PLAYPEN: Covid-19 Everything Political

[Alan Klein]

Experts in all scientific areas change their minds for several reasons: new data, adjusting to developing situations and conditions, etc. In this particular case, mine, yours, or anybody else's judgement, is irrelevant, unless they are scientific experts in this matter.

Things change quickly, especially in pandemic situations. I would rather trust the judgement of respectable and reputable scientists, than "you know who".

Do you ever get a second opinion? Why?

[faberryman]

Perhaps the experts did not change their recommendations. Perhaps sycophantic bureaucrats did.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/politics/cdc-coronavirus-testing-guidance/index.html

[TechTalk]

Experts change their minds again.  This time about testing. So who should we believe?

"Updated CDC guidelines now say people exposed to coronavirus may not need to be tested"
https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/health/cdc-guidelines-coronavirus-testing/index.html

Did you read the article or just the headline?

"A senior federal health official close to the process tells CNN the sudden change in CDC Covid-19 testing guidance was the result of pressure from the Trump administration. When asked by CNN whether the CDC was responding to pressure from the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services, the senior official said, "It's coming from the top down."

"HHS has not specified what change in "current evidence" may have driven the change."

The article above, linked by faberryman, was also linked inside the story that you posted. Did you read it?

[Robert Roaldi]

Do you ever get a second opinion? Why?

I really think you should listen to that Sam Harris podcast that I pointed out in the No Politics thread. It's a very comprehensive look back at what went wrong, very instructive. You seem to want to come to the incorrect conclusion that because people change their minds means that they don't understand, when it's actually a sign that they are homing in on an understanding.

Seriously, listen to the person being interviewed, it will give you a good insight in how things developed. They even manage to stay away from politics for a long while.

[jeremyrh]

Sad, really. Even as a non USAn I have often looked at the CDC website to find what I felt to be authoritative information. Now it's just another agent of Trump propaganda. All.out of the Russian playbook that I'm sure Slobo can tell us more about - to degrade public trust in the information they receive until they have no faith in anything and the State's version of truth is as likely as any other.

[Robert Roaldi]

Sad, really. Even as a non USAn I have often looked at the CDC website to find what I felt to be authoritative information. Now it's just another agent of Trump propaganda. All.out of the Russian playbook that I'm sure Slobo can tell us more about - to degrade public trust in the information they receive until they have no faith in anything and the State's version of truth is as likely as any other.

Maybe the thinking is to cripple public institutions because who needs them, they're just the swamp. Government is bad, didn't you know? Of course, some of them are.

That conversation emerged in this thread at one point. The debate was whether health authorities should be fired when they don't adhere to the governing party line. That point of view had some support. That's an astonishing position to take, believing politicians and not believing people of science. I mean, who would have thought we could get to this point. That kind of cult following of a leader seems like a bizarre thing in a culture that prides itself on individualism. I think the thinking is that if "lefties" hate Trump, then he's doing something right. Basically, it's bar talk elevated to "public debate", at least in the social media version of the debate. Sociologists will have stuff to study for decades.

[Alan Klein]

It's a fool's errand to listen to an expert without question. 

[Robert Roaldi]

It's a fool's errand to listen to an expert without question.

I am not sure that anyone ever said "without question", but maybe someone has, really I don't care.

Of course you try to use other info to determine who is credible, implicitly or not. If my doctor tells me something, I'm going to take their advice over some guy on youtube. Every time. And I'm going to take the CDC's advice about a disease over Trump's. Every time. And so should Trump. The fact that he doesn't should raise a red flag.

[faberryman]

Interesting that the CDC, whose recommendations were changed, would refer questions to HHS to answer, which begs the questions, who is responsible for the changes, CDC or HHS? Perhaps when Dr. Fauci has recovered from his vocal cord surgery he will be able to clarify the issue.

[LesPalenik]

I am not sure that anyone ever said "without question", but maybe someone has, really I don't care.

Of course you try to use other info to determine who is credible, implicitly or not. If my doctor tells me something, I'm going to take their advice over some guy on youtube. Every time. And I'm going to take the CDC's advice about a disease over Trump's. Every time. And so should Trump. The fact that he doesn't should raise a red flag.

Robert, you are lucky to have found such a good doctor. I am quite skeptical with most I encountered here.
OTOH, there are quite a few distinguished doctors in many disciplines on youtube, if you do some research. And as you allude, many more quacks.

[faberryman]

It's a fool's errand to listen to an expert without question.

Of course no one ever suggested that, so this is just another deflection.

[TechTalk]

Perhaps the experts did not change their recommendations. Perhaps sycophantic bureaucrats did.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/politics/cdc-coronavirus-testing-guidance/index.html

From the article that you linked:

"HHS has not specified what change in "current evidence" may have driven the change. In a call with reporters Wednesday afternoon, Giroir said the update to the CDC guidelines on testing was deliberated and approved last week."

"This was discussed at the last task force meeting and approved, I think that was Thursday of last week," Giroir told CNN's Jeremy Diamond on the call. "We posted this on Monday morning."

Faberryman, I think that you may have some insight in this matter...

The White House Coronavirus Task Force has 27 members of which only 8 are medical doctors of any type. Of the 8 doctors on the Task Force, only 3 are specialists in immunology and infectious disease. Of the 27 members, the 19 with no medical credentials have backgrounds that include lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, public relations, economics, agriculture, transportation, etc. and are all Trump appointees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Coronavirus_Task_Force

[TechTalk]

Interesting that the CDC, whose recommendations were changed, would refer questions to HHS to answer, which begs the questions, who is responsible for the changes, CDC or HHS? Perhaps when Dr. Fauci has recovered from his vocal cord surgery he will be able to clarify the issue.

Also from the article that you linked...

"This was discussed at the last task force meeting and approved, I think that was Thursday of last week," Giroir told CNN's Jeremy Diamond on the call. "We posted this on Monday morning."

"Yet Thursday was the same day Dr. Anthony Fauci, a member of the task force, was having vocal cord surgery to remove a polyp. He had general anesthesia and doctors advised him to curtail his talking for a while to allow his vocal cords to recover."

[faberryman]

Faberryman, I think that you may have some insight in this matter...

Nothing more than common sense. The effect of this change is to eliminate testing of individuals who may be infected but are asymptomatic. I have read that up to 40% of those that are infected are asymptomatic, so that would eliminate a substantial number of cases. That will make the US numbers look better and create in the mind of the public that we are getting the situation under control and things are improving, when in fact nothing has changed. For example, it will make the numbers look better for students returning to school. However, it actually may make things worse as the untested asymptomatics will not be required to quarantine because we will not know they are infected, and they will spread the virus around. Those who are infected but asymptomatic transfer the virus just as those who are infected and have symptoms. It will not cause the number of deaths to go down. It will cause the percentage of deaths per number of cases to go up.

Earlier in the day, Gov. Cuomo said he wasn't going to follow the new recommendation, so it will be interesting to see how the politics plays out. Of course, a congressional committee will begin investigating. Be prepared for more shouts of "witch hunt." I’m guessing that this is the new shiny object and will replace what is happening at the post office on the news.

[TechTalk]

Perhaps the experts did not change their recommendations. Perhaps sycophantic bureaucrats did.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/politics/cdc-coronavirus-testing-guidance/index.html

The article that you linked has been updated with a response from Dr. Fauci...

"White House coronavirus task force member Dr. Anthony Fauci said he was in surgery and not part of the discussion during the August 20 task force meeting when updated guidelines were discussed."

"I was under general anesthesia in the operating room and was not part of any discussion or deliberation regarding the new testing recommendations," Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

"I am concerned about the interpretation of these recommendations and worried it will give people the incorrect assumption that asymptomatic spread is not of great concern. In fact it is," he said.

[faberryman]

I will add that this eliminates contact tracing. No need to search out the infected. No more testing the asymptomatic ones, and the symptomatic ones will present themselves at the ER in due course. That’s a real money saver.

There is absolutely no reason not to test those who are known to have been in contact with an infected person to determine if they are infected as well. None.

[chez]

I will add that this eliminates contact tracing. No need to search out the infected. No more testing the asymptomatic ones, and the symptomatic ones will present themselves at the ER in due course. That’s a real money saver.

There is absolutely no reason not to test those who are known to have been in contact with an infected person to determine if they are infected as well. None.

But remember way back when Trump didn't want the cruise ship with Covid patients on board to dock in California because it would make his numbers look bad. Less testing, less infected found...better numbers. You'll soon see Trump proclaim under his leadership the number of infected has dramatically dropped.

Don't test at all and your infection rate goes to zero...

[jeremyrh]

Don't test at all and your infection rate goes to zero...

"I see dead people.  All the time"

[Paulo Bizarro]

Do you ever get a second opinion? Why?

Of course I do. From another expert in the subject. From what I have been reading, there is a large consensus on the procedures and mitigation measures from the areas of virology, immunology, and infectiology. What happens in several countries is that regional governments then decide to implement them, or not. Like in Spain, for example.

[kers]

"I see dead people.  All the time"

+1
 the daily number of dead people wil remain the same or increase due to less testing of possible infected.
Already i see less new infections but the equal amount of deaths in the US statistics, although thats no proof.