Thread by @LazarusLong13

Let's take this apart. This being the justification for this policy change.

cdc.gov/respiratory-vi…

Trend in hospitalization.

Right up front, they want you to miss that severely ill ONLY includes those sick enough to be hospitalized.

As many of you know, that can still be incredibly sick. AND Americans do their utter best to avoid hospitals (another reason why

hospitalizations are a crap indicator for the CDC pastel green maps). We also do our level best to get out of hospitals as well.

But I digress.

So, they want to compare a rate of 15.5% hospitalization to the flu with 13.3% - so they must be the same!

Oops. We only catch the flu one every 5 to 6 years?

So, with a 15.5% COVID hospitalization, with a virus people are catching multiple times per year?

That would seem to be a fallacy. Of false equivalency.

https://twitter.com/LazarusLong13/status/1759725584081440924?t=d9c-WPzxXNHo9R95XyAvEw&s=19

COVID being Mandy's pet jaguar.

But hey! Old people that we don't care about who catch RSV are 1.5 times more likely to be hospitalized than COVID.

But....there's that jaguar again...haven't we been running massive vaccination campaigns for COVID for years, and only just started pushing RSV vaccinations?

So, it's a false equivalency again?

Hey, I know....let's have everyone look over at the 150,000 hospitalizations in 2022. Maybe everyone will not notice that there are almost twice as many Covid hospitalizations as influenza.

That those are 18,977 hospitalizations that simply did not exist before 2020.

The same craptastic logic, and worse, lies behind the RESP-NET figures.

"Look it's in the same range!"

For a mountain range that never used to be there.

As far as range goes? I'm willing to bet that playing with that y axis could make it look a whole bunch worse.

Because you know that is the best it CAN look. @amethystarlight will appreciate that, I suspect.

Oh, and....
"Hospitalizations rates are likely to be underestimated as some hospitalizations might be missed because of undertesting, differing provider or facility testing

practices, and diagnostic test sensitivity."

But never you mind, with that fine print.

Definitely do not pay attention to the fact that 2022-2023 is still higher than the 2019-2020.

Or that it dwarfs the other two.

Those are all still cuddly kitty cats. No jaguars.

Ok...there is far more of fallacious logic and crap data to be harvested, but I am hangry.

Ok, just angry and hungry from burning a rocket of anger all day today.

Deaths. Obligatory - "look, you are not old so what do you care" stat. Sooo ridiculous.

Next? A fun one they

try to slip past us.

Remember all the fun "with and from Covid" they tried to slip past us, before?

Rocky the Sequel, here. In 2020, 91% of the deaths were listed as from COVID.

Good news (except for the dead and their families)! In 2023, that was only 69%!

So, Covid

only contributed to their death!

That is such progress!

Moving on...COVID kills a lot of people! But hey, influenza data are often underreported, so COVID deaths must be incorrect.

Do you see that logic? FFS, we can see the hurry-up offense taking a toll on the writers here.

Because they next try to slip RSV in there....

"However, influenza AND LIKELY RSV are often underreported as causes of death."

Such crap writing!

Now they have you distracted, they throw actual numbers of 17,000-50,000 of influenza deaths at you.

Oooo, says Ricky Gervais,

"influenza MUST BE the same as COVID."

How much COVID death do we have with all of the CDC at our disposal?

"Current estimates of total COVID-19 deaths are not available,"

You absolutely fucking wankers @CDCgov .

It's so bad that they had to fucking bury it.

Unfortunately for them, CIDRAP popped up a new study which documented excess mortality FROM COVID.

cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/covid…

162,886 of these excess natural-cause deaths were COVID and not reported as such. Out of 1,174,626 dying from COVID.

Looks to be roughly 15%.

Bonus....nearly as many excess mortality deaths occurred in the second year as in the first.

Got that? Since those

fuck sticks cannot give us data on deaths? We have data showing the number dead, plus about 15% excess mortality on top of that.

But then the CDC pops up a graph showing deaths as listed from death certificates.

We are supposed to go ...oh!

50,000 influenza deaths from above

plus 5,000 is 55,000 which is WAY more than Covid.

The flu and covid ARE the same!

(Record scratch)
"Modeled burden estimates for influenza are not directly comparable to death certificate derived counts for COVID-19 and RSV."

So, right there in the italized for ease of

reading, fine print. We cannot add that 50,000 to that 5,000.

AND, of course, what these fucking wankers do NOT POINT OUT....

covid has all the same problems in data reporting.

Shh. Super secret squirrel!

And, of course, that is 32,000 deaths (grossly underestimated ) that were not there before.

Fuck you if you work at the @CDCgov . Why don't you go hold an in-person EIS conference or something?

Ok...have some food and back at this.

The entire premise of this change hinges on balancing " other critical health and societal needs"

Which is not defined anywhere, @DrMandyCohen.

What are those societal needs, praytell?

Get Biden re-elected?

Because it certainly

will not result in the CDC rebuilding any trust - supposedly your goal. But I guess who had to balance your need for staying employed and buddies with Zients with our actual health.

I have already eviscerated your crack team of craptastic writers' logic on tools.

Let's take on

LongCovid, ya lying landlubbers.

Yes, the CDC lied.

They said that "prevalence of LongCovid also APPEARS to be decreasing."

I guess they said APPEARS means that it's ok to infect 10-25% of us with LongCovid with every wave, right? Right?

Here is the basis for that claim.

Notice that they point to decreases in LongCovid prevalence in the UK.



And indeed, looks great! Wow, a 88% decrease in LongCovid!

Oy. That was only measuring up to 3 months.

Compared to wild type, the OG
Alpha .6
Delta .38
Omicron .12 nature.com/articles/s4146…

Very LongCovid? More than a year? We have no idea. "insufficient follow-up time for VLC"

But VLC is really what we all truly worry about. And this study doesn't tell us that.

Neither did the German study.

USA study.


The lie. It went down.

The truth? cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/7…

So....it went down, initially, but then went flat. Technically, decreased over the entire year, but its really a big fat lie because the CDC is implying that it just kept trucking on down.

And what did the study authors say?

Not changed.

I prefer not to have to read my public health documents like a Republican interrogating Bill Clinton on the definition of "sexual fucking relations."

Anywho, this study did not capture duration of symptoms. 3 months? 3 years? No idea.

But we do know this. After the initial

decline, LongCovid has not decreased.

And in reality, the CDC is deliberately distracting us from the main question.

Are we ok with disabling 5% of our population permanently?

Or 20% if they are in pain only for 3 months?

Is Biden good with that?

With LongCovid, of course comes the question - did they consider that reinfections lead to increased LongCovid?

No. Fuck no!

But they did try to be tricky.

They talked about how population immunity leads to mutations and further selection for immunoevasive variants.

That was actually pretty smart, @dgurdasani1, but they probably didn't plan on someone eviscerating their bullshit.

Riddle me this, @CDCDirector - if population immunity selects for immuno-evasiveness with unfettered transmission, how do we know that LongCovid % won't increase

back up to the 80% LongCovid out of the Wild type (your study, CDC, your study)?

Because isn't the thought, that our immune system is what is tampering down LongCovid via vaccinations (although that effect was not found in your study)?

So, on LongCovid the CDC lied with studies

And yet, they ask us to trust them to monitor LongCovid when there is NOT EVEN A COVID DEPARTMENT?

When we know Walensky was trying to hand it off to NIH (or some other such group).

This is insanity. Hitting post all so I can make some coffee.

Have I said Fuck the CDC here?

@danaparish - here's their silly 98%.

This will not go well for them.

Hang on.

@danaparish The 98% section tried to make us feel better by saying, " Ooo...lookie! It was 22%, but only 2 years later? 98%!"

To which I point out, that in 2019,it was zero fucking percent.

But let's break that 98% down.

@danaparish 14% from vaccination alone - great.
26% from infection alone. Not good.
58% from both. Also not good.

So, you, @DrMandyCohen, are celebrating that in just two years, you and @RWalensky's policies infected 84% of EVERYONE older than 16?

Are you fucking mental? This is not

@danaparish @DrMandyCohen @RWalensky to be celebrated.

(Lowers voice to a cold steely whisper so they lean in)

particularly as reinfections lead to worse outcomes over the long haul.

sure, we die less quickly, but haven't you heard of the phrase, "a fate worse than death"? which is the most befitting description

@danaparish @DrMandyCohen @RWalensky of longcovid as i have ever heard

Let's turn to the kids. Oh! You are happy to have infected 92% of them. Such a maternal instinct.

You should form some sort of wine club with Emily Oster.

And here's the thing. Are kids or adults getting infected any less? No. We just

@danaparish @DrMandyCohen @RWalensky went through the second biggest surge, yet.

With us having passed even measles herd immunity marks in 2022. Two years ago!

So...everything that the CDC has done is infect us. And they just want to quintuple down with vaccinations

Their vaccinations rates are...22%.

@danaparish @DrMandyCohen @RWalensky Reducing the isolation period to 1 day followed by 5 days masking (everyone masking get ready to be asked if we are sick, over and over) ?

Means that is 6 days. But your selected study on viral shedding clearly states that INFECTIOUS virus is up to 10 days.

So, you are

@danaparish @DrMandyCohen @RWalensky deliberately infected the American people over and over, while not pushing Biden to use the DPA to get N95s for everyone.

()

The @DeptofDefense would view that as biological warfare.nature.com/articles/s4157…

The CDC "one and done" rationale page critique cont.

With one fell sweep, the CDC has indemnified the test and treat program that was the mainstay of the USA policy of Covid, @DrJudyStone @apoorva_nyc @charliesmithvcr @tarahaelle

cdc.gov/respiratory-vi…

Paxlovid, our true remaining pharmaceutical tool, has to be taken within 5 days.

By removing a tool, testing, the CDC is removing another tool, Paxlovid from being used as designed.

Or, at the very least, made much more difficult to be used, juggling

. yalemedicine.org/news/13-things…

work and a boss pushing you to be back.

As a side-note, I think the leaked WaPo story pushed the CDC to release way before ready.

I've made that observation re other parts, but here we see them say

"... testing, distancing, improved air quality, hygiene, and/or testing) .