5

In an April 10 article, the alternative media outlet, UNZ Review [claimed]:

Every public health official on earth knows this yet, despite its WHO obligations, the CDC refuses to identify America’s Patient Zero and attacks those–including the WHO itself–who requests the information.

Is this true that the CDC refuses to identify America’s Patient Zero?

DevSolar
  • 19,034
  • 8
  • 77
  • 74
Sayaman
  • 321
  • 1
  • 6
  • 10
    unz.com doesn't just seem to be right-wing, but [far-right](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Unz): "[...] The Unz Review, a website that promotes anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, conspiracy theories, and white supremacist material". Regarding this claim specifically: Is anyone claiming that the CDC *doesn't* refuse to release personal medical details of a private individual? Because that would seem like standard procedure. – tim May 16 '20 at 15:59
  • 17
    I'm under the impression there are multiple "patient zero" persons in the United States. I fail to see how the identity of these persons being public knowledge is useful. –  May 16 '20 at 17:41
  • 1
    I think that by knowing who was patient zero, would help to know more information about the virus, and hence more tools to protect humans against it. – I likeThatMeow May 16 '20 at 18:09
  • 5
    This confuses me: Is this about "CDC 'knows', but refuses to release details"? Or is this about "identify"? The latter being name & address etc, which is pretty off as a claim imo. 'Do they know *details,* as in: know when *Person X* got infected, tested positive, where, coming/moving from, age, sex, etc – but 'we don't tell'' is quite different from "Yeah, still looking, don't know, we don't have that info reliably either, so don't pressure, we won't speculate…" – LangLаngС May 16 '20 at 18:18
  • 2
    @America That's not identity of these persons. That information can be anonymized, and rightly should be. –  May 16 '20 at 19:14
  • 1
    @fredsbend eh? While I agree that the information should be anonymized, I don't get your ping. Notice there's a difference between identity and identify – I likeThatMeow May 16 '20 at 19:22
  • 1
    Actually, it's not that the CDC refuses to provide this information _but_ refuses to identify America’s Patient Zero; in addition to attack those who requests the information. – I likeThatMeow May 16 '20 at 19:55
  • 11
    To publicly identify a patient is a serious breach of doctor-patient confidentiality. Furthermore, to identify a COVID "patient zero" would place that person as very severe risk for their safety and security. Even to say that it was someone in a particular neighborhood, going to a particular school, or some such would possibly risk the security of many people who might be located in the vicinity. – Daniel R Hicks May 16 '20 at 20:01
  • 17
    (And, of course, to assert that there was a single "patient zero" is ridiculous.) – Daniel R Hicks May 16 '20 at 20:10
  • @America I thought your first comment was a reply to mine. –  May 16 '20 at 22:28
  • @DanielRHicks: the same source claims that "The CDC classifies discussions of Covid-19 Top Secret." Which is probably just as clueless. – Fizz May 16 '20 at 22:52
  • 4
    I'll note that the original link is promoting the theory that COVID-19 originated in the US in the summer of 2019. Apparently "patient zero" would have been a resident in a nursing home in Virginia. – Daniel R Hicks May 17 '20 at 01:09
  • 1
    @DanielRHicks: ah that explains its weird focus. Frankly that latter claim would have been a more suitable question here. I'm rather annoyed when people pick up [for q's here] just some premise from a conspiracy theory, but leave out its conclusion(s). (I honestly only glanced at it and stopped reading when I saw it said that the "classifies discussions of Covid-19 Top Secret". I see now the "Virginia theory" unfolds in the next section.) – Fizz May 17 '20 at 17:53
  • 1
    @América: Partially approved your edit. I did not get the impression that the OP is interested about the "attacking" part, so I felt it should not be edited in retroactively. – DevSolar May 26 '20 at 09:23

1 Answers1

8

That Unz page promotes a theory that the first case(s) appeared in Virginia in the summer of 2019. So that should give some idea where it's headed with that premise. It also claims that (all?) CDC discussions of Covid-19 are classified as "Top Secret". (I'd be surprised if any of them are.)

The CDC might themselves not actually know who the real "Patient Zero" was in the US, so the question may be moot in that sense. It's also not a very meaningful question because--as noted in comments--there probably were multiple introductions of Covid-19 to the US from abroad, so which one was the absolute first on timeline might not matter much either.

The initial US cases that have been discussed in the scientific literature do give the usual (anonymized) data that's given in such reports, e.g.

First Case of 2019 Novel Coronavirus in the United States [...]

On January 19, 2020, a 35-year-old man presented to an urgent care clinic in Snohomish County, Washington, with a 4-day history of cough and subjective fever. [...] He disclosed that he had returned to Washington State on January 15 after traveling to visit family in Wuhan, China. The patient stated that he had seen a health alert from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about the novel coronavirus outbreak in China and, because of his symptoms and recent travel, decided to see a health care provider.

And as further detailed in the paper, PCR tests for him turned out negative for basically every respiratory pathogen but the new coronavirus.

Note that even for a (retroactively diagnosed) French "first" case, whose name is well known (because he didn't shy the press--he gave TV interviews etc.), the actual scientific/case report published in a medical journal omits his name.

As for the relevant US laws, the CDC notes for example that

Federal law, upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals**, prohibits NCHS from releasing personal information to anyone without consent – no matter who they are and no matter how carefully they say they will take care of the information.

The restriction on who gets to see personal information extends from the highest levels of our government (we can deny the President and any member of Congress access to confidential information as well as Immigration, Justice, and IRS officials) to the kinds of inquiries we are all increasingly worried about (market research firms, insurance companies, employers).

These are not just promises. NCHS has been collecting health statistics since 1957 and in all that time we have not released any confidential information to anyone not entitled to have it. That’s not because there have been no requests for personal information or because no special precautions are needed to prevent a disclosure. It’s because we take the law and our ethical obligations seriously enough to be constantly concerned.

Community
  • 1
Fizz
  • 57,051
  • 18
  • 175
  • 291