What a Piece of, um, Crap: Another CDC ‘Study’

While in the early days, from March to about June 2020, I read a number of studies and reports regarding the current panic-induced PANDEMIC and lightly followed the ‘news’ – you can check the archives of this blog – since then, for the sake of my own health, I’ve read little. I was concerned about SARS-2 for about 30 minutes, which is how long it took, back in March of last year, to review the claims and the evidence purported to support those claims. Then, I became very concerned – about how the logical conclusions readily apparent even back then were ignored or misrepresented in order to induce panic.

It was clear, back in March, that this virus was a meaningful threat only to the elderly, that using the case fatality rate as if it were the infection fatality rate wildly overstated the risk, and that experiences that reduced panic (the USS Theodore Roosevelt) were ignored while those that could be used to pump up panic (the third world slums of Wuhan) were endlessly touted.

The initial models used to gin up the panic, with predictions of up to 11,000,00- dead Americans unless we we did exactly as told, in my expert opinion as a user and builder of mathematical models for 25 years, were criminally irresponsible crap. Garbage in, garbage out. In a just world, Ferguson would face a firing squad at dawn.

Seeing as the actual evidence was ignored or radically misinterpreted in nearly every case, I lost interest. Facts, evidence, logic clearly didn’t matter. A panic was wanted, and whatever was needed to gin one up was used.

Yet, here we go again: Longtime reader Foxfier linked in a comment to a new CDC ‘study’ wherein – take your pick – dishonest, lying propogandists with a lack of human decency that would make a pimp blush OR mindless, anti-science rabbits without two braincells to call their own and less understanding of science than your local astrologer, have decided that some new ‘cases’ in Barnstable County, Massachusetts require us all to mask up again. The estimable Dr. Briggs offers his usual concise break down. I’m here only to add some background and blow off some steam.

How is this study ridiculous? Let us count the ways.

First, the background information:

  1. the CDC report talks about Barnstable County. Where is that, someone not from New England might ask? It is more commonly called Cap Cod – you know, that quaint little tourist spot about 6 MILLION PEOPLE visit EVERY YEAR. If you called it Cap Cod, there’s a slight chance some people might have that moment of enlightenment, wherein they understand we’re talking about a popular tourist spot and so numbers in the hundreds may not mean much. Barnstable County has about 220,000 permanent residents. So, the numbers the CDC presents must be understood in the context of millions of people. July, the period under consideration in the CDC ‘study’ (I just can’t stomach treating this piece of propaganda as if it were really a study, thus the quotes) is a popular month for vacationing. Maybe 2 million individual people were in Cap Code over July?
  2. Because we’re talking about tourists here, the chances of identifying any particular disease vector are very small. Visitors might have had the bug before they showed up. They rubbed elbows with locals and other tourists everywhere they went. But by emphasizing masks, as the study does, the CDC focuses on one particular vector – one which can be used for future humiliation rituals and compliance testing.

Now to some actual numbers:

  1. The report says 469 ‘cases’ of COVID were reported in July across Cap Cod. Let’s see: if 2 million people passed through during July, that would show an infection rate of – wait for it! – 0.0002345. If you were so reckless – reckless, I tell you! – to have visited Cap Cod in July, you’d have run about a one in 5,000 chance of becoming a ‘case’.
  2. But ‘cases’ in the novel way the CDC uses the term for COVID and no other disease, doesn’t mean anybody got sick. As far as that goes, the CDC says 346 of those 469 ‘cases’ showed any symptoms. Symptoms include “cough, headache, sore throat, myalgia (aches and pains), and fever.” Oooo-kay. Certainly, people who vacation at the beach in the summer never display those symptoms unless from COVID? Never get tired, or too much sun, or overdo the activities? Only COVID, the genius virus, causes those things? Be that as it may, your chances of developing symptoms are 0.000173, or about 1 in 6,000. You also might catch a summer cold – the symptoms are identical.
  3. 5 people required hospitalization. Your chances of requiring hospitalization would have been 0.0000025, or 1 in 400,000.
  4. Your chances of dying of COVID were zero. Nobody died. Nada, even though 3 of the 5 of those hospitalized had underlying health problems.

Since this is exactly the kind of information that would cause RATIONAL PEOPLE TO THROW AWAY THEIR STUPID MASKS AND DANCE A JIG IN THE STREET ON THEIR WAY TO PARTY DOWN, the CDC ‘report’ does not emphasize these numbers. Instead, they – oddly, it seems to me – choose to emphasize that the drugs don’t work. Of the 469 ‘cases’, “Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons (those who had completed a 2-dose course of mRNA vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] or had received a single dose of Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine ≥14 days before exposure).”

Available numbers show that about 1/2 of Americans have been injected with anti-coof drugs as of today. If – and this is the kind of big if the CDC generally ignores, which is one way you know it’s a ‘study’ with nothing to do with science – the population on Cap Cod in July was injected at a similar percentage, then getting ‘vaccinated’ raises your chances of getting the coof and of getting hospitalized. Now, of course, it’s quite possible that ‘having gotten vaccinated’ correlates somewhat with ‘elderly, sickly, or both’ and ‘being a terrified little rabbit’. If so, the injections don’t so much increase your chances of getting diagnosed as identify you as the sort of person who’s run to get tested at the first sniffle. The important part: either way, nobody died. Either way, only 2 people who weren’t already very ill got very ill.

The ‘study’ also mentions that many of these infections were of the dreaded Delta Variant – you know, the more infections yet MUCH LESS FATAL version of COVID? The Coof was nothing to worry about for 99.5% of the population before it mutated into the much less virulent Delta form – you know, like viruses strongly tend to do, Darwinian selection pressures being what they are.

“Overall, 274 (79%) vaccinated patients with breakthrough infection were symptomatic. Among five COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized, four were fully vaccinated; no deaths were reported.”

So, we’re done? No vaccines needed – doesn’t improve your chances of avoiding infection, and you’re not going to die or even get very sick if you do get infected. Stripped of its use as panic-mongering propaganda, that’s what this ‘study’ says. So, we’re done now? Right?

This latest CDC report is, sadly, yet another idiot test: if you’re the kind of person who would pass up the $2.00 20 oz bottle of salsa for the 40 oz bottle on sale for $5, then this ‘study’ is for you!

People are buying the sh*t. We are so, so, screwed.

Author: Joseph Moore

Enough with the smarty-pants Dante quote. Just some opinionated blogger dude.

4 thoughts on “What a Piece of, um, Crap: Another CDC ‘Study’”

  1. Given the number of folks who tested positive without symptoms, there’s probably also folks whose job does regular testing, too– which makes the fewer-than-500-cases thing even more what the heck.

    I’ll probably stick with something like “Oh? Didn’t you hear that three quarters of the folks in that Cape Cod outbreak were fully vaccinated? AND that the vaccinated were almost fifty percent more likely to have symptoms than in those COVID outbreaks where nobody was vaccinated?”

    Then if they actually try to engage, I’ll tear apart the study.

  2. Their study’s even more skewed than this makes it out to be: the sampled population was apparently linked to a severely non-representative demographic, to put it mildly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s