I think a lot of these problems come from an "elitist" mentality of some scientists and a lot media people. They believe that the "sheepeople" are too dumb to think through logical arguments and can only be motivated to action if you manipulate them through their emotions or that it's ok to deliberately use misleading or faulty arguments because they think its for the greater good. So instead of telling people that it is important to conserve N95 masks because there was a shortage and hospital workers are most at risk due to the nature of the environment. They say there is no evidence masks work... but please bring any masks you have to your local hospital we desperately need them...
Not just ordinary "sheepeople".... Fauci when lying about gain of function research to Rand Paul tried to play the "you don't know what you are talking about card"... Paul went through medical school... this isn't a question on this subject matter being too complicated for us to understand, it has to do with they are using "complexity" to obscure straight up lying for political ends.
There is always politics in public policy. Science tells you what the consequences of your actions might be, it doesn't tell you anything about the desirability of those consequences.
If your goal is to eradicate a virus, science tells you the correct policy choice is to ban all interpersonal interaction for several months, stop all transportation, and put locks on everybody's doors so they can't leave their houses.
So as an organization, the CDC should not set policy. They should present analysis and projections, and answer questions from congress. Then you let congress decide based on that. This is why the CBO has been able to maintain its neutral expert reputation. They don't say "we recommend this bill," they say "if you pass bill x, we project that it will have the following impact on the budget."
I'm sure the CDC could've done better, but even if they did the political benefits in terms of public trust likely wouldn't have actually materialized. I live in England, the country whose early warnings about the dangers of the Delta variant this article points to as proof the CDC and the US government should've known, and even here there's pervasive media-fuelled conspiracy theories about why the government didn't close off travel to India before the Delta variant got here (before it was even recognised as dangerous). Supposedly, the only reason was because they wanted a trade deal with India and we could've avoided the whole wave if not for that, and it even got nicknamed the "Boris variant" after our prime minister because of that.
Right. Why are we (US) banning Slovenia but not Malaysia. Look at the curves. Hanlon’s razor only goes so far. At some point accountability must become part of the discussion.
It's fairly obvious to me that the CDC never had a chance at public trust in the first place, because public agencies don't get to have trust in the 21st century, period. Honestly - name a public agency that's widely trusted and respected, on a bipartisan basis, and I'll give you a public agency that people don't pay attention to or care about.
The moment the CDC came into the national spotlight in March 2020, that was it for their bipartisan reputation as a trustworthy agency.
Part of public trust is believing in good faith decision making, which implies that mistakes are seen positively or neutrally in hindsight - part of the process of learning, not evidence of corruption or gross ineptitude.
When is the last time a major US policy mistake didn't result in a political field day?
The CDC never stood a chance, if we're being honest.
I'm not sure that's true in times of crisis. Bush's approval ratings and trust levels with the general public went through the roof during 9/11. Obviously he squandered that, just as the CDC has done here.
Just to be clear, I believe this is an emergent phenomenon with social media and the internet. "21st century" maybe would be better stated as around 2009 or so.
If 9/11 happened in the current world (under trump OR biden), the political circus, division, and paranoia would be immense.
Fire departments and school systems are local agencies so of course the internet rage machine doesn't affect them
I'll grant you medicare. I don't think transportation, NASA, or NSF are really something people really care about (in the emergent "should I wear a mask when I go outside" kind of care), but maybe I'm wrong on those.
It seems like the CDC doesn't learn from what is happening in other countries. The initial response was completely botched, including a costly testing delay, because they didn't learn from China. Now they are making conflicting statements and changing their minds over the Delta wave as data comes in from the US outbreak when they could have got it right from day 1 just by looking at how the virus behaved when it hit the UK.
The CCP isn't the only source of information about what is happening in China.
China is not North Korea. There is a large foreign presence in China. Wuhan is a large city (between Moscow and Seoul in population) with many foreigners present there for business. The US, the UK, France, and South Korea maintain diplomatic offices in Wuhan.
That's a lot of non-Chinese observers who could see first hand what is happening in Wuhan and report back to their home countries.
This comes across as really out of touch. Has the writer spent any time in the large part of the country that still doesn't believe COVID is real and has complete distrust in the CDC and anything the current administration does?
It's just not possible for a country as large and divided as the US to have the CDC take a "forceful, quick, clear and unified response" she wants them too.
Sure it is. The caveat is that the CDC will only be providing information, rather than playing politics but the point is that this is not only ok, but desirable.
Let other departments spin the message. If the CDC doesn't stick to science and facts they'll undermine their own authority (which to a large degree they've already done).
Yup. I think the problem in the current truthiness and messaging is that the CDC -- and more broadly the scientific establishment -- have undermined their own credibility. It's really hard to roll that back.
When I saw this NYT headline, I rolled my eyes, because NYT has had some seriously misleading and at least borderline-dishonest reporting about COVID, but I paused and remembered that Zeynep Tufekci sometimes writes for them, and Zeynep is the one person who has stood out as the absolute best reporting on COVID I've seen from anyone.
Her critiques of the CDC generally aren't dependent on a public that trusts the government. Yeah, a lot of people will reject the CDC's guidance even if it's good, but there are plenty of people who want to follow CDC guidance, and they struggle to understand it, and when they do follow it, it leads them to stupid decisions because the CDC's advice isn't consistently reasonable.
If you're interested in responsible and intelligent COVID-related analysis, she's the one to follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/zeynep
> Has the writer spent any time in the large part of the country that still doesn't believe COVID is real
Perhaps it’s the other way around? As in the large part of country lost their faith in public health administration and in general institutions because of their mixed and conflicting message and in some cases playing ideologies?
You are out of touch. Large parts of the country do not believe that COVID is 'not real'. Such characterizations are wild exaggerations.
And IIRC, in the last administration, large swaths of the country had no trust in anything they did. For example, the current VP said she would not take a vaccine developed under the previous administration.
Ultimately, CDC knows that the country is incredibly divided politically and should adjust its message accordingly. That was true for the previous admin, and it's true for this one.
I spent much of the last year traveling in places like the pan handle of Florida. Most people I encountered did not believe COVID was any worse than the flu. They were not going to wear masks or socially distance, no matter what "Biden's CDC" said. Having talked to dozens and dozens of people, and watched how different communities behaved, it is definitely real.
While my friends in places like SF had to wait months to get a shot, I walked into a grocery store and got one without any waiting. The maskless women who gave it to me was surprised I was there because I was the only person under 70 she had seen come in.
I'll not argue some of the other points you mentioned but it is incorrect to say VP Harris said she would not take a vaccine developed under the previous administration - she said she would not take trump's word on it, but would trust the experts instead:
What Kamala actually said in the context of reports that Trump was leaning on the FDA to approve the vaccine.. She's decidedly not refusing to "take a vaccine developed under the previous administration":
> Susan Page (Debate moderator):
> No, no, you’re Senator Harris to me. For life to get back to normal, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other experts say that most of the people who can be vaccinated need to be vaccinated. But half of Americans now say they wouldn’t take a vaccine if it was released now. If the Trump administration approves a vaccine before or after the election, should Americans take it, and would you take it?
> Kamala Harris:
> If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.
I agree, in the end the CDC knows that there are a lot of hurdles to get the information across and will have to adjust. That is really all they can do. A small sticking point is now VP Harris didn't say she won't take the vaccine developed under the previous administration, she said she doesn't trust Trump and would listen do public health experts [0]. She was concerned they would be "muzzled," but was later assured and re-iterated her point on a later interview [1].
Readit News
The CDC has become untrustworthy because they have allowed/been forced to let politics override science.
It doesn't help that there are propaganda institutions shouting louder than the scientists, either.
I don't have an answer here, just an observation of the problem.
If your goal is to eradicate a virus, science tells you the correct policy choice is to ban all interpersonal interaction for several months, stop all transportation, and put locks on everybody's doors so they can't leave their houses.
But then everybody starves to death. And anything less won't actually eradicate the virus, as we've seen.
Those are ideals, and they aren't always compatible, available, or attainable.
Deleted Comment
The moment the CDC came into the national spotlight in March 2020, that was it for their bipartisan reputation as a trustworthy agency.
Part of public trust is believing in good faith decision making, which implies that mistakes are seen positively or neutrally in hindsight - part of the process of learning, not evidence of corruption or gross ineptitude.
When is the last time a major US policy mistake didn't result in a political field day?
The CDC never stood a chance, if we're being honest.
If 9/11 happened in the current world (under trump OR biden), the political circus, division, and paranoia would be immense.
* most every fire department * many public school systems * as far as federal agencies, transportation, NASA, NSF, Medicare, to varying extents.
I'll grant you medicare. I don't think transportation, NASA, or NSF are really something people really care about (in the emergent "should I wear a mask when I go outside" kind of care), but maybe I'm wrong on those.
China is not North Korea. There is a large foreign presence in China. Wuhan is a large city (between Moscow and Seoul in population) with many foreigners present there for business. The US, the UK, France, and South Korea maintain diplomatic offices in Wuhan.
That's a lot of non-Chinese observers who could see first hand what is happening in Wuhan and report back to their home countries.
Deleted Comment
It's just not possible for a country as large and divided as the US to have the CDC take a "forceful, quick, clear and unified response" she wants them too.
Let other departments spin the message. If the CDC doesn't stick to science and facts they'll undermine their own authority (which to a large degree they've already done).
New data or corrected mistakes change information and a significant portion of the public does not appear to handle that well.
See: the information on the effectiveness of cloth masks, the information on pathogen particle size and transmission distance, and terminology used.
Her critiques of the CDC generally aren't dependent on a public that trusts the government. Yeah, a lot of people will reject the CDC's guidance even if it's good, but there are plenty of people who want to follow CDC guidance, and they struggle to understand it, and when they do follow it, it leads them to stupid decisions because the CDC's advice isn't consistently reasonable.
If you're interested in responsible and intelligent COVID-related analysis, she's the one to follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/zeynep
Perhaps it’s the other way around? As in the large part of country lost their faith in public health administration and in general institutions because of their mixed and conflicting message and in some cases playing ideologies?
And IIRC, in the last administration, large swaths of the country had no trust in anything they did. For example, the current VP said she would not take a vaccine developed under the previous administration.
Ultimately, CDC knows that the country is incredibly divided politically and should adjust its message accordingly. That was true for the previous admin, and it's true for this one.
Deleted Comment
While my friends in places like SF had to wait months to get a shot, I walked into a grocery store and got one without any waiting. The maskless women who gave it to me was surprised I was there because I was the only person under 70 she had seen come in.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-tr...
Seems extremely reasonable to me - I wouldn't trust Kamala Harris' word alone on the efficacy of a vaccine either, I'd trust the science!
> Susan Page (Debate moderator):
> No, no, you’re Senator Harris to me. For life to get back to normal, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other experts say that most of the people who can be vaccinated need to be vaccinated. But half of Americans now say they wouldn’t take a vaccine if it was released now. If the Trump administration approves a vaccine before or after the election, should Americans take it, and would you take it?
> Kamala Harris:
> If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.
[0] https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kamala-harris-says-she-w...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-tr...