Rise of Candida auris embodies a serious and growing public health threat
> Health officials say that disclosing outbreaks frightens patients about a situation they can do nothing about, particularly when the risks are unclear.<p>They could go to a hospital that isn't having an outbreak. Why isn't that an option for most patients?<p>> Even the C.D.C., under its agreement with states, is not allowed to make public the location or name of hospitals involved in outbreaks.<p>This seems like an agreement against the interests of the populations that the C.D.C. is supposed to protect, even if (temporarily) in the interest of hospitals involved in outbreaks ... yet another example of regulatory capture.<p>On the one hand I can see that this policy would make hospitals more likely to report potential outbreaks and cooperate with the C.D.C. On the other hand the secrecy would result in dead patients who could have gone elsewhere and survived. Or people that need hospital treatment avoiding all hospitals.<p>Can anyone point to a good argument that such secrecy -- even after the infection has been verified -- is good policy?