I'm ashamed to say this, but I was very critical of the CDC's approach...I truly felt they were lying.![]()
It's OK. It's human. Human don't naturally think in highly disciplined ways, it has to be learned and it's often part of certain career paths. Like, I assume, for epidemiologists. And it's damn hard. I'm certainly no expert either, but having been in data processing, I run across data analysis and also accounting/auditing (like stratified random samples, and such). Also, programming teaches me to make sure I don't assume and to always code an "other, didn't get matched" thing. Like "If a, else b, else c, else throw an exception". So I think about "what wasn't accounted for" cases.
It's human. We generalize, the brain works like that. And particularly OK, since I'm still reasonably confident that there ARE people that are lying to us...like those in congress with an agenda they haven't revealed, and suppress valid input. Which I think is dangerous in a representative democracy. But I digress.
I understand how a generalization from the CDC out of caution can be confused with other deliberate agenda-based generalizations from other agencies/actors that don't make sense.
And who knows, I can't guarantee that the CDC doesn't come into this with some bias, particularly at the admin level. BUT in their case they should be using MATH and statistical analysis methods that are designed to document and protect against bias. Best practices, etc.
And I'm talking out of my .... here, a bit. And I admit that. But these are just my best ASSUMPTIONS.
I agree, human nature.