4 ms·

Did we do this because Trump pushed it through? Or do they actually think it might work?

jacobush 7y ago
So, as a foreigner that seems an entirely reasonable question. Interesting that you got downvoted. Edit: why would I wonder? Not only because the commander in chief is quickly flipping between standpoints, but why is the CDC silent since March 14?
- wmil 7y ago
  The NYT and other media is very friendly to federal bureaucrats who complain about political interference. If the WH was directing them to approve something against their judgment there would have been headlines on major news sites.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Ok, if you feel things are still in such a good shape, great for you. At my distant vantage point, it seems it could be difficult to keep up with all the ways the WH (we do not speak its name) is or could be interfering with just about anything it has a tangential interest in. Also your reassurance hinges on that every federal bureaucrat would complain to media in every circumstance. From my experience of bureaucracies you have to pick your battles and resisting or leaking is not always in the cards if you want to keep your job or career prospects. ("Live and let live.")
  - kadoban 7y ago
    You can't assume all possible things will get whistleblown, especially after what happened to the last couple.
- beat 7y ago
  Do you know the CDC has been "silent", or have you just not seen anything about this before? Two weeks is pretty rapid to push through a decision like this, even in an emergency.
  - threatofrain 7y ago
    Yes the CDC has been silent in the sense that whenever the public was looking for urgent leadership, they found foreign agencies and scientists developing consensus before they did. Then the CDC wants to chip in, but by then they were no longer ahead of the narrative. The CDC did Not give people sufficient forewarning of what’s to come, and foreign agencies, scientists, business leaders, and news media took control because they were in fact providing more signal. America is normally a beacon of confidence during crisis.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    I mean, they have not held a press conference since March 14. In these times, you'd think they'd have something to say since then. But maybe this is not to be expected, I can only compare to the rough equivalents in England, the one for the EU, and the one in Sweden, all of which communicate much more frequently.
    - beat 7y ago
      Yeah, I can see reason for the CDC to have daily press conferences now, not be routing it all through the White House. But that starts to lean toward political pressure from the White House silencing them to prevent mixed messages.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
I'm guessing it's more like "There's some hints that it might work so if a doctor wants to try it, we promise we won't say that they're crazy, committing malpractice, or breaking any regulations around off-label use."
- nradov 7y ago
  This order has nothing to do with any of those issues. Off label use was already allowed.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    Off label use can have reimbursement issues.
    - nradov 7y ago
      This order has no impact on the drug label or reimbursement policies.
  - vanniv 7y ago
    Except in NY, Michigan, and Nevada, where governors threatened to suspend the licenses of doctors caught using it.
- jacobush 7y ago
  But they already could do that.
throwaway55554 7y ago
Legitimate question. There's certainly precedent.
VLM 7y ago
Why not both?

So, as a foreigner that seems an entirely reasonable question. Interesting that you got downvoted. Edit: why would I wonder? Not only because the commander in chief is quickly flipping between standpoints, but why is the CDC silent since March 14?

wmil 7y ago
The NYT and other media is very friendly to federal bureaucrats who complain about political interference. If the WH was directing them to approve something against their judgment there would have been headlines on major news sites.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Ok, if you feel things are still in such a good shape, great for you. At my distant vantage point, it seems it could be difficult to keep up with all the ways the WH (we do not speak its name) is or could be interfering with just about anything it has a tangential interest in. Also your reassurance hinges on that every federal bureaucrat would complain to media in every circumstance. From my experience of bureaucracies you have to pick your battles and resisting or leaking is not always in the cards if you want to keep your job or career prospects. ("Live and let live.")
- kadoban 7y ago
  You can't assume all possible things will get whistleblown, especially after what happened to the last couple.
beat 7y ago
Do you know the CDC has been "silent", or have you just not seen anything about this before? Two weeks is pretty rapid to push through a decision like this, even in an emergency.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Yes the CDC has been silent in the sense that whenever the public was looking for urgent leadership, they found foreign agencies and scientists developing consensus before they did. Then the CDC wants to chip in, but by then they were no longer ahead of the narrative. The CDC did Not give people sufficient forewarning of what’s to come, and foreign agencies, scientists, business leaders, and news media took control because they were in fact providing more signal. America is normally a beacon of confidence during crisis.
- jacobush 7y ago
  I mean, they have not held a press conference since March 14. In these times, you'd think they'd have something to say since then. But maybe this is not to be expected, I can only compare to the rough equivalents in England, the one for the EU, and the one in Sweden, all of which communicate much more frequently.
  - beat 7y ago
    Yeah, I can see reason for the CDC to have daily press conferences now, not be routing it all through the White House. But that starts to lean toward political pressure from the White House silencing them to prevent mixed messages.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

I'm guessing it's more like "There's some hints that it might work so if a doctor wants to try it, we promise we won't say that they're crazy, committing malpractice, or breaking any regulations around off-label use."

nradov 7y ago
This order has nothing to do with any of those issues. Off label use was already allowed.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  Off label use can have reimbursement issues.
  - nradov 7y ago
    This order has no impact on the drug label or reimbursement policies.
- vanniv 7y ago
  Except in NY, Michigan, and Nevada, where governors threatened to suspend the licenses of doctors caught using it.
jacobush 7y ago
But they already could do that.

throwaway55554 7y ago

Legitimate question. There's certainly precedent.

VLM 7y ago

Why not both?