CDC not publishing data

[Veryvversatile]

www.nytimes.com/2022/02/20/health/covid-cdc-data.html

Does anyone know any more about this and why they would do such a thing?
Is it that they’re just slow or they’re refraining from publishing it at all?

Is this normal to have so much redacted data when it could be critical?

Do you have a link to an article not behind a paywall @Veryvversatile?

I would like to know what data is not being published, if it is just delayed or actually not to be shared, and what the reasoning is for this.

Transparency is key and any claims like this will really just pour fuel on the fire of anti-vaccine groups - had a quick look on twitter and it's full of various claims that aren't particularly helpful.

I'm not familiar with this source so can't vouch for it, but this seems fairly straight reporting: www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/feb/21/cdc-virus-data-not-seen-by-public/

Thanks @Puzzledandpissedoff

Well that statement from the CDC spokesperson isn't particularly helpful..

Very interested in the comments about the data not being ready and that the CDC effectively don't have the computing infrastructure to deal with it. If that's true it's insane - universities worldwide have systems that deal effectively with far bigger datasets

Agree with this point wholeheartedly (not clear if it is the reason for not releasing the data):

Experts dismissed the potential misuse or misinterpretation of data as an acceptable reason for not releasing it.

"We are at a much greater risk of misinterpreting the data with data vacuums, than sharing the data with proper science, communication and caveats," Rivera said.

@leafyygreens oh crap, no I completely forgot my subscription. Sorry, I may as well remove the link. I haven’t seen talk of it anywhere else yet other than just now from what @Puzzledandpissedoff linked.

Well, I see the Mail have got hold of it too, but I thought it better not to link that!!

To answer some of my own qs, the data in question is vaccine effectiveness, stratified by age and other demographic variables (not adverse events despite what many other ahem sources are saying)

Reasons appear to be that either it is not ready to be released or that it could be misinterpeted. Both are unacceptable IMO.

The "data vacuum" issue mentioned by one of the scientists in the article is so relevant - you've already got massive disinformation campaigns using it - claiming that the data being kept secret is adverse events and deaths from VAERS (despite the fact that the VAERS data is already publically available...) There's a real focus on trying to use this to claim child vaccination programmes need to be stopped etc etc.

So my two cents

If it's not ready, explain why and give a publication date. These are really really important figures which can help inform whether boosters are cost/resource effective in various groups of the population.

If you fear misinterpretation, hire more scientists experienced in public engagement and sci comms and release the figures with all the relevant caveats and explanations.

Bear in mind that the UK has published "vaccine effectiveness" data purporting to show rates of infection by vaccine status, and it's been an absolute shitshow, misused by some very dubious characters, and statisticians have queued up to say "I don't care how many disclaimers you put on it, you need to take it down!"

The CDC has kind of tended towards hyper caution for much of the pandemic, so I am guessing that the data is actually showing that "boosters don't make so much difference for young adults," "severe complications for kids are very rare" etc. and the CDC is reluctant to say anything because of a vague idea that "If we publish anything other than doom and terror, it will make it harder to persuade all those overweight 65 year olds in Mississippi to get their vaccines."

I think it is a big mistake, because these kind of shenangans are just feeding the conspiracy theories that tend to fuel anti vaccination. I succeeded in persuading a couple of high-risk friends into getting the vaccine last year--I found that what was helpful, was discussing the risk profile of COVID honestly and truthfully, rather than engaging in exaggeration and hysteria.

@greenteafiend exactly that. Lack of transparency even in the vein of being hyper vigilant is what in fact feeds the theories.

@leafyygreens

If you fear misinterpretation, hire more scientists experienced in public engagement and sci comms and release the figures with all the relevant caveats and explanations.

Totally agree, which I think eventually will have to happen