Thread by @magi_jay

This is the CDC study on breakthrough infections + viral load. The study itself is fine. The data are valuable. The framing of the study is poor, as is the media reporting. These data are not generalizable to the general population for various reasons. cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…

To be clear, any community study will be difficult to generalize to the population. Also: I do not doubt the assertion that viral load in the noses/mouths of vaccinated people may be higher for DELTA than previous variants. I think mask mandates are good.

One specific issue with how this piece was reported is that there was a high % of immunocompromised people in the case sample. The CDC and the media should have been clearer about this for many reasons.

-A higher % of immunocompromisation in a study sample than in the population makes the data difficult to generalize, including the data on viral loads
-The CDC and the media owe it to HIV+ people to fight off stigma on the *front end* of reporting

But the CDC was not clear, nor was the media. So the study blew up and now subsequent "fact-checking" might veer into stigmatized places, both of HIV+ people & LGBTQ people.

Also HIV+ people are owed their own data about risk! These data are just tucked away in the study.

I've had a really hard time thinking about how *I* wanted to talk about this study, b/c I didn't want to accidentally stigmatize anyone. Careful reporting in the first place could have prevented most of this.

I worry about the right-wing media latching onto this study to give us a sh*t sandwich of anti-CDC & anti-vaxx'ing propaganda + anti-LGBTQ bigotry + HIV stigma.

The mainstream media owes it to vulnerable populations to be much more cautious.