3 ms·

I agree! In fact, they just did it with their 5-day quarantine recommendation. Which is why I think it's important that the facts they use to publicly justify t

• VikingCoder 5y ago
  There are reasonable discussions to be had about the CDC's credibility. Then there are bad faith discussions about the CDC's credibility. Are you aware that repeatedly exposing someone to false information leads them to believe it? If you start from the belief that the CDC is credible, you can use phrases like, "The CDC made a mistake in relying on this study." If you start from the belief that the CDC is not credible, you would can use phrases like "CDC / Junk Science." You could, as another commented on this thread, say "If the CDC intentionally chose to lie to the public about their reason for a decision, that's really really bad." There's is ZERO EVIDENCE that they intentionally lied. That's like me saying, "If user lghh was involved in dog fighting, that's really really bad." I have no evidence of it, and it gives people a bad impression of you. The CDC has well-earned credibility, and the people who are questioning the CDC most effectively in the public circle (Fox News, Infowars, Joe Rogan) should have lost any credibility they had long, long ago. But questioning the CDC is profitable. People are exploiting fears to make money. So, if you want to engage in good faith discussions, that's awesome. But maybe, just maybe, avoid phrases like "The study (implying there was only one) that convinced the CDC to support mask mandates in schools is JUNK SCIENCE!"