10 ms·

CDC advises Americans not to travel for Thanksgiving

189 points by hhs 6y ago

jeffbee 6y ago
Close the airports.
- Maarten88 6y ago
  No, head of CDC fired in 3, 2, 1, ..
  - _Microft 6y ago
    It would not surprise me. Someone on german TV called Trump's behaviour a "retaliation campaign against the country that did not want to elect him again" and it really feels like it. https://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/trump-letzte-monate-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/trump-letzte-monate-101....
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Except Trump got record reelection votes. There were slightly more for the other guy. It would be folly to underestimate how much support Trump has in this country. This was no clear win -- we are very much a country divided.
      - NicoJuicy 6y ago
        6-7 million more votes is a clear win. It's also a clearer win than he had vs. Hilary.
        busterarm 6y ago
        It's not even 6 million, but that's splitting hairs. He got nearly twice as many more people to vote for him the second time as the amount he lost by. It's just funny to see how offended people get when you float the idea that half of their countrymen might disagree with them. And that that half has a meaningful political reality worthy of accounting for. If despite those numbers, you still think we're "unified", you're just burying your head in the sand.
        NicoJuicy 6y ago
        I'm not from the US and I didn't say the US was unified. I'm saying the US system is a winner takes all system. Biden was a clear win, even if he would have won with only 1 EC vote. He also had the popularity vote.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > This was no clear win Let's see: Biden appears to have won got the highest share of the population (not share of those who actually voted) ever to vote for a Presidential candidate. Biden got a clear popular majority. Biden got a clear electoral majority (the exact same electoral majority the Trump camp declared a landslide in 2016.) How on Earth is that not a clear win? At this point, the “no clear win” argument from Trumpists is the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail saying “All right, we'll call it a draw” after all his limbs have been severed.
        busterarm 6y ago
        I'm not even a Trump supporter. I'm just saying that it's a mistake to think that America resoundingly rejected Trump. He got roughly 11 million more votes the second time around. That puts him roughly on par with Ronald Reagan as far as popularity the second time around. In terms of raw votes, he's the most popular encumbent we've had period. Biden's win is a pretty narrow percentage -- in the battleground states it came down to less than 1%. This is very much an unsettled political question. If you think that that political movement has buttoned up and moved on, you're nuts. The results of this election are going to be in play in the mid-term elections and the next Presidential. Feel free to downvote the unpopular truth.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > In terms of raw votes, he's the most popular encumbent we've had period. In terms of raw votes, the ninth most popular US Presidential candidate in 2020 (several steps below Kanye West) is more popular than Washington in either election, John Adams, or Jefferson in his first election, and the major party loser of every election 1876 and later was more popular than every President up to, and including, Lincoln. Raw votes are a stupid measure.
        xtracto 6y ago
        My problem is not with whether Biden won for a little or a lot, he won and that´s all that matters. My problem is that 70+ million Americans (almost 1 in 4) voted for him... somehow thought that despite everything the person has done and said, 1 in 4 people actually think it was not reprehensible enough to not vote for him. I really would have thought that the vote would have been 70% vs 30% or so for Biden but 70 million people! (plus all the ones that cannot/didn't vote but still support him)
      - gibspaulding 6y ago
        Yeah, I was amazed to see Trump actually had a larger percentage of the popular vote in 2020 (47%) than he did in 2016 (46%). https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&off=0&elect=0&f=0 https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&o... Edit: That's not to say Biden is not the clear victor, only that there are still A LOT of people who support Trump, and even people who didn't vote for him in 2016 who did vote for him this time.
        busterarm 6y ago
        and a few points shy of 20% more votes than the first time.
        busterarm 6y ago
        > Edit: That's not to say Biden is not the clear victor, only that there are still A LOT of people who support Trump, and even people who didn't vote for him in 2016 who did vote for him this time. I think people are taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm not saying that Biden didn't win the election. I'm saying that this election isn't where this ends. The fact that other commenters had such a knee jerk reaction (yourself excluded) only proves it.
        eppsilon 6y ago
        2016 had a few more viable 3rd party candidates that did particularly well in certain areas (like McMullin in Utah)
- kemiller2002 6y ago
  (Not sarcastically), I would really love to know how much this would help. I read a statistic once that the majority of people live within 8 miles of where they were born. If that's true, then although there are is a lot travel in airports during Thanksgiving, a large portion of the people would be unhindered by this.
  - codyb 6y ago
    Is that statistic of 8 miles for the US or worldwide? I'd have to imagine countries with large populations of very poor residents would have a much different stat for that compared to the United States.
    - brewdad 6y ago
      This article suggests the figure is 18 miles for the US. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-family.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f... It's from 2015 but I wouldn't expect the number to be too different today.
    - kemiller2002 6y ago
      I think it's the U.S. I remember it thinking that statistic means that it is especially bad for people to use the challenge question of "What city were you born in?" If you know anything about the individual, you can probably just guess where they live now and be correct.
  - KingMachiavelli 6y ago
    If you live that close then you probably already see family semi-often so 'traveling' for Thanksgiving makes little difference. So the probability that you/one group doesn't have the virus and the other hasn't is already low since both groups live in the same region and would have already transmitted it to each other. If you live far enough that you have to fly then you most likely have a completely separate social sphere where you live plus traveling by plane means being close to 100s of complete strangers. So the chance that one person/group is coming from a region with an outbreak to a non-outbreak region is higher and the risk of catching it during travel is higher. It's just like ring security theory. Level 2 > Level 1 vs Level 3 -> Level 1.
- spijdar 6y ago
  Really? I'm currently out of the country on a special visa which expires at the end of the month. I'm traveling for family/health reasons that couldn't wait, not for leisure or holiday. If the US forcibly closed the airports I'd be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
  While that would certainly dent holiday travel, it wouldn't nearly be enough. The type of family gatherings being discussed here could happen just via driving. Even a more extreme mandate of "Close all state borders" wouldn't stop a student in their state college to drive a few hours back home for the holidays. Looking at pre-Covid numbers from 2019, driving accounts (~55m) for more travel than flying (~36m) during the Thanksgiving period.[1][2] [1] https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/thanksgiving-travel-2019-united-states/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/thanksgiving-travel-2019-... [2] https://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/thanksgiving-travel-forecast/#:~:text=AAA%3A%20More%20Than%2055%20Million,Roads%20and%20Skies%20this%20Thanksgiving https://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/thanksgiving-travel-forecast/#:...
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    University students are pretty much obligated to go home for the holidays. My niece attends a state university where all the undergrad housing is closed as of now and through the end of the year. Final exams are happening remotely.
    - KingMachiavelli 6y ago
      Which shows how uncoordinated this all is. A ton of schools where planning since August to go remote only after thanksgiving as they have no way of stopping students from visiting on thanksgiving but having them all come back afterwords is unthinkable. Therefore the only solution is to force them to leave completely at thanksgiving. Every institution is enacting policies that make the sense for themselves but together are not great at actually stopping the pandemic.
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        This particular school had a really weird thing where freshmen moved in and then went back home and came back a few days later, which seems like the worst possible idea. But, they've done in-person, on-campus classes for the whole semester and COVID hasn't been a disaster for either the student body or the surrounding town, so?
- lhorie 6y ago
  Remember when the outbreak just started and China aggressively closed off all travel (including by road) to/from Wuhan (and this was all going on near the Chinese New Year). It's a somewhat similar situation now in the US with a holiday that historically involved travel and large family gatherings, but I'm afraid that many government leaders have downplayed covid for so long that it'll be hard to get any compliance at this point, especially in the worst hit areas, which at some places are in full-blown collective denial.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    You don't need compliance from the populace if you close the airports. Preventing them from driving is an entirely different proposition, but most people would not be able to make the drive due to time and distances involved. So closing the airports would probably be pretty effective, if you also shut down trains. The airlines would hate it, but the car rental places would see a boost.
- cpursley 6y ago
  We should also lock people in their homes. Except the technocrats and politicians, they get a free movement pass. https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/11/18/california-medical-association-brass-attended-french-laundry-dinner-with-newsom-kinney-1336924 https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/11/18/...
  - deeeeplearning 6y ago
    No one is defending him and whataboutism is not a real argument. You are just another Space Karen
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  You can tell this is a calculated, science-based, and sophisticated plan, because of how short and quippy is.
- claydavisss 6y ago
  Just tell the old and obese to stay home. Unlike your plan, mine reflects the science.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    This doesn't deserve to be marked 'dead'. I am vouching for it because it is evidence-based advice.
- matthewmacleod 6y ago
  I think this issue has been so downplayed and politicised in the US that such a move is now essentially unthinkable. You can see that in some of the rather predictable responses you've received. Of course, I don't think you literally mean "close all airports" – rather, a move to temporarily ban nonessential long-distance travel, which is a pretty normal tool that you'd expect to use to tackle a pandemic. I'm in England just now—hardly the poster child for excessive restrictions–and pretty extensive limitations apply for the next two weeks for travel and gathering. This isn't anything that anybody particularly wants, but it definitely feels that the country has collectively shat itself to a lesser extent.
eminence32 6y ago
I've seen lots of sites[1] that show the risk at someone will end up being covid-positive during a large gathering (like Thanksgiving). This data is, as far as I can tell based on an estimate of how many people in a given population are likely to have an infection. Does anyone know of any sites/data that offer the same risk analysis, but can take into account people who receive negative covid tests? For example, how would you estimate the risk of a 15 person Thanksgiving gathering if all 15 people receive negative covid tests prior to gathering? [1] https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/ https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/
- brewdad 6y ago
  Considering the White House has been doing daily COVID tests long before Trump caught it and has still had multiple large spread events, I'd say it doesn't tell you much. If you could all get tested a week before, isolate completely for the next 7 days, and continue to test negative the day before or day of, then you can be confident. Otherwise, with the 5-7 lag where you can be infected and spreading the disease while still testing negative and having no symptoms, a single test isn't a guarantee. Depends on your group's specific risk factors.
  - lacker 6y ago
    I mean, it’s a little better because the danger window is 7 days instead of 14 days. A back of the envelope estimate would be that 2X people with clear coronavirus tests have equivalent risk of someone having coronavirus as X people who have had no testing.
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    WH folks were traveling all over the country for election events.
  - usrusr 6y ago
    What's the point of sandwiching the 7 days between tests? Wouldn't 7 days isolation, then test be just as good? The only scenario (ignoring actual technical false negatives) where you'd get positive on the first, negative on the second would be a very late stage where infectivity was mostly over already at the time of the first test.
Acrobatic_Road 6y ago
I will not comply.
- yabones 6y ago
  Why not? It's an advisory, not an order... There's no need to 'comply', just use common sense.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
cratermoon 6y ago
Having a big gathering of family of friends for Thanksgiving? Plan on a small funeral around Christmas time.
- giantg2 6y ago
  That's highly presumptive. The underlying message may be valid, but the way you are saying it is the same inflammatory clickbait that the media has started to use. You could meet outdoors and socially distanced. The participants could all get tested, etc. Not to mention, one could plan for a funeral for vulnerability people regardless of the gathering as they could become infected during other normal life activities, such as doctor visits or grocery shopping.
  - ISL 6y ago
    It would be correct to plan on a probabilistic funeral for someone else after coordinating a gathering. I am spending most of my time this week weighing the risks of leaving my father in a Covid-infected nursing home (where he gets otherwise awesome care) or removing him to worse bespoke care but lower risk of Covid infection in the short term. I don't wish this process on anyone. Do your neighbors a favor and limit your contact with other humans for the next few weeks. Also, if you know healthcare workers running short on PPE, encourage them to list on https://findthemasks.com/ https://findthemasks.com/ We are back in full operation.
  - sp332 6y ago
    It's from https://www.mississippifreepress.org/7014/after-big-thanksgiving-dinners-plan-small-christmas-funerals-health-experts-warn/ https://www.mississippifreepress.org/7014/after-big-thanksgi... which was paraphrasing the Mississippi State Medical Association president, "We don’t really want to see Mamaw at Thanksgiving and bury her by Christmas" and "You’re going to say hi at Thanksgiving, it’s so nice to see you, and you’re either going to be visiting her by Facetime in the ICU or planning a small funeral by Christmas". This was qualified with "we're going to see some of that" but if it's not getting the desired reaction, they will probably continue to ramp up the inflammatory imagery.
  - 6y ago
brundolf 6y ago
We're planning on skipping Thanksgiving, but for Christmas my parents, my sister, and I are all going to quarantine very strictly (separately) for 2-3 weeks beforehand and then get together. We may also get tested at some point, and none of us will have to travel by plane. I'm hoping that with the precautions and the small-ish group it will be safe enough.
- fuckyah 6y ago
  You are crazy. For a flu virus...
- dont__panic 6y ago
  That's very similar to my plans for the entire holiday season -- I live across the country from my family, so my girlfriend and I (who work remotely) are just driving quite a few hours and staying with family for the entire Thanksgiving -> Christmas season. We've been quarantining at home for over two weeks now, so as long as we're highly cautious on the drive when we have to stop at gas stations I think it'll be OK. As long as you can avoid risky situations the rest of the time, there shouldn't be a problem doing the holidays with family. The trouble is that even going to the grocery store counts as "risky" in my book, so you need to plan well in advance.
  - brundolf 6y ago
    Maybe the situation varies greatly in different areas, but we haven't been to the grocery store since March. We order deliveries from the regional chain and they can generally be scheduled just a few days out from when you order
- zerkten 6y ago
  That seems like a good approach. Andy Slavitt's podcast had really good coverage of this recently: https://www.lemonadamedia.com/podcast/toolkit-how-to-stay-safe-in-covid-winter/ https://www.lemonadamedia.com/podcast/toolkit-how-to-stay-sa....
- pbronez 6y ago
  Yeah, that's where my family landed. 2 week strict quarantine for everyone, then you can get a little slice of normal.
symlinkk 6y ago
Kinda late, most people have booked flights and made plans by now.
- brewdad 6y ago
  All of the major airlines are offering full credits for money spent on flights. In some cases, "non-refundable" tickets are actually fully refundable in cash. People cancel "plans" all the time.
- dylan604 6y ago
  I would think it could be argued that a pandemic is not of one's own choices for the cancelation, and much more aligned with act of god reasons for canceling.
mattnewton 6y ago
Anecdotally, covid tests in the bay area seem to be all booked up until Thanksgiving, with walk ins being very busy. I hope all those tested people are only traveling to each other though; it won't help them much if they fly with untested folks to gather with untested people.
- fuckyah 6y ago
  Now you know why cases are rising...
- ghaff 6y ago
  In Massachusetts, according to an article in the Boston Globe, at least some MA test centers are getting backlogged because of people getting tested prior to traveling for Thanksgiving. (Which the governor has asked people not to do but not much he can do besides saying people are required to quarantine when they return.)
_nothing 6y ago
I feel like anyone who would actually care enough to heed this was already planning not to travel for Thanksgiving, but I suppose it would at least give _some_ support to their case when other relatives complain about them not attending/hosting Thanksgiving this year (whether or not it satisfies those relatives). One would think the fact that cases in the US are rising faster than they ever have would be deterrent enough.
- ISL 6y ago
  I know people who are on the fence. Such a guideline may well change their mind.
- giarc 6y ago
  I wonder if there would be any implications for travel insurance? I know you aren't covered if you travel to a country against the advice of your country (ie. travel to a place with ongoing war or conflict), would that extend to travelling within your own country against the advice of CDC?
  - Zenst 6y ago
    Excellent point, many insurance covers would have certain criteria and CDC announcements would certainly qualify in many instances. Though might be case that advisories are less credible than an announcement/alert. They advise people use sunscreen to reduce skin cancer and yet if you get skin cancer the insurance company don't get out of cover as you missed using sunscreen one day. So from that analogy perspective, I'm wondering if an advisory is enough to help some policies insurance wise.
  - astura 6y ago
    I'd imagine it depends on the specifics of the policy you bought.
- tobyjsullivan 6y ago
  I see where you’re coming from with that. Especially if someone has already booked flights that may be non-refundable, they are likely to go anyway. But people feel intense pressure to follow the norm. In the absence of clear messaging from some third-party authority, that norm is generally “what we’ve always done.” Messaging like this can change the perceived norm to “it’s okay to stay home this year.”
yabones 6y ago
When cases were down this summer (Ontario, Canada) I briefly considered having an outdoor 'x-mas in august' for the family. Seeing the trajectory we're on now, really regretting not doing that.
- edoceo 6y ago
  It's the year for hindsight
- lhorie 6y ago
  > Seeing the trajectory we're on now, really regretting not doing that. Props to you for helping maintain social distancing. I noticed people stopped wearing masks outside and started doing more gatherings around Toronto right about the time cases started going up again. Coincidence? I don't think so...
  - yabones 6y ago
    We're just outside the 'sphere of influence' of Toronto, and I can really see the diligence going down and the cases going up. Our area wasn't hit very hard in May, maxing out at just over 1:4000. Now it's getting cold, the college kids are back in town, and we seem to have forgotten about the very real threat. Last week we broke our city's record for cases every day, 5 days in a row.
    - lhorie 6y ago
      Yeah, had the same experience. The sad thing is that officials were warning about this exact risk from way back in June, but I guess covid fatigue is a real thing :/
h2odragon 6y ago
Seen several families have their big, invite friends and family type dinners early, last week and this week.
qntty 6y ago
Seems kind of silly to tell people who have been working at customer facing jobs this entire time that 8 hours at work is ok, but a few hours at dinner isn't. It's even more silly to blame working people for being unwilling to accept this contradiction rather than the government for being unwilling to pay people to stay home.
- akiselev 6y ago
  Healthcare personnel get COVID as such higher rates than most other fields because of the rate of exposure. Being in a small room with someone with COVID for a few hours is far riskier than passing 100 people with COVID on the street or in a big box store over the course of eight hours, where your exposure would be measured in seconds or minutes. Most jobs outside of transportation also limit exposure to a relatively small group of regulars like a neighborhood grocery store, so we're already in the range of acceptable consequences (since most people need to work to eat). Creating transmission links between disparate regions is outside the range of acceptable consequences (IMO, and for the first year at least)
- thelean12 6y ago
  You seem to be under the impression that things are fair during a pandemic. It's not, and shouldn't be.
- giarc 6y ago
  Depending on where you live or work, you might be wearing a mask and other PPE during your working hours. You wouldn't be wearing a mask or PPE during dinner (and likely any other time during the visit).
  - jmckib 6y ago
    In addition to that, Thanksgiving often requires traveling to another area (which is what the headline is specifically about). You also don't need to attend Thanksgiving, but you do need to work. We are probably going to have vaccines for everyone by summer or possibly as early as April, with those who are at risk getting vaccinated by next month. It would be extra unfortunate to die right now when a vaccine is right around the bend.
Zenst 6y ago
When it comes to family deep rooted historical cultural traditions, I'm sensing that an advisory is not going to make much of a dent upon impact. Maybe better to advise how to have thanksgiving safely - pre isolate prior to meetup - whole scale of what you can do and outline the risk reductions each one has. Give people an educated choice in the risk as like crossing the road - we all make educated risk choices each day and they won't stop the holiday, but can manage it better with better advice/approach I feel.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  We didn't have an Easter celebration this year. In fact, for the entirety of Lent, the Catholic Church in my area said that mass was not necessary due to the pandemic. Some things are more important than tradition. Easter is the most holy holiday of the Catholic Church (Christmas has more secular importance, but is still only 2nd most important). If you were willing to sacrifice Easter back in April, then Thanksgiving / Christmas is no different, at least to those of us who are religious. Its important to take this situation seriously. And yes, the Catholic Church definitely cares about tradition. In fact, people criticize it for caring too much about tradition at times.
  - Zenst 6y ago
    Wonderful to hear that and was wondering if that would be down to the catholic church having a better structure of leadership that was on-board early? After all, we all know the Catholic church has The Pope as their leader, and probably about the only religion people know who the World voice of that religion is. But kudos for the Catholic Church for what they have done throughout this pandemic. I am by no means saying other religions efforts during this pandemic are any better or worse and just wanted to clarify that so no subtext is inferred. Indeed I don't want to hear what others if they are be doing wrong, kinda want to hear the good examples so we all learn from them. >And yes, the Catholic Church definitely cares about tradition. In fact, people criticize it for caring too much about tradition at times. The Catholic Church also has a tradition of caring and people have a tradition of complaining (I'm British so maybe a cultural perspective slant there), but nobody complaining here upon that tradition of caring too much.
werber 6y ago
I got a lot of flack for cancelling plans with my family, this honestly is a god send in terms of relationship management.
- ncallaway 6y ago
  I really think this is the aspect people are missing. This helps a lot with people who already wanted to cancel plans, but didn't have "permission" to. Now, people can say: "Oh, I really really wish I could attend, but I'm following the CDC guidance. I'll really miss you, and I'll definitely be back next year."
  - syshum 6y ago
    this makes me sad, and is a clear indication that American's are losing their independent spirit. I neither need or desire the government to give me permission to go, or cancel my plans with family. if you do not want to attend a family gathering due to COVID or anything else, just tell them you do not want to attend. Hiding behind Uncle Sam or big daddy government as in excuse is pure cowardice
    - PsylentKnight 6y ago
      Yes, I don't understand this. If you don't care enough about your family to spend time with them during the holidays, then why care what they think about your nonattendance?
      - usrusr 6y ago
        If you don't care enough about them to consider the risk that you might carry the virus to them, why would you even consider going?
        PsylentKnight 6y ago
        Maybe I misunderstood GP. I thought by "people who already wanted to cancel plans" he meant people that didn't want to visit for reasons unrelated to the virus.
just-juan-post 6y ago
There is no quality discussion that will come from this submission.
Reedx 6y ago
Why don't we have cheap/free, widespread, rapid home testing yet? We've known about Covid-19 for almost a year! Then people could just test themselves before traveling or going to indoor gatherings. They could also be used at airports, etc.
- bsder 6y ago
  Even if you do, the tests aren't biased that way. If the tests give you a positive result, you almost certainly have Covid. However, a negative result doesn't imply lack of Covid with the same accuracy.
- stronglikedan 6y ago
  I've read that the rapid (antigen) testing is not as accurate as the tests that are processed in a lab. I've seen figures of up to 37% false negatives. I would have looked into it more, but I've decided that I would personally not trust a rapid test if a lab test was available, except in the most urgent of scenarios.
renewiltord 6y ago
These guys have the credibility of your weed dealer from behind the 7/11. Remember when Fauci told us masking isn't recommended?
- nacs 6y ago
  What Fauci said that one time was taken out of context by all the anti-mask idiots (and propagated by Trump himself). Fauci has corrected it multiple times after and said that yes you should wear masks. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/outdated-fauci-video-on-face-masks-shared-out-of-context/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/outdated-fauci-video-on-fa... And comparing the CDC to a street drug dealer is beyond asinine.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    You're right. The drug dealer can only harm his clients. The CDC can (and did) hurt everyone. And just for everyone who didn't read the link: Fauci absolutely did advise "no universal masking". The position was reversed in early April, by which time the damage was done.
  - vaccinator 6y ago
    Here is the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI He says that if there is an outbreak, it might make people feel better to wear a mask... among other incriminating things https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssiLlfGT9gg&t=6m22s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssiLlfGT9gg&t=6m22s He also says that he was wrong in saying that masks don't prevent the spreading of the virus
    - definetheword 6y ago
      "among other incriminating things" I don't see this is incriminating. Computer security is not perfclty secure, and in the same way masks arent perfect. He took the academic approach of saying they aren't perfect without clarifying that its better than zero masks. Either way, his statements had unintended consequences and was dumb to take the academic approach
throwaway4good 6y ago
It is going to explode with the cold wheather - isn't it? Travel is already far lower than usual.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  It's going to explode because of a synchronized nation-wide spreading event, not because of the weather.
- treis 6y ago
  "going to" implies that it is not doing so right now. Which isn't the case. Infections are growing exponentially to the point where something like 1-5% of the US population is estimated to be infected right now.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
yread 6y ago
Remember that this whole mess started (or at least got a lot worse) because the Chinese travelled a lot for the Lunar New Year. Back then there was a lot of people blaming everything on the Chinese for not staying where they were and spreading the virus.
warlord1 6y ago
Who gives a shit what the CDC says. They've simultaneously said (rather opaquely) that the fatality rates for infected people is 0.04%. Mind you... not for the general public. This is the fatality rate IF you're infected already. COVID-19 is bullshit political theater. That's all it is. Go outside. Take your vitamins. Boost you immune system with vitamin C. Nobody with a shred of intelligence believes in COVID-19 anymore

189 points by hhs 6y ago

jeffbee 6y ago

Close the airports.

Maarten88 6y ago
No, head of CDC fired in 3, 2, 1, ..
- _Microft 6y ago
  It would not surprise me. Someone on german TV called Trump's behaviour a "retaliation campaign against the country that did not want to elect him again" and it really feels like it. https://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/trump-letzte-monate-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/kommentar/trump-letzte-monate-101....
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Except Trump got record reelection votes. There were slightly more for the other guy. It would be folly to underestimate how much support Trump has in this country. This was no clear win -- we are very much a country divided.
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      6-7 million more votes is a clear win. It's also a clearer win than he had vs. Hilary.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        It's not even 6 million, but that's splitting hairs. He got nearly twice as many more people to vote for him the second time as the amount he lost by. It's just funny to see how offended people get when you float the idea that half of their countrymen might disagree with them. And that that half has a meaningful political reality worthy of accounting for. If despite those numbers, you still think we're "unified", you're just burying your head in the sand.
        NicoJuicy 6y ago
        I'm not from the US and I didn't say the US was unified. I'm saying the US system is a winner takes all system. Biden was a clear win, even if he would have won with only 1 EC vote. He also had the popularity vote.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > This was no clear win Let's see: Biden appears to have won got the highest share of the population (not share of those who actually voted) ever to vote for a Presidential candidate. Biden got a clear popular majority. Biden got a clear electoral majority (the exact same electoral majority the Trump camp declared a landslide in 2016.) How on Earth is that not a clear win? At this point, the “no clear win” argument from Trumpists is the Black Knight in Monty Python’s Search for the Holy Grail saying “All right, we'll call it a draw” after all his limbs have been severed.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        I'm not even a Trump supporter. I'm just saying that it's a mistake to think that America resoundingly rejected Trump. He got roughly 11 million more votes the second time around. That puts him roughly on par with Ronald Reagan as far as popularity the second time around. In terms of raw votes, he's the most popular encumbent we've had period. Biden's win is a pretty narrow percentage -- in the battleground states it came down to less than 1%. This is very much an unsettled political question. If you think that that political movement has buttoned up and moved on, you're nuts. The results of this election are going to be in play in the mid-term elections and the next Presidential. Feel free to downvote the unpopular truth.
        dragonwriter 6y ago
        > In terms of raw votes, he's the most popular encumbent we've had period. In terms of raw votes, the ninth most popular US Presidential candidate in 2020 (several steps below Kanye West) is more popular than Washington in either election, John Adams, or Jefferson in his first election, and the major party loser of every election 1876 and later was more popular than every President up to, and including, Lincoln. Raw votes are a stupid measure.
        xtracto 6y ago
        My problem is not with whether Biden won for a little or a lot, he won and that´s all that matters. My problem is that 70+ million Americans (almost 1 in 4) voted for him... somehow thought that despite everything the person has done and said, 1 in 4 people actually think it was not reprehensible enough to not vote for him. I really would have thought that the vote would have been 70% vs 30% or so for Biden but 70 million people! (plus all the ones that cannot/didn't vote but still support him)
    - gibspaulding 6y ago
      Yeah, I was amazed to see Trump actually had a larger percentage of the popular vote in 2020 (47%) than he did in 2016 (46%). https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&off=0&elect=0&f=0 https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&o... Edit: That's not to say Biden is not the clear victor, only that there are still A LOT of people who support Trump, and even people who didn't vote for him in 2016 who did vote for him this time.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        and a few points shy of 20% more votes than the first time.
      - busterarm 6y ago
        > Edit: That's not to say Biden is not the clear victor, only that there are still A LOT of people who support Trump, and even people who didn't vote for him in 2016 who did vote for him this time. I think people are taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm not saying that Biden didn't win the election. I'm saying that this election isn't where this ends. The fact that other commenters had such a knee jerk reaction (yourself excluded) only proves it.
      - eppsilon 6y ago
        2016 had a few more viable 3rd party candidates that did particularly well in certain areas (like McMullin in Utah)
kemiller2002 6y ago
(Not sarcastically), I would really love to know how much this would help. I read a statistic once that the majority of people live within 8 miles of where they were born. If that's true, then although there are is a lot travel in airports during Thanksgiving, a large portion of the people would be unhindered by this.
- codyb 6y ago
  Is that statistic of 8 miles for the US or worldwide? I'd have to imagine countries with large populations of very poor residents would have a much different stat for that compared to the United States.
  - brewdad 6y ago
    This article suggests the figure is 18 miles for the US. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-family.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/24/upshot/24up-f... It's from 2015 but I wouldn't expect the number to be too different today.
  - kemiller2002 6y ago
    I think it's the U.S. I remember it thinking that statistic means that it is especially bad for people to use the challenge question of "What city were you born in?" If you know anything about the individual, you can probably just guess where they live now and be correct.
- KingMachiavelli 6y ago
  If you live that close then you probably already see family semi-often so 'traveling' for Thanksgiving makes little difference. So the probability that you/one group doesn't have the virus and the other hasn't is already low since both groups live in the same region and would have already transmitted it to each other. If you live far enough that you have to fly then you most likely have a completely separate social sphere where you live plus traveling by plane means being close to 100s of complete strangers. So the chance that one person/group is coming from a region with an outbreak to a non-outbreak region is higher and the risk of catching it during travel is higher. It's just like ring security theory. Level 2 > Level 1 vs Level 3 -> Level 1.
spijdar 6y ago
Really? I'm currently out of the country on a special visa which expires at the end of the month. I'm traveling for family/health reasons that couldn't wait, not for leisure or holiday. If the US forcibly closed the airports I'd be stuck between a rock and a hard place.
bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
While that would certainly dent holiday travel, it wouldn't nearly be enough. The type of family gatherings being discussed here could happen just via driving. Even a more extreme mandate of "Close all state borders" wouldn't stop a student in their state college to drive a few hours back home for the holidays. Looking at pre-Covid numbers from 2019, driving accounts (~55m) for more travel than flying (~36m) during the Thanksgiving period.[1][2] [1] https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/thanksgiving-travel-2019-united-states/index.html https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/thanksgiving-travel-2019-... [2] https://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/thanksgiving-travel-forecast/#:~:text=AAA%3A%20More%20Than%2055%20Million,Roads%20and%20Skies%20this%20Thanksgiving https://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/thanksgiving-travel-forecast/#:...
- jeffbee 6y ago
  University students are pretty much obligated to go home for the holidays. My niece attends a state university where all the undergrad housing is closed as of now and through the end of the year. Final exams are happening remotely.
  - KingMachiavelli 6y ago
    Which shows how uncoordinated this all is. A ton of schools where planning since August to go remote only after thanksgiving as they have no way of stopping students from visiting on thanksgiving but having them all come back afterwords is unthinkable. Therefore the only solution is to force them to leave completely at thanksgiving. Every institution is enacting policies that make the sense for themselves but together are not great at actually stopping the pandemic.
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      This particular school had a really weird thing where freshmen moved in and then went back home and came back a few days later, which seems like the worst possible idea. But, they've done in-person, on-campus classes for the whole semester and COVID hasn't been a disaster for either the student body or the surrounding town, so?
lhorie 6y ago
Remember when the outbreak just started and China aggressively closed off all travel (including by road) to/from Wuhan (and this was all going on near the Chinese New Year). It's a somewhat similar situation now in the US with a holiday that historically involved travel and large family gatherings, but I'm afraid that many government leaders have downplayed covid for so long that it'll be hard to get any compliance at this point, especially in the worst hit areas, which at some places are in full-blown collective denial.
- dylan604 6y ago
  You don't need compliance from the populace if you close the airports. Preventing them from driving is an entirely different proposition, but most people would not be able to make the drive due to time and distances involved. So closing the airports would probably be pretty effective, if you also shut down trains. The airlines would hate it, but the car rental places would see a boost.
cpursley 6y ago
We should also lock people in their homes. Except the technocrats and politicians, they get a free movement pass. https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/11/18/california-medical-association-brass-attended-french-laundry-dinner-with-newsom-kinney-1336924 https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/11/18/...
- deeeeplearning 6y ago
  No one is defending him and whataboutism is not a real argument. You are just another Space Karen
bpodgursky 6y ago
You can tell this is a calculated, science-based, and sophisticated plan, because of how short and quippy is.
claydavisss 6y ago
Just tell the old and obese to stay home. Unlike your plan, mine reflects the science.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  This doesn't deserve to be marked 'dead'. I am vouching for it because it is evidence-based advice.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
I think this issue has been so downplayed and politicised in the US that such a move is now essentially unthinkable. You can see that in some of the rather predictable responses you've received. Of course, I don't think you literally mean "close all airports" – rather, a move to temporarily ban nonessential long-distance travel, which is a pretty normal tool that you'd expect to use to tackle a pandemic. I'm in England just now—hardly the poster child for excessive restrictions–and pretty extensive limitations apply for the next two weeks for travel and gathering. This isn't anything that anybody particularly wants, but it definitely feels that the country has collectively shat itself to a lesser extent.

eminence32 6y ago

I've seen lots of sites[1] that show the risk at someone will end up being covid-positive during a large gathering (like Thanksgiving). This data is, as far as I can tell based on an estimate of how many people in a given population are likely to have an infection. Does anyone know of any sites/data that offer the same risk analysis, but can take into account people who receive negative covid tests? For example, how would you estimate the risk of a 15 person Thanksgiving gathering if all 15 people receive negative covid tests prior to gathering? [1] https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/ https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/

brewdad 6y ago
Considering the White House has been doing daily COVID tests long before Trump caught it and has still had multiple large spread events, I'd say it doesn't tell you much. If you could all get tested a week before, isolate completely for the next 7 days, and continue to test negative the day before or day of, then you can be confident. Otherwise, with the 5-7 lag where you can be infected and spreading the disease while still testing negative and having no symptoms, a single test isn't a guarantee. Depends on your group's specific risk factors.
- lacker 6y ago
  I mean, it’s a little better because the danger window is 7 days instead of 14 days. A back of the envelope estimate would be that 2X people with clear coronavirus tests have equivalent risk of someone having coronavirus as X people who have had no testing.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  WH folks were traveling all over the country for election events.
- usrusr 6y ago
  What's the point of sandwiching the 7 days between tests? Wouldn't 7 days isolation, then test be just as good? The only scenario (ignoring actual technical false negatives) where you'd get positive on the first, negative on the second would be a very late stage where infectivity was mostly over already at the time of the first test.

Acrobatic_Road 6y ago

I will not comply.

yabones 6y ago
Why not? It's an advisory, not an order... There's no need to 'comply', just use common sense.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

cratermoon 6y ago

Having a big gathering of family of friends for Thanksgiving? Plan on a small funeral around Christmas time.

giantg2 6y ago
That's highly presumptive. The underlying message may be valid, but the way you are saying it is the same inflammatory clickbait that the media has started to use. You could meet outdoors and socially distanced. The participants could all get tested, etc. Not to mention, one could plan for a funeral for vulnerability people regardless of the gathering as they could become infected during other normal life activities, such as doctor visits or grocery shopping.
- ISL 6y ago
  It would be correct to plan on a probabilistic funeral for someone else after coordinating a gathering. I am spending most of my time this week weighing the risks of leaving my father in a Covid-infected nursing home (where he gets otherwise awesome care) or removing him to worse bespoke care but lower risk of Covid infection in the short term. I don't wish this process on anyone. Do your neighbors a favor and limit your contact with other humans for the next few weeks. Also, if you know healthcare workers running short on PPE, encourage them to list on https://findthemasks.com/ https://findthemasks.com/ We are back in full operation.
- sp332 6y ago
  It's from https://www.mississippifreepress.org/7014/after-big-thanksgiving-dinners-plan-small-christmas-funerals-health-experts-warn/ https://www.mississippifreepress.org/7014/after-big-thanksgi... which was paraphrasing the Mississippi State Medical Association president, "We don’t really want to see Mamaw at Thanksgiving and bury her by Christmas" and "You’re going to say hi at Thanksgiving, it’s so nice to see you, and you’re either going to be visiting her by Facetime in the ICU or planning a small funeral by Christmas". This was qualified with "we're going to see some of that" but if it's not getting the desired reaction, they will probably continue to ramp up the inflammatory imagery.
- 6y ago

brundolf 6y ago

We're planning on skipping Thanksgiving, but for Christmas my parents, my sister, and I are all going to quarantine very strictly (separately) for 2-3 weeks beforehand and then get together. We may also get tested at some point, and none of us will have to travel by plane. I'm hoping that with the precautions and the small-ish group it will be safe enough.

fuckyah 6y ago
You are crazy. For a flu virus...
dont__panic 6y ago
That's very similar to my plans for the entire holiday season -- I live across the country from my family, so my girlfriend and I (who work remotely) are just driving quite a few hours and staying with family for the entire Thanksgiving -> Christmas season. We've been quarantining at home for over two weeks now, so as long as we're highly cautious on the drive when we have to stop at gas stations I think it'll be OK. As long as you can avoid risky situations the rest of the time, there shouldn't be a problem doing the holidays with family. The trouble is that even going to the grocery store counts as "risky" in my book, so you need to plan well in advance.
- brundolf 6y ago
  Maybe the situation varies greatly in different areas, but we haven't been to the grocery store since March. We order deliveries from the regional chain and they can generally be scheduled just a few days out from when you order
zerkten 6y ago
That seems like a good approach. Andy Slavitt's podcast had really good coverage of this recently: https://www.lemonadamedia.com/podcast/toolkit-how-to-stay-safe-in-covid-winter/ https://www.lemonadamedia.com/podcast/toolkit-how-to-stay-sa....
pbronez 6y ago
Yeah, that's where my family landed. 2 week strict quarantine for everyone, then you can get a little slice of normal.

symlinkk 6y ago

Kinda late, most people have booked flights and made plans by now.

brewdad 6y ago
All of the major airlines are offering full credits for money spent on flights. In some cases, "non-refundable" tickets are actually fully refundable in cash. People cancel "plans" all the time.
dylan604 6y ago
I would think it could be argued that a pandemic is not of one's own choices for the cancelation, and much more aligned with act of god reasons for canceling.

mattnewton 6y ago

Anecdotally, covid tests in the bay area seem to be all booked up until Thanksgiving, with walk ins being very busy. I hope all those tested people are only traveling to each other though; it won't help them much if they fly with untested folks to gather with untested people.

fuckyah 6y ago
Now you know why cases are rising...
ghaff 6y ago
In Massachusetts, according to an article in the Boston Globe, at least some MA test centers are getting backlogged because of people getting tested prior to traveling for Thanksgiving. (Which the governor has asked people not to do but not much he can do besides saying people are required to quarantine when they return.)

_nothing 6y ago

I feel like anyone who would actually care enough to heed this was already planning not to travel for Thanksgiving, but I suppose it would at least give _some_ support to their case when other relatives complain about them not attending/hosting Thanksgiving this year (whether or not it satisfies those relatives). One would think the fact that cases in the US are rising faster than they ever have would be deterrent enough.

ISL 6y ago
I know people who are on the fence. Such a guideline may well change their mind.
giarc 6y ago
I wonder if there would be any implications for travel insurance? I know you aren't covered if you travel to a country against the advice of your country (ie. travel to a place with ongoing war or conflict), would that extend to travelling within your own country against the advice of CDC?
- Zenst 6y ago
  Excellent point, many insurance covers would have certain criteria and CDC announcements would certainly qualify in many instances. Though might be case that advisories are less credible than an announcement/alert. They advise people use sunscreen to reduce skin cancer and yet if you get skin cancer the insurance company don't get out of cover as you missed using sunscreen one day. So from that analogy perspective, I'm wondering if an advisory is enough to help some policies insurance wise.
- astura 6y ago
  I'd imagine it depends on the specifics of the policy you bought.
tobyjsullivan 6y ago
I see where you’re coming from with that. Especially if someone has already booked flights that may be non-refundable, they are likely to go anyway. But people feel intense pressure to follow the norm. In the absence of clear messaging from some third-party authority, that norm is generally “what we’ve always done.” Messaging like this can change the perceived norm to “it’s okay to stay home this year.”

yabones 6y ago

When cases were down this summer (Ontario, Canada) I briefly considered having an outdoor 'x-mas in august' for the family. Seeing the trajectory we're on now, really regretting not doing that.

edoceo 6y ago
It's the year for hindsight
lhorie 6y ago
> Seeing the trajectory we're on now, really regretting not doing that. Props to you for helping maintain social distancing. I noticed people stopped wearing masks outside and started doing more gatherings around Toronto right about the time cases started going up again. Coincidence? I don't think so...
- yabones 6y ago
  We're just outside the 'sphere of influence' of Toronto, and I can really see the diligence going down and the cases going up. Our area wasn't hit very hard in May, maxing out at just over 1:4000. Now it's getting cold, the college kids are back in town, and we seem to have forgotten about the very real threat. Last week we broke our city's record for cases every day, 5 days in a row.
  - lhorie 6y ago
    Yeah, had the same experience. The sad thing is that officials were warning about this exact risk from way back in June, but I guess covid fatigue is a real thing :/

h2odragon 6y ago

Seen several families have their big, invite friends and family type dinners early, last week and this week.

qntty 6y ago

Seems kind of silly to tell people who have been working at customer facing jobs this entire time that 8 hours at work is ok, but a few hours at dinner isn't. It's even more silly to blame working people for being unwilling to accept this contradiction rather than the government for being unwilling to pay people to stay home.

akiselev 6y ago
Healthcare personnel get COVID as such higher rates than most other fields because of the rate of exposure. Being in a small room with someone with COVID for a few hours is far riskier than passing 100 people with COVID on the street or in a big box store over the course of eight hours, where your exposure would be measured in seconds or minutes. Most jobs outside of transportation also limit exposure to a relatively small group of regulars like a neighborhood grocery store, so we're already in the range of acceptable consequences (since most people need to work to eat). Creating transmission links between disparate regions is outside the range of acceptable consequences (IMO, and for the first year at least)
thelean12 6y ago
You seem to be under the impression that things are fair during a pandemic. It's not, and shouldn't be.
giarc 6y ago
Depending on where you live or work, you might be wearing a mask and other PPE during your working hours. You wouldn't be wearing a mask or PPE during dinner (and likely any other time during the visit).
- jmckib 6y ago
  In addition to that, Thanksgiving often requires traveling to another area (which is what the headline is specifically about). You also don't need to attend Thanksgiving, but you do need to work. We are probably going to have vaccines for everyone by summer or possibly as early as April, with those who are at risk getting vaccinated by next month. It would be extra unfortunate to die right now when a vaccine is right around the bend.

Zenst 6y ago

When it comes to family deep rooted historical cultural traditions, I'm sensing that an advisory is not going to make much of a dent upon impact. Maybe better to advise how to have thanksgiving safely - pre isolate prior to meetup - whole scale of what you can do and outline the risk reductions each one has. Give people an educated choice in the risk as like crossing the road - we all make educated risk choices each day and they won't stop the holiday, but can manage it better with better advice/approach I feel.

dragontamer 6y ago
We didn't have an Easter celebration this year. In fact, for the entirety of Lent, the Catholic Church in my area said that mass was not necessary due to the pandemic. Some things are more important than tradition. Easter is the most holy holiday of the Catholic Church (Christmas has more secular importance, but is still only 2nd most important). If you were willing to sacrifice Easter back in April, then Thanksgiving / Christmas is no different, at least to those of us who are religious. Its important to take this situation seriously. And yes, the Catholic Church definitely cares about tradition. In fact, people criticize it for caring too much about tradition at times.
- Zenst 6y ago
  Wonderful to hear that and was wondering if that would be down to the catholic church having a better structure of leadership that was on-board early? After all, we all know the Catholic church has The Pope as their leader, and probably about the only religion people know who the World voice of that religion is. But kudos for the Catholic Church for what they have done throughout this pandemic. I am by no means saying other religions efforts during this pandemic are any better or worse and just wanted to clarify that so no subtext is inferred. Indeed I don't want to hear what others if they are be doing wrong, kinda want to hear the good examples so we all learn from them. >And yes, the Catholic Church definitely cares about tradition. In fact, people criticize it for caring too much about tradition at times. The Catholic Church also has a tradition of caring and people have a tradition of complaining (I'm British so maybe a cultural perspective slant there), but nobody complaining here upon that tradition of caring too much.

werber 6y ago

I got a lot of flack for cancelling plans with my family, this honestly is a god send in terms of relationship management.

ncallaway 6y ago
I really think this is the aspect people are missing. This helps a lot with people who already wanted to cancel plans, but didn't have "permission" to. Now, people can say: "Oh, I really really wish I could attend, but I'm following the CDC guidance. I'll really miss you, and I'll definitely be back next year."
- syshum 6y ago
  this makes me sad, and is a clear indication that American's are losing their independent spirit. I neither need or desire the government to give me permission to go, or cancel my plans with family. if you do not want to attend a family gathering due to COVID or anything else, just tell them you do not want to attend. Hiding behind Uncle Sam or big daddy government as in excuse is pure cowardice
  - PsylentKnight 6y ago
    Yes, I don't understand this. If you don't care enough about your family to spend time with them during the holidays, then why care what they think about your nonattendance?
    - usrusr 6y ago
      If you don't care enough about them to consider the risk that you might carry the virus to them, why would you even consider going?
      - PsylentKnight 6y ago
        Maybe I misunderstood GP. I thought by "people who already wanted to cancel plans" he meant people that didn't want to visit for reasons unrelated to the virus.

just-juan-post 6y ago

There is no quality discussion that will come from this submission.

Reedx 6y ago

Why don't we have cheap/free, widespread, rapid home testing yet? We've known about Covid-19 for almost a year! Then people could just test themselves before traveling or going to indoor gatherings. They could also be used at airports, etc.

bsder 6y ago
Even if you do, the tests aren't biased that way. If the tests give you a positive result, you almost certainly have Covid. However, a negative result doesn't imply lack of Covid with the same accuracy.
stronglikedan 6y ago
I've read that the rapid (antigen) testing is not as accurate as the tests that are processed in a lab. I've seen figures of up to 37% false negatives. I would have looked into it more, but I've decided that I would personally not trust a rapid test if a lab test was available, except in the most urgent of scenarios.

renewiltord 6y ago

These guys have the credibility of your weed dealer from behind the 7/11. Remember when Fauci told us masking isn't recommended?

nacs 6y ago
What Fauci said that one time was taken out of context by all the anti-mask idiots (and propagated by Trump himself). Fauci has corrected it multiple times after and said that yes you should wear masks. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/outdated-fauci-video-on-face-masks-shared-out-of-context/ https://www.factcheck.org/2020/05/outdated-fauci-video-on-fa... And comparing the CDC to a street drug dealer is beyond asinine.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  You're right. The drug dealer can only harm his clients. The CDC can (and did) hurt everyone. And just for everyone who didn't read the link: Fauci absolutely did advise "no universal masking". The position was reversed in early April, by which time the damage was done.
- vaccinator 6y ago
  Here is the whole thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRa6t_e7dgI He says that if there is an outbreak, it might make people feel better to wear a mask... among other incriminating things https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssiLlfGT9gg&t=6m22s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssiLlfGT9gg&t=6m22s He also says that he was wrong in saying that masks don't prevent the spreading of the virus
  - definetheword 6y ago
    "among other incriminating things" I don't see this is incriminating. Computer security is not perfclty secure, and in the same way masks arent perfect. He took the academic approach of saying they aren't perfect without clarifying that its better than zero masks. Either way, his statements had unintended consequences and was dumb to take the academic approach

throwaway4good 6y ago

It is going to explode with the cold wheather - isn't it? Travel is already far lower than usual.

jeffbee 6y ago
It's going to explode because of a synchronized nation-wide spreading event, not because of the weather.
treis 6y ago
"going to" implies that it is not doing so right now. Which isn't the case. Infections are growing exponentially to the point where something like 1-5% of the US population is estimated to be infected right now.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

yread 6y ago

Remember that this whole mess started (or at least got a lot worse) because the Chinese travelled a lot for the Lunar New Year. Back then there was a lot of people blaming everything on the Chinese for not staying where they were and spreading the virus.

warlord1 6y ago

Who gives a shit what the CDC says. They've simultaneously said (rather opaquely) that the fatality rates for infected people is 0.04%. Mind you... not for the general public. This is the fatality rate IF you're infected already. COVID-19 is bullshit political theater. That's all it is. Go outside. Take your vitamins. Boost you immune system with vitamin C. Nobody with a shred of intelligence believes in COVID-19 anymore