Hacker News Reader

Comment by thesausageking | Hacker News Reader

This comes across as really out of touch. Has the writer spent any time in the large part of the country that still doesn't believe COVID is real and has complete distrust in the CDC and anything the current administration does?

It's just not possible for a country as large and divided as the US to have the CDC take a "forceful, quick, clear and unified response" she wants them too.

View on HN

Sure it is. The caveat is that the CDC will only be providing information, rather than playing politics but the point is that this is not only ok, but desirable.

Let other departments spin the message. If the CDC doesn't stick to science and facts they'll undermine their own authority (which to a large degree they've already done).

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.

Even sticking to science and facts they undermine their authority.

New data or corrected mistakes change information and a significant portion of the public does not appear to handle that well.

See: the information on the effectiveness of cloth masks, the information on pathogen particle size and transmission distance, and terminology used.

If I ask the CDC whether I should wear a mask to the grocery store today, what would you consider a clear but politics-free response to that question?

"As of [todays date], the CDC recommends the use of masks in indoor spaces.

Droplet transmission is currently thought to be the leading mechanism of Covid-19 transmission and masks have been shown to reduce the quantity of droplets expelled and inhaled. Definitive data is not available on how effective masks are on reducing transmission of Covid-19 specifically."

Precisely.

What not to say might include "If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask" followed by an about-face a few months later. It's well-established that the CDC knowingly provided bad advice about the need for masks in spring 2020 to avoid a run on masks: https://web.archive.org/web/20200329005833/https://www.cdc.g...

Someone in a position of medical authority knowingly giving harmful advice is incredibly damaging and unethical.

Agreed, an alternative statement could be:

"As of [todays date], the CDC does not recommend the use of masks in indoor spaces by people without Covid-19 symptoms.

Despite the possible benefit, the CDC recommends reserving masks for the sick, healthcare workers, and high risk groups while the current shortage of available N95 masks is in effect."

The point is to provide accurate information. Lying might have short-term benefits in manipulating behavior, but destroys trust. If the run on masks is still a problem, the solution should have been more government involvement in the the supply chain and distribution of the masks.

When I saw this NYT headline, I rolled my eyes, because NYT has had some seriously misleading and at least borderline-dishonest reporting about COVID, but I paused and remembered that Zeynep Tufekci sometimes writes for them, and Zeynep is the one person who has stood out as the absolute best reporting on COVID I've seen from anyone.

Her critiques of the CDC generally aren't dependent on a public that trusts the government. Yeah, a lot of people will reject the CDC's guidance even if it's good, but there are plenty of people who want to follow CDC guidance, and they struggle to understand it, and when they do follow it, it leads them to stupid decisions because the CDC's advice isn't consistently reasonable.

If you're interested in responsible and intelligent COVID-related analysis, she's the one to follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/zeynep

> Has the writer spent any time in the large part of the country that still doesn't believe COVID is real

Perhaps it’s the other way around? As in the large part of country lost their faith in public health administration and in general institutions because of their mixed and conflicting message and in some cases playing ideologies?

You are out of touch. Large parts of the country do not believe that COVID is 'not real'. Such characterizations are wild exaggerations.

And IIRC, in the last administration, large swaths of the country had no trust in anything they did. For example, the current VP said she would not take a vaccine developed under the previous administration.

Ultimately, CDC knows that the country is incredibly divided politically and should adjust its message accordingly. That was true for the previous admin, and it's true for this one.

I spent much of the last year traveling in places like the pan handle of Florida. Most people I encountered did not believe COVID was any worse than the flu. They were not going to wear masks or socially distance, no matter what "Biden's CDC" said. Having talked to dozens and dozens of people, and watched how different communities behaved, it is definitely real.

While my friends in places like SF had to wait months to get a shot, I walked into a grocery store and got one without any waiting. The maskless women who gave it to me was surprised I was there because I was the only person under 70 she had seen come in.

Believing covid is as bad as the flu implies believing covid exists.

The original claim was that large swaths of the public don't believe the virus exists.

That is ridiculous.

If the claim was large swaths of the public believe it to be as dangerous as the flu, then that's different and changes the meaning.

And with regards to the age group you're referring, the under 70s. For young people, covid really is no more dangerous than the flu.

Agree, you can’t wrap these areas with low vaccination rates up in a tidy little virus denial ball to explain why they aren’t getting vaccines. It’s many reasons with a really large one being that the virus until relatively recently probably didn’t hit those areas very hard. So in a sense my buddy who lives in the woods alone off the Suwannee River—who rarely goes into town and generally only watches gunsmoke reruns on TV, simply doesn’t see Covid as the threat that folks in NYC in April 2020 did. He probably doesn’t even know someone who has had it.

Knowing something is real, but not being affected or concerned about it is a lot different then claiming it doesn’t exist.

oh, man. You're a denier? I don't know what to say. I've lost a lot of people in my life to COVID, many were under 70, one in his 30s.

I know you're unlikely to take advice from an internet stranger, but I do hope you get vaccinated and reconsider your position.

Not sure of where you are from, but I am in the US and in state that had a whole lot of cases. I live in a metropolitan area with several million people. I know personally, maybe 20 people who have had it. One of the 20 was hospitalized from it. Personally I know zero people that have died from it, and only know a 2-3 acquaintances who have lost loved ones. All of those lost were well into their 80s.

So it’s not unusual that in a rural area…folks may not see Covid as the threat that others do. I viewed it as a threat enough to get vaccinated as soon as I was able, but out of an abundance of caution…not fear.

Same I know zero people hospitalized or died. And my aunt lives in a senior community where many got it...

The only person I know who died lives in a third world country and had medical issues. Terribly sad, but I mean we hear stories of all kinds of terrible disease from there.

I don't deny covid at all. I am vaccinated, and was first in line .

What I am not is a fear mongerer. The data show that if you're young and without preexisting conditions your chances of survival without hospitalization are excellent.

I'm sorry you've lost friends, but just because I've also lost friends to mild diseases, like the common cold or common bacteria, doesn't mean I need to tell people who don't think a cold is a big deal that they're a cold denier.

That's anti science nonsense

I'll not argue some of the other points you mentioned but it is incorrect to say VP Harris said she would not take a vaccine developed under the previous administration - she said she would not take trump's word on it, but would trust the experts instead:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-tr...

Seems extremely reasonable to me - I wouldn't trust Kamala Harris' word alone on the efficacy of a vaccine either, I'd trust the science!

This is arguing pedantics.

Trump is not the fda. Trump was never going to 'approve' a vaccine without fda. This sort of fear mongering is responsible for a lot of vaccine hesitancy

It really is not, he was pushing disproven treatments at the time (hydroxychloroquine) which many people still think is a valid treatment today.

It is clear from the data on who is getting vaccinated that folks who voted trump tend to be less likely to be vaccinated. I doubt they're hesitant because of Vice President Kamala Harris' reasonable words.

It's not at all clear this is political unless you're talking with someone who clearly benefits from the political narrative.

Take Alabama, a state with the lowest vaccination rates. In Alabama, blacks and whites are on different sides of the political aisle, yet their vaccination rates are.... The same.

Income, profession, location and education correlate better with vaccination rates than anything..

In general democrats are wealthier than republicans so it is no surprise that they have higher vaccination rates.

Even amongst dems, if you look at the poorer factions which are mainly their nom white factions, vax rates are similarly low.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/vaccine-success-media-misery-i...

The data is clear if you look at vaccination rates per county:

https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/the-red-blue-divide-in-covi...

My suspicion is this stems from trump's poor handling of COVID and downplaying the threat of the virus from the beginning, Vox goes into more detail:

https://www.vox.com/2021/7/6/22554198/political-polarization...

Based on polling, conservatives are less likely to even consider vaccination: "while Republicans, rural residents, and White Evangelical Christians continue to be disproportionately more likely to say they will definitely not get vaccinated." - https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-co...

Thankfully the trend might be changing, folks like Steve Scalise who initially declined the vaccine received the shot and is now advocating for it, but we don't know if this has helped convince conservatives to vaccinate yet as he only did this in July:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/08/02/republican...

This shift among conservative leaders and media has only happened in the last month or so, The Atlantic did a piece on this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/fox-news-c...

> In general democrats are wealthier than republicans so it is no surprise that they have higher vaccination rates.

The vaccine is free. The correlation on vaccination rates to how counties voted is a much stronger relationship than income.

The data lines up with my anecdotal experience as well. The folks I know who are antivax and taking hydroxychloroquine are extremely conservative. When they've talked about their viewpoints they point to Fox and trump as trusted sources on the topic.

You could make an argument that college education plays a large role in whether or not folks are antivax, those numbers closely align with party identification though so I'm not sure that's useful:

"There remains a large gap in vaccine uptake across education, with about eight in ten college graduates (79%) saying they have gotten at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, compared to about six in ten adults without a degree who say the same (59%)" - https://kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-...

What Kamala actually said in the context of reports that Trump was leaning on the FDA to approve the vaccine.. She's decidedly not refusing to "take a vaccine developed under the previous administration":

> Susan Page (Debate moderator):

> No, no, you’re Senator Harris to me. For life to get back to normal, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other experts say that most of the people who can be vaccinated need to be vaccinated. But half of Americans now say they wouldn’t take a vaccine if it was released now. If the Trump administration approves a vaccine before or after the election, should Americans take it, and would you take it?

> Kamala Harris:

> If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.

I agree, in the end the CDC knows that there are a lot of hurdles to get the information across and will have to adjust. That is really all they can do. A small sticking point is now VP Harris didn't say she won't take the vaccine developed under the previous administration, she said she doesn't trust Trump and would listen do public health experts [0]. She was concerned they would be "muzzled," but was later assured and re-iterated her point on a later interview [1].

[0] https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kamala-harris-says-she-w...

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-tr...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com