When science loses its voice

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

ON THE MORNING of Tuesday, February 25, Dr. Nancy Messonnier, the director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, conducted a media telebriefing on the coming intensification of covid-19 outbreaks in the US. At the time, the country had just a few dozen confirmed cases. Still, Messonnier warned, “It’s not so much of a question of if this will happen anymore, but rather more of a question of exactly when this will happen.”

Markets, which had declined the previous day, tumbled further; the Washington Post, drawing on anonymous accounts from presidential aides, reported that Donald Trump “believes extreme warnings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have spooked investors.” Another CDC official professed the belief that “the immediate risk here in the United States remains low.” The day after Messonnier’s comments, Trump put Vice President Mike Pence in charge of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, and, as reporters observed, the CDC’s voice seemed to take a back seat. Messonnier held four more coronavirus telebriefings, the most recent of which took place more than a month ago, on March 9.

“Nancy Messonnier told it like it is,” Dr. Thomas Frieden, the former director of the CDC, told the New York Times before Messonnier’s last telebriefing. “And she was 100 percent right, and they silenced the messenger.” The Times requested interviews with CDC officials for a March 13 story on coronavirus death estimates, then reported that the center had “declined interview requests…and referred a request for comment to the White House Coronavirus Task Force.”

A March 19 foia request from the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University asked the CDC for information regarding its policies concerning employees’ ability to speak with the press and the public. foia requires a response within twenty business days (thirty if “unusual circumstances” are invoked). The CDC responded with a projected release date of September 21; on April 2, the Knight Institute sued.

“There have been reports that messaging from President Trump and the White House has been inaccurate or missing important context,” Stephanie Krent, a lawyer litigating the Knight Institute’s case against the CDC, says. “I think it’s now more critical than ever to understand what restrictions are put on CDC employees.” Ultimately, the concern is the public’s ability to understand exactly where information is coming from and to judge its accuracy themselves, a process in which the media is intrinsically involved. “Restrictive press policies limit journalists’ access to federal employees who would otherwise want to speak out,” she says.

-more-

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/cdc-pandemic-transparency-comment-access.php?fbclid=IwAR03P0UaxPLRAtpm9AUn-6T4cbj64-s6ovah6vV3AgqOvTWmx8pC5jKPpYQ

[SunSeeker]

1. K & R

[Igel]

2. Yeah.

To date, our containment strategies have been largely successful. As a result, we have very few cases in the United States and no spread in the community. But as more and more countries experience community spread, successful containment at our borders becomes harder and harder. Ultimately, we expect we will see community spread in this country. It’s not so much a question of if this will happen anymore but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness. We will maintain for as long as practical a dual approach where we continue measures to contain this disease but also employ strategies to minimize the impact on our communities. At this time, there’s no vaccine to protect against this new virus and no medications approved to treat it. Non-pharmaceutical interventions or NPIs will be the most important tools in our response to this virus. What these interventions look like at the community level will vary depending on local conditions. What is appropriate for one community seeing local transmission won’t necessarily be appropriate for a community where no local transmission has occurred. This parallel, proactive approach of containment and mitigation will delay the emergence of community spread in the United States while simultaneously reducing its ultimate impact.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/t0225-cdc-telebriefing-covid-19.html , 2/26/20

It was over a month after community transmission was happening in the US (we later found out).

It was foolish of Trump to say that it was all under control and stop there. (Notice that "our containments strategies have been largely successful" basically means "under control", but she clarified). For the same reason, those who said that if Trump had done other things nobody would have died. "It's not so much a question of if this will happen anymore but rather more a question of exactly when this will happen and how many people in this country will have severe illness."

How much it could have been limited and still be true to what this country has been is a question. I don't think she could answer it. But people with a lot less knowledge and competence absolutely know. "Just do this," they say, "and it's all under control" and stop there.

We're still having the fight over "what is appropriate for one community ... won't necessarily be appropriate for a community where no local transmission has occurred." Some argue for that--gee, a CDC scientist's voice said this before the first lockdown--and others insist on a one-size-fits-all approach that uses the nice doctor's N95 as a gag.

Problem is, in February the conventional science wisdom said "fairly low risk." Just like in most of January it was routinely said human-to-human transmission is possible, but rare and there was no evidence of it happening from casual interactions.