
CDC staffers say White House putting politics ahead of science - notRobot
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/20/politics/coronavirus-travel-alert-cdc-white-house-tensions-invs/index.html
======
nck4222
This has been painfully obvious for the duration of this administration,
nevermind just recently.

The danger is that at some point an administration would be so adept at this
that it's not painfully obvious. In theory, at the very least the electorate
is informed enough at this point that they can consider this information when
voting. Admittedly, that's pretty optimistic take on the US electorate
however. An educated, well informed public is necessary for a successful
democracy, and America's problems with education are well documented.

~~~
noad
The dawning realization that there are very little to no checks or balances on
the executive branch has not led to calls for reform, it has not led to calls
to ratchet back power in the executive branch at all.

Just the opposite, it seems like both Democrats and Republicans top priority
seems to be seizing and expanding their own power. Nothing else matters, they
just want this newfound freedom to operate in the margins for themselves. All
the messaging is about how the other side is evil and THIS election is the
most important of our lifetimes, you absolutely have to vote for our team and
not the truly evil other team.

The first competent authoritarian demagogue is going to do much more damage
than this administration. Nobody seems to care at all about the side effects,
they just want their team to stay in power or get back in power.

~~~
paulryanrogers
There have been some calls to break up the status quo over the years; such as
with campaign finance reform, same day primaries, term limits, etc.

Not everyone is totally drunk on power since Romney crossed over to convict
and Democrats have critized Obama.

------
_bxg1
I've stopped being surprised, and I don't have the capacity to continue being
upset every time something like this comes up. This administration is a farce.
It's just a fact of life. Expecting otherwise at this point is like expecting
an infant not to throw their food all over the table. It's just a waste of
energy.

~~~
snarf21
This is the exact intention of his strategy. People just want to live their
lives. We really need to do away with the concept of executive orders. At
least laws have built-in checks and balances and require compromise. Just goes
to show this is not a government for the people, merely the rich and powerful.

~~~
_bxg1
I think the word "strategy" is generous.

------
whatshisface
This poses a big problem with the "you can only say it if the CDC says it"
policy of some major platforms: the President is in charge of the CDC, so what
the platform providers think of as an impartial unbiased source is ultimately
beholden to politics.

~~~
mc32
“Former members of the CDC we hold in high esteem“

~~~
whatshisface
What's that a quote from? There is more than one major platform.

~~~
mc32
No one yet. I’m just pointing out the criterion can be changed at any time a
platform wants without providing any basis.

------
vharuck
>Some experts say the worst consequence of the frayed relationship is a
general sense that the CDC has lost its place as the face and voice of public
health in the midst of a 100-year pandemic.

This will be the second worst outcome of the pandemic for the world (the worst
being the harm and loss of life directly caused by the virus). The CDC does a
lot, and they had built and relied on a lot of clout among experts and the
general public. That's rare and valuable. But if that goes away, everything
will get harder. It's already hard enough to convince people to adopt
healthier behaviors when they believe the CDC gives good advice.

I've admired the CDC as an apolitical agency that is led by experts, wants to
help instead of control, and is willing to adapt (at least more than most
federal agencies). I just hope the state and local officials don't lose faith
in the CDC.

------
tenebrisalietum
The party in power always gets blamed for a poor economy.

Given this, it's not surprising that the party in power wants to do everything
it can to keep the economy from freefalling.

The change in norms starting in 2016 may cause this to be different this
election year, though.

------
doubt_me
Vote

------
generalpass
From an organization that puts politics ahead of journalism.

------
malandrew
It's really rich having the CDC make that accusation when only 10% of its
budget is spent on infectious diseases and a sizable portion of the other 90%
is spent on more politicized "diseases".

Not saying the White House is not wrong here (they certainly are), but the CDC
should also get its own house in order and return to 100% focus on infectious
diseases, which was its original mission statement before rampant political
scope creep.

~~~
orwin
If the CDC really only spend 10% of its budget on HIV, hepatitis, Ebola, flu
and infantile diseases like chickenpox and measles, including worldwide
outbreak surveillance, and 90% on "politicized" disease, it is indeed an
issue. I'd like numbers on this still.

And do you count obesity, tobacco and diabetes in "politicized" disease? and
if you do, could you explain why?

~~~
malandrew
CDC originally stood for Communicable Disease Center when it was founded in
1946. From 1946 up until 1992, it was really only involved in preventing
communicable diseases (i.e. infectious diseases like malaria, HIV, polio,
smallpox, the flu, etc.). It was not until an act of congress in 1992 (the
Preventive Health Amendments of 1992), that its role was changed to prevent
disease, injury and disability.

It was at that point that it started its mission started to become politicized
because there was no longer a very clear criteria about its mission statement.
Preventing disease, injury and disability, especially those due to lifestyle
choices is a very broad charter open to interpretation depending on your
politics.

Some diseases, injuries and disabilities are such where there is universal or
near universal agreement, and thus are less politicized. I won't specify any
particulars of which ones I think are or are not worth pursuing because my
politics are irrelevant to the point I'm making. Suffice it to say that
agreement on what is worth pursuing exists on a spectrum from a disease,
injury or disability that near 100% of Americans agree is worth addressing to
ones where 50% or fewer think is worth addressing. The lower the percent of
Americans that believe something is worth addressing with federal dollars, the
more politicized it is.

The issue is that as you expand the scope from communicable diseases receiving
100% of attention to preventable diseases, injuries and disabilities, you
necessarily dilute the scope and attention paid to the communicable diseases.
Since 1992, the scope of the CDC has become so broad that's they don't really
have communicable diseases as a priority and the problem with that is that we
pay for that dilution of focus in the CDC's extreme incompetence when a
pandemic arrives.

Prior to 1992, the President and Governors would be speaking to leadership at
the CDC whose sole focus was communicable diseases. Since 1992, the President
and Governors are increasingly likely to be speaking to career bureaucrats
that may or may not have any professional expertise with communicable diseases
and their prevention and such people will likely be several levels removed
from the people at the CDC that still do work on communicable diseases.

tl;dr the Center for Disease Control has become a jack of all trades, master
of none.

Also, a clarification on my numbers since I spoke imprecisely. Less than 10%
is spent on emerging and zoonotic infectious diseases, which are the ones that
concern us with an unexpected pandemic. $509M out of $6.594B.

$2.557B is spent on existing communicable diseases ($1.318B HIV/AIDS,
hepatitis, STI, and TB and $730M immunization and respiratory diseases). $825M
is spent protecting Americans from natural and bioterrorism threats, which is
honestly shocking considering how badly they bungled this natural threat.
$468M is spent on monitoring health and ensuring laboratory excellence, which
is also shocking after they shipped lots of faulty tests and when it is the
FDAs job to approve new tests.

------
jakeogh
The CDC guidelines regarding masks have no science behind them. They are not
established to protect anyone from Coronaviruses, any yet the effect of their
mask guideline is we have millions of people driving their cars and walking
_outdoors_ breathing significantly elevated CO2 levels and significantly
lowering their blood oxygen content.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23206415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23206415)

~~~
hello_1234
Most people who contract the virus are asymptomatic, and they spread the virus
without even realizing that they have it. It seems quite obvious that if we
encourage everyone to wear masks (including the asymptomatic carriers), we can
greatly reduce the number of transmissions. We know the virus transmits
through airborne droplets, and science is pretty clear that masks reduce the
spread of those droplets.

~~~
jakeogh
[https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/mask-
use...](https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/mask-use-rises-
dramatically-evidence-their-effectiveness-sparse-and)

