5 ms·

I admit that every time I see a CDC study, I wonder if they began the study with their desired end in mind. The CDC has admitted that they lied multiple times;

I admit that every time I see a CDC study, I wonder if they began the study with their desired end in mind. The CDC has admitted that they lied multiple times; why should I believe their studies? Edit: I see that this study did begin with the desired end in mind because they have a blurb titled "What are the implications for public health practice?" that says: > All eligible persons should be vaccinated against COVID-19 as soon as possible, including unvaccinated persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. In other words, these "scientists" decided to comment on public policy in their study. Such an act makes it extremely suspect for several reasons, not least of which the scientists are making a political statement in what is supposed to be a scientific study.

IgorPartola 5y ago
What study did they admit to lying about?
- ghoward 5y ago
  Not a study, but they admitted to lying. They lied about masks. They lied about what percentage of people need to be vaccinated for herd immunity. I'm sure there's more.
  - sturza 5y ago
    Did the people involved with this particular study admit to previous lies?
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Does that matter? No! It was a study commissioned by an organization I don't trust anymore because they lost that trust. But even if I did trust these scientists before, I don't know that they decided to put a political statement in a scientific study. The only agenda scientists should have is truth.
    - pawelmurias 5y ago
      Would you fully trust a study done by scientists hired by Fox News or the CNN?
      - IgorPartola 5y ago
        FWIW Fox has some of the highest rated political polling as per 538. And I personally think their news is garbage.
  - mint2 5y ago
    Lying about percentage needed to reach herd immunity?! I’m not actually familiar with the claims this is directed at, but due to the changing circumstance with more transmissible variants and not even 100% of data on the original, it’s hard to take a comment like that seriously. Being incorrect or becoming no longer correct due to changed circumstances doesn’t make a claim a lie or the person making it a liar.
    - b0sk 5y ago
      The moment he uses that word, his impartiality goes out of the window. Viruses adapt, the science adapts. You give your best information at that point and you don't want to muddy the public with confidence intervals and all that.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        Fauci did not give us his best information. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... So he lied. Plain and simple. I used that word because it's the truth, even though it's strong because sugarcoating the truth is lying. Using the term "sugarcoating" is, in fact, trying to sugarcoat the fact that sugarcoating is lying!
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Fauci said that he keeps moving the goalposts based on what he thinks we are "ready to hear": > He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... Sure, if he said it was because of more information, I could take him seriously. But when he says the above, it means he's making excuses for lying.
      - mint2 5y ago
        From the article > “ We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.” We don’t know, he doesn’t know, no one knows the exact number. Yeah he’s being a bit coy, but all the numbers he’s thrown out since the delta are in that range Btw Fauci technically isn’t cdc. Just saying bc we’re being ultra strict on the herd immunity estimates but very lax on other facts when accusing the cdc. Seems inconsistent.
  - b0sk 5y ago
    "lied" - interesting choice of words. So did Newton "lie" about his theories because he was disproved by Einstein?
    - ghoward 5y ago
      You're being disingenuous. Newton's model still "works" (at low speeds and when we don't need high precision), so he didn't lie. He also believed what he was saying. Fauci, on the other hand, does not believe himself. He says things as we are "ready to hear" them. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... That's lying. If he got updated information and told us so, that's not lying. But he didn't; he just decided to say something different because it was now politically expedient. Fauci is a political operative, not a scientist.
      - kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
        You’re saying Fauci isn’t a scientist? Ridiculous.
      - b0sk 5y ago
        Paywalled. Herd immunity is not one strict number. It depends on the transmissibility of the virus. Alpha was more. Delta is much more. Now A.Y variant is slightly more than Delta. All these affect the herd immunity number. But you can't lay out these sort of qualifiers when you are communicating to public. Seems like by using words like "political operative" and all you really show your ignorance.
        ghoward 5y ago
        I have JavaScript disabled, so it appears for me. The relevant quote is: > In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. (Emphasis added.) In other words, he only tells us what is politically expedient. That is, by definition, what a political operative does. I would suggest you not assume I'm ignorant before reading articles I link to.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    The masks thing has been talked over a bunch on HN so I won’t revisit that argument but it’s a dead end: it was a potentially incorrect measure to take but also not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. Percentage of people/herd immunity: they straight up did not lie. They said that based on what we know of similar diseases the guess would be 75-95% of the population need to be vaccinated. Everyone immediately latched onto the 75% mark and also this was in 2020 when we knew comparatively approximately nothing about COVID. This is like saying “based on our knowledge of Toyota Corollas, a Ferrari will do 0-60 in at most 5 seconds”. Technically true, but not backed by studies until studies are able to be completed. Your last sentence sounds like you formed an opinion before doing the research so I see no point in addressing it. Sounds like there is no study you can point to that was compromised?
    - ghoward 5y ago
      > it was a potentially incorrect measure to take but also not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. Any lie from an expert is a big deal. We are supposed to "trust experts", right? Any lie makes them lose trust. > Percentage of people/herd immunity: they straight up did not lie. Fauci did. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... > Sounds like there is no study you can point to that was compromised? Not one from the CDC directly, but https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/health/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/health/coronavirus-hydrox... . However, the CDC is definitely fudging the numbers on deaths, per https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-I... : > COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.

IgorPartola 5y ago

What study did they admit to lying about?

ghoward 5y ago
Not a study, but they admitted to lying. They lied about masks. They lied about what percentage of people need to be vaccinated for herd immunity. I'm sure there's more.
- sturza 5y ago
  Did the people involved with this particular study admit to previous lies?
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Does that matter? No! It was a study commissioned by an organization I don't trust anymore because they lost that trust. But even if I did trust these scientists before, I don't know that they decided to put a political statement in a scientific study. The only agenda scientists should have is truth.
  - pawelmurias 5y ago
    Would you fully trust a study done by scientists hired by Fox News or the CNN?
    - IgorPartola 5y ago
      FWIW Fox has some of the highest rated political polling as per 538. And I personally think their news is garbage.
- mint2 5y ago
  Lying about percentage needed to reach herd immunity?! I’m not actually familiar with the claims this is directed at, but due to the changing circumstance with more transmissible variants and not even 100% of data on the original, it’s hard to take a comment like that seriously. Being incorrect or becoming no longer correct due to changed circumstances doesn’t make a claim a lie or the person making it a liar.
  - b0sk 5y ago
    The moment he uses that word, his impartiality goes out of the window. Viruses adapt, the science adapts. You give your best information at that point and you don't want to muddy the public with confidence intervals and all that.
    - ghoward 5y ago
      Fauci did not give us his best information. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... So he lied. Plain and simple. I used that word because it's the truth, even though it's strong because sugarcoating the truth is lying. Using the term "sugarcoating" is, in fact, trying to sugarcoat the fact that sugarcoating is lying!
  - ghoward 5y ago
    Fauci said that he keeps moving the goalposts based on what he thinks we are "ready to hear": > He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... Sure, if he said it was because of more information, I could take him seriously. But when he says the above, it means he's making excuses for lying.
    - mint2 5y ago
      From the article > “ We need to have some humility here,” he added. “We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent. But, I’m not going to say 90 percent.” We don’t know, he doesn’t know, no one knows the exact number. Yeah he’s being a bit coy, but all the numbers he’s thrown out since the delta are in that range Btw Fauci technically isn’t cdc. Just saying bc we’re being ultra strict on the herd immunity estimates but very lax on other facts when accusing the cdc. Seems inconsistent.
- b0sk 5y ago
  "lied" - interesting choice of words. So did Newton "lie" about his theories because he was disproved by Einstein?
  - ghoward 5y ago
    You're being disingenuous. Newton's model still "works" (at low speeds and when we don't need high precision), so he didn't lie. He also believed what he was saying. Fauci, on the other hand, does not believe himself. He says things as we are "ready to hear" them. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... That's lying. If he got updated information and told us so, that's not lying. But he didn't; he just decided to say something different because it was now politically expedient. Fauci is a political operative, not a scientist.
    - kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
      You’re saying Fauci isn’t a scientist? Ridiculous.
    - b0sk 5y ago
      Paywalled. Herd immunity is not one strict number. It depends on the transmissibility of the virus. Alpha was more. Delta is much more. Now A.Y variant is slightly more than Delta. All these affect the herd immunity number. But you can't lay out these sort of qualifiers when you are communicating to public. Seems like by using words like "political operative" and all you really show your ignorance.
      - ghoward 5y ago
        I have JavaScript disabled, so it appears for me. The relevant quote is: > In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks. (Emphasis added.) In other words, he only tells us what is politically expedient. That is, by definition, what a political operative does. I would suggest you not assume I'm ignorant before reading articles I link to.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  The masks thing has been talked over a bunch on HN so I won’t revisit that argument but it’s a dead end: it was a potentially incorrect measure to take but also not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. Percentage of people/herd immunity: they straight up did not lie. They said that based on what we know of similar diseases the guess would be 75-95% of the population need to be vaccinated. Everyone immediately latched onto the 75% mark and also this was in 2020 when we knew comparatively approximately nothing about COVID. This is like saying “based on our knowledge of Toyota Corollas, a Ferrari will do 0-60 in at most 5 seconds”. Technically true, but not backed by studies until studies are able to be completed. Your last sentence sounds like you formed an opinion before doing the research so I see no point in addressing it. Sounds like there is no study you can point to that was compromised?
  - ghoward 5y ago
    > it was a potentially incorrect measure to take but also not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be. Any lie from an expert is a big deal. We are supposed to "trust experts", right? Any lie makes them lose trust. > Percentage of people/herd immunity: they straight up did not lie. Fauci did. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... > Sounds like there is no study you can point to that was compromised? Not one from the CDC directly, but https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/health/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/health/coronavirus-hydrox... . However, the CDC is definitely fudging the numbers on deaths, per https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-I... : > COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.