
White House told federal health agency to classify coronavirus deliberations - zigzaggy
https://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN20Y2LM
======
jmull
It looks like the national response to the conronavirus here in the US is
going to be, "Let's hope it's not much worse than a seasonal flu."

It's really not looking good.

I'm still hopeful, though that's because it's the only thing I've got.

~~~
grecy
A friend just said "This Contravirus thing is an attempt to make the President
look bad for the election. It's nonsense."

Yikes.

~~~
toast0
That's crazy. March is much too early to try to ruin a November election.

~~~
rconti
And, ironically, a strong response by the only candidate with the bully
pulpit, would have been the best way to ensure re-election.

~~~
shalmanese
Yeah, for those in the West who are virulently anti-CCP, last month was the
best time in decades to topple their power. There was real indications that
the simmering discontent would exceed the Chinese censor's ability to control
and widespread public anger could have been harnessed into real regime change.

All the West had to do was fuck up less than China and the CCP could have been
gone for good. Now, the exact opposite has happened, any anti-CCP voices
inside of China have completely lost their legitimacy as the West manifestly
has handled the virus worse than China. At the end of this, Xi has basically
cemented his status as dictator for life with unchecked power because he was
the leader that saved China from the worst of the virus (even if it eventually
spreads to China, everyone is much more prepared now and the death toll will
be much lower).

Never mind that the best predictive factor of how well you handle COVID 19 was
whether your country was traumatized by SARS. Never mind that democracies like
Taiwan were arguably more effective. Nobody in China is going to want a
"Western" style government for the next 100 years because of COVID 19.

------
JohnFen
People are already largely suspicious of the US government's statements and
responses about coronavirus. This sort of thing doesn't exactly improve that
problem.

~~~
beamatronic
The WHO and the US government have lost their credibility. I'm looking to
state and local governments to step up. The California state government looks
like they are doing and saying the right things ( better than the federal
government at least ). Actions speak louder than words, look at what is
working ( South Korea ) and what isn't.

~~~
creaghpatr
Unfortunately the California government seems to support the Trump
administrations' coronavirus response.

[https://www.newsweek.com/californias-democrat-governor-
prais...](https://www.newsweek.com/californias-democrat-governor-praises-
trumps-coronavirus-response-every-single-thing-he-said-1491294)

~~~
dragonwriter
From your source: “Correction: This article and headline has been updated to
clarify that Governor Newsom was specifically referring to the support from
the White House regarding the docking of the Grand Princess cruise ship.”

There is no endorsement of the federal policy beyond the handling of that
specific task.

~~~
creaghpatr
Thank god!

------
davidw
I have written off the federal government. I am writing to state and local
officials here in Oregon - the mayor and state rep and state senator - to
encourage them to start putting aggressive measure in place _now_.

Like Paul Graham just tweeted:

"When you're dealing with exponential growth, the time to act is when it feels
too early."

[https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1237801364023017472](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1237801364023017472)

~~~
gentleman11
Did twitter break mobile copy pasting? I can’t get the text of the tweet to
copy paste

------
oneng
#DontTestDontTell

[https://www.epsilontheory.com/dont-test-dont-
tell/](https://www.epsilontheory.com/dont-test-dont-tell/)

------
beart
It is my understanding that there needs to be a specific reason to classify
something (national security, etc.). Is that true or can the President
classify anything, in the same way he can unclassify anything?

~~~
jerf
In the spirit of the principle of charity, it isn't that hard to believe that
part of the discussion is the impact the virus will have on classified
activities, including but not limited to intelligence activities, military
activities, or may have included information considered sensitive (like, just
by way of example, proof that the virus was gene engineered, which may cause
an undesirable international stink if publicized; I mention this just as an
example of something that they might classify, not as a claim that it is
engineered).

I'd expect "the President" did not literally decide or not decide to classify
this; it was probably driven by rules.

What's in the classified briefings isn't really the question; it's what's in
the unclassified briefings and actions that are the question. That classified
briefings are taking place is to be expected, as it will certainly be
impacting classified things, along with all the other "pretty much everything"
it will be impacting. I'm sure all the other countries are having classified
briefings as well.

~~~
rileymat2
“We had some very critical people who did not have security clearances who
could not go,” one official said. “These should not be classified meetings. It
was unnecessary.”

~~~
jerf
Said an official who may or may not have been in there; it wasn't clear from
the article.

I assure you that these are hardly the only meetings taking place.

------
alwillis
This appears to be an attempt to criminalize the dissemination of some
critical healthcare information.

Even if state and local officials are briefed by federal officials, they may
not be able to talk about what they know or face possible legal repercussions.

------
leptoniscool
I've heard that the CDC has stopped collecting statistics on total tests and
positive/negative counts. Are there other government agencies collecting this
data?

~~~
therealcamino
Unbelievably, apparently the best numbers available are from a volunteer
effort, in a google docs spreadsheet.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavir...](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-
testing-numbers/607714/)

The spreadsheet:
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRwAqp96T9sY...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRwAqp96T9sYYq2-i7Tj0pvTf6XVHjDSMIKBdZHXiCGGdNC0ypEU9NbngS8mxea55JuCFuua1MUeOj5/pubhtml)

It's not clear to me if this includes numbers from private labs. My kid's
pediatrician now has access to a test from Quest Diagnostics and they can make
their own determination as to whether testing is needed. They said that they
can't use the local health department testing "for many reasons". I'm glad to
hear that the private tests are rolling out, still concerned that it's so hard
to get testing through public health labs.

------
ceejayoz
[https://twitter.com/julianborger/status/1237748572415762437](https://twitter.com/julianborger/status/1237748572415762437)

> Robert Redfield, CDC Director, said there are no plans to set up drive
> through #COVID19 test centres because "We're tryinjg to maintain the
> relationship between individuals and their healthcare providers."

Bunch of ostriches with their heads in the sand.

~~~
a3n
> "We're tryinjg to maintain the relationship between individuals and their
> healthcare providers." ...

... because drive-throughs and their lines and problems are visible to
everyone, but visits and phone calls to doctors aren't so easy to see by the
general public.

~~~
ceejayoz
That, and the "can't have confirmed infections if we don't test!"

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Nobody dies in Iraq if we don't keep a body count.

------
Simulacra
I work in government relations and this is neither news, nor anything new.
Deliberations at the highest level have to be confidential at times, because
the players are speaking brutally honest. They need to be able to make
decisions and speak their mind without the media and the public second
guessing everything. Passing legislation or making policy over time is one
thing, but in a crisis like this, they have to move fast. I think the last
thing we want is for policymakers to have to stop and keep justifying every
single thing they do, that will just lead to paralysis.

~~~
take_a_breath
==I work in government relations and this is neither news, nor anything new.
==

Lots of people in this article disagree:

> A high-level former official who helped address public health outbreaks in
> the George W. Bush administration said “it’s not normal to classify
> discussions about a response to a public health crisis.”

> Attendees at the meetings included HHS Secretary Alex Azar and his chief of
> staff Brian Harrison, the officials said. Azar and Harrison resisted the
> classification of the meetings, the sources said.

> One of the administration officials suggested the security clearances for
> meetings at HHS were imposed not to protect national security but to keep
> the information within a tight circle, to prevent leaks. “It seemed to be a
> tool for the White House - for the NSC - to keep participation in these
> meetings low,” the official said

~~~
creaghpatr
Those quotes appear to prove OPs point about giving people in the discussions
the ability to speak freely without second guessing from people like "a high-
level former official".

~~~
JamesBarney
The point of state secrets isn't to allow elected officials to say
embarrassing things.

~~~
Simulacra
I didn’t say embarrassing, but if you’re talking about a mass casualty event
and how many body bags are going to need, and limitations that are in the
system, and where resources are going to be diverted, how many might die, etc
etc the last thing you would want is the public questioning every single
thing. Because they will. If they don’t, the opposition party certainly will.

~~~
JamesBarney
Using the classification system to shield yourself from criticism is abusing
it. The criteria is damaging to national security, not damaging to an
officials reputation.

------
knowuh
I am old enough to remember when US media was lobbing criticism at China for
downplaying the threat to the public.

We are what we think China is.

~~~
resters
> We are what we think China is.

This sort of analysis always gets downvoted on HN, but it's true. In many ways
we are further along in the direction of having an obedient population
(compared to China) but we still have our own great firewall and social credit
score systems in place to help keep everyone under control.

China is more overtly authoritarian than the modern US, which is actually an
advantage* in fighting a pandemic. So ironically most of the criticisms of
China (as hypocritical as they may be) give China a leg up in this kind of
crisis.

* Note that I am not condoning authoritarian rule, just noting that it is in some cases effective.

~~~
gdubs
Like most things, there are shades of gray and it’s not black and white.

China made some critical missteps early on in silencing doctors who spoke up
about a novel virus. They also downplayed the crisis to avoid bad news around
the New Years celebration (and kept the banquet in Wuhan that was a turning
point in the explosive growth of the virus).

Once they mobilized, yes, it was impressive — and judging by their numbers
today, it has been effective.

The US is also a mixed bag. There’s going to be _wide_ variation in the
response at state and local levels. But something really stinks with the lack
of testing. And despite having China and then Italy show us how seriously we
needed to be taking this, we sleep-walked through a critical period and are
now creating the top of the roller coaster.

~~~
surge
The difference is, here we're allowed to speak up, even the CDC to some
extent, counter the President's opinion. The facts are still available

No one has that opportunity in China when it comes to Xi Xinping's message, if
they do, they're censored or get a visit to their home by the police.

I see Trump to some extent trying to negate a mass panic amongst the populace
by downplaying it while the real decision makers look to the CDC to make
decisions about what actions to take. At least the optimistic side of me
believes that's how its working. Problem is its now backfiring and people are
saying its just another flu, which curtails any advice the CDC has on
cancelling events, limiting contact, etc.

~~~
rconti
It's a very charitable interpretation. Unfortunately, the administration is
actively working to prevent the CDC from spreading useful information.

~~~
microcolonel
If that's what they're trying, it's failing; and I'm not sure that's an
accurate idea of what they're trying either.

~~~
rconti
It IS failing, due to public interest.

Reuters reported today that Coronavirus briefings have been classified to
limit information sharing [1]

They've blamed it on Mexicans running over the southern border [2]

They've called it "the flu"

They've kneecapped professionals at every turn (stopped the CDC from reporting
how many people have been tested, tried to muzzle Nancy Messonnier for saying
a Coronavirus outbreak was inevitable in this country, [3]

They're still asking for cuts to the CDC [4]

The president called the Governor of Washington "a snake" to cut down his
credibility, cut off his head of HHS to lie to the public and say tests were
available, he's most concerned that the US count of infections will go up if
they let the cruise ship passengers on US soil, preferring, presumably, to let
them die and infect each other [5]

They overrode CDC's plan to recommend that elderly people and fragile people
not get on airplanes [6]

Generally, it is beyond clear that they are most concerned with not looking in
control, and giving out mixed messages that will lead to death.

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-
secrec...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-secrecy-
exclusive/exclusive-white-house-told-federal-health-agency-to-classify-
coronavirus-deliberations-sources-idUSKBN20Y2LM)

[2] [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/cdc-director-
border...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/10/cdc-director-border-wall-
coronavirus-125007)

[3] [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/07/trump-
coronavirus-m...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/07/trump-coronavirus-
management-style-123465)

[4] [https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-
administratio...](https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-
administration-isn-t-backing-proposed-cuts-cdc-budget-n1155411)

[5] [https://www.wired.com/story/trumps-coronavirus-press-
event-w...](https://www.wired.com/story/trumps-coronavirus-press-event-was-
even-worse-than-it-looked/)

[6] [https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/486475-trump-
administr...](https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/486475-trump-
administration-overrode-health-officials-recommendation-that-elderly)

------
tectonic
Not great, not terrible.

------
cletus
US corporate culture is primarily one of absolute loyalism. Absolute loyalty
is demanded and expected all the way up the management chain and it trumps (no
pun intended) all else, including job competence. What some Americans may not
realize is that this isn't universally true globally.

What we have now is a president who comes from and exemplifies this culture so
his administration absolutely reflects that. Jeff Sessions recusing himself on
the Russia investigation instead of blocking it even if it cost him
everything, personally, was an unforgivable sin to an absolute loyalist.

So I guarantee you that the prime consideration for this pandemic (which it
now officially is, according to the WHO) in the US government is how this
impacts the GOP in general and Trump's reelection in particular. Nothing else
matters.

Go back to, say, the Watergate era and you had behaviour by a president that
even his own party ultimately found unacceptable. If Watergate repeated today,
it would be "fake news", painted as partisan Democratic slander aimed at the
administration and defended beyond all reason.

The sad and scary part of this is that we now have 40% of the population who
will absolutely eat this up and refuse to believe anything that makes the
president look bad. To be fair, there are absolute devotees on the other side
too but objectively we've seen nothing to the degree of GOP blind loyalism on
from the Democrats (yet).

There was a time when our representatives held higher loyalties to the
institutions they represent because undermining those is incredibly dangerous.
Those days seem to be a distant memory as we have a mass organized effort to
disenfranchise those who tend to vote Democrat (under the guise of removing
"felons" from voter rolls), a refusal by the Senate to take up legislation
that would pass at a completely unprecedented rate, a Senate whose only
priority is filling lifetime judicial nominees with more loyalists and the
refusal to even take up a president's Supreme Court nominee with flimsily-
constructed justification you know for a fact wouldn't apply if the situation
was reversed.

This is the trait of dictators and despots. Why do you think Trump admires
Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-Un?

So yes, it should come as no surprise that the planning, messaging and
response to this pandemic is being seen through the exact same filter: how
does this help or hurt Trump?

And it will kill people. I don't wish ill on anyone here but it's hard not to
see the irony that the most at-risk groups of death from Covid-19 are, well,
Trump's core voters and Fox News's core target market for fearmongering and
dog-whistle racism.

Classifying public health responses is unprecedented. Yet as long as Trump's
base (40% of voters) don't hold the government to account absolutely nothing
will change. And the only time that's happened that I recall is the family
separation for detained illegal immigrants. Has there been any other reversal
of policy like this?

------
chvid
My interpretation is that the Trump administration maximized the effect the
virus outbreak had in a trade and propaganda war against China but in return
sacrificed America's internal preparation for a potential outbreak.

------
thoraway1010
No surprise. We had Larry Kudlow saying a week or two ago that the virus was
"fully contained" in the US. [1]

We had the CDC take down the number of folks tested from their website because
it was embarrassingly low and different then the Pence / Trump narrative of a
million tests. [2]

We've had a weird / crazy argument being made by at least some at the top that
masks don't help with transmission reduction of a viral disease. While not
perfect, they are low cost, low impact and even surgical masks, while likely
not used by doctors treating patients may help general population by reducing
hand to mouth / nose transmission, transmission from sick to healthy and
environment when sneezing and/or touching face mouth and then environment etc.
Other countries are going the other way (masks distributed via post offices,
mask wearing mandatory in high impact areas etc).

[1] - [https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/larry-kudlow-says-us-has-
con...](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/larry-kudlow-says-us-has-contained-
the-coronavirus-and-the-economy-is-holding-up-nicely.html)

[2] -
[https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1234536619270688768](https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1234536619270688768)

[3] -
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2662657/)
\- Adherence to mask use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of
ILI-associated infection.

~~~
nabla9
(Kudlow is the Director of the National Economic Council and advises WH)

The book Superforecasting (2015) uses Larry Kudlow as an example of 'hedgehog
forecaster' that is consistently wrong.

Not only is Kudlow consistently wrong in forecasting, he also fails
nowcasting. When Financial crisis was unfolding Kudlow did not realize that
something was going wrong.

>The National Bureau of Economic Research later designated December 2007 as
the official start of the Great Recession of 2007–9. As the months passed, the
economy weakened and worries grew, but Kudlow did not budge. There is no
recession and there will be no recession, he insisted. When the White House
said the same in April 2008, Kudlow wrote, “President George W. Bush may turn
out to be the top economic forecaster in the country.”20 Through the spring
and into summer, the economy worsened but Kudlow denied it. “We are in a
mental recession, not an actual recession,”21 he wrote, a theme he kept
repeating until September 15, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, Wall
Street was thrown into chaos, the global financial system froze, and people
the world over felt like passengers in a plunging jet, eyes wide, fingers
digging into armrests.

~~~
Ididntdothis
Kudlow has been criminally wrong on pretty much everything for a long time. I
don’t understand why this guy is still getting publicity.

~~~
nabla9
Because audience likes the way he and others like him talk.

From the book:

> Not that being wrong hurt Kudlow’s career. In January 2009, with the
> American economy in a crisis worse than any since the Great Depression,
> Kudlow’s new show, The Kudlow Report, premiered on CNBC. That too is
> consistent with the EPJ data, which revealed an inverse correlation between
> fame and accuracy: the more famous an expert was, the less accurate he was.
> That’s not because editors, producers, and the public go looking for bad
> forecasters. They go looking for hedgehogs, who just happen to be bad
> forecasters. Animated by a Big Idea, hedgehogs tell tight, simple, clear
> stories that grab and hold audiences. As anyone who has done media training
> knows, the first rule is “keep it simple, stupid.” Better still, hedgehogs
> are confident. With their one-perspective analysis, hedgehogs can pile up
> reasons why they are right—“furthermore,” “moreover”—without considering
> other perspectives and the pesky doubts and caveats they raise. And so, as
> EPJ showed, hedgehogs are likelier to say something definitely will or won’t
> happen. For many audiences, that’s satisfying. People tend to find
> uncertainty disturbing and “maybe” underscores uncertainty with a bright red
> crayon. The simplicity and confidence of the hedgehog impairs foresight, but
> it calms nerves—which is good for the careers of hedgehogs.

------
gentleman11
> Staffers without security clearances, including government experts, were
> excluded from the interagency meetings

> “We had some very critical people who did not have security clearances who
> could not go,”

So... is there any justification for this? It sounds entirely political

