[The Federalist] According to a recent headline from The New York Times, "the CDC isn’t publishing large portions of the COVID data it collects." That headline downplays what the article in fact reveals:Two full years into the pandemic, the agency leading the country’s response to the public health emergency has published only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected, several people familiar with the data said.
The article says when the Centers for Disease Control "published the first significant data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65...it left out the numbers for a huge portion of that population: 18- to 49-year-olds, the group least likely to benefit from extra shots."
"The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public," according to the Times, "because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective."
After "several inquiries from The New York Times," CDC unexpectedly decided to publish its data on the risks of hospitalization and death from both unvaccinated and vaccinated Americans, with or without booster dosing. But it did so in a manner that obscures younger individuals’ overall Covid risks, which is very low, instead attempting to force a comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals’ hospitalization. The exact data about Covid risks by specific age has not been released in any graphical or easily viewable form anywhere.
This rationale for deliberately hiding government-collected effectiveness data was even confirmed by the CDC’s spokeswoman, Kristen Nordlund. This taxpayer-funded agency didn’t want to give taxpayers the full picture of vaccine effectiveness—for their own good.
It also feels confident enough to publicly admit this, but only after many Americans were fired from their jobs and suffered from serious adverse events and deaths after they were forced to take shots they didn’t want based precisely on false narratives fueled by CDC duplicity.
That rationale from the CDC hardly justifies the fact that the selective omission of public health information is more than clinical malpractice; it is scientific fraud.