CDC Blocks Measles Risk Assessment
This is a news story, published by Ars Technica, that relates primarily to CDC news.
News about vaccine development
For more vaccine development news, you can click here:
more vaccine development newsArs Technica news
For more news from Ars Technica, you can click here:
more news from Ars TechnicaAbout the Otherweb
Otherweb, Inc is a public benefit corporation, dedicated to improving the quality of news people consume. We are non-partisan, junk-free, and ad-free. We use artificial intelligence (AI) to remove junk from your news feed, and allow you to select the best health news, business news, entertainment news, and much more. If you like this article about vaccine development, you might also like this article about
vaccine. We are dedicated to bringing you the highest-quality news, junk-free and ad-free, about your favorite topics. Please come every day to read the latest high vaccination coverage news, vaccines news, news about vaccine development, and other high-quality news about any topic that interests you. We are working hard to create the best news aggregator on the web, and to put you in control of your news feed - whether you choose to read the latest news through our website, our news app, or our daily newsletter - all free!
vaccinationArs Technica
•Health
Health
The CDC buried a measles forecast that stressed the need for vaccinations
81% Informative
The risk of catching measles is high in areas near outbreaks where vaccination rates are lagging, records show.
A CDC spokesperson says the agency decided against releasing the assessment because it does not say anything that the public doesn't already know.
But what the CDC said next shows a shift in its long-standing messaging about vaccines.
The CDC had moderate confidence in the assessment, according to an internal Q&A that explained the findings.
The agency, it said, lacks detailed data about the onset of the illness for all patients in West Texas .
The cancellation was “not normal at all,” said a CDC staff member who spoke anonymously.
VR Score
83
Informative language
81
Neutral language
57
Article tone
semi-formal
Language
English
Language complexity
55
Offensive language
not offensive
Hate speech
not hateful
Attention-grabbing headline
not detected
Known propaganda techniques
not detected
Time-value
short-lived
External references
15
Source diversity
9
Affiliate links
no affiliate links