4 ms·

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

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.

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.