4 ms·

> To ensure public trust, CDC must provide accurate, science-based evidence on vaccines,” Kulldorf said. “They have failed to do so.” This didn’t prove anythin

> To ensure public trust, CDC must provide accurate, science-based evidence on vaccines,” Kulldorf said. “They have failed to do so.” This didn’t prove anything about them failing to do so. This is just a bunch of assumptions into conflicts of interests with zero actual evidence.

jrm4 4y ago
I say this as someone as fully vaxxed and boosted -- they really did mess up some weird things in the beginning, especially on masking?
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  Masking seems like a normal way to prevent respitory diseases. It is still advised if someone wants full protection.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Right, that is my point. The CDC should clearly the whole time have been "Go ahead and mask, it can't hurt. Even a bandana or whatever if we're worried about the good ones for doctors" That was NOT what they did.
    - tchalla 4y ago
      And even if they did that, that's ok - CDC made a mistake. However, some people - not necessarily you - draw the conclusion to be "haha, look ... CDC makes mistakes we can't trust them!! Down with experts!".
      - jrm4 4y ago
        It's a bad mistake though. Like, really bad. Like, that gave the anti-maskers SO MUCH FUEL.
    - alamortsubite 4y ago
      > The CDC should clearly the whole time have been "Go ahead and mask, it can't hurt. Even a bandana or whatever if we're worried about the good ones for doctors" This is wrong for a couple reasons. First, it would have led to a run on masks, which were already in short supply for medical professionals. My girlfriend is a physician at a major east coast hospital and has been treating patients with COVID from day 1. People don't seem to want to accept how dire the lack of PPE was for them. Intubating a patient with COVID isn't on the same level as walking past someone in the supermarket. The situation was dangerous. To add to this, even if we somehow equipped everyone with a properly fitted N95, the average American would amaze you with their inability to use it effectively. On multiple occasions I've seen adults in crowded airports lower their masks to sneeze, for example.
      - jrm4 4y ago
        Absent clear evidence to the contrary, I strongly suspect the strategy of knowingly lying about (or recklessly getting wrong) the core concept of "whether or not masks work to prevent airborne disease" is the greater long term harm if you're the agency that's supposed to "make public declarations about diseases." It would seem to me that credibility would be paramount. Perhaps mitigate the mask thing with something weaselly like "At this time, we believe a gaiter or a bandanna is sufficient so don't go buying them up." That little white lie strikes me as much better than "masks don't work y'all" -- which emphatically was the message they put out.
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    I think you are missing the claim. Originally we were told masks were not necessary and didn't work. We later learned that it was because they lied to prevent shortages.
    - stjohnswarts 4y ago
      That claim lasted a couple months at most, as more data came in about how it was primarily spread by aerosols in the air rather than snot on door knobs they changed their policy, that's how science works, and how fox news doesn't work.
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        >That claim lasted a couple months at most, as more data came in about how it was primarily spread by aerosols in the air rather than snot on door knobs they changed their policy, that's how science work I think you should read the post you were replying to. The post says they messed up at the beginning of pandemic. They never claimed it was long term. You seem to be agreeing so I am not sure what your point even is. Also, if they don't know something they should be claiming it is a fact when it comes to medical/scientific issues. Maybe do some research before making the claim. If somebody asks about masks then say we are looking into it. >and how fox news doesn't work. I don't know what Fox is saying, but if they say the government messed up on masks and that masks don't prevent all transmission (we were also told by the government if we just masked the pandemic would be over) then they are accurate.
  - saghm 4y ago
    I think GP is referring to the very early days (March 2020 to maybe May or so) when they were advising against the general public masking. Based on what I read afterwards, it sounds like the idea was that they were worried that the higher end PPE would end out getting bought out by people who were worried (which given the outages on things that in seem pretty unrelated like toilet paper), so they discouraged masking for the general public at first to ensure supply for places like hospitals that needed it most. After a few months, they probably had more confidence in the availability in equipment, so they flipped the recommendation. I remember being surprised by this, since masking was never really something that I had done before or seen my friends and family do, but from reading a bit it seemed clear that it was the right thing to do, so I adapted. I suspect that the bad faith arguments against masking would still have been made if they hadn't first recommended not masking, but it certainly didn't help with getting the general public on board. I'd imagine that a certain segment of the population was not going to follow the recommendations no matter what, and the segment that did properly mask obviously would have even if the messaging had been to mask from the start (or if they didn't say anything about masking until they started recommending it), but I don't have a strong sense of how many people "in the middle" were swayed due to the fact that they at least appeared to have an inconsistent message on this.
- ultrarunner 4y ago
  Technically the Surgeon General played a big part in muddying messaging on masking [1], but the CDC takes full responsibility for the PCR fiasco. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.c...
- gen220 4y ago
  If anyone is curious, the new yorker had an amazing piece of long-form reporting on the earlier days of the pandemic, written near the end of 2020 [1]. Section 14 is about masks in particular. It goes into the history of the CDC, what the pandemic playbook looked like in terms of "public relations" and how (and why!) it failed spectacularly in March/April of 2020. The answer is complicated and not straightforward. My read has been that, from a technical perspective, we knew exactly what policy and PR responses were appropriate, but executive politics leaked-in and delayed/prevented those appropriate responses. Pandemic response is supposed to be led by the CDC and supported by state, federal, local government officials. What we saw, instead, was politicians trying to lead and control the narratives, to disastrous effect. In my mind, it wasn't a party-affiliated error, but an ego-affiliated error. The biggest offenders were Cuomo [2], Pence, and Trump. [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/04/the-plague-year https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/04/the-plague-yea... [2]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leaders-let-scientists-take-the-lead-new-yorks-did-not https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leade...
pfisherman 4y ago
The quote is so dumb it makes my head hurt. The CDC dies not regulate the marketing of vaccines - i.e. the claims about safety and effectiveness the manufacturer is allowed to make. That falls under the statutory authority of FDA who requires any claims of safety and effectiveness to be backed by evidence. Generally the people who talk about “no evidence of safety and effectiveness” have no idea who CDER / CBER are, no idea what an IND is, no idea how clinical trials are done, and no idea of how the FDA does postmarket surveillance / monitoring. Basically they are not informed enough to have a well reasoned opinion or argument. Somebody not even being able to name the correct federal agency - which is not obscure insider knowledge - is a sure sign they are a crank who does not know what they are talking about.

jrm4 4y ago

I say this as someone as fully vaxxed and boosted -- they really did mess up some weird things in the beginning, especially on masking?

jvanderbot 4y ago
Masking seems like a normal way to prevent respitory diseases. It is still advised if someone wants full protection.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Right, that is my point. The CDC should clearly the whole time have been "Go ahead and mask, it can't hurt. Even a bandana or whatever if we're worried about the good ones for doctors" That was NOT what they did.
  - tchalla 4y ago
    And even if they did that, that's ok - CDC made a mistake. However, some people - not necessarily you - draw the conclusion to be "haha, look ... CDC makes mistakes we can't trust them!! Down with experts!".
    - jrm4 4y ago
      It's a bad mistake though. Like, really bad. Like, that gave the anti-maskers SO MUCH FUEL.
  - alamortsubite 4y ago
    > The CDC should clearly the whole time have been "Go ahead and mask, it can't hurt. Even a bandana or whatever if we're worried about the good ones for doctors" This is wrong for a couple reasons. First, it would have led to a run on masks, which were already in short supply for medical professionals. My girlfriend is a physician at a major east coast hospital and has been treating patients with COVID from day 1. People don't seem to want to accept how dire the lack of PPE was for them. Intubating a patient with COVID isn't on the same level as walking past someone in the supermarket. The situation was dangerous. To add to this, even if we somehow equipped everyone with a properly fitted N95, the average American would amaze you with their inability to use it effectively. On multiple occasions I've seen adults in crowded airports lower their masks to sneeze, for example.
    - jrm4 4y ago
      Absent clear evidence to the contrary, I strongly suspect the strategy of knowingly lying about (or recklessly getting wrong) the core concept of "whether or not masks work to prevent airborne disease" is the greater long term harm if you're the agency that's supposed to "make public declarations about diseases." It would seem to me that credibility would be paramount. Perhaps mitigate the mask thing with something weaselly like "At this time, we believe a gaiter or a bandanna is sufficient so don't go buying them up." That little white lie strikes me as much better than "masks don't work y'all" -- which emphatically was the message they put out.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  I think you are missing the claim. Originally we were told masks were not necessary and didn't work. We later learned that it was because they lied to prevent shortages.
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    That claim lasted a couple months at most, as more data came in about how it was primarily spread by aerosols in the air rather than snot on door knobs they changed their policy, that's how science works, and how fox news doesn't work.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      >That claim lasted a couple months at most, as more data came in about how it was primarily spread by aerosols in the air rather than snot on door knobs they changed their policy, that's how science work I think you should read the post you were replying to. The post says they messed up at the beginning of pandemic. They never claimed it was long term. You seem to be agreeing so I am not sure what your point even is. Also, if they don't know something they should be claiming it is a fact when it comes to medical/scientific issues. Maybe do some research before making the claim. If somebody asks about masks then say we are looking into it. >and how fox news doesn't work. I don't know what Fox is saying, but if they say the government messed up on masks and that masks don't prevent all transmission (we were also told by the government if we just masked the pandemic would be over) then they are accurate.
- saghm 4y ago
  I think GP is referring to the very early days (March 2020 to maybe May or so) when they were advising against the general public masking. Based on what I read afterwards, it sounds like the idea was that they were worried that the higher end PPE would end out getting bought out by people who were worried (which given the outages on things that in seem pretty unrelated like toilet paper), so they discouraged masking for the general public at first to ensure supply for places like hospitals that needed it most. After a few months, they probably had more confidence in the availability in equipment, so they flipped the recommendation. I remember being surprised by this, since masking was never really something that I had done before or seen my friends and family do, but from reading a bit it seemed clear that it was the right thing to do, so I adapted. I suspect that the bad faith arguments against masking would still have been made if they hadn't first recommended not masking, but it certainly didn't help with getting the general public on board. I'd imagine that a certain segment of the population was not going to follow the recommendations no matter what, and the segment that did properly mask obviously would have even if the messaging had been to mask from the start (or if they didn't say anything about masking until they started recommending it), but I don't have a strong sense of how many people "in the middle" were swayed due to the fact that they at least appeared to have an inconsistent message on this.
ultrarunner 4y ago
Technically the Surgeon General played a big part in muddying messaging on masking [1], but the CDC takes full responsibility for the PCR fiasco. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://web.archive.org/web/20200301001854/https://twitter.c...
gen220 4y ago
If anyone is curious, the new yorker had an amazing piece of long-form reporting on the earlier days of the pandemic, written near the end of 2020 [1]. Section 14 is about masks in particular. It goes into the history of the CDC, what the pandemic playbook looked like in terms of "public relations" and how (and why!) it failed spectacularly in March/April of 2020. The answer is complicated and not straightforward. My read has been that, from a technical perspective, we knew exactly what policy and PR responses were appropriate, but executive politics leaked-in and delayed/prevented those appropriate responses. Pandemic response is supposed to be led by the CDC and supported by state, federal, local government officials. What we saw, instead, was politicians trying to lead and control the narratives, to disastrous effect. In my mind, it wasn't a party-affiliated error, but an ego-affiliated error. The biggest offenders were Cuomo [2], Pence, and Trump. [1]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/04/the-plague-year https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/04/the-plague-yea... [2]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leaders-let-scientists-take-the-lead-new-yorks-did-not https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/04/seattles-leade...

pfisherman 4y ago

The quote is so dumb it makes my head hurt. The CDC dies not regulate the marketing of vaccines - i.e. the claims about safety and effectiveness the manufacturer is allowed to make. That falls under the statutory authority of FDA who requires any claims of safety and effectiveness to be backed by evidence. Generally the people who talk about “no evidence of safety and effectiveness” have no idea who CDER / CBER are, no idea what an IND is, no idea how clinical trials are done, and no idea of how the FDA does postmarket surveillance / monitoring. Basically they are not informed enough to have a well reasoned opinion or argument. Somebody not even being able to name the correct federal agency - which is not obscure insider knowledge - is a sure sign they are a crank who does not know what they are talking about.