of data needed on many important indicators. Making things worse, in early May, the C.D.C. stopped tracking breakthrough infections among the vaccinated unless they were hospitalized or worse, even though the reason for continued surveillance is to see and understand changes in an outbreak as early as possible. June passed with little change in the government's response, despite multiple technical papers from Public Health England showing that the Delta variant was much more transmissible and possibly more severe and that it was able to cause more breakthrough infections among the vaccinated. Detailed contact tracing from Singapore also showed that some of the vaccinated were transmitting.
Second, the C.D.C. is still mired in the fog of pandemic, with too little data, collected too slowly, leaving it chasing epidemic waves and trying to make sense of information from other countries. Epidemics spread exponentially, so delayed responses make problems much worse. If the response to a crisis comes after many people are already aware of it brewing, it leaves them confused and fearful if they look to the C.D.C. for guidance, and vulnerable to misinformation if they do not.
Third, the agency is simply not doing a good job at what the pamphlet advises: being first, right and credible, and avoiding mixed messaging, delays and confusion. It's hard not to have sympathy for its predicament. The previous administration undermined the C.D.C., and anti-vaxxers' deliberate misinformation assault has not made the agency's job any easier. The digital public sphere operates fast and furious, and that's difficult for traditional institutions to keep up with or to counter. All this makes it even more important that the C.D.C. properly handle what's under its control.
The response to the Delta variant has been too slow. Data from other countries made it clear months ago that it posed a great threat. Unfortunately, the United States already doesn't systematically collect the kind of data needed on many important indicators. Making things worse, in early May, the C.D.C. stopped tracking breakthrough infections among the vaccinated unless they were hospitalized or worse, even though the reason for continued surveillance is to see and understand changes in an outbreak as early as possible. June passed with little change in the government's response, despite multiple technical papers from Public Health England showing that the Delta variant was much more transmissible and possibly more severe and that it was able to cause more breakthrough infections among the vaccinated. Detailed contact tracing from Singapore also showed that some of the vaccinated were transmitting.
Don't confuse? (Score:5, Insightful)
You say "don't confuse people" -- but you have to consider what that actually means. For a lot of people (about 40% at this point) it means "never change your position", and any change in the messaging is considered proof of malfeasance. "They told us not to wear masks before they told us to wear masks, and they don't do anything anyhow." The Bible never changes, so why should any other truth?
Re:Don't confuse? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Bible never changes, so why should any other truth?
Publishers have sent out requests to the author(s), but, so far, no one has shown up.
Presuming The Bible contains "truth" and not just (hugely inconsistent) stories. Just sayin' ...
Re: (Score:2)
Some of what you type reads accurate as all get out...just remember, like science for the facts guys {(and dolls} (I feel plausibly less comfortable representing the XX humans as dolls, due in great part to the increasing penalty for that particular sort of gender branding, and yet, somehow, I still cannot stop myself.}
The odds are good, no, great, that given the behavior of a large percentage of humans in the not too recent past, they're also planning to fuck up our future. Stock up on important shit like
Re: (Score:2)
What does the bible have to do with truth?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't confuse? (Score:4, Informative)
Science answers "how", not "why".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are not fully vaccinated and aged 2 or older, you should wear a mask in indoor public places.
Even the WHO only recommends masks for children six and up: [who.int]
In general, children aged 5 years and under should not be required to wear masks. This advice is based on the safety and overall interest of the child and the capacity to appropriately use a mask with minimal assistance. There may be local requirements for children aged 5 years and under to wear masks, or specific needs in some settings, such as being physically close to someone who is ill. In these circumstances, if the child wears a mask, a parent or other guardian should be within direct line of sight to supervise the safe use of the mask.
Re: (Score:3)
So, you're upset that the CDC believes 2-year-olds are more capable than the WHO?
Re:Don't confuse? (Score:5, Informative)
You say "don't confuse people" -- but you have to consider what that actually means. For a lot of people (about 40% at this point) it means "never change your position", and any change in the messaging is considered proof of malfeasance. "They told us not to wear masks before they told us to wear masks...
Let's spell this out a bit more:
"Lockdowns for two weeks to flatten the curve and not-overwhelm the hospitals; everyone's going to be exposed, let's make sure there are beds available."
"Lockdowns for two more weeks to slow the spread. Essential businesses can remain open...like grocery stores...and lawyers, apparently. Don't wear masks right now because healthcare workers need them and there isn't enough supply for everyone."
"A handful of businesses can reopen, but most can't. Also, there are strict capacity limits."
"If you've got N95 masks, wear them, if you don't, just make sure your face is covered...a few more businesses can be opened."
"Restaurants can open for outdoor dining, and you have to give them your name and address every time you go there. Also, protests with thousands of people participating are completely safe and not superspreader events, but a backyard wedding with 30 people in attendance is dangerous."
"Restaurants have to close again. Also, if you travel, you have to quarantine for 14 days wherever you're going, and then quarantine 14 days when you get back, because everyone has 28 days' worth of vacation time, apparently."
"Don't go to Thanksgiving with your family. Christmas isn't looking good, either."
"Don't listen to Trump; he said to inject bleach so obviously his vaccine is crap."
"January is a second wave because none of you behaved during the holidays. We'll hold steady until the vaccine is distributed."
*Biden gets sworn into office*
"We have a vaccine! And it's safe! And good for three months! Anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy nutjob or hated vaccines already, don't listen to them!"
"More vaccinations...but we're still wearing masks and social distancing and quarantining between states."
"we're three months into mass vaccinations...oh wow! immunity from the vaccine lasts six months, but the actual-virus only gives immunity for three months."
"We're pulling the J&J vaccine because there were health issues from some people who got it...okay, nevermind, it's safe, those people were just unlucky."
"If everyone is really, really good, and follows the rules and eats their vegetables, we can have 4th of July parties."
"Restrictions can relax, but we're still wearing masks until we hit herd immunity at 70%."
"[Region] hit 70%! You can stop wearing a mask if you're vaccinated! If you're not, you still have to wear your mask. We might ask for proof...or not."
"[Region] is still under 40%! And there's a delta variant now! Which you can get even if you're vaccinated! So wear your mask, still!"
"Employers can mandate vaccines for their employees."
"The delta variant is so dangerous! We may go back to lockdowns and social distancing and masks even for the vaccinated! But get the shot! It's a pandemic of the unvaccinated!"
Now, some of the above is an oversimplification, some of it is a distortion of what was actually said, and some of it was legitimately recommended by Fauci and/or the CDC and/or the WHO. Keeping track of exactly who said what, in what context, and in what sequence, was a ridiculous amount of work.
I can't think of a single news outlet that did a good job in consistently reporting actual, cited statistics alongside their recommendations. Some did when it had graphs that supported a narrative, but most were inconsistent at best.
Similarly, very few of the mandates seemed to be tied to reported statistics. "Restaurants can stay open as long as infection rates stay below 3% for a two week period; if it goes above for a two week period then they will have a week to wind down and go back to carry-out only until there are two consecu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd love to see you in command of an army.
Officer: The enemy's not moving, commander. What do we do?
You: We charge straight in.
Officer: It looks like the enemy is retreating.
You: Good. We'll push our advantage.
Officer: The enemy started a pincer movement, they're trying to surround us!
You: What? That's not what you said just now! You said they're retreating.
Officer: We're receiving fire from our rear! It's an ambush!
You: What? Why didn't you tell me there's an ambush waiting? I wouldn't have ordered us forw
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see you in command of an army.
Oh, this is a crap analogy. Let's see...
tl;dr: you're right, I'd be terrible at commanding a military unit. A single officer and a single commander with a single, 100% reliable source of information with which to lead a small squad of trained soldiers is a terrible metaphor representing a counterpoint to what I was expressing.
For starters, there is a reason why armies have things like "basic training". Half the reason is to weed out people who can't function properly in an armed conflict, and the other half
Just a bit more.... (Score:2)
Masks made out of whatever fashionable fabric you like are safe! (ignoring that fact they wouldnt stop bacteria, let alone a virus).
Reused masks are safe, ignoring the fact that COVID-19 can survive on surfaces for hours to days.
The vaccines work! But dont stop you being infected, or infecting others, or long term effects, and you should still wear that ineffective mask.
There is almost no correlation between how much of our advice you take, and your chance of getting infected.
Not to mention the small 'The p
Re: Don't confuse? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, not never change your position.
Don't keep changing your position repeatedly based on conspicuously low-quality evidence and/or obvious political influence.
Two examples of the former would be the CDC scaremongering from April 2020 or so about covid aerosols being infectious for 3 days when the actual experiment measured the detectability of viral rna in aerosols sprayed from a purpose designed nozzle and not whether the virus was alive and could be cultured or what it was like from actual breathing or sneezing.
The second example of low quality evidence is the recent report from Provincetown which is all well and good in documenting the number of breakthroughs except that it is missing the denominator: how many vaxxed people were exposed and either had no infection or mild/asymptomatic but not enough to infect anyone else.
And we're not even getting into the exaggeration of outdoor spread by a factor of 100, the discovery and calling out of which led to the reveral on outdoor masking.
For examples of blatant political influence, look no further than schools: in-person vs remote and masking/no masking. An obvious tug of war between AFT and not AFT.
These guys look for all the world like they're typing questions into google news and google scholar to come up with their answers and recommendations, not doing measurements and analysis themselves.
Par for the course in academic medicine. The wife being a doctor gets NEJM and I leaf through it once in a while. And I usually find a glaring arithmetic error...like that "covid suppression with bnt612" article that claimed the viral load in vaxxed exposed individuals was 40% lower...except it was a logrithmic scale and ot was really 97% lower.
Re: (Score:3)
Two examples of the former would be the CDC scaremongering from April 2020 or so about covid aerosols being infectious for 3 days when the actual experiment measured the detectability of viral rna in aerosols sprayed from a purpose designed nozzle and not whether the virus was alive and could be cultured or what it was like from actual breathing or sneezing.
You misremember. From the article:
SARS-CoV-2 remained viable in aerosols throughout the duration of our experiment (3 hours), with a reduction in infectious titer from 103.5 to 102.7 TCID50 per liter of air. This reduction was similar to that observed with SARS-CoV-1, from 104.3 to 103.5 TCID50 per milliliter (Figure 1A).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.10... [nejm.org]
The article also describes that the virus stays viable for three days (not hours) on some surfaces. They didn't test the aerosols for longer than 3 hours, but the data suggests that it could survive much longer if you somehow don't ventilate the environment and have enough turbulence to keep the aerosols afloat.
Re: Don't confuse? (Score:2)
You're right. I may be remembering the media scaremongering that kicked the numbers around and had attributed it to CDC.
Re: (Score:3)
You say "don't confuse people" -- but you have to consider what that actually means. For a lot of people (about 40% at this point) it means "never change your position", and any change in the messaging is considered proof of malfeasance. "They told us not to wear masks before they told us to wear masks, and they don't do anything anyhow." The Bible never changes, so why should any other truth?
The weather and forecasts change all the time. Large numbers of people are not up in arms deriding the weather service because the weather is different with each passing day/hour.
You can blame communications problems on the people yet anytime you find yourself doing that as a public official it is always without exception because you have failed at your job.
Re: Don't confuse? (Score:2)
No meteorologist in the world will look you in the eye and tell you with a straight face that his forecast for three days out is completely and totally accurate because it is science.
Hurricane track predictions are a good example because loss of life is possible if a prediction is off and needless severe loss of economic activity if it's off the other way.
That's why they publish uncertainty bounds.
Re: (Score:2)
They got the order wrong (Score:3)
"Third, the agency is simply not doing a good job at what the pamphlet advises: being first, right and credible, and avoiding mixed messaging, delays and confusion."
This should have been first. Stop blaming everyone else for the misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Contradictory goals. Short delay may mean your message changes more quickly as more info comes in. Trying to get all the information first means delays. So it's impossible to be credible with the people who accuse politicians of being "wafflers" merely because their views have changed over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Contradictory goals. Short delay may mean your message changes more quickly as more info comes in. Trying to get all the information first means delays. So it's impossible to be credible with the people who accuse politicians of being "wafflers" merely because their views have changed over time.
This is the CDC. They are supposed to be scientists, not politicians.
There's a multi-billion dollar (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no part of the government that is without political influence. Once it's politicized, there is no chance of rational action.
Don't feed the trolls (Score:2)
It's because it's full of scientists (Score:5, Interesting)
I work with scientists extensively. Every single one equivocates on any solid conclusion, always qualifying it with "well the data suggests..." and "well we don't know for sure until we run more experiments...". While a sound, logical approach when it comes to developing good science, the problem here is that COVID unfolded as we were doing the science. The average person needed guidance on what to do, and doesn't understand the particulars and complexity to the methodical scientific method.
As a result, you get people like Fauci saying early on things like Americans don't need to wear masks because they didn't think they were effective, adn then later changing his stance because the data suggests otherwise. While scientifically or technically correct, from a public policy and guidance perspective this serves to make people mistrust that the government knows what they're doing and is an absolute disaster. It's a shame we didn't have a good political leader in place when this happened too, because what the government should have said was "we don't know for sure, but it's not going to hurt to wear masks and it might help some so please plan to stay indoors and wear masks around others at all times."
Unfortunately the CDC, in the practice of developing data, makes statements about what the latest data shows that often helps them learn something new, but in those statements they end up confusing the public, because the public does not understand the scientific process and was just looking for guidance and security. Many blame solely Trump for the mixed messaging; he had his fair share no doubt about it but the CDC has made some royal screw ups with this pandemic.
Let's not forget also they royally screwed up the COVID test rollout requiring a recall and a delay of a month of tests being rolled out. And the screw up was one they shouldn't have made if htey were following Good Lab Practices; that was just amateur hour that cost people lives.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite. Fauci admitted that he intentionally lied about the utility of masks in order to try to manage the supply of them.
Re: (Score:2)
What should we staff it with? Talentless idiots who double as celebrities today, is that who has the ear of the masses?
Re: It's because it's full of scientists (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is they don't TRUST the public to handle the equivocations, so they bounce from one categorical statement to the next contradicting themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Second of all, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING UNFOLDED as "we were doing the science". Everything has been perfectly clear and plain for all to see since the fall of 2019. Nothing has "unfolded". No "doing the science" was required.
There is so much wrong with this statement that's it not even worth my time to pick it apart.
Maybe this guy should stop with the misinformation (Score:3)
The CDC did not stop tracking breakthrough cases... They stopped tracking them in all venues because the the quality of public health reporting in the US is very non-uniform. Also the rise of delta DID turn out to be faster than the models. This guy's criticism is nonsense because it ignores the details and could be leveled for any increase due to delta. The problem is NOT the CDC, it is the governors and state legislatures *outlawing* simple public health measures like vaccine requirements and mask usage.
The CDC has to depend on data from other countries because the type of contract tracing needed has become near-impossible in the US because of the level rhetoric in the US and the rate of spread that we have. That's right our country is so broken that it cannot even help fix itself. Almost every time an "outbreak" is reported in another country, the per capita rates are well below even the moderately-bad places in the US, and there are no travel controls between different areas in the US. You cannot study the contagiousness of a disease when it is so prevalent that people get it from unknown sources all the time! This guy is basically saying the CDC should be able to put the genie back in the bottle.
And I daresay the problem is the press, not the CDC. The number of places, of all stripes, that the CDC's recommendation for masks in *public* places was reported an a blanket mask mandate for all situations was really sad.
CDC numb from the neck up (Score:2)
Changing guidance in intervals of less than 3 months, three times... giving out a vaccination card that doesn't fit in wallet or pocketbook and that is easily forged, unable to follow what better monitoring countries have known for months about variants... CDC can't plan or execute on anything. Wonder what their body count is?
Re: (Score:2)
Changing guidance in intervals of less than 3 months, three times...
If we had the answers in advance, it'd be easy to give guidance for the long term, wouldn't it?
Also keep in mind that the uptake of vaccines has been less than expected with a variant that is more infectious than expected. So... the alternative to frequent guidance updates is infrequent guidance. Would that make you feel better?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point, the CDC had the answers in advance, other countries were giving variant stats and warnings. They were even in the mainstream news... yet somehow CDC dollar short and day late.
Re: (Score:2)
So happy you were paying attention! So.. why the disparaging remarks about messaging timing? Feeling sorry for the ostriches out there? I'd still argue that the CDC has the answers in advance-- like for example, how many people will get Pfizer in Louisiana this month? Or, will Bitcoin hit $60k by October?
And as far as this "easily forged" card goes, until there's like a like congressional action that creates something other than the standard vaccination card, like can you imagine if the CDC rolled out a
Re: CDC numb from the neck up (Score:3)
Pretty sure the vaccine card is sized to fit a passport. Like every other vaccine document in the world.
Republicans spreading misinformation? (Score:3)
I think wall to wall denunciation of the vaccine at the start of warp speed by so called experts telling us that there was no way a safe and effective vaccine could be brought to bear in less than 10 years had a lot more to do with it. People just listened and are rightly concerned about a vaccine that has at best emergency approval for certain high risk groups. After all the covid survival rate is somewhere north of 99% for most.
What do they gain from misinformation? (Score:2)
What do these right-wing outlets have to gain from spreading the misinformation?
Unless, there is Russian money driving it?
Re: (Score:2)
They simply can't allow a democrat to be correct. If they admit to being wrong then people might question what else they were wrong about. Look at DeSantis and how Florida is blowing up with cases. Even the republican mayors are calling him out.
Re: What do they gain from misinformation? (Score:2)
California has like 20% of the cases Florida does with like 300% the population. Deaths are similar. Florida is running out of hospital beds.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.miamiherald.com/ne... [miamiherald.com]
Florida, which makes up about 6.5% of the U.S. population, accounted for nearly 22% of the country’s new cases
I've been watching the data end of this play out. (Score:2)
And it's clear the CDC is not adequately prepared to track anything this fast moving. They're really good at tracking stuff where you're concerned how things are changing year to year -- like the rate of heart disease. Look at the way they lump influenza and pneumonia deaths together. In an ordinary year that makes perfect sense, because most of the year to year variation in pneumonia is due to flu. It's not at all what you want when there's a non-flu respiratory virus killing thousands of people.
The prob
disagrees with a democrat (Score:2)
OP makes three points, with a link to a paywalled NY Times article:
1) there is "a sustained campaign of misinformation against vaccines and other public health measures, originating mostly with right-wing commentators and politicians". You have to actually say what the supposed misinformation is. You kind of left that part out entirely. So your point is basically that right wing is bad (because science). "Misinformation" now means "disagrees with a democrat". It's really sickening how the left wants to sile
We're going to follow the data (Score:4, Interesting)
I think people misread "we're going to follow the data". People tend to focus on data=good. They miss the part about follow=late.
Decades ago, when my father would drive me to school in the morning, there was a major intersection. We could turn left, with the left-turn lane and the advanced green, or we could turn right into the dead-end, make a u-turn, and cross the intersection straight.
Dad would tell me to make the decision, as we approach the intersection. Which path would be faster? It all came down to the current status of the light, the number of cars in the left-turn lane, and the chaos of cars in general.
One day came the advice:
Son, if you choose one path over the other, we might gain 30 seconds, or lose 30 seconds. But if you take too long to make the decision, we'll have missed the intersection entirely, and it'll be 3 minutes before we can turn around. In life, it's often more important to make a decision quickly, than to make it correctly.
Waiting for covid data to make covid decisions is probably the all-time dumbest plan. It amounts to: wait until many people have died, then do what they didn't. It's simply way too late for action, because data is, by very definition, past tense.
We seem to be training people to act-on-evidence, which presumes a few things: that evidence always exists, that we'll receive it in-time, that it'll be meaningful, and that we'll understand it.
Doing so, I encounter endless streams of people who say carp like: there's no evidence to believe [something] is a problem.
Perhaps they forget that there's actually no evidence to believe that [something] is safe.
Allow me to introduce what I call "squirrel mode". It's actually true of every non-human mammal, absolutely all birds, and some insects. But I've named it after squirrels because it's so readily observed in my backyard.
Squirrel Mode:
if it's new, it's probably dangerous
if it moves, it's probably dangerous
if it changes, it's probably dangerous
if it's probably dangerous, I'll run away
if it's old, and it doesn't move, and it doesn't change, I'll take one step closer to it, then I'll run away, and see if it moved.
covid is new, it travels the globe, it changes into delta. it's probably dangerous. there was no evidence to believe that covid was dangerous...until there was. scratch that. covid was a virus, many viruses are dangerous, that's enough evidence already. there was no evidence to believe that covid was safe. perhaps some day there will be.
what kind of mammal would choose to run into a swarm of bees that they can see? covid is a swarm of virus that we know is there. why would I choose to run into it? Bees don't always sting.
I didn't need to wait for experts to tell me that covid was dangerous.
I'm now waiting for experts to tell me that covid is safe.
I expect to be waiting for quite some time.
Re:"A sustained campaign of misinformation" (Score:5, Informative)
"misinformation" n., Information that goes against my opinions and conclusions.
Nope. But you gave a nice example of misinformation right there by intentionally attempting to spread a lie.
Let me state a real definition: "misinformation" n., Information that contradicts scientifically known facts and conclusions, often spread in for political reasons or as an attempt to sabotage the cohesion of society.
Nope (Score:2)
Nope clinches any argument, and there is linguistic science to prove it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In linguistics, there is a divide between descriptive and prescriptive. The first one is concerned with the way people actually use language in the real world. The second is concerned with which usages are correct.
I suspect that pretty much everyone, including you, understood that davide marney was making a point by giving the observed descriptive definition, contrasted with the implied prescriptive definition. Giving the dictionary definition isn't a counterargument that will convince anyone. Accusing
Re: (Score:2)
I did not "accusing him of lying". I explained why he _is_ lying. Stop trying to confuse the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone I know that's not vaccinated either doesn't care enough to get vaccinated, or simply doesn't want it. It hasn't got anything to do with misinformation. If anything, it's got more to do with spite against the government's abuse over everyone's personal freedoms.
The proverbial example of biting/cutting of your nose to spite your face.
Re: "A sustained campaign of misinformation" (Score:2, Insightful)
It is also worth mentioning the very high proportion of black individuals in DC. Historically black person
Re:"A sustained campaign of misinformation" (Score:5, Insightful)
When Trump was in office and touting how a vaccines will be available by the end of 2020, every Democrat and their grandma complained about how it's not possible, and if one is produced then it will be unsafe and experimental. Even Biden himself trashed the vaccine.
This is generally false, and "every Democrat and their grandma" is just stupid. They were trashing the Trump administration's refusal to do anything useful to combat the virus in lieu of simply waiting for the vaccine to show up, and Biden/Harris didn't trash the vaccines, the oft-misconstrued quotes right-wing media uses to influence people to "believe" that Biden/Harris did so were situations where Biden/Harris would discuss how they would listen to the CDC/FDA/scientists over whether the vaccines were effective and safe, rather than simply Trump - and that simply waiting for the vaccines was not the right course of action.
Then we have the CDC who said that masks don't help unless they are n95 certified.. Then, they turn around and say that regular masks actually do help. Now health officials are again saying that masks need to be N-95 certified in order to help, and that we should buy them.
This is really simple, and even my four-year-old niece understands why she and I wear "regular" masks while her grandfather on chemo wears an N95 mask. You need N95-certified masks to protect *yourself*. You can help considerably to protect others by wearing a "regular" mask. When everyone wears a "regular" mask, everyone is much more protected than when they don't. Or you can think of it as: wear an N95 mask to protect yourself, wear a "regular" mask to protect others from yourself - and people without masks simply aren't doing their part to protect you from themselves. Honestly, this has been trodden to death by now, you must be a shill.
Everyone I know that's not vaccinated either doesn't care enough to get vaccinated, or simply doesn't want it. It hasn't got anything to do with misinformation. If anything, it's got more to do with spite against the government's abuse over everyone's personal freedoms.
All these people you "know" seem to be more of these people that would do anything for America and fight for freedom, just not get vaccinated? Damn you must be getting paid for this.
Re:"A sustained campaign of misinformation" (Score:4, Informative)
Then we have the CDC who said that masks don't help unless they are n95 certified.. Then, they turn around and say that regular masks actually do help. Now health officials are again saying that masks need to be N-95 certified in order to help, and that we should buy them.
You _really_ do not understand that one? Because it is amply clear what is going on here and has been explained countless times. It is _not_ black and white though and you have simplified what was actually stated far too much. It also was a moving target for a while, because things were not known reliably. The human race does _not_ have much experience with pandemics of this type, so information needs a while to firm up.
The facts of the matter (Not only by the CDC, but by the relevant scientific community):
- Surgical masks: Low protection for you, reasonable protection for others if you are infected
- N95: High protection for you, high protection for others if you are infected
Additional aspects that matter:
- Masks need to be worn right. No uncovered noses.
- Infected people often start to infect others before they know they are infected.
So, see? Not so difficult after all. Is this really already too complicated for you to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
Also there was a temporal aspect. Prior to April last year there were no studies and no information on the efficacy of non-certified masks. Studies were done, efficacy was measured, and the guidance was updated.
Also people don't know the difference between "no evidence" and "doesn't work", and think the formers proves the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
The anti-mask stuff has generally been built on straw men. To go after mask mandates they like to narrow it down to how effective surgical masks are at preventing someone from being infected when it's actually a "it takes
Re: (Score:2)
There was qualitative information ("they do help") but no quantitative information ("infection risk for you reduced by xx% and for others by yy%"). The latter also because you have to measure this for the specific pathogen and things can look quite different. That said, it was definitely a very good idea to start wearing whatever the best masks available were when this turned pandemic. And it was definitely right making masks mandatory wherever possible.
The anti-mask thing is bogus. I can only surmise that
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, pretty much. It was clear that non-certified masks do something, but how much was unclear. I also agree that most people have no clue how to deal with uncertainty and get panicked by it. Hence the snap to some "certainty" they select in some non-rational way, as in your example.
Re: (Score:3)
Then we have the CDC who said that masks don't help unless they are n95 certified.. Then, they turn around and say that regular masks actually do help. Now health officials are again saying that masks need to be N-95 certified in order to help, and that we should buy them.
You _really_ do not understand that one? Because it is amply clear what is going on here and has been explained countless times.
It is amply clear what happened because Fauci and the CDC admitted it later. They *lied* in an attempt to prevent people from buying up personal protective equipment causing a shortage.
If Fauci and the CDC (and Congress) had been doing their job, then it would never have been necessary to lie because the medical establishment would have been prepared ahead of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Then we have the CDC who said that masks don't help unless they are n95 certified.
Nope. The CDC said there's no evidence that home made masks help. That's not the same as saying they don't help. In April studies were commissioned. At the end of April the results of those studies were published, the WHO shared updated guidelines based on these studies, and the CDC updated their stance based on now having information available. And with a large supply of n95 masks now available there's no reason to use cloth masks so the guidance was updated again.
It's called science.
And it really doesn't
Re: "A sustained campaign of misinformation" (Score:2)
Perhaps N95 masks are widely available, but that's only because no one is using them. Most people are using surgical masks if they're not using cloth. If everyone started using N95 masks [at $1.75 every time you leave your house], we wouldn't have enough.
Re: "A sustained campaign of misinformation" (Score:2)
easy.
have Larry the cable guy do a public promo on getting the vaccination and something about how we can not fix stupid
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Vaccine misinformation is not from the right (Score:5, Informative)
our current VP, Kamala Harris, saying the vaccine was possibly dangerous to take [cnn.com]
Did you even read the article you linked to? It doesn't say she thought it was dangerous to take. It says she'll trust what Fauci says about it, not what Trump says about it. It was good advice then, and it's still good advice now.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Did you? She flat out says she won't trust anyone in the Trump administration
Yeah and? What has that got to do with vaccine information or trust in the vaccine? You trust medical advice from the president rather than from a medical body? Are fucking stupid?
No where does she say "take Dr. Fauci's word on it," she flat-out says "don't trust anything coming from the Trump administration."
Direct quote: "Yes. I trust Dr. Fauci," Harris continued. She said she "would trust the word of public health experts and scientists, but not Donald Trump."
On the upside you can ignore my earlier question. We confirmed it. You are in fact fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you? She flat out says she won't trust anyone in the Trump administration, that anything they say would be them lying.
No. She referred to Trump specifically. She said:
"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about," she continued in the clip from an exclusive interview airing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" at 9 a.m. ET. "I will not take his word for it."
Why are you skipping the ACTUAL first, important quote? Which I think any sane person would agree with. Then she was asked if "she thought that public health experts and scientists would get the last word on the efficacy of a vaccine" and she rightly points out how far the Trump administration has gone to silence scientists from NOAA to fucking NASA. So it's a pretty reasonable guess, which is what they asked for. They asked her to predict the future an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
why is it do you think that tha largest groups of people not yet vaccinated, latino and black communities, have also a massive percentage of Democratic voters?
It's lead to some pretty hilarious side effects, though. The mayor of Boston said yesterday that Boston will not be implementing any kind of vaccine requirement because "it's racist." (And trust Boston, when it comes to racism, Boston knows racism.)
Private businesses are apparently just allowed to be racist, though, because the end result is that there's now a huge set of various vaccination requirements throughout Boston and its suburbs, as private businesses don't want to take the risk and are implementin
Re: (Score:2)
Could you at least read the things you link to? Not that I don't enjoy the entertainment, but doesn't it hurt your ego to so blatantly show that you just parrot some bullshit someone else said without even knowing WHAT he said?
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that there's a substantial set of Democratic celebrities who are anti-vax. And it is true that some Democrats early in the pandemic, including Harris, made unhelpful comments and claims. However, it is a mistake to think that because of that that there's as much of a problem right now with Democrats as there are Republicans. At this point, most anti-vax attitudes are disproportionately among Republicans. There is a strong negative correlation between the fraction of an area which voted for Donal
Re:Vaccine misinformation is not from the right (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, being anti-vax started out as a hippy-dippy left wing goofy anti-science position to take. However, the article you cite was published before the COVID vaccine was available.
The anti-vax movement has taken on tremendous new life in the covid vaccine era, and is now overwhelmingly a Republican movement, as evidenced by the fact that as of June, 17 of the 18 states with the lowest vaccination rates were states that had voted for Trump [rollingstone.com].
Again, as of June, 30% of Republicans didn't plan to be vaccinated [thehill.com], whereas at the same time (according to the same article), 77% of Democrats were already vaccinated, with a further 18% planning to get vaccinated or in the process.
Being anti-vax clearly did start out as a Democratic movement, but being anti- covid -vax is overwhelmingly a Republican position,
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you lie and then point to a source that confirms your lie? Harris did not say the vaccine was possibly dangerous to take. She said SHE WOULD NOT RELY ON THE WORD OF TRUMP, ALONE. Don't rant about misinformation using misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it do you think that tha largest groups of people not yet vaccinated, latino and black communities,
I don't know how party affiliation figures into it. I assumed many black people were were staying away because the medical establishment has not established a culture of respecting black patients, the Tuskegee study being the most egregious case of violating trust.
If I were black and someone said "let me give you this injection, it'll be good for you", I'd hesitate too.
Re: (Score:2)
On top of that, the very earliest vaccine "misinformation" was our current VP, Kamala Harris, saying the vaccine was possibly dangerous to take [cnn.com] - because of the connection to Trump!
Yeah except for the bit where she said no such thing, you'd know if you clicked your own link. I know, reading comprehension is hard. Honestly I'm amazed you are able to string sentences together at all.
For those too lazy to click (Score:3)
TL;DR; The article doesn't support the parent's point.
As for Harris, this tired right wing talking point is, well, tired. Again, follow subbies link, it disproves his point:
Re: (Score:2)
The list is Jenny McCarthy, Jim Carrey, Jessica Biel and Kat Von D. I don't know who Kat Von D is. The rest aren't known for being political at all.
This is why people call you out for being partisan. Jim Carrey has spent four years whinging about Trump when he wasn't ranting about gun control. He even started a side career creating derogatory paintings of Trump.
https://www.thewrap.com/jim-ca... [thewrap.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's crazy to not say it's coming from the right. We're talking about only the covid-19 anti-vax. The old school MMR anti-vax people were a mix of left and right, but mostly upper middle class suburban. The new covid-19 anti-vax has a ton of misinformation coming from two prominent Fox talking heads. Covid-19 vaccination rates right now are below average in the red states.
Part of the FDa approval being held up is not about efficacy and safety though, a lot is on practical details like storage. But even
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Directing funds, ordering doses before they were even started testing, and reducing the regulatory burden on the vaccines is doing nothing?
Re: (Score:3)
Directing funds, ordering doses before they were even started testing, and reducing the regulatory burden on the vaccines is doing nothing?
Depends how you define create. If you define it as "manufacture" then Trump did something. If you define it as "develop" he did nothing. He deserves credit for putting the USA in a position to hit the ground running when a vaccine was developed. But the fuckwit likes to claim that his program had a direct hand in development. He did not. That claim can be made by the Germans who actually directly invested $375m up front for R&D.
Trump did not help create vaccines.
He helped order and distribute those whic
Re: (Score:2)
Almost none of the successful vaccines, especially the first ones (Pfzer / AZ ) got development money from the Trump regime
I think somebody forgot to tell AstraZeneca [astrazeneca.com] that they didn't take $1 billion from the US government in May 2020 (AZ is still not authorized in the US). Moderna and J&J got a lot during development, too. You're right about Pfizer, however. You can look it up on Politifact [politifact.com] if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
By July 2020 vaccines were already developed, partially tested and only needed further testing. Compare that with the UK which already started providing funding in May 2020 [pharmaceut...nology.com], to a group which had been funded by the UK for years in the past (including development of things like typhoid vaccines) and then committed to funding manufacturing no matter what and you'll understand the difference between funding development and buying a ready made (admittedly not yet completely tested) product.
One of these involves
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You are _this_ deranged? My condolences.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I claim Trump is not egotistical? This is Trump. The only person that matters to him is himself. But since his followers are deeply stupid, he can claim to have invented the vaccine and done a great deed that way, and at the same time tell his followers that COVID is not real and an invention of the left and not getting vaccinated is perfectly fine. He may even believe both things at the same time himself.
Yes, the amount of cognitive dissonance these people can tolerate is staggering, but it can b
Re: (Score:2)
After Fauci decided to lie to the American people, they lost all credibility. Until he is fired, the CDC is done as an arbiter of truth.
Being wrong is not the same as lying. And at the start of the pandemic, everyone was wrong. Firing everyone would not be smart. 8-}
Re: (Score:2)
Firing everyone would not be smart.
Especially after boasting you're going to "surround myself only with the best and most serious people", and after having said you "want top-of-the-line professionals". Letting people go after making statements like that might lead people to believe you don't have the first idea you know what you're doing WRT your hiring decisions, if the constant complaining about your staff hadn't already done so.
Re: (Score:2)
He implies in this interview that he and the government lied about the efficacy of face masks for the general public (specfically that they were not needed) at the beginning of the pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
The computer you are using now is the result of countless "correct" discoveries. It's also the result of just as much (but probably more) incorrect ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Bu Trump lied multiple times per day to the American people and yet his core base trusts him still. The same people who think the election was stolen are the same people who think covid-19 is a hoax and that it's not safe to get the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is Covid worse than the Flu ? (Score:5, Insightful)
So average number of deaths from influenza in the USA is about 36,000. In 2020 alone there were 375,000 deaths from covid19.
Why are you having trouble seeing how much deadlier covid19 is? Another 275,000 in USA have died sofar in 2021, and it's only August.
When I was four, in 1968, there was a bad two years of influenza and an estimated 2 to 4 million died. covid19 is going around the globe still, and 4.3 million have died already.
Are you seeing what the big deal is yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense, the deaths were known to be from influenza, amplification assays or antigen tests done on admission.
You can throw out your claims about old age of covid deaths with delta variant, we'll see in USA what toll is though median age of severe covid needing hospitalization is 40 for male. In UK 6 percent of those under 50 admitted with delta die.
Besides death, having severe hospitalization means damage to body, we're finding organ, brain, sensory damage. This is far more dangerous than influenza an
Re: (Score:2)
The only way I can describe it is that it was like the Flu when it was a baby.
$10,387.41 dollars in hospital bills (after the insurance discount) said a lot about how bad it was too.
Re: (Score:2)
Because this is slashdot, I am not sure whether you are a troll or whether it is a serious question. But let's assume it is a serious question.
I'm still trying to understand what the big deal is about Covid. Is there any evidence that Covid is any worse than the Flu in most cases ?
Yes, it is MANY times worse. In the 2017-2018 flu season 61000 Americans died of the flu. (source: wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] but they cite the CDC). In January 2021, 103,000 Americans died of covid-19. (source: https://www.worldometers.info/... [worldometers.info] ). So in one month of the epidemic, more people died of covid-19 than in a typical flu season. And that's
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still trying to understand what the big deal is about Covid. Is there any evidence that Covid is any worse than the Flu in most cases ?
Deaths from the flu in 2019: about 60,000
Deaths from COVID-19 in 2020: about 600,000.
If you are unable to grasp one number being 10x larger than the other as "more dangerous", then you've got some very large intellectual deficiencies.
(Also, excess mortality points towards more like 800k+ deaths from COVID, but those are not "official" cases)
It seems like natural herd immunity would be inevitable anyways.
Have you had more than one cold in your life? How'd that happen? Why weren't you immune after the first one? You say you've had the flu more than once...how'd that ha
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the discussion of death is does not take into account comorbidities. You need to look first at excess deaths. They were not 600k last year, closer to 350-400k. The other aspect is that many of these 350-400k were on death's door already. Now we are seeing large reductions in heart disease death and other causes which means the true impact of COVID was less than most realize. None of this diminishes the sadness of death for one's loved ones, but it does frame the problem in a diff
Re: Is Covid worse than the Flu ? (Score:2)
Technically, some colds are COVID, just not COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2.
Re:Oh brother (Score:4, Insightful)
One quote from a Democrat voicing suspicion over a potential vaccine that was promised by Trump to arrive right before the election vs. the bombardment of misinformation and disinformation from right-wing hucksters about the vaccines just when the full extent of their effectiveness started threatening their election prospects.
Clearly the Democrats are at fault for the current epidemic of vaccine hesitation/resistance that pervades the Republican electorate.
Re: Oh brother (Score:2)
Youâ(TM)re still ignoring the fact, the FACT that the stream of vaccine misinformation has been coming EXCLUSIVELY from the right since Biden took office. Pure gaslighting.
Re:Oh brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty sure she said she wouldn't take Trump's word alone on whether or not to take the vaccine. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05... [cnn.com]
Which is a pretty different statement from, "don't trust the vaccine since it happened under Trump."
Trump is a compulsive liar. I wouldn't have trusted his word alone either. I do trust peer reviewed studies in reputable journals.
Re: (Score:2)
.... in early March, according to the article she cites. And he already had one shot at the time. https://factcheck.thedispatch.... [thedispatch.com]
That's about the timeline at which those shots went out for the non-elderly and non-medical staff.
Calling him out for being antivax is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
For the 6 millionth time, Harris did not say she wouldn't trust a vaccine if it come out under Trump, she said she "would trust the word of public health experts and scientists, but not Donald Trump." (direct quote).
Which isn't a controversial statement to make when you have a president that easily and repeatedly lies about, well, all sorts of shit from the number of people at his inauguration to the location of a hurrican
Re: (Score:3)
The statement you are so upset about is Harris saying she wouldn't trust Trump saying it's safe if experts like the FDA do not agree.
If you've got such a good point, why do you have to lie?