331–340 of 442 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That _should_ be their role, but unfortunately they overstepped. The CDC implemented an eviction moratorium for around a year (September 4, 2020 through August 26, 2021). That had very real, negative impact on landlords during that time. I doubt those effected would call it toothless. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/09/04/2020-19...
There were not zero policies enacted by the CDC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> CDC are the least scary people buying this data Most buyers probably just want to target advertising at me, or otherwise grab my attention. The CDC wants a say in how people live their lives and thinks they know better than individuals about risk tolerance and decisions. And they seem to think they can have unchecked power by invoking "science". Can someone name a scarrier entity that could be tracking you? I don't…
> Can someone name a scarrier (sp) entity that could be tracking you? ... The Mafia? Any other criminal or terrorist organization or individual? The police operating under an incorrect warrant? A creepy ex? Unless you buy into conspiracies, the CDC is at worst going to do what it thinks is best for you, and is constrained by constitutional checks and balances.
I don't want to get involved with what the CDC is doing here (because they're probably not doing anything too nefarious), but I would like to pull this point out. The intentions of an institution (or at least surface level justifications) are kind of unrelated to the point. What an institution thinks is best for someone and what that individual thinks is best for themselves are often quite different.
I'm reminded of the old CS Lewis quote here:
> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Given the virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has Care to elaborate? CDC has historically been an extremely powerful organization devoted to the safety of the US public.
The CDC unilaterally ruled this country for the better part of 2 years. No checks. No balances. Now you could argue that the desperation of the situation calls for something more expedient than Democracy. But many people who supported the moves made by the CDC (including me) were equally horrified that it had as much power to do so.
There's no question the CDC increased deaths by calling masks ineffective at the beginning of the pandemic. Their credibility never recovered, especially not when they are still flip flopping to this day (recommendations on masks oscillated by the week, often in response to public sentiment/political pressure -- not science).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pro-vax, pro-science here. I respect him for trying to help our society in dealing with infectious disease but do not worship him (that's saved only for David Bowie). My take on anti-vaxxers is that they have a "religious" relationship to their belief system and therefor project their personal assumptions onto others.
And you're so certain, perhaps even arrogant even, that you're belief in "science" isn't a "religious" ideological relationship?
I'm humble enough to know that I don't know everything and can be wrong. And if I'm wrong I'm willing to learn anew.
For example, I was raised on the concept that dietary fat was bad (margarine was healthier than butter) and we now know this is not the case.
I'm not a trained immunologist like you, so I can only work with the basic knowledge that the immune system "learns" the chemical fingerprint of attackers and that vaccines mimic that to train the immune system. If I'm wrong I'd love to learn what is correct.
Can you say the same for yourself? Is the arrogance you sense coming from you?
Headline feels a little misleading, they didn’t track phones per se, they bought data from one of the dozens of cellphone data-brokers that continue to operate despite legislation and congressional action/in-action.
I was totally ready to make a "CDC, go fuck yourself!" meme when I read the headline. Now, I can't decide how I feel. As a researcher (and someone interested in human behavior generally), it would be interesting to know how people reacted to the various measures attempted during the pandemic. On the other hand, the federal government analyzing the movement patterns of individuals is creepy-as-hell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you're so certain, perhaps even arrogant even, that you're belief in "science" isn't a "religious" ideological relationship?
You're on a message board dedicated to tech and you don't believe in the scientific method? GTFO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were not zero policies enacted by the CDC.
I don't understand this response. Could you elaborate?
See the issue here is that this data exists at all and it’s purchasable by any group. I feel like the CDC are the least scary people buying this data. And from the looks of it they used it for medical research, which if similar in style to other medical research is bound by boards and ethics committees. What we aren’t writing about in this article are the groups using this data Cambridge Analytica style to sway polit…
Yeah. I have no problem with researchers getting anonymized data. CDC, snoop all you want. It's the business guys I don't like having it.
This was mentioned in April 2020 ish and no one blinked an eye. It was showing how much people left their houses, how far out did they travel to, did they participate in entertainment venues, did they eat out etc. The data was never used for enforcement purposes. (if it was.. it wasn't very efficient at all)
I might be in the minority, but I don’t care if it was used to make macoroni art. I also don’t care how harmless or good the CDC might be to someone. A government entity should not be a using tax payer money to purchase privacy sensitive data of citizens.
Nothing nefarious going on here, right? It's not like they are bypassing constitution here and checking if one visited place of worship, are they?
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/timmarchman/status/15214777908135...