3 ms·

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

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.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
For those of us with limited knowledge, what kind of non-infectious, politicized "diseases" are you referring to?
vharuck 6y ago
What's an example of a "politicized" disease? In fact, here's the CDC's budget for fiscal year 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/budget/fy2021/congressional-justification.html https://www.cdc.gov/budget/fy2021/congressional-justificatio... What would you cut?
orwin 6y ago
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 6y ago
  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.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

For those of us with limited knowledge, what kind of non-infectious, politicized "diseases" are you referring to?

vharuck 6y ago

What's an example of a "politicized" disease? In fact, here's the CDC's budget for fiscal year 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/budget/fy2021/congressional-justification.html https://www.cdc.gov/budget/fy2021/congressional-justificatio... What would you cut?

orwin 6y ago

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 6y ago
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.