4 ms·

This comes across as really out of touch. Has the writer spent any time in the large part of the country that still doesn't believe COVID is real and has comple

This comes across as really out of touch. Has the writer spent any time in the large part of the country that still doesn't believe COVID is real and has complete distrust in the CDC and anything the current administration does? It's just not possible for a country as large and divided as the US to have the CDC take a "forceful, quick, clear and unified response" she wants them too.

throwaway09223 5y ago
Sure it is. The caveat is that the CDC will only be providing information, rather than playing politics but the point is that this is not only ok, but desirable. Let other departments spin the message. If the CDC doesn't stick to science and facts they'll undermine their own authority (which to a large degree they've already done).
- blagie 5y ago
  Yup. I think the problem in the current truthiness and messaging is that the CDC -- and more broadly the scientific establishment -- have undermined their own credibility. It's really hard to roll that back.
- michaelt 5y ago
  If I ask the CDC whether I should wear a mask to the grocery store today, what would you consider a clear but politics-free response to that question?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    "As of [todays date], the CDC recommends the use of masks in indoor spaces. Droplet transmission is currently thought to be the leading mechanism of Covid-19 transmission and masks have been shown to reduce the quantity of droplets expelled and inhaled. Definitive data is not available on how effective masks are on reducing transmission of Covid-19 specifically."
    - throwaway09223 5y ago
      Precisely. What not to say might include "If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask" followed by an about-face a few months later. It's well-established that the CDC knowingly provided bad advice about the need for masks in spring 2020 to avoid a run on masks: https://web.archive.org/web/20200329005833/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200329005833/https://www.cdc.g... Someone in a position of medical authority knowingly giving harmful advice is incredibly damaging and unethical.
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Agreed, an alternative statement could be: "As of [todays date], the CDC does not recommend the use of masks in indoor spaces by people without Covid-19 symptoms. Droplet transmission is currently thought to be the leading mechanism of Covid-19 transmission and masks have been shown to reduce the quantity of droplets expelled and inhaled. Definitive data is not available on how effective masks are on reducing transmission of Covid-19 specifically. Despite the possible benefit, the CDC recommends reserving masks for the sick, healthcare workers, and high risk groups while the current shortage of available N95 masks is in effect." The point is to provide accurate information. Lying might have short-term benefits in manipulating behavior, but destroys trust. If the run on masks is still a problem, the solution should have been more government involvement in the the supply chain and distribution of the masks.
- Brybry 5y ago
  Even sticking to science and facts they undermine their authority. New data or corrected mistakes change information and a significant portion of the public does not appear to handle that well. See: the information on the effectiveness of cloth masks, the information on pathogen particle size and transmission distance, and terminology used.
iammisc 5y ago
You are out of touch. Large parts of the country do not believe that COVID is 'not real'. Such characterizations are wild exaggerations. And IIRC, in the last administration, large swaths of the country had no trust in anything they did. For example, the current VP said she would not take a vaccine developed under the previous administration. Ultimately, CDC knows that the country is incredibly divided politically and should adjust its message accordingly. That was true for the previous admin, and it's true for this one.
- m-watson 5y ago
  I agree, in the end the CDC knows that there are a lot of hurdles to get the information across and will have to adjust. That is really all they can do. A small sticking point is now VP Harris didn't say she won't take the vaccine developed under the previous administration, she said she doesn't trust Trump and would listen do public health experts [0]. She was concerned they would be "muzzled," but was later assured and re-iterated her point on a later interview [1]. [0] https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kamala-harris-says-she-wont-take-covid-vaccine-just-on-trumps-sayso-020511962.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kamala-harris-says-she-w... [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-trust-trump-vaccine-cnntv/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-tr...
- mikeyouse 5y ago
  What Kamala actually said in the context of reports that Trump was leaning on the FDA to approve the vaccine.. She's decidedly not refusing to "take a vaccine developed under the previous administration": > Susan Page (Debate moderator): > No, no, you’re Senator Harris to me. For life to get back to normal, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other experts say that most of the people who can be vaccinated need to be vaccinated. But half of Americans now say they wouldn’t take a vaccine if it was released now. If the Trump administration approves a vaccine before or after the election, should Americans take it, and would you take it? > Kamala Harris: > If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.
- myko 5y ago
lkbm 5y ago
When I saw this NYT headline, I rolled my eyes, because NYT has had some seriously misleading and at least borderline-dishonest reporting about COVID, but I paused and remembered that Zeynep Tufekci sometimes writes for them, and Zeynep is the one person who has stood out as the absolute best reporting on COVID I've seen from anyone. Her critiques of the CDC generally aren't dependent on a public that trusts the government. Yeah, a lot of people will reject the CDC's guidance even if it's good, but there are plenty of people who want to follow CDC guidance, and they struggle to understand it, and when they do follow it, it leads them to stupid decisions because the CDC's advice isn't consistently reasonable. If you're interested in responsible and intelligent COVID-related analysis, she's the one to follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/zeynep https://twitter.com/zeynep
mercy_dude 5y ago
> Has the writer spent any time in the large part of the country that still doesn't believe COVID is real Perhaps it’s the other way around? As in the large part of country lost their faith in public health administration and in general institutions because of their mixed and conflicting message and in some cases playing ideologies?

throwaway09223 5y ago

Sure it is. The caveat is that the CDC will only be providing information, rather than playing politics but the point is that this is not only ok, but desirable. Let other departments spin the message. If the CDC doesn't stick to science and facts they'll undermine their own authority (which to a large degree they've already done).

blagie 5y ago
Yup. I think the problem in the current truthiness and messaging is that the CDC -- and more broadly the scientific establishment -- have undermined their own credibility. It's really hard to roll that back.
michaelt 5y ago
If I ask the CDC whether I should wear a mask to the grocery store today, what would you consider a clear but politics-free response to that question?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  "As of [todays date], the CDC recommends the use of masks in indoor spaces. Droplet transmission is currently thought to be the leading mechanism of Covid-19 transmission and masks have been shown to reduce the quantity of droplets expelled and inhaled. Definitive data is not available on how effective masks are on reducing transmission of Covid-19 specifically."
  - throwaway09223 5y ago
    Precisely. What not to say might include "If you are NOT sick: You do not need to wear a facemask" followed by an about-face a few months later. It's well-established that the CDC knowingly provided bad advice about the need for masks in spring 2020 to avoid a run on masks: https://web.archive.org/web/20200329005833/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html https://web.archive.org/web/20200329005833/https://www.cdc.g... Someone in a position of medical authority knowingly giving harmful advice is incredibly damaging and unethical.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Agreed, an alternative statement could be: "As of [todays date], the CDC does not recommend the use of masks in indoor spaces by people without Covid-19 symptoms. Droplet transmission is currently thought to be the leading mechanism of Covid-19 transmission and masks have been shown to reduce the quantity of droplets expelled and inhaled. Definitive data is not available on how effective masks are on reducing transmission of Covid-19 specifically. Despite the possible benefit, the CDC recommends reserving masks for the sick, healthcare workers, and high risk groups while the current shortage of available N95 masks is in effect." The point is to provide accurate information. Lying might have short-term benefits in manipulating behavior, but destroys trust. If the run on masks is still a problem, the solution should have been more government involvement in the the supply chain and distribution of the masks.
Brybry 5y ago
Even sticking to science and facts they undermine their authority. New data or corrected mistakes change information and a significant portion of the public does not appear to handle that well. See: the information on the effectiveness of cloth masks, the information on pathogen particle size and transmission distance, and terminology used.

iammisc 5y ago

You are out of touch. Large parts of the country do not believe that COVID is 'not real'. Such characterizations are wild exaggerations. And IIRC, in the last administration, large swaths of the country had no trust in anything they did. For example, the current VP said she would not take a vaccine developed under the previous administration. Ultimately, CDC knows that the country is incredibly divided politically and should adjust its message accordingly. That was true for the previous admin, and it's true for this one.

m-watson 5y ago
I agree, in the end the CDC knows that there are a lot of hurdles to get the information across and will have to adjust. That is really all they can do. A small sticking point is now VP Harris didn't say she won't take the vaccine developed under the previous administration, she said she doesn't trust Trump and would listen do public health experts [0]. She was concerned they would be "muzzled," but was later assured and re-iterated her point on a later interview [1]. [0] https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kamala-harris-says-she-wont-take-covid-vaccine-just-on-trumps-sayso-020511962.html https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/kamala-harris-says-she-w... [1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-trust-trump-vaccine-cnntv/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/05/politics/kamala-harris-not-tr...
mikeyouse 5y ago
What Kamala actually said in the context of reports that Trump was leaning on the FDA to approve the vaccine.. She's decidedly not refusing to "take a vaccine developed under the previous administration": > Susan Page (Debate moderator): > No, no, you’re Senator Harris to me. For life to get back to normal, Dr. Anthony Fauci and other experts say that most of the people who can be vaccinated need to be vaccinated. But half of Americans now say they wouldn’t take a vaccine if it was released now. If the Trump administration approves a vaccine before or after the election, should Americans take it, and would you take it? > Kamala Harris: > If the public health professionals, if Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it, absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it, I’m not taking it.
myko 5y ago

lkbm 5y ago

When I saw this NYT headline, I rolled my eyes, because NYT has had some seriously misleading and at least borderline-dishonest reporting about COVID, but I paused and remembered that Zeynep Tufekci sometimes writes for them, and Zeynep is the one person who has stood out as the absolute best reporting on COVID I've seen from anyone. Her critiques of the CDC generally aren't dependent on a public that trusts the government. Yeah, a lot of people will reject the CDC's guidance even if it's good, but there are plenty of people who want to follow CDC guidance, and they struggle to understand it, and when they do follow it, it leads them to stupid decisions because the CDC's advice isn't consistently reasonable. If you're interested in responsible and intelligent COVID-related analysis, she's the one to follow on Twitter: https://twitter.com/zeynep https://twitter.com/zeynep

mercy_dude 5y ago

> Has the writer spent any time in the large part of the country that still doesn't believe COVID is real Perhaps it’s the other way around? As in the large part of country lost their faith in public health administration and in general institutions because of their mixed and conflicting message and in some cases playing ideologies?