CDC Admits That It Miscalculated The Risk Of Outdoor Covid Transmission
Category: Op/Ed
Via: vic-eldred • 3 years ago • 33 commentsBy: Joe Hoft Published (JONATHAN TURLEY)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The New York Times is reporting that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was relying on a faulty study in declaring a 10 percent chance of the transmission of Covid-19 outdoors. After using the “miscalculation” to support outdoor mask mandates for over 300 million Americans, the CDC now says that it is more like one percent. It is astonishing that such a key and controversial component of our Covid policies was not just based on a miscalculation but never actively questioned or reexamined to discover the error.
The Times’ Leonhardt noted “There is not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table.”
The outdoor risk has been a major source of disagreement with many contesting mandatory mask rules for those walking or working or recreating outside. It turns out that, according to the Times, the 10% benchmark is based “partly on a misclassification” of virus transmission in Singapore at various construction sites. Those sites were incorrectly described as outdoor but now appear to have actually taken place in indoor settings. Singapore also classified settings that were a mix of indoors and outdoors as outdoors, including construction building sites.
The real risk is one percent or less. Yet, cities like Chicago closed whole parks — magnifying the isolation and depression for citizens. Various cities like New York closed playgrounds despite being outdoors and used by the lowest risk population for Covid. States closed parks and trails that could have been key areas of release for people during lock downs. When Washington, D.C., issued its mandatory outdoor mask in July 2020, the city stressed :
Dr. Robert Redfield, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the World Health Organization, and the District of Columbia Department of Health are all agreed that wearing masks when social distancing is impossible to maintain can reduce the spread of the disease dramatically.
We spent trillions on this pandemic and the issue of masks and curtailing outside movements was continually in the news. Yet, there appears to have been little time or money spent on the basis for this key component of the mandatory policies supported by the CDC and mandated by many states.
I can understand the reliance on an article in the prestigious Journal of Infectious Diseases. I cannot understand the failure to closely examine its basis since it appears to have been the primary basis for the policy. Hundreds of millions of Americans were impacted as well as the economy. Yet, CDC is only now noting that the article appears to have been fundamentally flawed in its underlying assumptions and calculations.
Jonathan Turley
Tags
Who is online
421 visitors
Even the New York Times called them out!
The Teachers Union, progressives and a self promoter is what guides them.
Trump and his supporters are off topic.
I am off topic.
All I have to say is a big so what? Like jbb says below - who was harmed by an overabundance of caution? NO ONE!
So, the CDC admitted to an error, kudos to them ... what about the clowns who shall not be mentioned?
Was it an "error" when they used the language recommended by the Teacher's Union?
What does that have to do with anything?
Everything! The CDC is supposed to be non-political.
They also wag the CDC (the great whore of government agencies)
[removed]
I just noticed this is an Op/Ed - so this is all opinion.
So, nothing.
I have no idea, is it possible the Teachers Union suggested language more suitable to those without a fluency in medical/scientific terminology?
Cuz teachers is smart peepul. They smarter bout everything than regular people. They even smarter than impetuous dumzeez experts at the DCD. You should not talk bad bout the smart peepul.
And it gets worse, and Fauci's connection to the pandemic.
You believe that nonsense from the Washington Examiner?
It gets worse when you become a fan of Rand Paul. /S
Rand Paul is such an idiot! Telling those lies and having a tantrum regarding Dr. Fauci in those hearings. Paul who is an expert on nothing.
Who was harmed by an overabundance of caution?
Nobody!
Who harmed by Trump's appallingly bad leadership?
Over a half a million Americans unnecessarily dead!
Kids are hurt.
Child Psychiatrists Warn That The Pandemic May Be Driving Up Kids' Suicide Risk
Another much ado about nothing 'article'
I know I shouldn't be, but sometimes I'm surprised by how mindlessly partisan the reactions are on NT.
Shilling for the CDC after it butchers basic science while claiming that pointless restrictions that needlessly damaged thousands of business and caused millions needless hardship and stress don't matter.
I hope you some of you get paid to look like idiots for the democratic party, because if you embarrass yourself for a government agency that doesn't give two shits about you or your "defense" of it, and get nothing in return, then that's truly a sad thing to see.
You are a perfect example as evidenced by your last sentence.
The CDC needs to shoot straight with facts and data and not worry about public perception or opinion, let the politicians figure that out.
Sure. I'm "partisan" because I think it's a bad thing the CDC bungled basic science.
Do you think it's partisan to expect a government agency that thinks it a good idea to artificially create deadly viruses in labs to be able to understand scientific literature at least as well as a lay person can?
Ya, exactly!
And the CDC didn't bungle anything.
You're thinking of the former bungler in chief.
You have to try to intentionally ignore information to write things like this. THEY ADMITTED THEY BUNGLED IT!!!!
At least try and understand your own sides talking points before you post..
You continue to embarrass yourself.
Proceed . . . .
They made an error and admitted it. How refreshing!
"sometimes I'm surprised by how mindlessly partisan the reactions are on NT"
"Shilling for the CDC after it butchers basic science while claiming that pointless restrictions that needlessly damaged thousands of business and caused millions needless hardship and stress don't matter.
I hope you some of you get paid to look like idiots for the democratic party, because if you embarrass yourself for a government agency that doesn't give two shits about you or your "defense" of it, and get nothing in return, then that's truly a sad thing to see."
Speaking of embarrassing yourself
OMG. I had to wear a mask. Boo Hoo Hoo.....
It would seem to be next to impossible to come up with one number considering the variables of crowd density, wind conditions, mask compliance and number of infected.
True. But why then did the CDC decide to use the numbers from a flawed study that was done in Singapore and the number of people involved was minimal and effectively contained in one small location?
I'm not absolutely positive, but I believe that no authority anywhere has ever identified one individual that got the virus while alone outdoors. Any that were "suspect" were all traced back to an indoors setting with obviously infected people present.
The CDC is and has been using bogus numbers to run a political end game which is only helpful to keep control of the people.
I couldn't even imagine how to correlate all of that data that doesn't really exist.