I think we all understand that concept. The question for the CDC is where is the data, and how much do they have.
If we are going to "believe the science" then there should be data showing the very test results you are proposing are necessary to determine which COIVD variant is dominant in an area. So lets see the data.
Presumably the CDC is running thousands of full virus sequences as a part of their surveillance work. There is no reason they can't publish that data in real time as they perform the tests. Just a zip code and the genomic data they found for the sample.
The original author suspects that there is no such body of test data.
That's definitely not the case. There are plenty of people who appear to have extremely limited understanding of how any of this works. The problem is they ask questions phrased as if what's being said is stupid and nonsensical when it's actually their own lack of understanding that's responsible for things not making sense to them. But they aren't self-aware enough to grasp that.
"The question for the CDC is where is the data, and how much do they have."
Totally fair question. I'd also like the CDC to do a much better job of presenting their raw data, particularly data that drives policy and guidance. Their recent masking guidance for vaccinated persons appears to be based on a single study with poor controls. Maybe it's based on more, but I can't see any evidence of that. Seems like ridiculous guidance if that's all it's based on.
"Presumably the CDC is running thousands of full virus sequences as a part of their surveillance work. There is no reason they can't publish that data in real time as they perform the tests. Just a zip code and the genomic data they found for the sample."
They do present quite a bit of information on their genomic surveillance pages, but I agree it would be nice to see more of the raw underlying data published.