But that is my discussion and to the best of my recollection you are the one who initiated this direct interaction with me. Most of the country has been making an argumentum ad verecundiam based ultimately upon the carefully crafted pronouncements of the CDC.
The politicians and their minions have been drooling for a plausible justification for doing exactly what they're doing right now. The authoritative testimony of the CDC has given them that justification with the jubilant cooperation of an utterly ignorant media.
It's not actually a justification, but most people are buying it and that's all that matters to these blood sucking politicos. That the voting populous believe that they have only the most humanitarian and philanthropic motivations.
Once again. There is no vaping crises that justifies this blitzkrieg being perpetrated upon commercial vaping and the very smart people at the CDC know that for all the reasons that you and I know that and even more so with the firsthand data they have.
I agree with this in general.
this blitzkrieg being perpetrated upon commercial vaping and the very smart people at the CDC know that for all the reasons that you and I know that and even more so with the firsthand data they have.
That may or may not be. My point is only, and innocently [I think], that what the CDC "knows" and such is a completely different animal than what they can professionally SAY as epidemiologists.
You I and maybe they are playing the odds. Do I think that some bias may have creeped into their statements? Probably. Humans, eh? But when I read their stuff I read it almost mathematically, analytically, and what I hope is objectively.
Now, is everyone and their brother leveraging these events? Yes. But if you were the CDC, you'd be cautious in your statements too.
To be fair to you and your point, Dr. S did say that he worked in the CDC at the same department, and he would have done this differently. I even posted a "maybe eat crow" post in the ?deeming thread? after reading his article. It gave me pause as to their approach. Yet I have to acknowledge his pro-e-cig bias as much as I have to admit there may be bias on the CDC's part against e-cigs.
So here we are, with the CDC having to release statements, and with various "groups" or factions having to read them and no matter what they do, someone will be ...... off.
I don't blame the CDC for the fact that people are leveraging this health crisis. I do take your point that they might word it more clearly, but let's face it, they don't know what the deal is. What if it was a bad batch of VG and that was mostly distributed to the THC side vendors? What if it is that Honey Cut stuff, but some nic-side vendors used it too? What if it's this year's supply of fungicide that was used on both tobacco and cannabis, but it was accidentally 10x stronger than it should be?
IDK.
I read them neutrally. But I'm not defending their statements as "perfect". I will note that they say "consider" and do warn specifically about avoiding the THC side of things, and in particular from street vendors.
I find it more and more suspicious over time, too. The whole "don't alter it" thing is highly suspicious to me. End users not altering stuff? What's up with that other than to support close-pod systems? I realize they could be saying that "you don't know what flavor could be doing this" but that really doesn't fit the pattern, right? Or alter could mean worried that they'd add other drugs that are contaminated to nic-vapes. IDK.
Communication. It's hard.
