3 ms·

> The CDC continues to characterize the risk posed to the general public by the H5N1 outbreak as “low.” I can’t take such statements seriously after what happe

> The CDC continues to characterize the risk posed to the general public by the H5N1 outbreak as “low.” I can’t take such statements seriously after what happened during COVID, with various organizations initially downplaying the issue, then taking it to new heights of hysteria, changing stances on masks, not seriously pursuing the lab leak theory, seeking to censor/oppress different opinions, etc. I am concerned that statements like this look just like what happened at the start of COVID. > The fact that the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services is still finding such individuals weeks after the H5N1 patient was released from hospital is raising concerns about the rigor of the investigation that the state is running. > As of Friday, 239 herds in 14 states have tested positive for H5N1, though that is believed to be an underestimate of the true scope of the outbreak. Missouri is not among the states that reported infected dairy herds. Are we once again going to take it less seriously than we should only to then swing to the other extreme later?

mlinhares 2y ago
But what about the poor farmers?
dredmorbius 2y ago
What occurred during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was a classic instance of high-stakes decisionmaking and guidance under constraints both of certainty and of available interventions. When the virus first broke out, we knew very little about it, applied knowledge from prior incidents, and tried very very hard to acquire new, relevant, knowledge. At the same time, for numerous reasons, countermeasures, mitigations, and prophylactics were limited and due to supply-chain concentration could not be rapidly ramped up. What's staggering about the COVID-19 pandemic is that we did learn amazingly quickly, had sequenced the full genome within a few weeks, and proceeded to develop the first mRNA vaccine candidates were developed within days. It then took months to both assess those vaccines and ramp up production.[1] The other side of pandemic response related to public health and isolation measures, which remain the most effective means to control infectious disease. Initial presumptions about low airborne transmissibility proved false and guidelines rapidly changed. Effective masks were among the prophylactics which were in limited supply, and for which caregiver and first-responder access was prioritised. As understanding, supply, and manufacturing capacity evolved, mask mandates were extended. And yet ... public response, in numerous countries and for numerous reasons, often directly rejected or attacked these highly-effective measures. Some countries, most notably to my mind New Zealand, fared exceedingly well. Others were and remain global embarrassments. But diligent caregivers and policy leaders around the world were making good-faith best-effort consequence-balanced guidance as to how best to respond, and changed advice rapidly given changing circumstances. The fact that this record continues to be distorted and mistated is utterly disappointing. ________________________________ Notes: 1. Wikipedia has a good history: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_de...>.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  [flagged]
- aakresearch 2y ago
  Disappointing and astonishing it is, how much of post-hoc rationalization, memory-holing, wishful thinking and general newspeak was squeezed into that post. Lies, even repeated very often, do not become truth.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Did you have any particular points to make? Generalized potshots aren't very constructive.

mlinhares 2y ago

But what about the poor farmers?

dredmorbius 2y ago

What occurred during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was a classic instance of high-stakes decisionmaking and guidance under constraints both of certainty and of available interventions. When the virus first broke out, we knew very little about it, applied knowledge from prior incidents, and tried very very hard to acquire new, relevant, knowledge. At the same time, for numerous reasons, countermeasures, mitigations, and prophylactics were limited and due to supply-chain concentration could not be rapidly ramped up. What's staggering about the COVID-19 pandemic is that we did learn amazingly quickly, had sequenced the full genome within a few weeks, and proceeded to develop the first mRNA vaccine candidates were developed within days. It then took months to both assess those vaccines and ramp up production.[1] The other side of pandemic response related to public health and isolation measures, which remain the most effective means to control infectious disease. Initial presumptions about low airborne transmissibility proved false and guidelines rapidly changed. Effective masks were among the prophylactics which were in limited supply, and for which caregiver and first-responder access was prioritised. As understanding, supply, and manufacturing capacity evolved, mask mandates were extended. And yet ... public response, in numerous countries and for numerous reasons, often directly rejected or attacked these highly-effective measures. Some countries, most notably to my mind New Zealand, fared exceedingly well. Others were and remain global embarrassments. But diligent caregivers and policy leaders around the world were making good-faith best-effort consequence-balanced guidance as to how best to respond, and changed advice rapidly given changing circumstances. The fact that this record continues to be distorted and mistated is utterly disappointing. ________________________________ Notes: 1. Wikipedia has a good history: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_COVID-19_vaccine_de...>.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
aakresearch 2y ago
Disappointing and astonishing it is, how much of post-hoc rationalization, memory-holing, wishful thinking and general newspeak was squeezed into that post. Lies, even repeated very often, do not become truth.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Did you have any particular points to make? Generalized potshots aren't very constructive.