6 ms·

All of those things were based on evidence of the time, and then they updated their stance as they got new evidence. How is that ridiculous or fear mongering? B

All of those things were based on evidence of the time, and then they updated their stance as they got new evidence. How is that ridiculous or fear mongering? Blame the media for blowing things out of proportion if you want (only using the high values for model estimates which have been accurate for months for example) but don't blame scientists who are literally saying they're working with the best evidence they have at the time. > No evidence of immunity. Was actually the WHO and they said "There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection" Which is an entirely accurate statement at the time. The intent was to make sure people who had tested positive and then negative post recovery did not decide they had a party pass when we simply don't know how long their immunity lasts. > You can get it from touching things. It lives on surfaces, including some for a long time. Wash your hand. > You can’t get it from touching things. "This is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads, but we are still learning more about how this virus spreads" > The six foot rule with no real basis. Saliva and mucus typically travel 3-5 feet. > Masks don’t help. We thought sick people are the only ones that need to wear masks. > Masks do help We learned a lot of people are asymptomatic spreaders. There are many things that have gone wrong with the flow of communication during this crisis, but if you read what the CDC actually said instead of what the headline news source was, they've done a good job of

mwigdahl 6y ago
The problem was not that they changed recommendations based on the knowledge available at the time, it's that those recommendations were not given with a qualification and confidence level appropriate to the strength of the data. There was too much desire to appear strong and knowledgeable, resulting in too many occasions where forceful, even morally-based recommendations needed to be not just modified, but _reversed_ based on updated data (see the Surgeon General's tweet from Feb 29 on the uselessness and social immorality of mask use -- hasn't aged well). To be fair, this was not all the CDC -- the media amplification / simplification played a huge role here also -- but the fact remains that the CDC and other US health authorities promulgated recommendations that were flat out wrong and in some cases actively harmful by overindexing on poor data.
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  > Surgeon General's tweet from Feb 29 on the uselessness and social immorality of mask use -- hasn't aged well The irony is the Surgeon General's tweet quoted the CDC who had a much more muted message, "CDC does not currently recommend the use of facemasks to help prevent novel #coronavirus. Take everyday preventive actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of respiratory illness."
- ikeyany 6y ago
  You're getting downvoted for strange reasons. The surgeon general literally said this: "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"
jdsully 6y ago
> All of those things were based on evidence of the time, and then they updated their stance as they got new evidence. If the evidence is weak they shouldn't make a pronouncement or say "we don't know". The public recognizes these people as experts and when the stance changes so quickly it gives the impression they don't know what they are doing. How is the public supposed to differentiate between whether the current CDC message is a solid fact or something based on weak evidence that might change tomorrow? Sometimes its better to just say nothing.
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  Maybe you should go read some CDC statements because they definitely indicate their level of confidence when they communicate. > We do not recommend at this time... > There is no evidence to support... There is plenty of blame to go around which is valid, so let’s actually place the correct blame where it is due. For what this thread is complaining about, the blame falls on the media for their reporting and on the people for not reading the details.

mwigdahl 6y ago

The problem was not that they changed recommendations based on the knowledge available at the time, it's that those recommendations were not given with a qualification and confidence level appropriate to the strength of the data. There was too much desire to appear strong and knowledgeable, resulting in too many occasions where forceful, even morally-based recommendations needed to be not just modified, but _reversed_ based on updated data (see the Surgeon General's tweet from Feb 29 on the uselessness and social immorality of mask use -- hasn't aged well). To be fair, this was not all the CDC -- the media amplification / simplification played a huge role here also -- but the fact remains that the CDC and other US health authorities promulgated recommendations that were flat out wrong and in some cases actively harmful by overindexing on poor data.

eightysixfour 6y ago
> Surgeon General's tweet from Feb 29 on the uselessness and social immorality of mask use -- hasn't aged well The irony is the Surgeon General's tweet quoted the CDC who had a much more muted message, "CDC does not currently recommend the use of facemasks to help prevent novel #coronavirus. Take everyday preventive actions, like staying home when you are sick and washing hands with soap and water, to help slow the spread of respiratory illness."
ikeyany 6y ago
You're getting downvoted for strange reasons. The surgeon general literally said this: "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus"

jdsully 6y ago

> All of those things were based on evidence of the time, and then they updated their stance as they got new evidence. If the evidence is weak they shouldn't make a pronouncement or say "we don't know". The public recognizes these people as experts and when the stance changes so quickly it gives the impression they don't know what they are doing. How is the public supposed to differentiate between whether the current CDC message is a solid fact or something based on weak evidence that might change tomorrow? Sometimes its better to just say nothing.

eightysixfour 6y ago
Maybe you should go read some CDC statements because they definitely indicate their level of confidence when they communicate. > We do not recommend at this time... > There is no evidence to support... There is plenty of blame to go around which is valid, so let’s actually place the correct blame where it is due. For what this thread is complaining about, the blame falls on the media for their reporting and on the people for not reading the details.