Hacker News Reader

Comment by PolygonSheep | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

Much as I can sympathize with that, the CDC withholding massive amounts of data seems like throwing gasoline on the conspiracy fire.

Look at what happened when the FDA said it would take 75 years to publicly release the Pfizer vaccine data. Yes it was justifiable but it didn't exactly calm conspiracy theorists down.

View on HN

I think it's fine as a public health org to convey a confident message to persuade people to do something. CDC is not a scientific body, they are a political public health body, and a simple clear message should be their goal.

Where we went wrong was on making the leap to forcing people to be vaccinated (and instituting vaccine passports or requiring it for work is forcing, despite some mental gymnastics people like to play). Then is begins to look a lot more nefarious when information is being ignored or suppressed. The "sane" solution would have been for the CDC to focus on consistent messaging and let the public decide

I think thats more opinion than objective ground truth, but it may have been sane in some senses. It also probably would have led to other problems. Absent a time machine, I think we're probably down to the differential stats between states and territories with and without high vaccination rates, and compulsion.

This is going to ring on for decades. Its linear optimisation, what-if big stuff, the epidemiology is going to go on and on. Surplus mortality stats are only just rolling in, worldwide.

I don't personally believe in the conspiracy side of this, what I am trying to say is I agree politically, compulsion fed it. Had I been in office, I probably would have voted for compulsion but I would have voted for compulsory return of weapons and a bunch of other laws too, so I am probably sin-binned on those grounds.

I'm not opposed to compulsion per-se. Historically, It's narrow, but (I believe) neccessary from time to time. Lots of people don't agree, thats probably the root problem here: The limits of reach in the state, and how people react to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com