The CDC is a JOKE

While it is a much lower incidence rate, it is not zero. I disagree that the CDC is a joke, but it does need a thorough review and changes to policy to fix issues (particularly political interference), as does many institutions. The WHO has a massive problem in kowtowing to China and that sh*t needs to stop. The science is solid, it provides good health recommendations and policy, but the political influence needs to be addressed upfront and honestly.

Outdoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review
Tommaso Celeste Bulfone, Mohsen Malekinejad, George W Rutherford, Nooshin Razani
The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 223, Issue 4, 15 February 2021, Pages 550–561, doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa742
Published: 29 November 2020

Results
Five identified studies found a low proportion of reported global SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred outdoors (<10%) and the odds of indoor transmission was very high compared to outdoors (18.7 times; 95% confidence interval, 6.0–57.9). Five studies described influenza transmission outdoors and 2 adenovirus transmission outdoors. There was high heterogeneity in study quality and individual definitions of outdoor settings, which limited our ability to draw conclusions about outdoor transmission risks. In general, factors such as duration and frequency of personal contact, lack of personal protective equipment, and occasional indoor gathering during a largely outdoor experience were associated with outdoor reports of infection.

Every disaster starts with much confusion, attempts to gather information and make the best decisions based on what's known at the time which often are changed as more information is gathered. What's important is that the truth is always sought and ethical policy made that is in the best interests of the public to reduce risk and save lives. This pandemic started in a country known for hiding information, lying to the outside world, and it hampered our ability to quickly and decisively act with the right knowledge. They need to be held accountable. Our infrastructure, institutions, and leaders tried their best but certainly could've done better on many counts. What matters now is that we prepare for the next disaster because this one showed that we are woefully ill-equipped to efficiently and effectively respond.

Fauci to Internists: A Lot of 'Oops' in Early Days of Pandemic
— NIAID's director talks COVID PTSD, prepping for the next pandemic, and fighting anti-science
by Cheryl Clark, Contributing Writer, MedPage Today April 30, 2021

Asked what the nation should have or could have done differently during the early days of the pandemic -- or even before the pandemic -- to avert such a severe crisis, Fauci was blunt.

Before the outbreak itself, over recent decades this country -- probably a victim of its own success with childhood vaccinations -- "let the local public health infrastructure undergo a degree of attrition, which is really unfortunate," he said. Relaxed emphasis on funding for disease surveillance and testing impaired the ability to identify, isolate, and contact trace to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission during the early months of 2020.

There was a "misstep," he acknowledged, from the CDC, which was unable to mobilize the private sector to accomplish mass production of diagnostic testing for COVID-19. "That was more than just an isolated outbreak of food poisoning or an isolated outbreak of a cluster of sexually transmitted diseases. This was a massive countrywide outbreak that needed a lot more diagnostics than we actually had."

Knowledge evolved and policies changed, but during the early months, there were a lot of "oops" as scientists realized that they had the wrong assumptions, Fauci said.

"Things were changing so rapidly," he noted, and there was "a considerable lack of transparency early on the part of China."

I'm with @JoshRogin on this:
May 11, 2021

Rand Paul and Fauci are arguing over whether the bat coronavirus research in Wuhan was "gain of function" according to the NIH definition. That's somewhat besides the point of whether the research is risky or not (it is).

Fauci: “I do not have any accounting of what the Chinese may have done and I am fully in favor of any further investigation of what went on in China.” Wow.

Fauci: "The NIH and NIAID categorically has not funded gain of function research to be conducted in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Paul points out that many scientists argue the research was gain-of-function even if the NIH didn't define it as such.

.@PeterHotez says on CNN there's "no evidence" for a lab accident theory (which isn't true) and then says it doesn't matter anyway (which is crazy). @KateBolduan Rand is asking legitimate questions and Fauci is responding in a lawyerly fashion.

Fauci says he supports any and all investigations in China but he hasn't said he supports investigation the relationships between the Wuhan labs and US organizations like NIH and NIAID. But those investigations have already begun: t.co/2bYuyLC9vF?amp=1

The narrow question of whether NIH funded "gain of function" research in Wuhan is just one piece of the puzzle. As the NIH just admitted, we don't know what else these Wuhan labs were doing.

This Rand Paul/Fauci exchange shows two things: 1) Fauci is still resisting any legitimate examination of NIH and NIAID relationships with the Wuhan labs. 2) This issue getting politicized even more, which is a tragedy, so both parties must come together to press for answers. END

I am happy to see an inquiry being opened by Congress into COVID, and it absolutely should include a review of the NIAID's role. Let the light shine transparently on everything.