[Goose]

The CDC's entire raison d'etre is to respond to these phenomena.  That they were caught flatfooted is, in my mind, the most shocking aspect of this.  Compare their response to coronavirus to their response to Ebola, SARS, or pandemic influenza, where they were the agency that other countries turned to for advice.  One theory is that they were a victim of their own success, and the fact that they were able to lead the worldwide response to those epidemics made them let down their guard.  The second possibility is that they are responsive to the broader political environment and just as local leaders in Wuhan tried to quiet reports down because of real or perceived pressure from the central communist party, it is possible that CDC self-censored in order not to openly contradict the President when he publicly minimized the extent of the pandemic.  I doubt that there was overt political interference, but people are human and respond to the context into which they are placed.

BC

There is a third possibility, which is what I think actually is the dominant issue. The CDC deployed people to other nations to provide expertise in SARS, Ebola, Zika. I believe the CDC basically abandoned the idea that they had to be a primary force in the USA, because all the things they have done recently (last 15 years at least) were advising/responding in other nations. H1N1 was a bit different, but was relatively "easy", thus victory disease. The idea that we would ever have a major "event" in the US just dropped off their radar. It hadn't ever really happened in living memory. Africa yes, Asia yes, the middle east yes. Here, no, so don't worry much about it. No point in figuring out how to set up mass testing in the US, because we will be doing it in Liberia, not here. The CDC is still composed of highly competent people, but those people were not focused on the USA.

[Goose]

The CDC's entire raison d'etre is to respond to these phenomena.  That they were caught flatfooted is, in my mind, the most shocking aspect of this.  Compare their response to coronavirus to their response to Ebola, SARS, or pandemic influenza, where they were the agency that other countries turned to for advice.  One theory is that they were a victim of their own success, and the fact that they were able to lead the worldwide response to those epidemics made them let down their guard.  The second possibility is that they are responsive to the broader political environment and just as local leaders in Wuhan tried to quiet reports down because of real or perceived pressure from the central communist party, it is possible that CDC self-censored in order not to openly contradict the President when he publicly minimized the extent of the pandemic.  I doubt that there was overt political interference, but people are human and respond to the context into which they are placed.

BC

There is a third possibility, which is what I think actually is the dominant issue. The CDC deployed people to other nations to provide expertise in SARS, Ebola, Zika. I believe the CDC basically abandoned the idea that they had to be a primary force in the USA, because all the things they have done recently (last 15 years at least) were advising/responding in other nations. H1N1 was a bit different, but was relatively "easy", thus victory disease. The idea that we would ever have a major "event" in the US just dropped off their radar. It hadn't ever really happened in living memory. Africa yes, Asia yes, the middle east yes. Here, no, so don't worry much about it. No point in figuring out how to set up mass testing in the US, because we will be doing it in Liberia, not here. The CDC is still composed of highly competent people, but those people were not focused on the USA.

[BostonCard]

The CDC does much more than major epidemics with pandemic potential.  They deal with local outbreaks all the time.  Hanta virus in Yosemite? The CDC was there.  E. coli in your lettuce?  That was CDC investigators tracing the source.  West Nile Virus in New York?  Yup, CDC.  Multidrug infections being spread in hospitals via duodenoscopes?  The CDC aids the hospital epidemiologists liaise with the FDA (who governs devices).  The idea that the CDC just sits on its hands until there is a major pandemic is laughable.

BC

[BostonCard]

The CDC does much more than major epidemics with pandemic potential.  They deal with local outbreaks all the time.  Hanta virus in Yosemite? The CDC was there.  E. coli in your lettuce?  That was CDC investigators tracing the source.  West Nile Virus in New York?  Yup, CDC.  Multidrug infections being spread in hospitals via duodenoscopes?  The CDC aids the hospital epidemiologists liaise with the FDA (who governs devices).  The idea that the CDC just sits on its hands until there is a major pandemic is laughable.

BC

[Mick]

Out of curiosity, do you think the CDC would acknowledge that they have failed here, or at least that there was some level of failure?  Would they acknowledge the straw man presented previously, either they took their eye off the ball in America or that they were so taken in by the Orange One that they failed because they followed his direction too much?

In short, would they admit failure?  Publicly acknowledge it?

[Mick]

Out of curiosity, do you think the CDC would acknowledge that they have failed here, or at least that there was some level of failure?  Would they acknowledge the straw man presented previously, either they took their eye off the ball in America or that they were so taken in by the Orange One that they failed because they followed his direction too much?

In short, would they admit failure?  Publicly acknowledge it?

[Goose]

The CDC does much more than major epidemics with pandemic potential.  They deal with local outbreaks all the time.  Hanta virus in Yosemite? The CDC was there.  E. coli in your lettuce?  That was CDC investigators tracing the source.  West Nile Virus in New York?  Yup, CDC.  Multidrug infections being spread in hospitals via duodenoscopes?  The CDC aids the hospital epidemiologists liaise with the FDA (who governs devices).  The idea that the CDC just sits on its hands until there is a major pandemic is laughable.

BC

True, but these are all "small" events. How many people in the CDC were actually involved in these responses? I agree they don't sit on their hands at all. I think they are a pretty competent bunch, and I have friends that have worked there. But they were not ready for a major pandemic, because IMHO of "It won't happen here" mentality. Perfectly understandable, because until now, it hadn't. Yes, in theory they should be preparing for it, but in practice they had other important things to do (as you point out), and the pandemic case in the USA just wasn't front burner.

I also think if we are going to suggest the CDC "failed", we should explicitly say what we think they were tasked with doing that they failed to do. My criticism would be mostly that they did not understand the difficulties that would arise in a large scale testing program in the USA. They didn't realize that they didn't have the ability to manufacture enough test kits to go around. They didn't realize their QC system was not adequate to manufacture tests. They also didn't realize that they needed to have tests that could be run by private and hospital labs on the PCR equipment that those labs owned and that this process needed to be planned for in advance. They didn't early on tell everybody that many more swabs would be needed and that the CDC couldn't supply them. These are mostly logistical questions, not scientific ones. The CDC is not the only group that didn't realize that the logistical questions would really matter, but they were the one organization that should have had an overview of what would be required.

[Goose]

The CDC does much more than major epidemics with pandemic potential.  They deal with local outbreaks all the time.  Hanta virus in Yosemite? The CDC was there.  E. coli in your lettuce?  That was CDC investigators tracing the source.  West Nile Virus in New York?  Yup, CDC.  Multidrug infections being spread in hospitals via duodenoscopes?  The CDC aids the hospital epidemiologists liaise with the FDA (who governs devices).  The idea that the CDC just sits on its hands until there is a major pandemic is laughable.

BC

True, but these are all "small" events. How many people in the CDC were actually involved in these responses? I agree they don't sit on their hands at all. I think they are a pretty competent bunch, and I have friends that have worked there. But they were not ready for a major pandemic, because IMHO of "It won't happen here" mentality. Perfectly understandable, because until now, it hadn't. Yes, in theory they should be preparing for it, but in practice they had other important things to do (as you point out), and the pandemic case in the USA just wasn't front burner.

I also think if we are going to suggest the CDC "failed", we should explicitly say what we think they were tasked with doing that they failed to do. My criticism would be mostly that they did not understand the difficulties that would arise in a large scale testing program in the USA. They didn't realize that they didn't have the ability to manufacture enough test kits to go around. They didn't realize their QC system was not adequate to manufacture tests. They also didn't realize that they needed to have tests that could be run by private and hospital labs on the PCR equipment that those labs owned and that this process needed to be planned for in advance. They didn't early on tell everybody that many more swabs would be needed and that the CDC couldn't supply them. These are mostly logistical questions, not scientific ones. The CDC is not the only group that didn't realize that the logistical questions would really matter, but they were the one organization that should have had an overview of what would be required.

[BostonCard]

Out of curiosity, do you think the CDC would acknowledge that they have failed here, or at least that there was some level of failure?  Would they acknowledge the straw man presented previously, either they took their eye off the ball in America or that they were so taken in by the Orange One that they failed because they followed his direction too much?



In short, would they admit failure?  Publicly acknowledge it?

I don't think so, or at least I haven't seen an external acknowledgement of it (and it would be the atypical organization that would).  I would hope that they are professional enough to do an internal root cause analysis and learn from their mistakes. And I think it would be appropriate for the press, congressional overseers, the appropriate inspector general, and, ideally the head of HHS (which is where the CDC resides) to hold them accountable.

Interesting interaction when Redfield (head of the CDC) and Fauci testified in congress:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...cost-lives

The most stunning illustration of this radical failure of leadership and responsibility occurred, for me, Thursday morning on C-SPAN. CDC Director Robert Redfield was testifying in front of Congress, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asking who was responsible for ensuring that those who needed to be tested could be tested. After several attempts to dodge the question, Redfield fell silent. He had no answer. He stared down at his desk, before slowly turning to a man seated next to him. It was Anthony Fauci, director of infectious diseases at the NIH. He had the courage to say what Redfield wouldn't.

"The system is not geared to what we need right now," he said. "And that is a failing."

BC

[BostonCard]

Out of curiosity, do you think the CDC would acknowledge that they have failed here, or at least that there was some level of failure?  Would they acknowledge the straw man presented previously, either they took their eye off the ball in America or that they were so taken in by the Orange One that they failed because they followed his direction too much?



In short, would they admit failure?  Publicly acknowledge it?

I don't think so, or at least I haven't seen an external acknowledgement of it (and it would be the atypical organization that would).  I would hope that they are professional enough to do an internal root cause analysis and learn from their mistakes. And I think it would be appropriate for the press, congressional overseers, the appropriate inspector general, and, ideally the head of HHS (which is where the CDC resides) to hold them accountable.

Interesting interaction when Redfield (head of the CDC) and Fauci testified in congress:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shot...cost-lives

The most stunning illustration of this radical failure of leadership and responsibility occurred, for me, Thursday morning on C-SPAN. CDC Director Robert Redfield was testifying in front of Congress, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was asking who was responsible for ensuring that those who needed to be tested could be tested. After several attempts to dodge the question, Redfield fell silent. He had no answer. He stared down at his desk, before slowly turning to a man seated next to him. It was Anthony Fauci, director of infectious diseases at the NIH. He had the courage to say what Redfield wouldn't.

"The system is not geared to what we need right now," he said. "And that is a failing."

BC

[BostonCard]

The CDC does much more than major epidemics with pandemic potential.  They deal with local outbreaks all the time.  Hanta virus in Yosemite? The CDC was there.  E. coli in your lettuce?  That was CDC investigators tracing the source.  West Nile Virus in New York?  Yup, CDC.  Multidrug infections being spread in hospitals via duodenoscopes?  The CDC aids the hospital epidemiologists liaise with the FDA (who governs devices).  The idea that the CDC just sits on its hands until there is a major pandemic is laughable.

BC

True, but these are all "small" events. How many people in the CDC were actually involved in these responses? I agree they don't sit on their hands at all. I think they are a pretty competent bunch, and I have friends that have worked there. But they were not ready for a major pandemic, because IMHO of "It won't happen here" mentality. Perfectly understandable, because until now, it hadn't. Yes, in theory they should be preparing for it, but in practice they had other important things to do (as you point out), and the pandemic case in the USA just wasn't front burner.

I also think if we are going to suggest the CDC "failed", we should explicitly say what we think they were tasked with doing that they failed to do. My criticism would be mostly that they did not understand the difficulties that would arise in a large scale testing program in the USA. They didn't realize that they didn't have the ability to manufacture enough test kits to go around. They didn't realize their QC system was not adequate to manufacture tests. They also didn't realize that they needed to have tests that could be run by private and hospital labs on the PCR equipment that those labs owned and that this process needed to be planned for in advance. They didn't early on tell everybody that many more swabs would be needed and that the CDC couldn't supply them. These are mostly logistical questions, not scientific ones. The CDC is not the only group that didn't realize that the logistical questions would really matter, but they were the one organization that should have had an overview of what would be required.

Yeah, I mean, the CDC and HHS haven't updated their influenza pandemic preparedness manual since *checks notes* 2017.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resourc...2017v2.pdf

It strikes me as silly that because the manual focused on influenza and not coronavirus that none of those lessons were applied.

BC

[BostonCard]

The CDC does much more than major epidemics with pandemic potential.  They deal with local outbreaks all the time.  Hanta virus in Yosemite? The CDC was there.  E. coli in your lettuce?  That was CDC investigators tracing the source.  West Nile Virus in New York?  Yup, CDC.  Multidrug infections being spread in hospitals via duodenoscopes?  The CDC aids the hospital epidemiologists liaise with the FDA (who governs devices).  The idea that the CDC just sits on its hands until there is a major pandemic is laughable.

BC

True, but these are all "small" events. How many people in the CDC were actually involved in these responses? I agree they don't sit on their hands at all. I think they are a pretty competent bunch, and I have friends that have worked there. But they were not ready for a major pandemic, because IMHO of "It won't happen here" mentality. Perfectly understandable, because until now, it hadn't. Yes, in theory they should be preparing for it, but in practice they had other important things to do (as you point out), and the pandemic case in the USA just wasn't front burner.

I also think if we are going to suggest the CDC "failed", we should explicitly say what we think they were tasked with doing that they failed to do. My criticism would be mostly that they did not understand the difficulties that would arise in a large scale testing program in the USA. They didn't realize that they didn't have the ability to manufacture enough test kits to go around. They didn't realize their QC system was not adequate to manufacture tests. They also didn't realize that they needed to have tests that could be run by private and hospital labs on the PCR equipment that those labs owned and that this process needed to be planned for in advance. They didn't early on tell everybody that many more swabs would be needed and that the CDC couldn't supply them. These are mostly logistical questions, not scientific ones. The CDC is not the only group that didn't realize that the logistical questions would really matter, but they were the one organization that should have had an overview of what would be required.

Yeah, I mean, the CDC and HHS haven't updated their influenza pandemic preparedness manual since *checks notes* 2017.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resourc...2017v2.pdf

It strikes me as silly that because the manual focused on influenza and not coronavirus that none of those lessons were applied.

BC

[82 Card]

I wouldn't celebrate yet.  Trump will seize them all and give them to Florida and Wisconsin.

I thought you were joking until I saw this:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2...s-supplies

And this:
https://franklinreporter.com/feds-take-a...e-workers/

That same hospital is now at capacity of covid patients.
https://franklinreporter.com/coronavirus...-capacity/


I don't think the motivation is as conspiratorial as you implied, but it does suggest some gross incompetence and lack of preparation, leading to a poor execution.

This law firm client newsletter may explain what is going on: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/c...uction-act

From the descriptions in the news stories, it doesn't sound like they are bothering with proper paperwork. However, FEMA does have the right to seize a long list of materials from wherever they may be and give the stuff to whomever they please, public or private. With the current group, the possibilities are endless. If you work at a medical facility that has managed to get adequate supplies, don't talk about it and keep the stuff in an undisclosed location. Nice hospital you have there. Be a shame if anything should happen to it.

[82 Card]

I wouldn't celebrate yet.  Trump will seize them all and give them to Florida and Wisconsin.

I thought you were joking until I saw this:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2...s-supplies

And this:
https://franklinreporter.com/feds-take-a...e-workers/

That same hospital is now at capacity of covid patients.
https://franklinreporter.com/coronavirus...-capacity/


I don't think the motivation is as conspiratorial as you implied, but it does suggest some gross incompetence and lack of preparation, leading to a poor execution.

This law firm client newsletter may explain what is going on: https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/c...uction-act

From the descriptions in the news stories, it doesn't sound like they are bothering with proper paperwork. However, FEMA does have the right to seize a long list of materials from wherever they may be and give the stuff to whomever they please, public or private. With the current group, the possibilities are endless. If you work at a medical facility that has managed to get adequate supplies, don't talk about it and keep the stuff in an undisclosed location. Nice hospital you have there. Be a shame if anything should happen to it.

[thatboy]

I'm very slow to use themes of incompetence and bungling. In my experience, the easiest problems to solve are someone else's. What's for sure is that the CDC was caught flatfooted by a phenomenon well beyond anything it had prepared for. Pearl Harbor analogies are appropriate.

I don't think the Pearl Harbor analogy is apt. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. This is more like our Chernobyl: denied, downplayed, and then mismanaged.

[thatboy]

I'm very slow to use themes of incompetence and bungling. In my experience, the easiest problems to solve are someone else's. What's for sure is that the CDC was caught flatfooted by a phenomenon well beyond anything it had prepared for. Pearl Harbor analogies are appropriate.

I don't think the Pearl Harbor analogy is apt. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. This is more like our Chernobyl: denied, downplayed, and then mismanaged.

[Genuine Realist]

I'm very slow to use themes of incompetence and bungling. In my experience, the easiest problems to solve are someone else's. What's for sure is that the CDC was caught flatfooted by a phenomenon well beyond anything it had prepared for. Pearl Harbor analogies are appropriate.

I don't think the Pearl Harbor analogy is apt. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. This is more like our Chernobyl: denied, downplayed, and then mismanaged.

There were actually plenty of hints, if not warnings, about Japanese intentions, that a misguided Congressional committee could have investigated.

However, the speed of this thing also makes it somewhat similar. In fact, given the degree of social dislocation required for an adequate response, this thing is even more drastic in terms of suddenness than the Pearl Harbor event.

[Genuine Realist]

I'm very slow to use themes of incompetence and bungling. In my experience, the easiest problems to solve are someone else's. What's for sure is that the CDC was caught flatfooted by a phenomenon well beyond anything it had prepared for. Pearl Harbor analogies are appropriate.

I don't think the Pearl Harbor analogy is apt. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. This is more like our Chernobyl: denied, downplayed, and then mismanaged.

There were actually plenty of hints, if not warnings, about Japanese intentions, that a misguided Congressional committee could have investigated.

However, the speed of this thing also makes it somewhat similar. In fact, given the degree of social dislocation required for an adequate response, this thing is even more drastic in terms of suddenness than the Pearl Harbor event.

[BostonCard]

Some other comparisons.

400,000 Americans died fighting in World War II.  Covid-19 has killed 14,000 in a little over a month (1940 in the last day alone).  While I don't think we will get to a similar number, I wouldn't be surprised if we get to 100,000+.

About 18 million Americans fought in World War II.  So far, the US has had 435,000 people infected with Covid-19.  We could easily eclipse the 18 million infected mark.

BC

[BostonCard]

Some other comparisons.

400,000 Americans died fighting in World War II.  Covid-19 has killed 14,000 in a little over a month (1940 in the last day alone).  While I don't think we will get to a similar number, I wouldn't be surprised if we get to 100,000+.

About 18 million Americans fought in World War II.  So far, the US has had 435,000 people infected with Covid-19.  We could easily eclipse the 18 million infected mark.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

The CDC does much more than major epidemics with pandemic potential.  They deal with local outbreaks all the time.  Hanta virus in Yosemite? The CDC was there.  E. coli in your lettuce?  That was CDC investigators tracing the source.  West Nile Virus in New York?  Yup, CDC.  Multidrug infections being spread in hospitals via duodenoscopes?  The CDC aids the hospital epidemiologists liaise with the FDA (who governs devices).  The idea that the CDC just sits on its hands until there is a major pandemic is laughable.

BC

True, but these are all "small" events. How many people in the CDC were actually involved in these responses? I agree they don't sit on their hands at all. I think they are a pretty competent bunch, and I have friends that have worked there. But they were not ready for a major pandemic, because IMHO of "It won't happen here" mentality. Perfectly understandable, because until now, it hadn't. Yes, in theory they should be preparing for it, but in practice they had other important things to do (as you point out), and the pandemic case in the USA just wasn't front burner.

I also think if we are going to suggest the CDC "failed", we should explicitly say what we think they were tasked with doing that they failed to do. My criticism would be mostly that they did not understand the difficulties that would arise in a large scale testing program in the USA. They didn't realize that they didn't have the ability to manufacture enough test kits to go around. They didn't realize their QC system was not adequate to manufacture tests. They also didn't realize that they needed to have tests that could be run by private and hospital labs on the PCR equipment that those labs owned and that this process needed to be planned for in advance. They didn't early on tell everybody that many more swabs would be needed and that the CDC couldn't supply them. These are mostly logistical questions, not scientific ones. The CDC is not the only group that didn't realize that the logistical questions would really matter, but they were the one organization that should have had an overview of what would be required.

Yeah, I mean, the CDC and HHS haven't updated their influenza pandemic preparedness manual since *checks notes* 2017.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resourc...2017v2.pdf

It strikes me as silly that because the manual focused on influenza and not coronavirus that none of those lessons were applied.

BC

I'd like to quantify this very interesting discussion, so that people more knowledgable than I can take a crack at it.

1. Misinformation.  I'm going to start by linking this article from Commentary on the folly of hindsight. (Rothman shares my POV - an enormous distaste for Trump, but an even greater loathing for the excesses of his critics, but that's not why I posted the article.) Take a look at the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs, which are as concise a timeline on recent events as you will find.

In mid January, the Chinese were still insisting there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. Through mid-February, they were insisting that most cases were mild, and fatalities only occurring with moribund patients. The article doesn't mention this, but the CCP imprisoned at least one doctor who insisted otherwise, and extorted a public apology out of him. The WHO parroted this..

The result was a completely misplaced confidence about the virus that continued to the end of February. Depending on your politics, you can point the finger at Trump's sunshine-and-lollipops attitude, or the reflexive accusation of xenophobia from the opposition. Both preceded from the same misplaced state of mind, which makes finding villains a lost cause - there are either none at all, or too many. 

It's intuitively extremely plausible that the CDC labored under these false impressions until it was way too late. 

2. Complacency. BC notes the number of successes that the CDC has had in the past few decades, with ebola, SARS, and so on.  All of these were small scale outbreaks with diseases that, to the best of my knowledge, are not very communicable. Bult the agency did handle them well, and may very well have developed some institutional hubris as a result.

Now comes a virus on a scale and speed that is many quanta more than anything that the CDC have ever seen or believed it would see. Military analogies come easily - in the same way an army that is quite successful at responding to riots and small scale disorders may be completely unprepared for total blitzkrieg, and not know it, the CDC may have been completely ignorant of how unequipped it was to face this.

3. Regulatory morass. I don't know the origin of the regulations that obstructed the CDC from turning to private sources for testing kits when it needed them. For very different reasons, both Republicans and Democrats are wary of government/private industry colations. My guess is that they were promulgated in a vacuum by Congressional or CDC staffers, because they seemed like a good idea in theory, they satisfied political objections, and no one thought through the impact they might have in a worst case. That happens all the time.

4. Did It Fail? A real question. While the Chinese government was engaging in its reprehensible deceit, people were leaving the Wuhan province in the tens of thousands every day. 100,000 left on New Year's Day alone. It could be that the virus had already taken root - is the right word endemic? - before anything could be done.

Also, I am of the belief that the full lockdown now in place could not realistically be put in place any time before mid-March. There was insufficient public awareness, professional consensus, and political will. If Trump had tried it at the end of January, he would have been accused by the same people now condemning him for inaction as plotting a Fascist power grab, wag-the-dog, etc. Recall the impeachment - do you remember that was the big deal just 75 days ago - was barely over. As a matter of hard fact, I don't think national and world responsiveness was coming any sooner than it did.

6. What Do We Do Now? What the Congress should do is conduct a comprehensive review of CDC policies and practices in the wake of this. That's what South Korea did after a disastrous mismanagement of SARS in 2015, and the reason its response to C-19 ws so effective. But of course we won't. The drag of partisan politics is too great. The misplaced point of what will be another witch hunt will be a search for campaign ammunition rather than quiet analysis of problems and solutions.

The hope is that the professionals to whom these things actually matter will make the adjustments. After the debacle of Vietnam, the officer corps of the military quietly rebuilt US forces to become the most formidable force the world has ever known. The debacle of the hostage rescue mission in 1980 led to the creation of the unified Special Services forces that erased OBL in 2011. We DO have a cadre of professionals, to whom effective task management matters enormously more than who becomes President in 2020 - and ultimately I believe we can trust them.  I don't think the Titanic is going to sink twice.

Sorry for the length of this.

[Genuine Realist]

The CDC does much more than major epidemics with pandemic potential.  They deal with local outbreaks all the time.  Hanta virus in Yosemite? The CDC was there.  E. coli in your lettuce?  That was CDC investigators tracing the source.  West Nile Virus in New York?  Yup, CDC.  Multidrug infections being spread in hospitals via duodenoscopes?  The CDC aids the hospital epidemiologists liaise with the FDA (who governs devices).  The idea that the CDC just sits on its hands until there is a major pandemic is laughable.

BC

True, but these are all "small" events. How many people in the CDC were actually involved in these responses? I agree they don't sit on their hands at all. I think they are a pretty competent bunch, and I have friends that have worked there. But they were not ready for a major pandemic, because IMHO of "It won't happen here" mentality. Perfectly understandable, because until now, it hadn't. Yes, in theory they should be preparing for it, but in practice they had other important things to do (as you point out), and the pandemic case in the USA just wasn't front burner.

I also think if we are going to suggest the CDC "failed", we should explicitly say what we think they were tasked with doing that they failed to do. My criticism would be mostly that they did not understand the difficulties that would arise in a large scale testing program in the USA. They didn't realize that they didn't have the ability to manufacture enough test kits to go around. They didn't realize their QC system was not adequate to manufacture tests. They also didn't realize that they needed to have tests that could be run by private and hospital labs on the PCR equipment that those labs owned and that this process needed to be planned for in advance. They didn't early on tell everybody that many more swabs would be needed and that the CDC couldn't supply them. These are mostly logistical questions, not scientific ones. The CDC is not the only group that didn't realize that the logistical questions would really matter, but they were the one organization that should have had an overview of what would be required.

Yeah, I mean, the CDC and HHS haven't updated their influenza pandemic preparedness manual since *checks notes* 2017.

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resourc...2017v2.pdf

It strikes me as silly that because the manual focused on influenza and not coronavirus that none of those lessons were applied.

BC

I'd like to quantify this very interesting discussion, so that people more knowledgable than I can take a crack at it.

1. Misinformation.  I'm going to start by linking this article from Commentary on the folly of hindsight. (Rothman shares my POV - an enormous distaste for Trump, but an even greater loathing for the excesses of his critics, but that's not why I posted the article.) Take a look at the fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs, which are as concise a timeline on recent events as you will find.

In mid January, the Chinese were still insisting there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission. Through mid-February, they were insisting that most cases were mild, and fatalities only occurring with moribund patients. The article doesn't mention this, but the CCP imprisoned at least one doctor who insisted otherwise, and extorted a public apology out of him. The WHO parroted this..

The result was a completely misplaced confidence about the virus that continued to the end of February. Depending on your politics, you can point the finger at Trump's sunshine-and-lollipops attitude, or the reflexive accusation of xenophobia from the opposition. Both preceded from the same misplaced state of mind, which makes finding villains a lost cause - there are either none at all, or too many. 

It's intuitively extremely plausible that the CDC labored under these false impressions until it was way too late. 

2. Complacency. BC notes the number of successes that the CDC has had in the past few decades, with ebola, SARS, and so on.  All of these were small scale outbreaks with diseases that, to the best of my knowledge, are not very communicable. Bult the agency did handle them well, and may very well have developed some institutional hubris as a result.

Now comes a virus on a scale and speed that is many quanta more than anything that the CDC have ever seen or believed it would see. Military analogies come easily - in the same way an army that is quite successful at responding to riots and small scale disorders may be completely unprepared for total blitzkrieg, and not know it, the CDC may have been completely ignorant of how unequipped it was to face this.

3. Regulatory morass. I don't know the origin of the regulations that obstructed the CDC from turning to private sources for testing kits when it needed them. For very different reasons, both Republicans and Democrats are wary of government/private industry colations. My guess is that they were promulgated in a vacuum by Congressional or CDC staffers, because they seemed like a good idea in theory, they satisfied political objections, and no one thought through the impact they might have in a worst case. That happens all the time.

4. Did It Fail? A real question. While the Chinese government was engaging in its reprehensible deceit, people were leaving the Wuhan province in the tens of thousands every day. 100,000 left on New Year's Day alone. It could be that the virus had already taken root - is the right word endemic? - before anything could be done.

Also, I am of the belief that the full lockdown now in place could not realistically be put in place any time before mid-March. There was insufficient public awareness, professional consensus, and political will. If Trump had tried it at the end of January, he would have been accused by the same people now condemning him for inaction as plotting a Fascist power grab, wag-the-dog, etc. Recall the impeachment - do you remember that was the big deal just 75 days ago - was barely over. As a matter of hard fact, I don't think national and world responsiveness was coming any sooner than it did.

6. What Do We Do Now? What the Congress should do is conduct a comprehensive review of CDC policies and practices in the wake of this. That's what South Korea did after a disastrous mismanagement of SARS in 2015, and the reason its response to C-19 ws so effective. But of course we won't. The drag of partisan politics is too great. The misplaced point of what will be another witch hunt will be a search for campaign ammunition rather than quiet analysis of problems and solutions.

The hope is that the professionals to whom these things actually matter will make the adjustments. After the debacle of Vietnam, the officer corps of the military quietly rebuilt US forces to become the most formidable force the world has ever known. The debacle of the hostage rescue mission in 1980 led to the creation of the unified Special Services forces that erased OBL in 2011. We DO have a cadre of professionals, to whom effective task management matters enormously more than who becomes President in 2020 - and ultimately I believe we can trust them.  I don't think the Titanic is going to sink twice.

Sorry for the length of this.

[BostonCard]

Genetic analysis has shown that most of the cases in New York were imported from Europe, not directly from China.

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/health-car...rchers-say

I share no love for the CCP, and GR has noted their failings in great detail. However, that does not excuse our own shortcomings.

I can answer #3.  The regulatory morass (at least with regards to testing) probably came from the FDA.  They are described well in this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/te...demic.html

I'm going to quote it extensively.

Dr. Stephen Hahn’s first day as F.D.A. commissioner came just six weeks before Mr. Azar declared a public health emergency on Jan. 31. A radiation oncologist and researcher who helped turn around MD Anderson in Houston, one of the nation’s leading cancer centers, Dr. Hahn had come to Washington to oversee a sprawling federal agency that regulates everything from lifesaving therapies to dog food.
But overnight, his mission — to manage 15,000 employees in a culture defined by precision and caution — was upended. A pathogen that Mr. Trump would later call the “invisible enemy” was hurtling toward the United States. It would fall to the newly arrived Dr. Hahn to help build a brobdingnagian national capacity for testing by academic and private labs.
Instead, under his leadership, the F.D.A. became a significant roadblock, according to current and former officials as well as researchers and doctors at laboratories around the country.
Private-sector tests were supposed to be the next tier after the C.D.C. fulfilled its obligation to jump-start screening at public labs. In other countries hit hard by the coronavirus, governments acted quickly to speed tests to their populations. In South Korea, for example, regulators in early February summoned executives from 20 medical manufacturers, easing rules as they demanded tests.
But Dr. Hahn took a cautious approach. He was not proactive in reaching out to manufacturers, and instead deferred to his scientists, following the F.D.A.’s often cumbersome methods for approving medical screening.

Now, the FDA is very capable of moving fast.  It is currently turning around protocols for investigational new drugs (INDs) and granting approval for clinical trials in as little as 1 day (normally, there's a 30-day review period).  But early in the crisis, the Agency failed with regard to clearing testing .  But also, it is up to Alex Azar (HHS secretary, who oversees both FDA and CDC) to recognize that if the FDA isn't clearing tests fast enough and it is impairing our ability to detect cases.  And if the response is not up to snuff, it is up to Azar's boss to get to the bottom of what is going on and clear the path (for example, by issuing an executive order).  Clearly the FDA was capable of easing commercial tests (and things have gone much more quickly since then), so this wasn't that the bureaucracy prevented them from doing so in the strict sense of the word.  It's just that no one lit a fire under their arse to get them to overcome the bureaucratic barriers.  Not Hahn, not Azar, and not Trump.  Clearly a President who can institute a 30-day travel ban from Europe could also have directed the FDA to get its act together.  But let's face it, while the President is perfectly willing to be bold, he tends towards large, highly visible, (and arguably symbolic) gestures.  But let's face it, understanding the nitty gritty of administrative procedure is not one of the President's strong suits.

BC

[BostonCard]

Genetic analysis has shown that most of the cases in New York were imported from Europe, not directly from China.

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/health-car...rchers-say

I share no love for the CCP, and GR has noted their failings in great detail. However, that does not excuse our own shortcomings.

I can answer #3.  The regulatory morass (at least with regards to testing) probably came from the FDA.  They are described well in this article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/28/us/te...demic.html

I'm going to quote it extensively.

Dr. Stephen Hahn’s first day as F.D.A. commissioner came just six weeks before Mr. Azar declared a public health emergency on Jan. 31. A radiation oncologist and researcher who helped turn around MD Anderson in Houston, one of the nation’s leading cancer centers, Dr. Hahn had come to Washington to oversee a sprawling federal agency that regulates everything from lifesaving therapies to dog food.
But overnight, his mission — to manage 15,000 employees in a culture defined by precision and caution — was upended. A pathogen that Mr. Trump would later call the “invisible enemy” was hurtling toward the United States. It would fall to the newly arrived Dr. Hahn to help build a brobdingnagian national capacity for testing by academic and private labs.
Instead, under his leadership, the F.D.A. became a significant roadblock, according to current and former officials as well as researchers and doctors at laboratories around the country.
Private-sector tests were supposed to be the next tier after the C.D.C. fulfilled its obligation to jump-start screening at public labs. In other countries hit hard by the coronavirus, governments acted quickly to speed tests to their populations. In South Korea, for example, regulators in early February summoned executives from 20 medical manufacturers, easing rules as they demanded tests.
But Dr. Hahn took a cautious approach. He was not proactive in reaching out to manufacturers, and instead deferred to his scientists, following the F.D.A.’s often cumbersome methods for approving medical screening.

Now, the FDA is very capable of moving fast.  It is currently turning around protocols for investigational new drugs (INDs) and granting approval for clinical trials in as little as 1 day (normally, there's a 30-day review period).  But early in the crisis, the Agency failed with regard to clearing testing .  But also, it is up to Alex Azar (HHS secretary, who oversees both FDA and CDC) to recognize that if the FDA isn't clearing tests fast enough and it is impairing our ability to detect cases.  And if the response is not up to snuff, it is up to Azar's boss to get to the bottom of what is going on and clear the path (for example, by issuing an executive order).  Clearly the FDA was capable of easing commercial tests (and things have gone much more quickly since then), so this wasn't that the bureaucracy prevented them from doing so in the strict sense of the word.  It's just that no one lit a fire under their arse to get them to overcome the bureaucratic barriers.  Not Hahn, not Azar, and not Trump.  Clearly a President who can institute a 30-day travel ban from Europe could also have directed the FDA to get its act together.  But let's face it, while the President is perfectly willing to be bold, he tends towards large, highly visible, (and arguably symbolic) gestures.  But let's face it, understanding the nitty gritty of administrative procedure is not one of the President's strong suits.

BC

[fullmetal]

Secession has been tried. It didn't go well.

Non sequitur: Apparently the governor of Mississippi has declared this month to be...Confederate Heritage Month.  I wonder if he realizes that the Confederates actually lost the war (they committed treason...).  Also, 25% of the Union army was comprised of soldiers from southern states, iirc.

[fullmetal]

Secession has been tried. It didn't go well.

Non sequitur: Apparently the governor of Mississippi has declared this month to be...Confederate Heritage Month.  I wonder if he realizes that the Confederates actually lost the war (they committed treason...).  Also, 25% of the Union army was comprised of soldiers from southern states, iirc.

[OutsiderFan]

And I thought my post drifted this thread...

We can simplify GR’s questions down to a couple explanations.

- All disasters are intelligence failures; either not collecting, or failing to use what is provided.
- All organizations only perform as well as the person at the top of the org chart allows.

Yesterday’s reporting that the U.S. IC was warning of a serious pandemic in November is a demonstration of the first point above, a failure to use intelligence to protect the U.S. And the rest of the explanation is provided by the second point.

I made a post last week explaining that I can see how some governments were not taking the developing pandemic seriously because China was not providing accurate information to demonstrate the severity of it.  That said, we now know in the U.S. case the IC had way better information than China made available publicly. And why wouldn’t it? I can only imagine the SiGINT and HUMINT collected, processed and provided to the POTUS and others well before the seriousness of the Chinese outbreak became clear publicly. So rather than intelligence being used to mobilize serious, expert-led action, public China information (propaganda) was used to justify doing nothing. The U.S. is suffering more than it had to because the person at the top accepted Chinese propaganda over truth provided by his own IC.

I get people want to move past blaming someone who seems not to be in charge of everything, but the reality is this is how all organizations work and why it is so critical to have competent, responsible, leaders. What we have now is someone at the top of the org chart who is unfit for the role and ill-equipped to see to it the levers of power are used to achieve less costly and damaging outcomes.

Most people are able to see this clearly. Others don’t really care about better outcomes and want as much pain and suffering as possible. Some even want better outcomes but are incapable of accepting truth because they don’t want to admit someone they judged to be fit, in fact is not, for whatever reason.

The CDC is a great institution but only when fully supported. The U.S. IC is incredibly capable of finding truth and providing insight into what is happening in the world, but if its customer isn’t interested in facts, and only information that bolsters a desired world view, it’s product isn’t worth much. If states are left to fend for themselves because the POTUS is more interested in finding scapegoats than taking responsibility to protect the country in accordance to his oath of office, the overall outcome will be much worse than it could have been, in countless ways.

Any leader takes responsibility for what goes wrong and praises others for what goes well. Our problem, as simple as it sounds, is we have no leader. It shows up so many places we find it hard to believe poor leadership at the top can possibly be why so many things go wrong. It may be hard, but it is the truth. A perfect proof point: James Dolan, New York Knicks.

[OutsiderFan]

And I thought my post drifted this thread...

We can simplify GR’s questions down to a couple explanations.

- All disasters are intelligence failures; either not collecting, or failing to use what is provided.
- All organizations only perform as well as the person at the top of the org chart allows.

Yesterday’s reporting that the U.S. IC was warning of a serious pandemic in November is a demonstration of the first point above, a failure to use intelligence to protect the U.S. And the rest of the explanation is provided by the second point.

I made a post last week explaining that I can see how some governments were not taking the developing pandemic seriously because China was not providing accurate information to demonstrate the severity of it.  That said, we now know in the U.S. case the IC had way better information than China made available publicly. And why wouldn’t it? I can only imagine the SiGINT and HUMINT collected, processed and provided to the POTUS and others well before the seriousness of the Chinese outbreak became clear publicly. So rather than intelligence being used to mobilize serious, expert-led action, public China information (propaganda) was used to justify doing nothing. The U.S. is suffering more than it had to because the person at the top accepted Chinese propaganda over truth provided by his own IC.

I get people want to move past blaming someone who seems not to be in charge of everything, but the reality is this is how all organizations work and why it is so critical to have competent, responsible, leaders. What we have now is someone at the top of the org chart who is unfit for the role and ill-equipped to see to it the levers of power are used to achieve less costly and damaging outcomes.

Most people are able to see this clearly. Others don’t really care about better outcomes and want as much pain and suffering as possible. Some even want better outcomes but are incapable of accepting truth because they don’t want to admit someone they judged to be fit, in fact is not, for whatever reason.

The CDC is a great institution but only when fully supported. The U.S. IC is incredibly capable of finding truth and providing insight into what is happening in the world, but if its customer isn’t interested in facts, and only information that bolsters a desired world view, it’s product isn’t worth much. If states are left to fend for themselves because the POTUS is more interested in finding scapegoats than taking responsibility to protect the country in accordance to his oath of office, the overall outcome will be much worse than it could have been, in countless ways.

Any leader takes responsibility for what goes wrong and praises others for what goes well. Our problem, as simple as it sounds, is we have no leader. It shows up so many places we find it hard to believe poor leadership at the top can possibly be why so many things go wrong. It may be hard, but it is the truth. A perfect proof point: James Dolan, New York Knicks.

[Mick]

Some other comparisons.

400,000 Americans died fighting in World War II.  Covid-19 has killed 14,000 in a little over a month (1940 in the last day alone).  While I don't think we will get to a similar number, I wouldn't be surprised if we get to 100,000+.

About 18 million Americans fought in World War II.  So far, the US has had 435,000 people infected with Covid-19.  We could easily eclipse the 18 million infected mark.

BC

I'd be surprised if we don't surpass 18 million.  60.8 million people caught the swine flu.

[Mick]

Some other comparisons.

400,000 Americans died fighting in World War II.  Covid-19 has killed 14,000 in a little over a month (1940 in the last day alone).  While I don't think we will get to a similar number, I wouldn't be surprised if we get to 100,000+.

About 18 million Americans fought in World War II.  So far, the US has had 435,000 people infected with Covid-19.  We could easily eclipse the 18 million infected mark.

BC

I'd be surprised if we don't surpass 18 million.  60.8 million people caught the swine flu.

[cardcrimson]

I'd be surprised if we don't surpass 18 million.  60.8 million people caught the swine flu.

My daughter, my wife, and I were among them. . . .

[cardcrimson]

I'd be surprised if we don't surpass 18 million.  60.8 million people caught the swine flu.

My daughter, my wife, and I were among them. . . .

[BostonCard]

Re-drifting this thread, here's one assessment...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...etectives/

Experts say that like a fishing net with many holes, the surveillance network had numerous gaps, with too little money and manpower to be truly effective. “We’ve been gutting surveillance for too long,” says Michael Buchmeier, a virologist and associate director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine. “And by doing that, we’re creating blind spots in our ability to identify and contain threats of infectious disease in the world.” Indeed, in September 2019, just months before the COVID-19 pandemic began, USAID announced it would end funding for PREDICT. The agency claims it has plans for a successor effort, but it has not provided any additional details, and many worry that critical momentum is being lost.

BC

[BostonCard]

Re-drifting this thread, here's one assessment...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...etectives/

Experts say that like a fishing net with many holes, the surveillance network had numerous gaps, with too little money and manpower to be truly effective. “We’ve been gutting surveillance for too long,” says Michael Buchmeier, a virologist and associate director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine. “And by doing that, we’re creating blind spots in our ability to identify and contain threats of infectious disease in the world.” Indeed, in September 2019, just months before the COVID-19 pandemic began, USAID announced it would end funding for PREDICT. The agency claims it has plans for a successor effort, but it has not provided any additional details, and many worry that critical momentum is being lost.

BC

[Genuine Realist]

And I thought my post drifted this thread...

We can simplify GR’s questions down to a couple explanations.

- All disasters are intelligence failures; either not collecting, or failing to use what is provided.
- All organizations only perform as well as the person at the top of the org chart allows.

Yesterday’s reporting that the U.S. IC was warning of a serious pandemic in November is a demonstration of the first point above, a failure to use intelligence to protect the U.S. And the rest of the explanation is provided by the second point.

I made a post last week explaining that I can see how some governments were not taking the developing pandemic seriously because China was not providing accurate information to demonstrate the severity of it.  That said, we now know in the U.S. case the IC had way better information than China made available publicly. And why wouldn’t it? I can only imagine the SiGINT and HUMINT collected, processed and provided to the POTUS and others well before the seriousness of the Chinese outbreak became clear publicly. So rather than intelligence being used to mobilize serious, expert-led action, public China information (propaganda) was used to justify doing nothing. The U.S. is suffering more than it had to because the person at the top accepted Chinese propaganda over truth provided by his own IC.

I get people want to move past blaming someone who seems not to be in charge of everything, but the reality is this is how all organizations work and why it is so critical to have competent, responsible, leaders. What we have now is someone at the top of the org chart who is unfit for the role and ill-equipped to see to it the levers of power are used to achieve less costly and damaging outcomes.

Most people are able to see this clearly. Others don’t really care about better outcomes and want as much pain and suffering as possible. Some even want better outcomes but are incapable of accepting truth because they don’t want to admit someone they judged to be fit, in fact is not, for whatever reason.

The CDC is a great institution but only when fully supported. The U.S. IC is incredibly capable of finding truth and providing insight into what is happening in the world, but if its customer isn’t interested in facts, and only information that bolsters a desired world view, it’s product isn’t worth much. If states are left to fend for themselves because the POTUS is more interested in finding scapegoats than taking responsibility to protect the country in accordance to his oath of office, the overall outcome will be much worse than it could have been, in countless ways.

Any leader takes responsibility for what goes wrong and praises others for what goes well. Our problem, as simple as it sounds, is we have no leader. It shows up so many places we find it hard to believe poor leadership at the top can possibly be why so many things go wrong. It may be hard, but it is the truth. A perfect proof point: James Dolan, New York Knicks.

It turns out that the report yesterday was phony. There is no such intelligence report.

[Genuine Realist]

And I thought my post drifted this thread...

We can simplify GR’s questions down to a couple explanations.

- All disasters are intelligence failures; either not collecting, or failing to use what is provided.
- All organizations only perform as well as the person at the top of the org chart allows.

Yesterday’s reporting that the U.S. IC was warning of a serious pandemic in November is a demonstration of the first point above, a failure to use intelligence to protect the U.S. And the rest of the explanation is provided by the second point.

I made a post last week explaining that I can see how some governments were not taking the developing pandemic seriously because China was not providing accurate information to demonstrate the severity of it.  That said, we now know in the U.S. case the IC had way better information than China made available publicly. And why wouldn’t it? I can only imagine the SiGINT and HUMINT collected, processed and provided to the POTUS and others well before the seriousness of the Chinese outbreak became clear publicly. So rather than intelligence being used to mobilize serious, expert-led action, public China information (propaganda) was used to justify doing nothing. The U.S. is suffering more than it had to because the person at the top accepted Chinese propaganda over truth provided by his own IC.

I get people want to move past blaming someone who seems not to be in charge of everything, but the reality is this is how all organizations work and why it is so critical to have competent, responsible, leaders. What we have now is someone at the top of the org chart who is unfit for the role and ill-equipped to see to it the levers of power are used to achieve less costly and damaging outcomes.

Most people are able to see this clearly. Others don’t really care about better outcomes and want as much pain and suffering as possible. Some even want better outcomes but are incapable of accepting truth because they don’t want to admit someone they judged to be fit, in fact is not, for whatever reason.

The CDC is a great institution but only when fully supported. The U.S. IC is incredibly capable of finding truth and providing insight into what is happening in the world, but if its customer isn’t interested in facts, and only information that bolsters a desired world view, it’s product isn’t worth much. If states are left to fend for themselves because the POTUS is more interested in finding scapegoats than taking responsibility to protect the country in accordance to his oath of office, the overall outcome will be much worse than it could have been, in countless ways.

Any leader takes responsibility for what goes wrong and praises others for what goes well. Our problem, as simple as it sounds, is we have no leader. It shows up so many places we find it hard to believe poor leadership at the top can possibly be why so many things go wrong. It may be hard, but it is the truth. A perfect proof point: James Dolan, New York Knicks.

It turns out that the report yesterday was phony. There is no such intelligence report.

[burger]

It turns out that the report yesterday was phony. There is no such intelligence report.

Yeah, Trump administration people are SUPER credible on this issue after spending months lying about the virus and misleading the country at every opportunity.

[burger]

It turns out that the report yesterday was phony. There is no such intelligence report.

Yeah, Trump administration people are SUPER credible on this issue after spending months lying about the virus and misleading the country at every opportunity.

[Genuine Realist]

Re-drifting this thread, here's one assessment...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...etectives/

Experts say that like a fishing net with many holes, the surveillance network had numerous gaps, with too little money and manpower to be truly effective. “We’ve been gutting surveillance for too long,” says Michael Buchmeier, a virologist and associate director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine. “And by doing that, we’re creating blind spots in our ability to identify and contain threats of infectious disease in the world.” Indeed, in September 2019, just months before the COVID-19 pandemic began, USAID announced it would end funding for PREDICT. The agency claims it has plans for a successor effort, but it has not provided any additional details, and many worry that critical momentum is being lost.

BC

It's a good article, but there is an elephant in the room. Why is this PREDICT being administered by the USAID? As a type of foreign aid? How exactly does it interact with the CDC and other US agencies and health agencies in other countries? Etc.

---

It turns out that the report yesterday was phony. There is no such intelligence report.

Yeah, Trump administration people are SUPER credible on this issue after spending months lying about the virus and misleading the country at every opportunity.

The denial isn't from Trump people, but the intelligence agency itself. 

As I noted above, Trump was criticized for doing what he did do. If you click on one of the links in Rothman's article, you'll come to a rather smug op-ed in the New York Times, in early February, telling us that all is well and our real danger is in overreaction. One of those who criticized the border closing measures was Joe Biden, in statements I am certain he regrets now.

Trying to make campaign issues out of this stuff by either Party just isn't going to work. Through February, there was too much consensus on an overly optimistic scenario.

[Genuine Realist]

Re-drifting this thread, here's one assessment...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...etectives/

Experts say that like a fishing net with many holes, the surveillance network had numerous gaps, with too little money and manpower to be truly effective. “We’ve been gutting surveillance for too long,” says Michael Buchmeier, a virologist and associate director of the Center for Virus Research at the University of California, Irvine. “And by doing that, we’re creating blind spots in our ability to identify and contain threats of infectious disease in the world.” Indeed, in September 2019, just months before the COVID-19 pandemic began, USAID announced it would end funding for PREDICT. The agency claims it has plans for a successor effort, but it has not provided any additional details, and many worry that critical momentum is being lost.

BC

It's a good article, but there is an elephant in the room. Why is this PREDICT being administered by the USAID? As a type of foreign aid? How exactly does it interact with the CDC and other US agencies and health agencies in other countries? Etc.

---

It turns out that the report yesterday was phony. There is no such intelligence report.

Yeah, Trump administration people are SUPER credible on this issue after spending months lying about the virus and misleading the country at every opportunity.

The denial isn't from Trump people, but the intelligence agency itself. 

As I noted above, Trump was criticized for doing what he did do. If you click on one of the links in Rothman's article, you'll come to a rather smug op-ed in the New York Times, in early February, telling us that all is well and our real danger is in overreaction. One of those who criticized the border closing measures was Joe Biden, in statements I am certain he regrets now.

Trying to make campaign issues out of this stuff by either Party just isn't going to work. Through February, there was too much consensus on an overly optimistic scenario.