[_heimdall]

My point wasn't that transmission had been scientifically disproven though. My point was that the CDC itself was saying that this avian flu couldn't jump to humans - they no longer say this but the earlier commenter claimed that only a quack would say human transmission hasn't been proven.

Where I would expect a scientific paper to come in is to provide a controlled study show transmission from an infected bird to a healthy human. Maybe that has been done, but if so I haven't seen it or ever heard it mentioned anywhere.

[seanmcdirmid]

> My point was that the CDC itself was saying that this avian flu couldn't jump to humans - they no longer say this but the earlier commenter claimed that only a quack would say human transmission hasn't been proven.

Almost all medical research is in the field, and they don't do controlled studies on humans anymore to see if they can get bird flu or not by being in contact with infected birds (can't get it passed the ethics board). It feels like I'm arguing with someone on the spectrum, who states that "we didn't think it was this way before, but now we think it? Impossible!" It is an exhausting argument and I really don't think it is worth our time, except that guy is now president - sigh.

[_heimdall]

You're still missing the point of my raising that the CDC in recent history claimed that transmissibility isn't possible from birds to humans. They didn't claim we don't know if its possible, they claimed that it isn't which implies that scientific research has found that transmission didn't work.

Raising that here is important because in an earlier comment you said only a quack would claim that transmissibility hasn't been proven.

You even seem to acknowledge here that it hasn't been tested or proven yet, or that we even bother testing it today. Field research is all well and good, and it often is the best we can do in the moment, but that doesn't change what the research and data shows.

We don't do controlled studies to test transmissibility, meaning we don't test for transmissibility, meaning it has yet to be proven. I'm not sure how that chain of reasoning leaps to the realm of quackery.

> "we didn't think it was this way before, but now we think it? Impossible!"

There's a solid argument behind this view though (to be clear, I don't see that as an argument Trump has made).

Science is a well defined process. When we haven't studied transmissibility for whatever reason we simply can't say that transmission isn't possible.

As soon as the CDC gets out over their skis and makes that claim without scientific research to back it up they turned a scientific question into a political one. They can't say whether transmission is possible or not. By making this claim they're only trying to reassure the public of something they want people to believe but can't actually prove.

[orwin]

Like i said i'm not in the US, but our "healthcare secretary" equivalent similarly uttered "mask don't work, don't buy them, and if you have some, give them to hospital" at the start of Covid, amongst a littany of other disinformation, so honestly, not surprised.

It's like the GIEC group 3. If you really want to understand what is happening, you need to read group 1 and 2 data directly (i did that during Covid, it took 3 month and a new notetaking app), because you have science, and "science" (what's funny is that one of the justification for lying was "avoid sentiment of helplessness and despair").

Anyway, not surprising, USians "elites" seems super-condescending all the time (on both side), i think it's baked into their personality, so they lie to "reassure" or shit like this. We have the same in our country, even if its not as widespread.