16 ms·

I think it's worth noting that among the demographics that frequent this site there is ostensibly a deep distrust and skepticism of the American government on m

I think it's worth noting that among the demographics that frequent this site there is ostensibly a deep distrust and skepticism of the American government on matters of surveillance, and law enforcement. Yet simultaneously there is ostensibly a high degree of trust in the motives and competency of the American government when it comes to COVID. There's been multiple threads lately, including one that is on the front page as we speak, critical of the American surveillance state. The comments exhibit a high degree of distrust towards the FBI, NSA, and other law-enforcement institutions. This degree of distrust seems almost absolute, yet the word of the CDC seems to be taken as gospel, despite clear hints of politicization of the COVID crisis on their behalf.

cozzyd 5y ago
The NSA and CDC are fundamentally different institutions. It does not make sense to treat them the same any more than it makes sense to treat NASA and the IRS the same...
- Nbox9 5y ago
  They are not the same, but they are institutions with a lot of similarities (NSA, CDC, NASA, IRS). They largely receive funding the same way, and are answerable to the same people (congress, White House). There is some similarities to how the heads of these organizations are determined and how the heads of these organizations are fired. In startup speak the organizations have the same VC and share many board members.
  - cozzyd 5y ago
    Yes both may be subject to some amount of political influence, but one is run by career infectious disease experts and one is run by career spies...
  - foerbert 5y ago
    This broadly oversells their similarities. Not only is the analogy questionable with board members, but it also carries the implication that they are essentially the same sorts of organizations. They are not. If you really want to carry this analogy out further, you probably need to expand it so one is a traditional startup and the other a charitable non-profit, or something of the sort. Even if you did have the same people in charge (which again, questionably applicable here), the goals, transparency, and measures of success vary so wildly that I'm not sure it means that much.
  - spiznnx 5y ago
    The NSA in particular is part of the Department of Defense, a uniquely opaque federal entity. In general, federal agencies comply with accountability and transparency laws, but the DoD just doesn't.
  - devin 5y ago
    Literally every organization is similar by criteria such as this.
  - godelski 5y ago
    If your criteria for conspiracy is "takes government money" then almost every company, country, and citizen is part of this conspiracy. People are in fact able to see nuance
  - nonameiguess 5y ago
    This isn't really true. The actual chain of command is, of course, completely different people until you get to the President. But more importantly, intelligence agencies conducting covert actions don't reveal their activities to all of Congress. With respect to funding, only select committees with specific clearance get to see the real budget. Everyone else sees a line item that says "classified budget." As for oversight, see here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093 The actual committees: https://intelligence.house.gov/ https://intelligence.house.gov/ (23 members) https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/ https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/ (14 members) So that's 37 members of Congress they're accountable to, but not directly. If you read the actual law, it only says the "President" has to inform these committees of what the intelligence agencies are doing, and if they happen to do anything illegal, the President has to tell Congress (but only these 37 members). Theoretically, the President is not above the law, but as we've seen in recent history, if the President is of the same political party as the majority party of Congress, they're not likely to actually enforce the law. Practically speaking, all of Congress isn't going to care what all of the Executive Branch is doing all of the time given the limited number of hours in a day, which is why they they have committees, but at least in the case of the CDC, NASA, and IRS, if all 538 members of Congress request information, they have to give it to them. With the NSA, only 37 members of Congress are authorized to even receive information and only through the President.
uoaei 5y ago
I highly doubt many here take the CDC's word at face value. What appears as consensus is really a tragedy of the commons -- that one person thinks everyone else will consider the CDC's announcements as gospel that they express positivity and optimism, when what they are really celebrating is the re-opening of public life itself, i.e., that restaurants, etc. will open back up and feel "normal" again.
Simulacra 5y ago
As the Atlantic noted recently [0] there are many who see masks and safety measures due to COVID as part of their political identity. Likes guns to some, the masks, more critically the forcing of others to wear masks and abide by certain precautions, has become a weapon in politics. My distrust of the masks, and friction at being forced to wear one, really comes from that distrust of those who are forcing me; they are forcing me for politics, not for health and safety.
- xwolfi 5y ago
  I could comprehend annoyance, but what political gain do you expect them to obtain once you wear your mask in full submission ? At best that you dont get sick, at worst that you dont contaminate other. I really dont see the link between "we must provide an advantage on the job market to black people", a political side we can disagree on, and "wear a mask", something that bring nobody any pleasure nor comfort nor advantage...
  - eternalban 5y ago
    What political gain does the Islamic Republic of Iran get when it forces women to wear head coverings? What political gain does a ruling clique get when e.g. they force people to admit "2+2=5"? About the falsity of "two plus two equals five", in Room 101, the interrogator O'Brien tells the thought criminal Smith that control over physical reality is unimportant to the Party, provided the citizens of Oceania subordinate their real-world perceptions to the political will of the Party; and that, by way of doublethink: "Sometimes, Winston. [Sometimes it is four fingers.] Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once".[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5
- CraigJPerry 5y ago
  With that logic, the compulsion to send your kids to school in the USA is on shaky ground.
  - vletal 5y ago
unethical_ban 5y ago
The CDC is not law enforcement. The talent it attracts, its mission statement, its mode of operation are all different. The statements of fact they release pertain to public health with no human adversarial motives. The research they use to substantiate their claims can be peer reviewed, duplicated and critiqued.
- rntksi 5y ago
  Agreed. Though from experience and what I've read, they do have certain questionable commercial motives. Should call this out everytime. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/30/1017086/cdc-44-million-vaccine-data-vams-problems/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/30/1017086/cdc-44-m... https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus-contracts/contracts/75D30121C10087 https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus-contracts/contra...
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  "The statements of fact they release pertain to public health with no human adversarial motives." The CDC has knowingly lied about the efficacy of masks intending to trick the public to deprive them of useful medical gear. They were slow to identify the spread of covid as aerosol based, even after it was widely known. CDC guidance focused on "6 feet apart" instead of the importance of ventilation. The CDC temporarily halted the J&J vaccine unnecessarily, wasting time and eroding trust in vaccines generally. Early in the pandemic the CDC blocked hundreds of labs from doing their own covid tests in favor of flawed CDC tests that took substantially longer - again, this was at an absolutely time critical moment in the pandemic. I have never really paid attention to the CDC until this pandemic. Now, I feel like they constantly make huge blunders and don't really deserve much trust. Even when they aren't lying to you, as they did regarding masks, they don't seem like they really know what they're doing.
  - 8note 5y ago
    The temporary halt seems necessary -- the usual treatment had bad effects, and the proper treatment needed to be disseminated to doctors and nurses.
  - 5y ago
estaseuropano 5y ago
As a European I'm quite surprised how deep the conspiracy theories and suspicions against the state go in the US. You don't need tp take everything at face value, but to be so suspicious of essential institutions like the CDC seems crazy to me. Except for a vocal but tiny minority there's a lot of trust in the institutions of the EU and (Western) Europe, where citizrns at most worry about incompetence, not malicious manipulation. On the contrary societal trust in the US seems immensely low.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  I think the CDC's original statements on masks (they aren't necessary, they're only effective at preventing the spread of COVID if the wearer has a medical degree, don't wear masks on planes, etc) contributed a lot to the distrust and politicization of mask wearing. When you expect an institution to always be impartial and tell the truth, those sorts of white lies can quickly erode trust.
  - harry8 5y ago
    Please also note it is unnecessary to do any additional analysis to describe the example cited as a "lie." We know it was a deliberate lie because the then head of the CDC has said so [1] - unless he was lying about claiming he was lying there's not much doubt in that case. The CDC lie when it suits them isn't something that's really debatable. Does it matter that they lied? This is the proposition that can be debated sensibly and rationally - but will likely be overwhelmed with emotion. In my own observation there seems to be rather a lot of people who have almost no faith in their fellow humans and believe the only way "people" believe a thing and will act is because they have been told to believe it by someone. Misinformation takes all the blame in this paradigm. The populations is dominated by people who have outsourced their critical thinking. It may be true, I don't know. But it seems to me to be really quite worrying if a population has to be told lies to get them to do the right thing or lies have to be censored because people will not be able to assess competing evidence and reject bullshit. Does it have to be this way? Was it always? Is it fixable? Is it really a thing at all? I have no answers there. It's my observation that even in the service of "good", the debt to the truth always comes due and the interest rate is super steep. Many will disagree. [1] Lack of PPE for medical professionals in the front line of pandemic response is the justification. This may well be a very good justification.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xwolfi 5y ago
I m in Hong Kong and I must be living in the definition of a conspiracy against me, but I still dont think most of the COVID measures here have been to shut me up or to prevent me to exercise political freedom. There simply is no choice, we must vaccinate, we must help each other, we must abstain from yelling loudly for a while. Possibly the aftermath will be the crime, to continue the measure when there is no need, but we reached 200 death in a megalopolis of 8M people only because we shut the fuck up a bit and synchronized our behaviour. In a word, I dont think the american CDC main goal is to profit or enjoy a sadist power bath... at worst, they re honestly misguided, I think.
codelord 5y ago
I personally follow the CDC guidelines. I think if everyone equally trusted CDC we wouldn't have the kind of outbreaks that we have seen in the past year. So raising doubts in CDC's credibility overall is hurtful IMO. That doesn't mean we shouldn't debate a particular recommendation and take it all as Gospel. Meaningful debate about a particular issue is useful. A general statement against credibility of CDC IMO is not. I maybe a minority here though, because I also to a large degree trust other American institutions. And that's coming from an immigrant who grew up in a country where the population is bombarded with anti-American conspiracy theories on a daily basis. The reason that I believe in American institutions is not because I take their words as Gospel. But because I believe for the most part trusting them leads to better results than the other way around.
- andreilys 5y ago
  The CDC/surgeon general recommended not wearing masks at the beginning of the pandemic, while Silicon Valley was way ahead of the curve (meanwhile hit pieces were posted by journalists with an axe to grind saying they we’re overreacting). So yes it has lost its credibility.
  - dimator 5y ago
    This is the citation I found for this claim: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/06/the-cdc-now-recommends-wearing-a-mask-in-some-cases/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/06/the-cdc-now-recommend... Overall, science is a process. If research came out that changed the recommendations, well, that's how science works. This is no different in my mind than the gradual change in the recommendations towards cigarette smoking over the decades, only in this case it played out over weeks and months (that article was from April of 2020). If you want something infallible and written in stone from day 1, that's what religious texts are for. But to claim that scientists lost credibility because new research led them to change their minds is to misunderstand the purpose of science.
    - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
      Masks weren't a mysterious new invention that the CDC just learned about at the start of the pandemic.
emouryto 5y ago
I think the CDC had a pretty good image based on... I dunno, Hollywood movies. I don't think the way they handled all this shows them to be as competent as advised.
8note 5y ago
You can guess at what the motivations are for the CDC when they put out a statement. They generally match what Id expect them to be saying, so it seems trustworthy enough, but it is confirmation bias. When they'll say something I don't expect, I think bit more about it and try to figure out why there's a mismatch. The FBI and NSA and the like don't speak publically, and when they do, they're trying to cover up wrongdoings
XorNot 5y ago
Public health recommendations for the individual are quite different to secret surveillance programs. We'd be in a very different conversation if the CDC was telling everyone "we need you to take this pill. No we're not telling you what's in it, or why you should take it and no one else in the world will be reviewing it."
chrischen 5y ago
Just because the CDC/Government says to do something doesn't mean you do the opposite?
dguaraglia 5y ago
First, this is a straw man. Nobody is saying that the CDC's guidelines are infallible. They've been widely criticized for botching the Covid-19 crisis. Second, the difference between CIA, FBI and CDC is that usually when the CDC makes a pronouncement, it is linked to some scientific basis. Unlike the CIA that can claim Iraq has 'weapons of mass destruction' based on vague evidence that nobody - except for a handful of legislators and the president - get to see, one can go and track the science behind a CDC's announcement relatively easily.
tarsinge 5y ago
I’m not American but reason to not blindly trust the institutions you list to act in your best interest are unfortunately factual. What comes to my mind when I hear: - FBI: Hoover - NSA: Snowden - Police: Floyd For the CDC I know only of the recommendation to not wear a mask at the beginning of the pandemic, and it’s debatable if it was a lie given the knowledge at the time (many other health agencies did the same recommendation in other countries at the time).
- loveistheanswer 5y ago
  The CDC has a history of performing racist medical experiments on unwitting black people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study The CDC (like the US police and military) also does not keep track of the number of people doctors kill. A 2016 study by Johns Hopkins estimates that iatrogenesis (deaths caused by doctors) kills 250,000 people per year, making it the third leading cause of death in the US. >"The Johns Hopkins team says the CDC’s way of collecting national health statistics fails to classify medical errors separately on the death certificate. The researchers are advocating for updated criteria for classifying deaths on death certificates." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su...
walrus01 5y ago
> I think it's worth noting that among the demographics that frequent this site there is ostensibly a deep distrust and skepticism of the American government on matters of surveillance I don't think that many people on this site are claiming that the American government is incompetent in their surveillance and SIGINT endeavors, from a strictly scientific/technical point of view. Rather that they're too competent and being too effective. Whether those technical capabilities should be applied in certain situations is a political question. > CDC I would hope that the majority of the site here, who do not have doctorate level degrees in epidemiology and virology, can realize the extent of education and experience that it takes to get a PhD in those fields. My primary complaint with the American government's handling of covid19 (600,000+ dead??!) is not with any incompetence on the part of the scientists, but the policy makers, in particular the previous administration. And the general populace's resistance to measures that could have halved the cumulative death toll. Additionally with state governments that have gone through multiple rounds of "we must reopen the economy!" to "oh shit! coronavirus is spreading again!"
DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
I've been following the CDC's messaging since the start of covid. They edited the same URL without info that there were updates or informing the public. The case numbers posted in Q1/Q2 of 2020 were an absolute mess which IMO missed out on an opportunity to instill trust in the public. Previous administration's anti-science stand might have contributed to that. I'd imagine people aren't just being "stupid" when they decide not to trust these institutions but are simply cynical knowing the process can be hi-jacked by politics (regardless what side) every 4 years, and hardly any continuity due to the deep polarization. It doesn't make people trust in institutions when its core mission can be put upside down simply because a new administration comes to power.
shlant 5y ago
The NSA and FBI are built around secrecy and preventing leaks. Their opaqueness is a huge part of their advantage. They keep information from the general public as a rule. Everyone involved is vetted and knows the punishment for insubordination. The CDC is for the benefit of the public. Peoples trust in them is needed in order to be effective. It is pretty transparent in that you can usually look at the data they are using to support their guidelines. If they were keeping something secret the chance of a leak is much greater and there is data from other countries that can be used to corroborate their conclusions.
Bancakes 5y ago
One saves lives, the others ruin and take lives.
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
Where do you get that idea? The CDC is catering to several interests, whereas readers of this site are free to research the facts and bring critical thinking and perhaps professional experience to bear on the issue. The CDC just now declared that the primary mode of COVID transmission was through the air. I expect that most readers of this site reacted to that declaration with "No shit." The fervent wiping of surfaces always struck me as futile, when we've known for a long time that this thing was airborne. What this sad chapter of our history has made clear is that the CDC is somewhat a political tool instead of a source for the latest findings.
me_me_me 5y ago
> I think it's worth noting that among the demographics that frequent this site there is ostensibly a deep distrust and scepticism of the American government on matters of surveillance, and law enforcement. Snowden's leak was barely a blip on the radar. And it was a proof of how deep the surveillance went. Nobody cared. Patriot act - nobody cared. People are addicted to outrage and conspiracies not actual reality.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
teachingassist 5y ago
A doctor friend of mine told me, at the start of the pandemic, that they found it important to correctly follow Public Health advice whether or not they (an expert) agreed with all of it. The importance of following the principles for public health is greater than the importance of the advice being unbiasedly perfect at every moment.
- ppf 5y ago
  Counterpoint: many atrocities have been made acceptable to the general population, in the name of "public health" (or at least, the greater public good). For me, "the greater good" does not over-ride personal critical analysis.
  - syops 5y ago
    The greater good in this case means following rules/mandates that do not in any way lead to an outcome of supporting atrocities. There is no valid critical analysis by which one concludes that not wearing masks or engaging in social distancing is a fight against atrocities.
    - Siira 5y ago
      Masks are a minor inconvenience but they affect millions. It adds up.
      - syops 5y ago
        It adds up to something comparable to bringing up atrocities apt? I don’t see how. It’s not like the inconvenience of wearing a mask done billions of times leads to overall a massive inconvenience that becomes intolerable. This type of inconvenience is not additive. There is no compounding effect.
        Siira 5y ago
        It adds up to significant unnecessary suffering. It’s clear to me that doing, e.g., human challenge vaccine trials was a much more cost-effective measure (nowadays just get the bloody vaccine and be done with pandemic), and masks are just a weak band-aid for which I have not seen much more evidence since the Slatestarcodex review (which called CDC on its bullshit very early: masks probably help a bit, but not much, and the evidence is weak either way), and they are being used first and foremost as a political signaling and psychological comfort device (remember the whole “masks more effective than vaccines” rhetoric).
chiefalchemist 5y ago
As a "side read" I started "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" in Dec 2020, and finished a couple or so weeks ago. The book is thorough. It covers history, political systems, individual psychology, sociology, and more. The context being (data-based) surveillance as a means to nudge and manipulate behavior - individually and masses. While it focuses on big tech, it's lessons are in fact universal. In any case, stepping back from the pandemic and other personal biases, the tactics and narrative of the last 15+ months begin to feel like some new (covert?) form of totalitarianism. - There's an evil enemy that must be intricated for the good of all. - There's hyperbolic fear and widespread death. The deaths are real, but data is cherry-picked in a propaganda-y sort of way. Correlation is more important than causation. - There is a lone figure-head we must promise our allegiance and dedication to. Signs on front yards, t-shirts, etc. Note: No one voted for Fauci. And while he's certainly accomplished it's difficult to imagine one single opinion - in a cloud of unknowns - could carry so much authority. - Churches were closed, as were other assemblies. The State persists. It's powers broader. - There is a tide of "The State knows best (your rights and liberty be damned.)" Do as you're told or you will be marginalized or (socially) silenced. As long as you cooperate and follow the gov's you will be safe. Please try not to knee-jerk. The above list are simple facts. All that aside, for anyone still trusting of the CDC it's best to check the data on causes of death prior to this pandemic. Make note of how many of those conditions are preventable. Nrxt track down the Covid death's comorbidies - which are rarely mentioned - that killer Covid pairs well with. To say Covid killed someone who was (e.g.) morbidly obese is misleading. It's called morbidly obese for a reason. Ultimately, Covid 19 is a symptom. It's a symptom of our heath personally and as a society. It's a symptom of bigger and broader forces "at war" over who is in control. Yeah, sounds like madness. But please keep in mind, so did totalitarianism. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-under-surveillance-capitalism-on-the-media https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capi... p.s. There's a chapter in Adam Grant's book "Think Again" on jabs, and how to go about convincing someone to think again about their anti vax ideas. What we've been doing for Covid is off target. Yet why is that? Adam Grant knows something the whole of the USA readership does not?
jmcqk6 5y ago
To treat the government as a single cohesive entity moving with unified purpose is a fallacy.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  I'll take it a step further: To treat any organization larger than about a few hundred people that way is naive to the point of being stupid.

cozzyd 5y ago

The NSA and CDC are fundamentally different institutions. It does not make sense to treat them the same any more than it makes sense to treat NASA and the IRS the same...

Nbox9 5y ago
They are not the same, but they are institutions with a lot of similarities (NSA, CDC, NASA, IRS). They largely receive funding the same way, and are answerable to the same people (congress, White House). There is some similarities to how the heads of these organizations are determined and how the heads of these organizations are fired. In startup speak the organizations have the same VC and share many board members.
- cozzyd 5y ago
  Yes both may be subject to some amount of political influence, but one is run by career infectious disease experts and one is run by career spies...
- foerbert 5y ago
  This broadly oversells their similarities. Not only is the analogy questionable with board members, but it also carries the implication that they are essentially the same sorts of organizations. They are not. If you really want to carry this analogy out further, you probably need to expand it so one is a traditional startup and the other a charitable non-profit, or something of the sort. Even if you did have the same people in charge (which again, questionably applicable here), the goals, transparency, and measures of success vary so wildly that I'm not sure it means that much.
- spiznnx 5y ago
  The NSA in particular is part of the Department of Defense, a uniquely opaque federal entity. In general, federal agencies comply with accountability and transparency laws, but the DoD just doesn't.
- devin 5y ago
  Literally every organization is similar by criteria such as this.
- godelski 5y ago
  If your criteria for conspiracy is "takes government money" then almost every company, country, and citizen is part of this conspiracy. People are in fact able to see nuance
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  This isn't really true. The actual chain of command is, of course, completely different people until you get to the President. But more importantly, intelligence agencies conducting covert actions don't reveal their activities to all of Congress. With respect to funding, only select committees with specific clearance get to see the real budget. Everyone else sees a line item that says "classified budget." As for oversight, see here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093 The actual committees: https://intelligence.house.gov/ https://intelligence.house.gov/ (23 members) https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/ https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/ (14 members) So that's 37 members of Congress they're accountable to, but not directly. If you read the actual law, it only says the "President" has to inform these committees of what the intelligence agencies are doing, and if they happen to do anything illegal, the President has to tell Congress (but only these 37 members). Theoretically, the President is not above the law, but as we've seen in recent history, if the President is of the same political party as the majority party of Congress, they're not likely to actually enforce the law. Practically speaking, all of Congress isn't going to care what all of the Executive Branch is doing all of the time given the limited number of hours in a day, which is why they they have committees, but at least in the case of the CDC, NASA, and IRS, if all 538 members of Congress request information, they have to give it to them. With the NSA, only 37 members of Congress are authorized to even receive information and only through the President.

uoaei 5y ago

I highly doubt many here take the CDC's word at face value. What appears as consensus is really a tragedy of the commons -- that one person thinks everyone else will consider the CDC's announcements as gospel that they express positivity and optimism, when what they are really celebrating is the re-opening of public life itself, i.e., that restaurants, etc. will open back up and feel "normal" again.

Simulacra 5y ago

As the Atlantic noted recently [0] there are many who see masks and safety measures due to COVID as part of their political identity. Likes guns to some, the masks, more critically the forcing of others to wear masks and abide by certain precautions, has become a weapon in politics. My distrust of the masks, and friction at being forced to wear one, really comes from that distrust of those who are forcing me; they are forcing me for politics, not for health and safety.

xwolfi 5y ago
I could comprehend annoyance, but what political gain do you expect them to obtain once you wear your mask in full submission ? At best that you dont get sick, at worst that you dont contaminate other. I really dont see the link between "we must provide an advantage on the job market to black people", a political side we can disagree on, and "wear a mask", something that bring nobody any pleasure nor comfort nor advantage...
- eternalban 5y ago
  What political gain does the Islamic Republic of Iran get when it forces women to wear head coverings? What political gain does a ruling clique get when e.g. they force people to admit "2+2=5"? About the falsity of "two plus two equals five", in Room 101, the interrogator O'Brien tells the thought criminal Smith that control over physical reality is unimportant to the Party, provided the citizens of Oceania subordinate their real-world perceptions to the political will of the Party; and that, by way of doublethink: "Sometimes, Winston. [Sometimes it is four fingers.] Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once".[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5
CraigJPerry 5y ago
With that logic, the compulsion to send your kids to school in the USA is on shaky ground.
- vletal 5y ago

unethical_ban 5y ago

The CDC is not law enforcement. The talent it attracts, its mission statement, its mode of operation are all different. The statements of fact they release pertain to public health with no human adversarial motives. The research they use to substantiate their claims can be peer reviewed, duplicated and critiqued.

rntksi 5y ago
Agreed. Though from experience and what I've read, they do have certain questionable commercial motives. Should call this out everytime. https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/30/1017086/cdc-44-million-vaccine-data-vams-problems/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/01/30/1017086/cdc-44-m... https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus-contracts/contracts/75D30121C10087 https://projects.propublica.org/coronavirus-contracts/contra...
ALittleLight 5y ago
"The statements of fact they release pertain to public health with no human adversarial motives." The CDC has knowingly lied about the efficacy of masks intending to trick the public to deprive them of useful medical gear. They were slow to identify the spread of covid as aerosol based, even after it was widely known. CDC guidance focused on "6 feet apart" instead of the importance of ventilation. The CDC temporarily halted the J&J vaccine unnecessarily, wasting time and eroding trust in vaccines generally. Early in the pandemic the CDC blocked hundreds of labs from doing their own covid tests in favor of flawed CDC tests that took substantially longer - again, this was at an absolutely time critical moment in the pandemic. I have never really paid attention to the CDC until this pandemic. Now, I feel like they constantly make huge blunders and don't really deserve much trust. Even when they aren't lying to you, as they did regarding masks, they don't seem like they really know what they're doing.
- 8note 5y ago
  The temporary halt seems necessary -- the usual treatment had bad effects, and the proper treatment needed to be disseminated to doctors and nurses.
- 5y ago

estaseuropano 5y ago

As a European I'm quite surprised how deep the conspiracy theories and suspicions against the state go in the US. You don't need tp take everything at face value, but to be so suspicious of essential institutions like the CDC seems crazy to me. Except for a vocal but tiny minority there's a lot of trust in the institutions of the EU and (Western) Europe, where citizrns at most worry about incompetence, not malicious manipulation. On the contrary societal trust in the US seems immensely low.

Rebelgecko 5y ago
I think the CDC's original statements on masks (they aren't necessary, they're only effective at preventing the spread of COVID if the wearer has a medical degree, don't wear masks on planes, etc) contributed a lot to the distrust and politicization of mask wearing. When you expect an institution to always be impartial and tell the truth, those sorts of white lies can quickly erode trust.
- harry8 5y ago
  Please also note it is unnecessary to do any additional analysis to describe the example cited as a "lie." We know it was a deliberate lie because the then head of the CDC has said so [1] - unless he was lying about claiming he was lying there's not much doubt in that case. The CDC lie when it suits them isn't something that's really debatable. Does it matter that they lied? This is the proposition that can be debated sensibly and rationally - but will likely be overwhelmed with emotion. In my own observation there seems to be rather a lot of people who have almost no faith in their fellow humans and believe the only way "people" believe a thing and will act is because they have been told to believe it by someone. Misinformation takes all the blame in this paradigm. The populations is dominated by people who have outsourced their critical thinking. It may be true, I don't know. But it seems to me to be really quite worrying if a population has to be told lies to get them to do the right thing or lies have to be censored because people will not be able to assess competing evidence and reject bullshit. Does it have to be this way? Was it always? Is it fixable? Is it really a thing at all? I have no answers there. It's my observation that even in the service of "good", the debt to the truth always comes due and the interest rate is super steep. Many will disagree. [1] Lack of PPE for medical professionals in the front line of pandemic response is the justification. This may well be a very good justification.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xwolfi 5y ago

I m in Hong Kong and I must be living in the definition of a conspiracy against me, but I still dont think most of the COVID measures here have been to shut me up or to prevent me to exercise political freedom. There simply is no choice, we must vaccinate, we must help each other, we must abstain from yelling loudly for a while. Possibly the aftermath will be the crime, to continue the measure when there is no need, but we reached 200 death in a megalopolis of 8M people only because we shut the fuck up a bit and synchronized our behaviour. In a word, I dont think the american CDC main goal is to profit or enjoy a sadist power bath... at worst, they re honestly misguided, I think.

codelord 5y ago

I personally follow the CDC guidelines. I think if everyone equally trusted CDC we wouldn't have the kind of outbreaks that we have seen in the past year. So raising doubts in CDC's credibility overall is hurtful IMO. That doesn't mean we shouldn't debate a particular recommendation and take it all as Gospel. Meaningful debate about a particular issue is useful. A general statement against credibility of CDC IMO is not. I maybe a minority here though, because I also to a large degree trust other American institutions. And that's coming from an immigrant who grew up in a country where the population is bombarded with anti-American conspiracy theories on a daily basis. The reason that I believe in American institutions is not because I take their words as Gospel. But because I believe for the most part trusting them leads to better results than the other way around.

andreilys 5y ago
The CDC/surgeon general recommended not wearing masks at the beginning of the pandemic, while Silicon Valley was way ahead of the curve (meanwhile hit pieces were posted by journalists with an axe to grind saying they we’re overreacting). So yes it has lost its credibility.
- dimator 5y ago
  This is the citation I found for this claim: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/06/the-cdc-now-recommends-wearing-a-mask-in-some-cases/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/06/the-cdc-now-recommend... Overall, science is a process. If research came out that changed the recommendations, well, that's how science works. This is no different in my mind than the gradual change in the recommendations towards cigarette smoking over the decades, only in this case it played out over weeks and months (that article was from April of 2020). If you want something infallible and written in stone from day 1, that's what religious texts are for. But to claim that scientists lost credibility because new research led them to change their minds is to misunderstand the purpose of science.
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Masks weren't a mysterious new invention that the CDC just learned about at the start of the pandemic.

emouryto 5y ago

I think the CDC had a pretty good image based on... I dunno, Hollywood movies. I don't think the way they handled all this shows them to be as competent as advised.

8note 5y ago

You can guess at what the motivations are for the CDC when they put out a statement. They generally match what Id expect them to be saying, so it seems trustworthy enough, but it is confirmation bias. When they'll say something I don't expect, I think bit more about it and try to figure out why there's a mismatch. The FBI and NSA and the like don't speak publically, and when they do, they're trying to cover up wrongdoings

XorNot 5y ago

Public health recommendations for the individual are quite different to secret surveillance programs. We'd be in a very different conversation if the CDC was telling everyone "we need you to take this pill. No we're not telling you what's in it, or why you should take it and no one else in the world will be reviewing it."

chrischen 5y ago

Just because the CDC/Government says to do something doesn't mean you do the opposite?

dguaraglia 5y ago

First, this is a straw man. Nobody is saying that the CDC's guidelines are infallible. They've been widely criticized for botching the Covid-19 crisis. Second, the difference between CIA, FBI and CDC is that usually when the CDC makes a pronouncement, it is linked to some scientific basis. Unlike the CIA that can claim Iraq has 'weapons of mass destruction' based on vague evidence that nobody - except for a handful of legislators and the president - get to see, one can go and track the science behind a CDC's announcement relatively easily.

tarsinge 5y ago

I’m not American but reason to not blindly trust the institutions you list to act in your best interest are unfortunately factual. What comes to my mind when I hear: - FBI: Hoover - NSA: Snowden - Police: Floyd For the CDC I know only of the recommendation to not wear a mask at the beginning of the pandemic, and it’s debatable if it was a lie given the knowledge at the time (many other health agencies did the same recommendation in other countries at the time).

loveistheanswer 5y ago
The CDC has a history of performing racist medical experiments on unwitting black people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study The CDC (like the US police and military) also does not keep track of the number of people doctors kill. A 2016 study by Johns Hopkins estimates that iatrogenesis (deaths caused by doctors) kills 250,000 people per year, making it the third leading cause of death in the US. >"The Johns Hopkins team says the CDC’s way of collecting national health statistics fails to classify medical errors separately on the death certificate. The researchers are advocating for updated criteria for classifying deaths on death certificates." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_suggests_medical_errors_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su...

walrus01 5y ago

> I think it's worth noting that among the demographics that frequent this site there is ostensibly a deep distrust and skepticism of the American government on matters of surveillance I don't think that many people on this site are claiming that the American government is incompetent in their surveillance and SIGINT endeavors, from a strictly scientific/technical point of view. Rather that they're too competent and being too effective. Whether those technical capabilities should be applied in certain situations is a political question. > CDC I would hope that the majority of the site here, who do not have doctorate level degrees in epidemiology and virology, can realize the extent of education and experience that it takes to get a PhD in those fields. My primary complaint with the American government's handling of covid19 (600,000+ dead??!) is not with any incompetence on the part of the scientists, but the policy makers, in particular the previous administration. And the general populace's resistance to measures that could have halved the cumulative death toll. Additionally with state governments that have gone through multiple rounds of "we must reopen the economy!" to "oh shit! coronavirus is spreading again!"

DyslexicAtheist 5y ago

I've been following the CDC's messaging since the start of covid. They edited the same URL without info that there were updates or informing the public. The case numbers posted in Q1/Q2 of 2020 were an absolute mess which IMO missed out on an opportunity to instill trust in the public. Previous administration's anti-science stand might have contributed to that. I'd imagine people aren't just being "stupid" when they decide not to trust these institutions but are simply cynical knowing the process can be hi-jacked by politics (regardless what side) every 4 years, and hardly any continuity due to the deep polarization. It doesn't make people trust in institutions when its core mission can be put upside down simply because a new administration comes to power.

shlant 5y ago

The NSA and FBI are built around secrecy and preventing leaks. Their opaqueness is a huge part of their advantage. They keep information from the general public as a rule. Everyone involved is vetted and knows the punishment for insubordination. The CDC is for the benefit of the public. Peoples trust in them is needed in order to be effective. It is pretty transparent in that you can usually look at the data they are using to support their guidelines. If they were keeping something secret the chance of a leak is much greater and there is data from other countries that can be used to corroborate their conclusions.

Bancakes 5y ago

One saves lives, the others ruin and take lives.

PostThisTooFast 5y ago

Where do you get that idea? The CDC is catering to several interests, whereas readers of this site are free to research the facts and bring critical thinking and perhaps professional experience to bear on the issue. The CDC just now declared that the primary mode of COVID transmission was through the air. I expect that most readers of this site reacted to that declaration with "No shit." The fervent wiping of surfaces always struck me as futile, when we've known for a long time that this thing was airborne. What this sad chapter of our history has made clear is that the CDC is somewhat a political tool instead of a source for the latest findings.

me_me_me 5y ago

> I think it's worth noting that among the demographics that frequent this site there is ostensibly a deep distrust and scepticism of the American government on matters of surveillance, and law enforcement. Snowden's leak was barely a blip on the radar. And it was a proof of how deep the surveillance went. Nobody cared. Patriot act - nobody cared. People are addicted to outrage and conspiracies not actual reality.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

teachingassist 5y ago

A doctor friend of mine told me, at the start of the pandemic, that they found it important to correctly follow Public Health advice whether or not they (an expert) agreed with all of it. The importance of following the principles for public health is greater than the importance of the advice being unbiasedly perfect at every moment.

ppf 5y ago
Counterpoint: many atrocities have been made acceptable to the general population, in the name of "public health" (or at least, the greater public good). For me, "the greater good" does not over-ride personal critical analysis.
- syops 5y ago
  The greater good in this case means following rules/mandates that do not in any way lead to an outcome of supporting atrocities. There is no valid critical analysis by which one concludes that not wearing masks or engaging in social distancing is a fight against atrocities.
  - Siira 5y ago
    Masks are a minor inconvenience but they affect millions. It adds up.
    - syops 5y ago
      It adds up to something comparable to bringing up atrocities apt? I don’t see how. It’s not like the inconvenience of wearing a mask done billions of times leads to overall a massive inconvenience that becomes intolerable. This type of inconvenience is not additive. There is no compounding effect.
      - Siira 5y ago
        It adds up to significant unnecessary suffering. It’s clear to me that doing, e.g., human challenge vaccine trials was a much more cost-effective measure (nowadays just get the bloody vaccine and be done with pandemic), and masks are just a weak band-aid for which I have not seen much more evidence since the Slatestarcodex review (which called CDC on its bullshit very early: masks probably help a bit, but not much, and the evidence is weak either way), and they are being used first and foremost as a political signaling and psychological comfort device (remember the whole “masks more effective than vaccines” rhetoric).

chiefalchemist 5y ago

As a "side read" I started "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" in Dec 2020, and finished a couple or so weeks ago. The book is thorough. It covers history, political systems, individual psychology, sociology, and more. The context being (data-based) surveillance as a means to nudge and manipulate behavior - individually and masses. While it focuses on big tech, it's lessons are in fact universal. In any case, stepping back from the pandemic and other personal biases, the tactics and narrative of the last 15+ months begin to feel like some new (covert?) form of totalitarianism. - There's an evil enemy that must be intricated for the good of all. - There's hyperbolic fear and widespread death. The deaths are real, but data is cherry-picked in a propaganda-y sort of way. Correlation is more important than causation. - There is a lone figure-head we must promise our allegiance and dedication to. Signs on front yards, t-shirts, etc. Note: No one voted for Fauci. And while he's certainly accomplished it's difficult to imagine one single opinion - in a cloud of unknowns - could carry so much authority. - Churches were closed, as were other assemblies. The State persists. It's powers broader. - There is a tide of "The State knows best (your rights and liberty be damned.)" Do as you're told or you will be marginalized or (socially) silenced. As long as you cooperate and follow the gov's you will be safe. Please try not to knee-jerk. The above list are simple facts. All that aside, for anyone still trusting of the CDC it's best to check the data on causes of death prior to this pandemic. Make note of how many of those conditions are preventable. Nrxt track down the Covid death's comorbidies - which are rarely mentioned - that killer Covid pairs well with. To say Covid killed someone who was (e.g.) morbidly obese is misleading. It's called morbidly obese for a reason. Ultimately, Covid 19 is a symptom. It's a symptom of our heath personally and as a society. It's a symptom of bigger and broader forces "at war" over who is in control. Yeah, sounds like madness. But please keep in mind, so did totalitarianism. https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-under-surveillance-capitalism-on-the-media https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/segments/living-und... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capitalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capi... p.s. There's a chapter in Adam Grant's book "Think Again" on jabs, and how to go about convincing someone to think again about their anti vax ideas. What we've been doing for Covid is off target. Yet why is that? Adam Grant knows something the whole of the USA readership does not?

jmcqk6 5y ago

To treat the government as a single cohesive entity moving with unified purpose is a fallacy.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I'll take it a step further: To treat any organization larger than about a few hundred people that way is naive to the point of being stupid.