[BostonCard]

The CDC is now saying it will not change its guidelines in response to Trump.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/...39155c55cd

CDC Director Robert Redfield pushed back in a Good Morning America interview Thursday saying that “our guidelines are our guidelines,” and that the CDC will provide additional reference documents for schools but that “it’s not a revision of the guidelines.”

Redfield emphasized that the CDC produces guidelines, not requirements, to help local jurisdictions and that the agency is working with the jurisdictions to “take the portfolio of guidance that we have given to make them practical for their schools to reopen.”

Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but this is more along the lines of what I was advocating.

BC

[BostonCard]

The CDC is now saying it will not change its guidelines in response to Trump.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/...39155c55cd

CDC Director Robert Redfield pushed back in a Good Morning America interview Thursday saying that “our guidelines are our guidelines,” and that the CDC will provide additional reference documents for schools but that “it’s not a revision of the guidelines.”

Redfield emphasized that the CDC produces guidelines, not requirements, to help local jurisdictions and that the agency is working with the jurisdictions to “take the portfolio of guidance that we have given to make them practical for their schools to reopen.”

Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but this is more along the lines of what I was advocating.

BC

[Goose]

The CDC is now saying it will not change its guidelines in response to Trump.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/...39155c55cd

CDC Director Robert Redfield pushed back in a Good Morning America interview Thursday saying that “our guidelines are our guidelines,” and that the CDC will provide additional reference documents for schools but that “it’s not a revision of the guidelines.”

Redfield emphasized that the CDC produces guidelines, not requirements, to help local jurisdictions and that the agency is working with the jurisdictions to “take the portfolio of guidance that we have given to make them practical for their schools to reopen.”

Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but this is more along the lines of what I was advocating.

BC

Anyone who believes that the positions taken by the CDC over the years are not profoundly influenced by politics lives in a dream world. Trump and his administration are just particularly inept on how they do it. Previous administrations appointed leaders who were on board with the President's agenda and who knew where the lines were that couldn't be crossed. Trump is so erratic and so unable to get quality people that we see the heavy hand of his political agenda (subject to change without notice) dumped on the CDC. You can't honor a constantly moving agenda even if you want to do so. With other presidents, it was there, just behind the curtain.

If you don't believe that, then you must also believe that nobody at the CDC had any idea at all that the USA was not prepared for a major epidemic. We have seen that the CDC did have publications calling attention to the inadequacies of the testing capabilities a decade before this current mess. Yet, did any head of the CDC or HHS go on national TV and sound an alarm? NO. Why? Because their boss didn't want them to do so. It wasn't politically expedient.

The military is much better at dealing with this kind of political restraint. A few more set-asides for HHS might have saved us a lot of pain, but that wasn't politically acceptable. That said, even the military gets ground down by repeated presidential appointments that follow the president's agenda. It is also true that the president eventually gets an intelligence community that reports what he wants to hear. It usually takes at least 6 years to do this however.

[Goose]

The CDC is now saying it will not change its guidelines in response to Trump.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/...39155c55cd

CDC Director Robert Redfield pushed back in a Good Morning America interview Thursday saying that “our guidelines are our guidelines,” and that the CDC will provide additional reference documents for schools but that “it’s not a revision of the guidelines.”

Redfield emphasized that the CDC produces guidelines, not requirements, to help local jurisdictions and that the agency is working with the jurisdictions to “take the portfolio of guidance that we have given to make them practical for their schools to reopen.”

Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but this is more along the lines of what I was advocating.

BC

Anyone who believes that the positions taken by the CDC over the years are not profoundly influenced by politics lives in a dream world. Trump and his administration are just particularly inept on how they do it. Previous administrations appointed leaders who were on board with the President's agenda and who knew where the lines were that couldn't be crossed. Trump is so erratic and so unable to get quality people that we see the heavy hand of his political agenda (subject to change without notice) dumped on the CDC. You can't honor a constantly moving agenda even if you want to do so. With other presidents, it was there, just behind the curtain.

If you don't believe that, then you must also believe that nobody at the CDC had any idea at all that the USA was not prepared for a major epidemic. We have seen that the CDC did have publications calling attention to the inadequacies of the testing capabilities a decade before this current mess. Yet, did any head of the CDC or HHS go on national TV and sound an alarm? NO. Why? Because their boss didn't want them to do so. It wasn't politically expedient.

The military is much better at dealing with this kind of political restraint. A few more set-asides for HHS might have saved us a lot of pain, but that wasn't politically acceptable. That said, even the military gets ground down by repeated presidential appointments that follow the president's agenda. It is also true that the president eventually gets an intelligence community that reports what he wants to hear. It usually takes at least 6 years to do this however.

[lex24]

The CDC is now saying it will not change its guidelines in response to Trump.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/...39155c55cd

CDC Director Robert Redfield pushed back in a Good Morning America interview Thursday saying that “our guidelines are our guidelines,” and that the CDC will provide additional reference documents for schools but that “it’s not a revision of the guidelines.”

Redfield emphasized that the CDC produces guidelines, not requirements, to help local jurisdictions and that the agency is working with the jurisdictions to “take the portfolio of guidance that we have given to make them practical for their schools to reopen.”

Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but this is more along the lines of what I was advocating.

BC

Anyone who believes that the positions taken by the CDC over the years are not profoundly influenced by politics lives in a dream world. Trump and his administration are just particularly inept on how they do it. Previous administrations appointed leaders who were on board with the President's agenda and who knew where the lines were that couldn't be crossed. Trump is so erratic and so unable to get quality people that we see the heavy hand of his political agenda (subject to change without notice) dumped on the CDC. You can't honor a constantly moving agenda even if you want to do so. With other presidents, it was there, just behind the curtain.

If you don't believe that, then you must also believe that nobody at the CDC had any idea at all that the USA was not prepared for a major epidemic. We have seen that the CDC did have publications calling attention to the inadequacies of the testing capabilities a decade before this current mess. Yet, did any head of the CDC or HHS go on national TV and sound an alarm? NO. Why? Because their boss didn't want them to do so. It wasn't politically expedient.

The military is much better at dealing with this kind of political restraint. A few more set-asides for HHS might have saved us a lot of pain, but that wasn't politically acceptable. That said, even the military gets ground down by repeated presidential appointments that follow the president's agenda. It is also true that the president eventually gets an intelligence community that reports what he wants to hear. It usually takes at least 6 years to do this however.

If I’m reading you correctly, you are stating that our lack of preparedness extends over time and Administrations.  If true, not surprising.  No political will to push that issue.  And the response would likely have been tepid at best.

I think you accurately set forth a major problem with this Administration.

[lex24]

The CDC is now saying it will not change its guidelines in response to Trump.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/...39155c55cd

CDC Director Robert Redfield pushed back in a Good Morning America interview Thursday saying that “our guidelines are our guidelines,” and that the CDC will provide additional reference documents for schools but that “it’s not a revision of the guidelines.”

Redfield emphasized that the CDC produces guidelines, not requirements, to help local jurisdictions and that the agency is working with the jurisdictions to “take the portfolio of guidance that we have given to make them practical for their schools to reopen.”

Perhaps a distinction without a difference, but this is more along the lines of what I was advocating.

BC

Anyone who believes that the positions taken by the CDC over the years are not profoundly influenced by politics lives in a dream world. Trump and his administration are just particularly inept on how they do it. Previous administrations appointed leaders who were on board with the President's agenda and who knew where the lines were that couldn't be crossed. Trump is so erratic and so unable to get quality people that we see the heavy hand of his political agenda (subject to change without notice) dumped on the CDC. You can't honor a constantly moving agenda even if you want to do so. With other presidents, it was there, just behind the curtain.

If you don't believe that, then you must also believe that nobody at the CDC had any idea at all that the USA was not prepared for a major epidemic. We have seen that the CDC did have publications calling attention to the inadequacies of the testing capabilities a decade before this current mess. Yet, did any head of the CDC or HHS go on national TV and sound an alarm? NO. Why? Because their boss didn't want them to do so. It wasn't politically expedient.

The military is much better at dealing with this kind of political restraint. A few more set-asides for HHS might have saved us a lot of pain, but that wasn't politically acceptable. That said, even the military gets ground down by repeated presidential appointments that follow the president's agenda. It is also true that the president eventually gets an intelligence community that reports what he wants to hear. It usually takes at least 6 years to do this however.

If I’m reading you correctly, you are stating that our lack of preparedness extends over time and Administrations.  If true, not surprising.  No political will to push that issue.  And the response would likely have been tepid at best.

I think you accurately set forth a major problem with this Administration.

[Goose]

If I’m reading you correctly, you are stating that our lack of preparedness extends over time and Administrations.

Absolutely I am saying that. I think there can be no question this is the case. The CDC's own documents show this. The USPHS has also been neglected to the point it is a vestigial organization. Look at https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/if...e-fund-it/ After reading this article, consider it is referring to 6000 people. A drop in the ocean with COVID-19. The rot is deep and widespread.

If true, not surprising.  No political will to push that issue.  And the response would likely have been tepid at best.

There are two issues here. One is that the CDC could have and should have configured themselves to optimally respond subject to the constraints they had. They didn't do this. Instead of starting a program to involve industry and industrial labs in testing, which would have cost very little, they just ignored the problems. There are tons of things they could have done to make do with what they had. It would also be possible to involve specific members of congress in adding appropriations earmarked for particular CDC programs. Normally, I oppose this practice, but if real issues are being ignored that can be addressed at reasonable cost, it should be done. Earmarks are pork, but sometimes it does bring home some bacon.

The CDC became much more involved in epidemic response in the rest of the world. That is an important function, and it did help us avoid some epidemics spreading more widely. It is a valid role. They used USPHS personnel to do this. If you look at the reports praising the Ebola response in Liberia, you will eventually discover that the personnel are actually double-counted, with both agencies taking credit for the same people. Unfortunately, this type of response doesn't help with an epidemic that reaches the US. 500 people is a big deal in Liberia. It is nothing in the USA.

The second issue is that the people appointed to HHS and CDC management positions over the years have not been "doers". Lots of good sound bites, but no real desire to make changes and call attention to real problems. I am not convinced that Congress would have been tepid about a real alarm regarding our epidemic preparedness. Furthermore, fixing that kind of a problem is motherhood. Nobody can really oppose it. It is also lots cheaper than a lot of the other problems we have, and a lot better understood. Unfortunately no president appointed anything but  "yes men" to the leadership posts. It wasn't  a problem in the public mind and they made sure nobody tried to make it one. It is a culture issue.

[Goose]

If I’m reading you correctly, you are stating that our lack of preparedness extends over time and Administrations.

Absolutely I am saying that. I think there can be no question this is the case. The CDC's own documents show this. The USPHS has also been neglected to the point it is a vestigial organization. Look at https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/if...e-fund-it/ After reading this article, consider it is referring to 6000 people. A drop in the ocean with COVID-19. The rot is deep and widespread.

If true, not surprising.  No political will to push that issue.  And the response would likely have been tepid at best.

There are two issues here. One is that the CDC could have and should have configured themselves to optimally respond subject to the constraints they had. They didn't do this. Instead of starting a program to involve industry and industrial labs in testing, which would have cost very little, they just ignored the problems. There are tons of things they could have done to make do with what they had. It would also be possible to involve specific members of congress in adding appropriations earmarked for particular CDC programs. Normally, I oppose this practice, but if real issues are being ignored that can be addressed at reasonable cost, it should be done. Earmarks are pork, but sometimes it does bring home some bacon.

The CDC became much more involved in epidemic response in the rest of the world. That is an important function, and it did help us avoid some epidemics spreading more widely. It is a valid role. They used USPHS personnel to do this. If you look at the reports praising the Ebola response in Liberia, you will eventually discover that the personnel are actually double-counted, with both agencies taking credit for the same people. Unfortunately, this type of response doesn't help with an epidemic that reaches the US. 500 people is a big deal in Liberia. It is nothing in the USA.

The second issue is that the people appointed to HHS and CDC management positions over the years have not been "doers". Lots of good sound bites, but no real desire to make changes and call attention to real problems. I am not convinced that Congress would have been tepid about a real alarm regarding our epidemic preparedness. Furthermore, fixing that kind of a problem is motherhood. Nobody can really oppose it. It is also lots cheaper than a lot of the other problems we have, and a lot better understood. Unfortunately no president appointed anything but  "yes men" to the leadership posts. It wasn't  a problem in the public mind and they made sure nobody tried to make it one. It is a culture issue.

[M T]

To paraphrase the CDC,

       The efficacy of following the recommendations of the CDC has not been systematically studied.  Therefore the CDC does not recommend following the recommendations of the CDC.

[M T]

To paraphrase the CDC,

       The efficacy of following the recommendations of the CDC has not been systematically studied.  Therefore the CDC does not recommend following the recommendations of the CDC.

[BostonCard]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

[BostonCard]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

[Goose]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

BC, I think your example clearly shows how they are the same thing. You can bet if the president feels that gun violence is not a CDC issue there won't be any advisories regarding gun violence coming out from the CDC. It may be that scientifically gun violence is a major cause of death, but if the president doesn't want to hear that, he appoints people that make sure he doesn't. If you work for the CDC and think gun violence should be an issue and an advisory should be issued you have two choices, stay in your lane or quit.

Much of the "influencing" normally goes on behind the scenes, and we don't see it or hear about it. A guidance is issued and everyone stands behind it. It was actually vetted by the president's staff, but we don't know that. In a well-oiled federal bureaucracy, everyone stays on message. Naturally, that is easier to do if the message is clearly articulated and consistent. It doesn't have to be "scientifically correct". The current president is just so bad a manager he can't pull that off, and we get a guidance that has to be revised in public, not private.

[Goose]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

BC, I think your example clearly shows how they are the same thing. You can bet if the president feels that gun violence is not a CDC issue there won't be any advisories regarding gun violence coming out from the CDC. It may be that scientifically gun violence is a major cause of death, but if the president doesn't want to hear that, he appoints people that make sure he doesn't. If you work for the CDC and think gun violence should be an issue and an advisory should be issued you have two choices, stay in your lane or quit.

Much of the "influencing" normally goes on behind the scenes, and we don't see it or hear about it. A guidance is issued and everyone stands behind it. It was actually vetted by the president's staff, but we don't know that. In a well-oiled federal bureaucracy, everyone stays on message. Naturally, that is easier to do if the message is clearly articulated and consistent. It doesn't have to be "scientifically correct". The current president is just so bad a manager he can't pull that off, and we get a guidance that has to be revised in public, not private.

[dabigv13]

Today the WaPo published an article on this very issue. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/tr...story.html

[dabigv13]

Today the WaPo published an article on this very issue. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/tr...story.html

[BostonCard]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

BC, I think your example clearly shows how they are the same thing. You can bet if the president feels that gun violence is not a CDC issue there won't be any advisories regarding gun violence coming out from the CDC. It may be that scientifically gun violence is a major cause of death, but if the president doesn't want to hear that, he appoints people that make sure he doesn't. If you work for the CDC and think gun violence should be an issue and an advisory should be issued you have two choices, stay in your lane or quit.

Much of the "influencing" normally goes on behind the scenes, and we don't see it or hear about it. A guidance is issued and everyone stands behind it. It was actually vetted by the president's staff, but we don't know that. In a well-oiled federal bureaucracy, everyone stays on message. Naturally, that is easier to do if the message is clearly articulated and consistent. It doesn't have to be "scientifically correct". The current president is just so bad a manager he can't pull that off, and we get a guidance that has to be revised in public, not private.

I believe there is a difference between broad priority-setting, which is an inherently political endeavor, and indeed very well could be a candidate's campaign position (see, for example, Elizabeth Warren's plan: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/combat...t-20200128).  It is quite another to overrule the science due to political constraints.

If you are a CDC scientist, and your boss tells you, "the new administration is really concerned about the opioid epidemic and wants us to devote more resources to reviewing the science of what is the best way to combat the opioid epidemic", that's a totally fair priority setting exercise.  On the other hand, having delved into the science and written the draft report, it is quite another for your boss to say, "The White House doesn't want to fund more treatment centers for addiction; they want you to change your report to highlight the role of law enforcement", then that is not a question of priorities, that is a question of trying to dictate the science, and I do think it crosses a line.

BC

[BostonCard]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

BC, I think your example clearly shows how they are the same thing. You can bet if the president feels that gun violence is not a CDC issue there won't be any advisories regarding gun violence coming out from the CDC. It may be that scientifically gun violence is a major cause of death, but if the president doesn't want to hear that, he appoints people that make sure he doesn't. If you work for the CDC and think gun violence should be an issue and an advisory should be issued you have two choices, stay in your lane or quit.

Much of the "influencing" normally goes on behind the scenes, and we don't see it or hear about it. A guidance is issued and everyone stands behind it. It was actually vetted by the president's staff, but we don't know that. In a well-oiled federal bureaucracy, everyone stays on message. Naturally, that is easier to do if the message is clearly articulated and consistent. It doesn't have to be "scientifically correct". The current president is just so bad a manager he can't pull that off, and we get a guidance that has to be revised in public, not private.

I believe there is a difference between broad priority-setting, which is an inherently political endeavor, and indeed very well could be a candidate's campaign position (see, for example, Elizabeth Warren's plan: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/combat...t-20200128).  It is quite another to overrule the science due to political constraints.

If you are a CDC scientist, and your boss tells you, "the new administration is really concerned about the opioid epidemic and wants us to devote more resources to reviewing the science of what is the best way to combat the opioid epidemic", that's a totally fair priority setting exercise.  On the other hand, having delved into the science and written the draft report, it is quite another for your boss to say, "The White House doesn't want to fund more treatment centers for addiction; they want you to change your report to highlight the role of law enforcement", then that is not a question of priorities, that is a question of trying to dictate the science, and I do think it crosses a line.

BC

[Goose]

If you are a CDC scientist, and your boss tells you, "the new administration is really concerned about the opioid epidemic and wants us to devote more resources to reviewing the science of what is the best way to combat the opioid epidemic", that's a totally fair priority setting exercise.  On the other hand, having delved into the science and written the draft report, it is quite another for your boss to say, "The White House doesn't want to fund more treatment centers for addiction; they want you to change your report to highlight the role of law enforcement", then that is not a question of priorities, that is a question of trying to dictate the science, and I do think it crosses a line.


BC

What would actually happen is your boss (or more probably a committee on which he sits) would just change the document. If you complain, you will be told it is above your pay grade. It this happens often you will simply not be asked to write any more position papers. Getting promoted will become difficult. Probably you decide to change jobs if this really becomes an issue. That is how it works. Of course, if the administration changes it's policy or a new administration arrives, you may become a retroactive hero. YMMV. That is how these agencies have always been, and it is unrealistic to expect otherwise.

The example you cite illustrates the issue, although I do not agree with your belief that changing the focus of the document is attempting to dictate the science. One may have statistics that show dollars spent on treatment centers are very effective. The statistics one has may also show dollars spent on law enforcement are less effective, dollar for dollar. One may have put that fact into the document. One may therefore strongly believe we should fund more treatment centers rather than law enforcement because of those statistics. If your boss alters the document to say the opposite, namely that statistics show that dollars spent on law enforcement are more effective dollar for dollar, that is dictating the science. If your boss removes that statement, that is dictating policy. Your boss can't do the former. That would be just plain lying and would be dictating science, in so far as the true statistics support a different policy. He can do the latter. It is not incumbent on any government organization to present all the arguments against their selected policy. No administration does that. That is why we have a free press.

I believe it is very important to differentiate "science" from "the opinion of (a, some, many) scientists". There are some theories that can be regarded as "scientifically proven". Every so often, one of those will turn out to be overcome by new data, but when that happens, it is an earthquake in the field in question. There are lots of other theories that have a lot of experimental data indicating they are "probably" true. There are many, many, more theories that are accepted by science as the best we have at the moment. However, when one draws inferences from these theories, it becomes the opinion (recommendations) of scientists. If these opinions involve actions (policy), the degree of scientific support for the premises is not linearly transitive to the actions. The policy decision is not science. There are often moral, sociological, legal, political, and "engineering" considerations that must be evaluated as well as the scientific reasoning for an action/policy. Choosing a different policy under those conditions is not "ignoring science". It happens all the time, and not just at the CDC or in the government.

[Goose]

If you are a CDC scientist, and your boss tells you, "the new administration is really concerned about the opioid epidemic and wants us to devote more resources to reviewing the science of what is the best way to combat the opioid epidemic", that's a totally fair priority setting exercise.  On the other hand, having delved into the science and written the draft report, it is quite another for your boss to say, "The White House doesn't want to fund more treatment centers for addiction; they want you to change your report to highlight the role of law enforcement", then that is not a question of priorities, that is a question of trying to dictate the science, and I do think it crosses a line.


BC

What would actually happen is your boss (or more probably a committee on which he sits) would just change the document. If you complain, you will be told it is above your pay grade. It this happens often you will simply not be asked to write any more position papers. Getting promoted will become difficult. Probably you decide to change jobs if this really becomes an issue. That is how it works. Of course, if the administration changes it's policy or a new administration arrives, you may become a retroactive hero. YMMV. That is how these agencies have always been, and it is unrealistic to expect otherwise.

The example you cite illustrates the issue, although I do not agree with your belief that changing the focus of the document is attempting to dictate the science. One may have statistics that show dollars spent on treatment centers are very effective. The statistics one has may also show dollars spent on law enforcement are less effective, dollar for dollar. One may have put that fact into the document. One may therefore strongly believe we should fund more treatment centers rather than law enforcement because of those statistics. If your boss alters the document to say the opposite, namely that statistics show that dollars spent on law enforcement are more effective dollar for dollar, that is dictating the science. If your boss removes that statement, that is dictating policy. Your boss can't do the former. That would be just plain lying and would be dictating science, in so far as the true statistics support a different policy. He can do the latter. It is not incumbent on any government organization to present all the arguments against their selected policy. No administration does that. That is why we have a free press.

I believe it is very important to differentiate "science" from "the opinion of (a, some, many) scientists". There are some theories that can be regarded as "scientifically proven". Every so often, one of those will turn out to be overcome by new data, but when that happens, it is an earthquake in the field in question. There are lots of other theories that have a lot of experimental data indicating they are "probably" true. There are many, many, more theories that are accepted by science as the best we have at the moment. However, when one draws inferences from these theories, it becomes the opinion (recommendations) of scientists. If these opinions involve actions (policy), the degree of scientific support for the premises is not linearly transitive to the actions. The policy decision is not science. There are often moral, sociological, legal, political, and "engineering" considerations that must be evaluated as well as the scientific reasoning for an action/policy. Choosing a different policy under those conditions is not "ignoring science". It happens all the time, and not just at the CDC or in the government.