4 ms·

Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day

Kristen Nordlund, a spokeswoman for the C.D.C., said the agency has been slow to release the different streams of data “because basically, at the end of the day, it’s not yet ready for prime time.” She said the agency’s “priority when gathering any data is to ensure that it’s accurate and actionable.” Another reason is fear that the information might be misinterpreted, Ms. Nordlund said. Releasing some and withholding other data is called biasing. How can they expect people to trust them, when they admit to cherry-picking which data to show? I can understand their fear of misinterpretation, but by now they should have realized losing trust is much worse.

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
To be fair, if you want to be flip flopped around, you can simply open the front-page of Nature.com, you don't need the CDC to waste your money paying someone to press Retweet.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
xedrac 5y ago
In other words, "fear that the information might be interpreted in a way that doesn't fit our agenda."
- LazarWolf_ 5y ago
  I think thats the _only_ way to interpret that phrasing.
  - KyeRussell 5y ago
    It isn’t, though. That’s a dishonest argument. There are myriad cases of the media (incl. NYT) or the general public misinterpreting findings, usually by way of generalisation or misattributed cause. I empathise with any specialist with this much public attention on them, because everywhere you turn there’s a bone-headed journalist willing to either by way of malice or ignorance misrepresent your findings. I’m not a US resident and have the privilege of being able to care very little about what US government agencies have to say, so I don’t really care in the end, but at least be honest with yourself.
    - xedrac 5y ago
      Data is just data and should be open to inspection. Why wouldn't they release the data with their own interpretation and caveats? My guess is the data is too conclusive to misinterpret, and it doesn't say what they want it to.
    - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
      If your solution to an uninformed and uneducated populous is holding back the information, we will NEVER agree.

aaaaaaaaata 5y ago

To be fair, if you want to be flip flopped around, you can simply open the front-page of Nature.com, you don't need the CDC to waste your money paying someone to press Retweet.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

xedrac 5y ago

In other words, "fear that the information might be interpreted in a way that doesn't fit our agenda."

LazarWolf_ 5y ago
I think thats the _only_ way to interpret that phrasing.
- KyeRussell 5y ago
  It isn’t, though. That’s a dishonest argument. There are myriad cases of the media (incl. NYT) or the general public misinterpreting findings, usually by way of generalisation or misattributed cause. I empathise with any specialist with this much public attention on them, because everywhere you turn there’s a bone-headed journalist willing to either by way of malice or ignorance misrepresent your findings. I’m not a US resident and have the privilege of being able to care very little about what US government agencies have to say, so I don’t really care in the end, but at least be honest with yourself.
  - xedrac 5y ago
    Data is just data and should be open to inspection. Why wouldn't they release the data with their own interpretation and caveats? My guess is the data is too conclusive to misinterpret, and it doesn't say what they want it to.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    If your solution to an uninformed and uneducated populous is holding back the information, we will NEVER agree.