←back to thread

CDC data are disappearing

(www.theatlantic.com)
749 points doener | 6 comments | 01 Feb 25 11:52 UTC | HN request time: 1.052s | source | bottom
Show context
breadwinner ◴[01 Feb 25 20:59 UTC] No.42902252[source]▶
Data is the ultimate Fact Check. This is a President that's adamantly opposed to fact checking [1] and has even coerced Facebook to drop fact checking. Of course they don't want data on government sites that disprove their "alternate facts".

[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4920827-60-minutes-tru...

replies(10): >>42902356 #>>42902413 #>>42902434 #>>42902630 #>>42902793 #>>42902978 #>>42903439 #>>42903684 #>>42904050 #>>42918244 #
uncomplexity_ ◴[01 Feb 25 21:16 UTC] No.42902434[source]▶
lol if you watch zuck's take on it his problem is the fact checkers ended up being biased.
replies(2): >>42902636 #>>42903438 #
j-krieger ◴[01 Feb 25 21:40 UTC] No.42902636[source]▶
They sometimes are. If you're using a biased source to fact-check, you're just transitively applying that bias.
replies(1): >>42906516 #
lucb1e ◴[02 Feb 25 06:31 UTC] No.42906516[source]▶
I do feel like there is a limit to how biased a source can be when it tries to be based in evidence, though. Nobody would disagree that 1+1=2, basic physics tells one that COVID is not spread by 5G towers, the climate has warmed enough that you can dump weather records into a spreadsheet and see the effect without needing to measure CO2 at all. That COVID causes disease and a warming climate causes more extreme weather is also rather easy to corroborate. Accepting the obvious is already a good starting point for deciding whether climate policy XYZ is good or not (combined with other basic facts and every party's proposals), but it seems to me that the current striving for unbiasedness leads to giving lunatics equal air time. Any amount of fact checking would at least remove this level of misinformedness
replies(1): >>42908621 #
hackyhacky ◴[02 Feb 25 13:49 UTC] No.42908621[source]▶
> Nobody would disagree that 1+1=2, basic physics tells one that COVID is not spread by 5G towers,

But yet people believe these things, and will believe a source that supports them. What's obvious to you is not obvious to others.

replies(2): >>42911033 #>>42911861 #
1. lucb1e ◴[02 Feb 25 19:28 UTC] No.42911033[source]▶
Nah come on, what you've cited is obvious to everyone but a delusional 0.001%. They do not need a podium for that
replies(1): >>42911353 #
2. hackyhacky ◴[02 Feb 25 20:11 UTC] No.42911353[source]▶
You're not an American, so maybe you aren't aware how widespread conspiracy theories are in the US and how much they influence the public discourse. As a trivial example, the American Senate is currently interviewing the nominee for the head of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, CDC, and FDA, among other agencies.

The nominee, Robert F Kennedy Jr, has been very outspoken in his opinions, some of which are:

   Wi-Fi causes cancer and "leaky brain"
   Chemicals in the water supply could turn children transgender
   Antidepressants are to blame for school shootings
   AIDS is not be caused by HIV
   the Covid is designed to target white and black people but not Ashkenazi Jews
This nominee will likely be approved. These opinions are shared by a significant body of people who voted for the president who nominated him.
replies(2): >>42911877 #>>42919205 #
3. johnnyanmac ◴[02 Feb 25 21:12 UTC] No.42911877[source]▶
To give a much undeserved BOTD: I don't think he'll be approved because people really believe nor even trust RFO Jr. He will be approve to upkeep the status quo. A status quo to appeal to their voter base or to appeal to Trump or something like that.

Almost nothing on the RFO appointment is rooted in facts.

replies(1): >>42911976 #
4. hackyhacky ◴[02 Feb 25 21:22 UTC] No.42911976{3}[source]▶
> He will be approve to upkeep the status quo. A status quo to appeal to their voter base or to appeal to Trump or something like that.

No, RFKJr will be approved because he was nominated by Donald Trump and Donald Trump has a total control of the Republican Party. That's all there is to it.

replies(1): >>42912664 #
5. johnnyanmac ◴[02 Feb 25 22:47 UTC] No.42912664{4}[source]▶
I don't think it's that blatant. Even R's have limits when Gaetz got rejected. I don't think it's as rank and tow as implied.

But yes, a lot of policy for R's will ba passed. We'll see how much insanity they Will tolerate when it comes to Trump destroying the economy. Rich people kinda need that.

6. lucb1e ◴[03 Feb 25 15:35 UTC] No.42919205[source]▶
Are they so widespread because of this "both parties/sides' views need to be represented" perhaps? And is that why they influence discourse so much, because they have to be brought up again and again?

Of course, you're right that I'm not an American, it may be that I'm missing something that would have been clear to me. Not meaning to pretend to know it all, just hoping that an outside perspective (from a place where, from my POV, it works better even if far from perfect) might be helpful