Imo, it is entirely fair to criticize CDC on its handling of this point. The asymptomatic transmission was possibility before March. It is not a shocking new possibility, it was possibility all along.
There were countries that mandated and propagated masks long long before CDC stopped claiming masks do nothing.
If we're arguing for something rationally it is important to be honest in that argument. That means not pretending the risk doesn't exist, but also not over-inflating the risk.
One of the worst things the CDC did was take an anti-mask position initially when it was a bald faced lie unsupported by data. That destroyed their trust relationship and continues to haunt us now.
Yup. I think the problem in the current truthiness and messaging is that the CDC -- and more broadly the scientific establishment -- have undermined their own credibility. It's really hard to roll that back.
Objectively, the CDC are the dumbfucks who said not to mask up when this thing first started. They may have done that for what they felt were good reasons (they didn't want to run out of masks for frontline workers) or bad ones (the WHO didn't think aerosol transmission of COVID was possible). Their advice should be subject to more scrutiny.
If we're talking about the media claims that the masks are ineffective, then it's completely orthogonal to the issue of who should be supplied with the masks. If CDC and other well-educated organizations believe they should go to hospitals and other health care providers first, infected people second, vulnerable populations third, and others last, that still does not excuse lying to the public, as that erodes trust in these organizations and ensures that all other information (e.g. regarding quarantines) would be distrusted.
I don't know if we can call it outright lying, but going from "you don't need a mask" to basically saying you shouldn't be allowed in public without one seems like either incompetence or corruption on the CDC's part. You can argue semantics all you want to try to justify their behavior, but that is what people see and it doesn't increase trust or confidence in them as an organization.
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"
I quoted a CDC press release from 2 days ago, not sure why I got down voted for that. The WHO lied about masks for months. They're a political organization more than a public health advocate
Ultimately, the key learning was the CDC and other federal agencies will propagate misinformation knowingly and intentionally for their perceived public health reasons. I'm no stranger to massive state restrictions of individual rights when fighting infectious diseases. DOTS and friends are an effective means of fighting TB. But intentionally misinforming crosses a line since it makes the organization untrustworthy.
Irrespective of whether masks work or not, the state apparatus chose to go with the message that they don't for the reason that they wanted to preserve supply for healthcare workers.
I had a supply of N95 masks from earlier preparation for forest fires that I gave to healthcare workers here in SF. In future, I shall not donate like this. It is clear that every man is an island and the agencies set up to inform us believe they must control us through deceit instead.
I don’t think a lot of scientists and health officials realize that their work is two sided. ESP if you’re working with public health the other side is who you view as the unwashed masses. You don’t get to make commandments
Maintaining trust with the public is the most important thing to do, and the best way to do that is transparency.
All the games about if we “should tell people xyz” needs to end if these institutions want to rebuild their credibility with the broader public.
The cdc is at least being retrospective but it seems like nature has gone the opposite way and are institutionally entrenching this idea that the public can’t be trusted with the truth.
Yeah, this is not a slide of recommendations; that’s describing the model assumptions illustrated by the charts. Essentially, it says “these charts don’t include modeling the impact of any additional mitigations aside from masking”; these charts show that we must enforce universal masking immediately at minimum.
On the last slide, “Next Steps for CDC”, they explicitly list:
> ? Prevention
> – Consider vaccine mandates for HCP to protect vulnerable populations
> – Universal masking for source control and prevention
> – Reconsider other community mitigation strategies
Which means they definitely think additional mitigations are worthwhile, but we must start with at least masking.
They have a hard job to communicate the specific recommended actions while remaining calm and not causing a panic or making people think that they are over reacting… with everyone ready to jump on them, I do not envy the job.
Funding in 2019 isn't the problem. CDC had obviously wrong advice on their website against wearing masks since 2009. The modern day elites have been showing their incompetence time and again lately. This is not because they were a few dollars short.
I think the CDC's original statements on masks (they aren't necessary, they're only effective at preventing the spread of COVID if the wearer has a medical degree, don't wear masks on planes, etc) contributed a lot to the distrust and politicization of mask wearing.
When you expect an institution to always be impartial and tell the truth, those sorts of white lies can quickly erode trust.
I completely agree. The interesting thing is that if one focuses on the CDC’s research data instead of their media side, he sees a vastly different picture over the last 18 months. Increasing the achievement gap is part f the objective. It creates greater dependence on government. Why are the mask/vaccine mandates not applicable to illegals? Why are the “elites” routinely photographed without masks, including prior to the vaccine? The examples are plentiful.
I also think the CDC should start to heavily invest in STI prevention now...
reply