PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[Reddevil]

What's your argument for Fauci to not answer to a chain of command? Does it apply to only Fauci, or should other experts at the CDC, NIH, etc also not work within a chain of command? What happens when two of the experts conflict on an opinion? Do both get to speak to the public, or should the other experts weigh in privately first to see if there's a consensus? Where's your evidence that previous administrations gave experts unfettered access to the media? That the experts wouldn't have to, at a minimum, brief the other experts in the room and someone above them in a chain of command about what their remarks to the public will be about?



What specifically is the concern? If there is urgent news that the public needs to know that has broad support among the experts as being accurate, it's impossible to think that the administration will hide that information. Again, whistleblower forms would abound, and/or the experts would just go public themselves. In China, they could be arrested and jailed but not here.

I tend to agree with this thinking. Every organization has a Communications Officer so that the messaging is concise as possible. There is no reason to assume suppression. Conflicting information avoidance is the most likely play here.

[MChambers]

What's your argument for Fauci to not answer to a chain of command? Does it apply to only Fauci, or should other experts at the CDC, NIH, etc also not work within a chain of command? What happens when two of the experts conflict on an opinion? Do both get to speak to the public, or should the other experts weigh in privately first to see if there's a consensus? Where's your evidence that previous administrations gave experts unfettered access to the media? That the experts wouldn't have to, at a minimum, brief the other experts in the room and someone above them in a chain of command about what their remarks to the public will be about?

Fauci is and has been head of the National Institute on Allergies and Infectious Diseases, since 1984. In the last 36 years, under many different administrations, he has been the lead US spokesperson on infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS. As far as I know, he's never before had to clear his statements on infectious diseases through the White House. I'm not going to bother to find "evidence that previous administrations gave experts unfettered access to the media", because it's just too much work to track down statements. But I've heard him on the radio over the decades and he's always fantastic -- on top of the facts, apolitical, and reasoned. He's the perfect spokesman. You can read his Wikipedia page if you want to know more about his career. It's quite impressive.

If there's a difference among experts, I'd expect the head of the National Institute on Allergies and Infectious Diseases to handle it. I wouldn't expect any Vice President, let alone Pence, to handle it.

What the current administration is doing on this is unprecedented and very sad.

[Lord Ash]

I tend to agree with this thinking. Every organization has a Communications Officer so that the messaging is concise as possible. There is no reason to assume suppression. Conflicting information avoidance is the most likely play here.

I think we would all hope this is the case. Unfortunately, in our world, we often see times when government officials do this sort of thing to control messaging in a way that helps them as much as helping their people. Fingers crossed.

[mph]

Fauci is and has been head of the National Institute on Allergies and Infectious Diseases, since 1984. In the last 36 years, under many different administrations, he has been the lead US spokesperson on infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS. As far as I know, he's never before had to clear his statements on infectious diseases through the White House. I'm not going to bother to find "evidence that previous administrations gave experts unfettered access to the media", because it's just too much work to track down statements. But I've heard him on the radio over the decades and he's always fantastic -- on top of the facts, apolitical, and reasoned. He's the perfect spokesman. You can read his Wikipedia page if you want to know more about his career. It's quite impressive.

If there's a difference among experts, I'd expect the head of the National Institute on Allergies and Infectious Diseases to handle it. I wouldn't expect any Vice President, let alone Pence, to handle it.

What the current administration is doing on this is unprecedented and very sad.

I tend to agree with Trouble here. SARS, MERS, and Ebola never reached a level that required a coordinated response in the US. I would expect any administration to create a single approval chain for all official communication under these circumstances. That it’s the Vice President seems an appropriate way to signal that this is the administration’s highest priority.

While I agree there’s a high probability that Trump tries to shape communication from the task force to support his “mission accomplished” narrative, I’m confident he will have very limited success at best. I cannot imagine scientists at the NIH and CDC staying quiet while the administration lies. To that end, I found Dr. Fauci’s comments reassuring. He already contradicted the President’s narrative when he talked about the seriousness of COVID-19 and the possibility of moving from a containment to a mitigation strategy.

[bundabergdevil]

I tend to agree with Trouble here. SARS, MERS, and Ebola never reached a level that required a coordinated response in the US. I would expect any administration to create a single approval chain for all official communication under these circumstances. That it’s the Vice President seems an appropriate way to signal that this is the administration’s highest priority.

While I agree there’s a high probability that Trump tries to shape communication from the task force to support his “mission accomplished” narrative, I’m confident he will have very limited success at best. I cannot imagine scientists at the NIH and CDC staying quiet while the administration lies. To that end, I found Dr. Fauci’s comments reassuring. He already contradicted the President’s narrative when he talked about the seriousness of COVID-19 and the possibility of moving from a containment to a mitigation strategy.

So, what you're saying here is that there's no weather map that he can take his black magic marker to?

[mph]

So, what you're saying here is that there's no weather map that he can take his black magic marker to?

Ha! While the level of incompetence involved in that example was truly stunning, it’s a good example of how hard it is to cover up news that’s otherwise publicly available. Even if he wanted, the VP won’t be able to cover up local and state level reports of positive tests or deaths.

[OldPhiKap]

So, what you're saying here is that there's no weather map that he can take his black magic marker to?

Johns Hopkins has it covered for public consumption:

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashb...23467b48e9ecf6

(That is the desktop version; there is a mobile version too).

We will just have to wait and see what happens regarding the Administration's handling of things. "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best." In the meantime, I am glad to hear that the government is apparently fully engaged on the matter so I'll leave it at that.

[Troublemaker]

We also have examples of the political folks incorrectly stating that coronavirus has the same low mortality rates as the common flu (Acting Head of Homeland Security to a Senate committee) as well as POTUS saying without evidence that the cases would soon be "zero" in the U.S. One could reach the rational conclusion that political efforts to downplay bad news is the motivating factor behind dropping a cone of silence over everyone to get their appearances and statements approved by the VP.

I think the point of communications approval is to help with the bolded.

I disagree completely. I would definitely be concerned that political leaders may care more about the optics/politics of it than they should, and may try to downplay events or information in an attempt to look better or to avoid responsibility for things that might have gone wrong. Many politicians in many countries, including our own, have done that sort of thing about very serious topics, like war. And in time-sensitive situations where there is so much going on, and where so many of the people who are doing the on-the-ground work are overwhelmed, both by the scale of the work and the seriousness of it, I am not sure A) whistleblower forms would be made sufficiently public if there are any political appointees involved and B) if the people doing the dirty work are going to have the time and energy to aggressively whistleblow in a timely fashion that has a real impact on an outcome. Whistleblowing is a tough thing to do, and still has to wind it's way through a system (or be done in such an aggressive, public way that it can blow up in ones face or be dismissed by government officials as political fear mongering or whatever.)

And I disagree, that arrests and jailing would not happen here. I disagree pretty vehemently. In a time of serious national crisis, I think it is entirely possible for an American government to arrest people they may accuse of stoking irrational fears or circumventing established government protocol or whathaveyou.

And in terms of urgent news, and it being impossible to believe the government would hide it or whatever... as an example, we have essentially global scientific consensus on the impact of humans on our Earth's climate and that this is a dire threat, but we see politicians doing all they can to deny and hide relevant information, including by defunding government organizations designed to combat it. It is not uncommon.

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't anticipate this administration jailing experts that speak out. And I agree with mph that experts will go public if the administration withholds important info.

Fauci is and has been head of the National Institute on Allergies and Infectious Diseases, since 1984. In the last 36 years, under many different administrations, he has been the lead US spokesperson on infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS. As far as I know, he's never before had to clear his statements on infectious diseases through the White House. I'm not going to bother to find "evidence that previous administrations gave experts unfettered access to the media", because it's just too much work to track down statements. But I've heard him on the radio over the decades and he's always fantastic -- on top of the facts, apolitical, and reasoned. He's the perfect spokesman. You can read his Wikipedia page if you want to know more about his career. It's quite impressive.

If there's a difference among experts, I'd expect the head of the National Institute on Allergies and Infectious Diseases to handle it. I wouldn't expect any Vice President, let alone Pence, to handle it.

What the current administration is doing on this is unprecedented and very sad.

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm familiar with Fauci and think he is impressive, but everyone should be part of a chain of command. Incidentally, I think Fauci will continue to address the public frequently.

[freshmanjs]

On Tuesday and Wednesday cnn was blasting the government for mixed messages and lack of coordination. On Thursday cnn was blasting the government for taking steps to ensure the message is coordinated. I don’t have a lot of confidence in our government response, but this particular set of criticism seems to create a no win.

[BD80]

This thread is getting hugely political and out of control. People are throwing around assumptions as if they were facts. Even "reasonable" assumptions shouldn't be argued as facts in such a politically charged issue.

Sad, but as I told my son today, people just don't trust "facts" anymore. And with good reason, facts are thrown into arguments without context or completely out of context. I also told him that it is impossible to win an argument on the internet.

Let us please leave commentary about the politics of the administration's handling of the crisis out of this thread.

I think everyone should be able to admit that both "sides" (pro-Trump and anti-Trump) are willing to "massage" their arguments to suit their political bent. Reading the posts above should make that abundantly clear.

Let us please just get back to the science and news about the spread, containment and treatment of the virus.

[JasonEvans]

This thread is getting hugely political and out of control. People are throwing around assumptions as if they were facts. Even "reasonable" assumptions shouldn't be argued as facts in such a politically charged issue.

Sad, but as I told my son today, people just don't trust "facts" anymore. And with good reason, facts are thrown into arguments without context or completely out of context. I also told him that it is impossible to win an argument on the internet.

Let us please leave commentary about the politics of the administration's handling of the crisis out of this thread.

I think everyone should be able to admit that both "sides" (pro-Trump and anti-Trump) are willing to "massage" their arguments to suit their political bent. Reading the posts above should make that abundantly clear.

Let us please just get back to the science and news about the spread, containment and treatment of the virus.

I literally was about to post almost exactly the same thing. Politics of Plague a no-no.

[bedeviled]

Dr. Fauci is actually a member of the VP's Coronavirus Task Force.

Also of note, the US's previous pandemic response strategy was disbanded and restructured after the 2015 Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense (formerly the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense) concluded the following (link & Wikipedia):

The Nation is dangerously vulnerable to a biological event. The root cause of this continuing vulnerability is the lack of strong centralized leadership at the highest level of government

"the insufficiency of our myriad and fragmented biodefense activities persists because biodefense lacks focused leadership. Capable individuals oversee elements at the department and agency levels, but no steward guides them collectively

The Commission called for the establishment of a cabinet-level "White House Biodefense Coordination Counsel." Indeed, their strongest recommendation was that the nation's Vice President be put in charge of overseeing biodefense, stating that "this office alone can be imbued with the authority of the President to coordinate agencies, budgets, and strategies across the government in a way that no other position can."

In response, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 mandated that The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall jointly develop a national biodefense strategy and associated implementation plan, which shall include a review and assessment of biodefense policies, practices, programs and initiatives.

Biodefense is more substantial than what a health/medical expert may be able to handle. There must be integration & coordination of communication, priorities, tech, finances, intelligence, research, etc across many agencies (gov & non-gov), foreign and domestic, national/state/local/territorial stakeholders with competing pressures and interests.

[MChambers]

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm familiar with Fauci and think he is impressive, but everyone should be part of a chain of command. Incidentally, I think Fauci will continue to address the public frequently.

I don’t object to a chain of command, but one can have a chain of command without requiring preclearance of all public statements. That’s what is wrong here.

[BD80]

I don’t object to a chain of command, but one can have a chain of command without requiring preclearance of all public statements. That’s what is wrong here.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. Unduly inflammatory.

[JasonEvans]

I don’t object to a chain of command, but one can have a chain of command without requiring preclearance of all public statements. That’s what is wrong here.

Folks... ya'll have been warned. DO NOT GO HERE!!

There will be serious infractions handed out the next time someone makes this political.

[MChambers]

Folks... ya'll have been warned. DO NOT GO HERE!!

There will be serious infractions handed out the next time someone makes this political.

Didn't mean to make this political. Was just commenting on our government's response, which doesn't strike me as particularly political, but perhaps political has a broader meaning on this board.

How about humorous infractions? Do you do those?

[hallcity]

Fauci has penned an editorial in the NEJM today with some useful info.
https://t.co/SOKHh1X1ob?amp=1
Here's a couple of quotes:

• " [T]he overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively."
• " A robust research effort is currently under way to develop a vaccine against Covid-19. We anticipate that the first candidates will enter phase 1 trials by early spring."

[BD80]

…

How about humorous infractions? Do you do those?

humerus-fracture-midshaft.jpg.jpg


????

[JasonEvans]

How about humorous infractions? Do you do those?

If you tell a joke that is not funny, I'll darn well pop you hard!

[BD80]

If you tell a joke that is not funny, I'll darn well pop you hard!

Ruh roh!