8 ms·

This situation seems a lot like two years ago with the CDC saying "there are no confirmed cases in the US", while it looking really likely that the virus has al

by nend 5y ago

This situation seems a lot like two years ago with the CDC saying "there are no confirmed cases in the US", while it looking really likely that the virus has already established itself here and we simply haven't tested for it. I wish they would just come out and be honest about the situation. It was frustrating two years ago and they're frustratingly silent now too.

tux3 5y ago
I want to agree with you, but I would be very careful not to fall into paranoia. It's easy and destructive. The CDC is probably silent because they're slow and inefficient, so they have nothing very certain to say. If there's dishonesty, it's not the main theme. Furthermore, there are talented people at the CDC. Plenty of those. If they don't get a lot of work or communication done, it's organizational inefficiency.
- throwhauser 5y ago
  GP: > This situation seems a lot like two years ago with the CDC saying "there are no confirmed cases in the US" P: > I would be very careful not to fall into paranoia. It's easy and destructive. Two years ago, paranoia might have helped. (Although considering how many places are now starting to abandon the zero-COVID goal, it might not have worked forever).
  - sovietmudkipz 5y ago
    My mom was paranoid because she’s what I (lovingly) dub a ‘doom cult Christian’ because she is using the foretold apocalypse as an excuse to get into ‘prepping’ as a hobby. She got into it in earnest about 4 years ago, and sends me and my siblings low hundred or thousands view YouTube videos saying all kinds of crazy stuff with a biblical spin. I think COVID was a sign for her that she’s on the right path. Honestly, I haven’t dug in too greatly. I recently heard that most Christian groups are run by troll farms. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was caught in one of these schemes.
  - b112 5y ago
    Zero covid? You mean eliminate it? That was never a goal, anywhere.
    - mattrighetti 5y ago
      Looks like many people think that is the goal now. I come from a place that has a lot of vaccinated people, ICUs have been at 4% since may and still there is an increase in restrictions because of a recent uptake in cases which don't result in hospitalisation since a lot of people, as I said, took the vaccine.
      - Spooky23 5y ago
        It depends on the populations. School, colder weather and the resumption of winter sports like basketball have contributed to a spike in many areas. Many are breakthrough cases. My son’s school, which has had 2 cases through early November, had 20% of the student body positive.
      - marcosdumay 5y ago
        There isn't a lot of information on how the vaccines impact the contagion rates, and people are really afraid of numbers growing so quickly that ICUs go from mostly empty into overflowing again without time to react. A lot of people sick but well enough that they don't need a hospital means a lot of people possibly transmitting the disease. There is a point on the other extreme too, in that the people that get into an ICU overwhelmingly refused to vaccinate, and it isn't fair to disrupt the entire society because of them. But well, the pandemics is full of unfair situations, and refusing treatment to people with unrelated diseases because ICUs are full isn't fair either. Everybody is in a crazy game of balancing things the best possible way without full information.
    - throwhauser 5y ago
      "Why China is still trying to achieve zero Covid": https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59257496 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59257496 "Why has Australia switched tack on Covid zero?": https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58406526 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58406526 "‘Zero Covid’ strategies are being abandoned as the highly infectious delta variant dominates": https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/zero-covid-strategies-abandoned-in-the-face-of-the-delta-variant.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/zero-covid-strategies-abando... ("New Zealand has become the latest country to abandon a zero Covid strategy"... "This zero Covid strategy, also employed by the likes of China and Taiwan...")
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    >Two years ago, paranoia might have helped. That's an easy statement to make two years later. Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, we know a lot of things that would have helped. When you make evidence-based decisions, you are going to get some things wrong. The only way around that is to gather more evidence, and that takes time (and loads of money.)
    - throwhauser 5y ago
      > The only way around that is to gather more evidence... That begs the question as to whether an evidence-based approach is the right approach in all circumstances. Another way around it is to not fully rely on an evidence-based approach, and take precautions before the evidence comes in. In some circumstances (e.g. rapid spread of an poorly understood disease) waiting for an evidence-based decision before taking precautions might be too slow.
      - SantalBlush 5y ago
        Finding that the disease is spreading rapidly and taking precautions as a result is making an evidence-based decision. You seem to be repeating my point here. The issue is that they really didn't know how rapidly it was spreading at the beginning.
- nend 5y ago
  I don't think they're necessarily being dishonest, just misleading probably unintentionally. Speaking of paranoia, I think their poor communication led to plenty of paranoia two years ago, and it seems like there's plenty of paranoia now again. I think being more truthful and communicative would lead to less paranoia, not more.
- sneak 5y ago
  Being slow and inefficient in the middle of a war is the same destructive result as being dishonest or malicious. It still costs lives. It doesn't matter that there was no malicious intent.
  - tux3 5y ago
    It still does harm, but you treat it differently.
beowulfey 5y ago
I mean, they are saying all they know right? Fauci has come out saying he expects Omicron to be present in the US already, but he is explicit that it is a guess. CDC could formally say it is probably here, but like most large organizations are being conservative with their language. I only hope if they DO receive word of the variant they make it known quickly. The nature of the PCR assay suggests it is easy to detect.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
theduder99 5y ago
CDC has lost all credibility. They still can't answer basic questions about the virus, how it is transmitted, etc. They also changed the definition of the word vaccine because the new drugs don't actually provide immunity: https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-cdc-suddenly-changes-the-definition-of-vaccine-and-vaccination/ https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-cdc-suddenly-changes-the-... check it for yourself: https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.g... vs https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
- 323 5y ago
  The flu vaccine doesn't give you immunity to flu either. So the definition of vaccine was wrong in this way even before the pandemic. But nobody cared.
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    People didn’t care because no one had to prove their "Flu Immunity" to eat at a restaurant or board a flight. If the current vaccines don’t actually provide immunity then the premise behind all these restrictions is dishonest and not really protecting people.
    - Zigurd 5y ago
      Alternatively, the US has not taken influenza seriously enough to more strongly recommend vaccination and reduce transmission by the unvaccinated. It is a pretty good hypothesis that the measures, like mask wearing, taken against COVID have also been effective against flu. It is also astonishingly selfish for those who do not take measures to reduce their chance of transmitting diseases to moan about their freedoms. Freedom is fully available to you in ways that many truly unfree people cannot access. False victimhood is an ugly thing.
      - bluejekyll 5y ago
        I really liked this observation: “Individual freedoms exercised without care for others are not really social freedoms, just micro-forms of domination. That’s the essence of the distinction.” —David Wengrow https://twitter.com/davidwengrow/status/1456180588298346499?s=21 https://twitter.com/davidwengrow/status/1456180588298346499?...
jryb 5y ago
Sequencing efforts are quite decentralized. If it hasn't been detected yet, either organizations haven't reported it to the CDC yet or it's still below the limit of detection.
Zigurd 5y ago
That's a true statement and does not exclude that undetected cases possibly exist. To claim that CDC are going to be shown to be wrong is what feeds the "See, they tell us different things!" narrative. Of course CDC will say, if and when Omicon appears in the US, that there are detected cases.
syshum 5y ago
I believe it is impossible for the government to be honest with the public in anyway. Too many competing interest trying to "manage" the public response from too many angles like Stock Market, Politics, Panic, etc. They are simply incapable of giving the public the unvarnished truth, as such I think we the public need to be looking to non-governmental sources for the actual truth. This becomes a problem because historically that has been the role of journalism sadly today journalists have the exact same competing interests thus are also incapable of telling the public the truth. I dont know the solution, but truth is the causality of the current age of information.
jmull 5y ago
> I wish they would just come out and be honest about the situation. Isn't this honest? You want them to speculate, but what's the point? Don't we all already know Omicron is likely already here? So what does the CDC add? What we really need to know is how serious it is -- how deadly X how infectious -- and the CDC doesn't know that (yet).

by nend 5y ago

tux3 5y ago

I want to agree with you, but I would be very careful not to fall into paranoia. It's easy and destructive. The CDC is probably silent because they're slow and inefficient, so they have nothing very certain to say. If there's dishonesty, it's not the main theme. Furthermore, there are talented people at the CDC. Plenty of those. If they don't get a lot of work or communication done, it's organizational inefficiency.

throwhauser 5y ago
GP: > This situation seems a lot like two years ago with the CDC saying "there are no confirmed cases in the US" P: > I would be very careful not to fall into paranoia. It's easy and destructive. Two years ago, paranoia might have helped. (Although considering how many places are now starting to abandon the zero-COVID goal, it might not have worked forever).
- sovietmudkipz 5y ago
  My mom was paranoid because she’s what I (lovingly) dub a ‘doom cult Christian’ because she is using the foretold apocalypse as an excuse to get into ‘prepping’ as a hobby. She got into it in earnest about 4 years ago, and sends me and my siblings low hundred or thousands view YouTube videos saying all kinds of crazy stuff with a biblical spin. I think COVID was a sign for her that she’s on the right path. Honestly, I haven’t dug in too greatly. I recently heard that most Christian groups are run by troll farms. I wouldn’t be surprised if she was caught in one of these schemes.
- b112 5y ago
  Zero covid? You mean eliminate it? That was never a goal, anywhere.
  - mattrighetti 5y ago
    Looks like many people think that is the goal now. I come from a place that has a lot of vaccinated people, ICUs have been at 4% since may and still there is an increase in restrictions because of a recent uptake in cases which don't result in hospitalisation since a lot of people, as I said, took the vaccine.
    - Spooky23 5y ago
      It depends on the populations. School, colder weather and the resumption of winter sports like basketball have contributed to a spike in many areas. Many are breakthrough cases. My son’s school, which has had 2 cases through early November, had 20% of the student body positive.
    - marcosdumay 5y ago
      There isn't a lot of information on how the vaccines impact the contagion rates, and people are really afraid of numbers growing so quickly that ICUs go from mostly empty into overflowing again without time to react. A lot of people sick but well enough that they don't need a hospital means a lot of people possibly transmitting the disease. There is a point on the other extreme too, in that the people that get into an ICU overwhelmingly refused to vaccinate, and it isn't fair to disrupt the entire society because of them. But well, the pandemics is full of unfair situations, and refusing treatment to people with unrelated diseases because ICUs are full isn't fair either. Everybody is in a crazy game of balancing things the best possible way without full information.
  - throwhauser 5y ago
    "Why China is still trying to achieve zero Covid": https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59257496 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-59257496 "Why has Australia switched tack on Covid zero?": https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58406526 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58406526 "‘Zero Covid’ strategies are being abandoned as the highly infectious delta variant dominates": https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/zero-covid-strategies-abandoned-in-the-face-of-the-delta-variant.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/zero-covid-strategies-abando... ("New Zealand has become the latest country to abandon a zero Covid strategy"... "This zero Covid strategy, also employed by the likes of China and Taiwan...")
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  >Two years ago, paranoia might have helped. That's an easy statement to make two years later. Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, we know a lot of things that would have helped. When you make evidence-based decisions, you are going to get some things wrong. The only way around that is to gather more evidence, and that takes time (and loads of money.)
  - throwhauser 5y ago
    > The only way around that is to gather more evidence... That begs the question as to whether an evidence-based approach is the right approach in all circumstances. Another way around it is to not fully rely on an evidence-based approach, and take precautions before the evidence comes in. In some circumstances (e.g. rapid spread of an poorly understood disease) waiting for an evidence-based decision before taking precautions might be too slow.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      Finding that the disease is spreading rapidly and taking precautions as a result is making an evidence-based decision. You seem to be repeating my point here. The issue is that they really didn't know how rapidly it was spreading at the beginning.
nend 5y ago
I don't think they're necessarily being dishonest, just misleading probably unintentionally. Speaking of paranoia, I think their poor communication led to plenty of paranoia two years ago, and it seems like there's plenty of paranoia now again. I think being more truthful and communicative would lead to less paranoia, not more.
sneak 5y ago
Being slow and inefficient in the middle of a war is the same destructive result as being dishonest or malicious. It still costs lives. It doesn't matter that there was no malicious intent.
- tux3 5y ago
  It still does harm, but you treat it differently.

beowulfey 5y ago

I mean, they are saying all they know right? Fauci has come out saying he expects Omicron to be present in the US already, but he is explicit that it is a guess. CDC could formally say it is probably here, but like most large organizations are being conservative with their language. I only hope if they DO receive word of the variant they make it known quickly. The nature of the PCR assay suggests it is easy to detect.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

theduder99 5y ago

CDC has lost all credibility. They still can't answer basic questions about the virus, how it is transmitted, etc. They also changed the definition of the word vaccine because the new drugs don't actually provide immunity: https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-cdc-suddenly-changes-the-definition-of-vaccine-and-vaccination/ https://www.citizensjournal.us/the-cdc-suddenly-changes-the-... check it for yourself: https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.g... vs https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

323 5y ago
The flu vaccine doesn't give you immunity to flu either. So the definition of vaccine was wrong in this way even before the pandemic. But nobody cared.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  People didn’t care because no one had to prove their "Flu Immunity" to eat at a restaurant or board a flight. If the current vaccines don’t actually provide immunity then the premise behind all these restrictions is dishonest and not really protecting people.
  - Zigurd 5y ago
    Alternatively, the US has not taken influenza seriously enough to more strongly recommend vaccination and reduce transmission by the unvaccinated. It is a pretty good hypothesis that the measures, like mask wearing, taken against COVID have also been effective against flu. It is also astonishingly selfish for those who do not take measures to reduce their chance of transmitting diseases to moan about their freedoms. Freedom is fully available to you in ways that many truly unfree people cannot access. False victimhood is an ugly thing.
    - bluejekyll 5y ago
      I really liked this observation: “Individual freedoms exercised without care for others are not really social freedoms, just micro-forms of domination. That’s the essence of the distinction.” —David Wengrow https://twitter.com/davidwengrow/status/1456180588298346499?s=21 https://twitter.com/davidwengrow/status/1456180588298346499?...

jryb 5y ago

Sequencing efforts are quite decentralized. If it hasn't been detected yet, either organizations haven't reported it to the CDC yet or it's still below the limit of detection.

Zigurd 5y ago

That's a true statement and does not exclude that undetected cases possibly exist. To claim that CDC are going to be shown to be wrong is what feeds the "See, they tell us different things!" narrative. Of course CDC will say, if and when Omicon appears in the US, that there are detected cases.

syshum 5y ago

I believe it is impossible for the government to be honest with the public in anyway. Too many competing interest trying to "manage" the public response from too many angles like Stock Market, Politics, Panic, etc. They are simply incapable of giving the public the unvarnished truth, as such I think we the public need to be looking to non-governmental sources for the actual truth. This becomes a problem because historically that has been the role of journalism sadly today journalists have the exact same competing interests thus are also incapable of telling the public the truth. I dont know the solution, but truth is the causality of the current age of information.

jmull 5y ago

> I wish they would just come out and be honest about the situation. Isn't this honest? You want them to speculate, but what's the point? Don't we all already know Omicron is likely already here? So what does the CDC add? What we really need to know is how serious it is -- how deadly X how infectious -- and the CDC doesn't know that (yet).