Trust - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Trust (/thread-20428.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Trust (/thread-20428.html)
Pages:
1
2
Trust - BostonCard - 09-11-2020
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/exclusive-trump-officials-interfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809
Quote:The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports are authored by career scientists and serve as the main vehicle for the agency to inform doctors, researchers and the general public about how Covid-19 is spreading and who is at risk. Such reports have historically been published with little fanfare and no political interference, said several longtime health department officials, and have been viewed as a cornerstone of the nation's public health work for decades.
But since Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign official with no medical or scientific background, was installed in April as the health department's new spokesperson, there have been substantial efforts to align the reports with Trump's statements, including the president's claims that fears about the outbreak are overstated, or stop the reports altogether.
Simply put, this is bad for trust. And it is completely ass backwards. MMWR articles, which I have shared here on several occasions, should not be edited to "align" with the President's comments. Full stop. I don't think I can understate how corrosive this action is on healthcare practitioner's trust in the CDC's scientific output. I never in a million years thought that articles in MMWR would be manipulated in that way (and I start out with a heavy dose of skepticism about the administration).
At a minimum, Redfield and Caputo (and their boss, Alex Azar) should resign (narrator: they won't). It is entirely possible that they have caused irrevocable damage to the institution of the CDC, which has already been hurt by a number of missteps, but this crosses the line beyond sheer incompetence. I don't think I can really express how upset this makes me.
BC
RE: Trust - fullmetal - 09-11-2020
We used to look down on the Soviet bureaucracy and military for their installation of "political officers" at various organizational levels lateral to decision makers, and here we are, doing the same but with *less* efficiency in the middle of a pandemic but replacing decision makers with said political appointees...just great.
RE: Trust - Hurlburt88 - 09-12-2020
Public servants. Serve . . . with professionalism and integrity.
Big sigh
RE: Trust - DocSavage87 - 09-12-2020
(09-11-2020, 10:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/11/exclusive-trump-officials-interfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809
Quote:The CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports are authored by career scientists and serve as the main vehicle for the agency to inform doctors, researchers and the general public about how Covid-19 is spreading and who is at risk. Such reports have historically been published with little fanfare and no political interference, said several longtime health department officials, and have been viewed as a cornerstone of the nation's public health work for decades.
But since Michael Caputo, a former Trump campaign official with no medical or scientific background, was installed in April as the health department's new spokesperson, there have been substantial efforts to align the reports with Trump's statements, including the president's claims that fears about the outbreak are overstated, or stop the reports altogether.
Simply put, this is bad for trust. And it is completely ass backwards. MMWR articles, which I have shared here on several occasions, should not be edited to "align" with the President's comments. Full stop. I don't think I can understate how corrosive this action is on healthcare practitioner's trust in the CDC's scientific output. I never in a million years thought that articles in MMWR would be manipulated in that way (and I start out with a heavy dose of skepticism about the administration).
At a minimum, Redfield and Caputo (and their boss, Alex Azar) should resign (narrator: they won't). It is entirely possible that they have caused irrevocable damage to the institution of the CDC, which has already been hurt by a number of missteps, but this crosses the line beyond sheer incompetence. I don't think I can really express how upset this makes me.
BC
Totally agree and frankly/sadly, unsurprising. This is also happening at the state level as politicians try to paint rosier pictures.
RE: Trust - Farm93 - 09-12-2020
(09-11-2020, 10:29 PM)BostonCard Wrote: At a minimum, Redfield and Caputo (and their boss, Alex Azar) should resign (narrator: they won't). It is entirely possible that they have caused irrevocable damage to the institution of the CDC, which has already been hurt by a number of missteps, but this crosses the line beyond sheer incompetence. I don't think I can really express how upset this makes me.Damage is definitely already done. It will impact the USA in ways we may not fully comprehend for decades.
BC
Deaths and hospitalizations in the short term
Distrust in vaccinations and medical approvals in the medium term
USA's role in establishing global standards of care and bringing health care innovations to market in the longer term.
While the long term issues will overwhelm the short-term economic strength these individuals seek, the increase in COVID deaths in 2020 caused by this confusion and erosion of trust is simply indefensible IMHO.
RE: Trust - OutsiderFan - 09-12-2020
The CDC will be fine if Biden is sworn in on January 20th. Yes, lots of damage has been done to our institutions by hiding truth and pushing propaganda for political purposes, but things can get back on track fast. Don't lose faith in the institutions. Take actions to remove those who are weakening their ability to tell us the truth.
RE: Trust - Farm93 - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 08:53 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The CDC will be fine if Biden is sworn in on January 20th. Yes, lots of damage has been done to our institutions by hiding truth and pushing propaganda for political purposes, but things can get back on track fast. Don't lose faith in the institutions. Take actions to remove those who are weakening their ability to tell us the truth.Nice thought, but history suggests it will not be that easy.
UFOs - A simple little lie to cover up military experiments - several decades later and people still believe the USA has some aliens in the desert. Or if you will in our DNA at this point. Those inclined to believe in conspiracies or distrust government will question some (or all) of the information they get from government. There is already a large anti-vaxx crew that leaves the USA vulnerable to any number of diseases and kills thousands every year (flu).
QAnon, deep state and other similar things won't go away by a single election day, especially if the winners of several offices are only established once mail-in ballots have been tallied days after election night.
A number of nations around the world were ready to stop relying on the FDA as some sort of international standard on healthcare. The USA's 2020 distrust of science, medicine, math and stats will strengthen the beliefs of those seeking alternatives.
In other industries the USA's image as a STEM leader cascades into brand equity for hundreds of USA companies. The USA's inability to take obvious steps (like wearing a mask or avoid large crowds) will erode the equity linked to the USA's image for quite a while.
How significant is that ding to our national image for the USA economy? Don't know, but I suspect it is worth a lot more than the stock market bump the Trump Administration is fighting to get over the next 6-8 weeks.
RE: Trust - BostonCard - 09-12-2020
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.
-- Warren Buffett
One would hope that with competent management, the damage can be repaired, but a) the precedent having been set, the temptation to continue to meddle (whether by a Democratic or Republican administration) will remain high, and the willingness to accept meddling will continue and b) because of a, the next time that the CDC reports something that someone doesn't like through the MMWR, there will be a temptation to ask whether the data has been meddled with.
BC
RE: Trust - OutsiderFan - 09-12-2020
I get it. But time heals all wounds. And in this case, most people understand the current U.S. regime is a very large outlier and anomaly. I have read that our allies are basically willing to give the U.S. a pass for the last four years if it makes a change in November. Maybe that colors my judgement, but I simply have to be optimistic that things can get better. Otherwise, what's the point of continuing with living?
RE: Trust - Goose - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 10:52 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I have read that our allies are basically willing to give the U.S. a pass for the last four years if it makes a change in November.Those who wrote that are mistaken. Many of our allies have various problems with the US to begin with. The last four years provide a great excuse to act upon those problems. The thing that slows such actions down is the extent to which these allies benefit from the alliance. However it is now credible to argue that the US is not reliable and those benefits can't be relied upon. What if there is another Trump? That damage isn't EVER going to go away. Previously, it could be dismissed as impossible. Not any more.
RE: Trust - dabigv13 - 09-12-2020
I agree. This will be a stain on our reliability for a long time. Will make it harder to fix things of a global scale like climate change.
RE: Trust - Goose - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 10:29 AM)BostonCard Wrote: It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.I think we need to carefully separate the concept of "upper management" reviewing/having input into documents to be released by the CDC and the individuals who do the review. I think you will find that in most nations (e.g. Germany) the Health Minister (who is a politician) has input to and reviews documents originated by the technical people in his department. I am sure that wording is often changed to be more clear, or more in line with the current government thinking. What does NOT happen is changing the basic meaning of the document. I am pretty sure that has been common at the CDC as well. The difference in the past was that the technical people and the politicians understood their roles, and respected the boundaries. If the technical people said "No, that change changes the meaning of what we are trying to say", the change didn't happen. The technical people may have to convince the politicians by explaining why it has to remain as is. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. If the technical argument isn't compelling, maybe some more thinking is needed. The difference is the politicians were trying to be "good stewards" of the department, not acolytes of the current POTUS. IMHO the process isn't broken. Back and forth between management and nerds is normal. What isn't normal is when management isn't acting in the best interest of the USA, but rather the self-defined political best interests of the POTUS. The people involved are "broken".
-- Warren Buffett
One would hope that with competent management, the damage can be repaired, but a) the precedent having been set, the temptation to continue to meddle (whether by a Democratic or Republican administration) will remain high, and the willingness to accept meddling will continue and b) because of a, the next time that the CDC reports something that someone doesn't like through the MMWR, there will be a temptation to ask whether the data has been meddled with.
BC
RE: Trust - akiddoc - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 12:37 PM)Goose Wrote:(09-12-2020, 10:29 AM)BostonCard Wrote: It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.I think we need to carefully separate the concept of "upper management" reviewing/having input into documents to be released by the CDC and the individuals who do the review. I think you will find that in most nations (e.g. Germany) the Health Minister (who is a politician) has input to and reviews documents originated by the technical people in his department. I am sure that wording is often changed to be more clear, or more in line with the current government thinking. What does NOT happen is changing the basic meaning of the document. I am pretty sure that has been common at the CDC as well. The difference in the past was that the technical people and the politicians understood their roles, and respected the boundaries. If the technical people said "No, that change changes the meaning of what we are trying to say", the change didn't happen. The technical people may have to convince the politicians by explaining why it has to remain as is. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. If the technical argument isn't compelling, maybe some more thinking is needed. The difference is the politicians were trying to be "good stewards" of the department, not acolytes of the current POTUS. IMHO the process isn't broken. Back and forth between management and nerds is normal. What isn't normal is when management isn't acting in the best interest of the USA, but rather the self-defined political best interests of the POTUS. The people involved are "broken".
-- Warren Buffett
One would hope that with competent management, the damage can be repaired, but a) the precedent having been set, the temptation to continue to meddle (whether by a Democratic or Republican administration) will remain high, and the willingness to accept meddling will continue and b) because of a, the next time that the CDC reports something that someone doesn't like through the MMWR, there will be a temptation to ask whether the data has been meddled with.
BC
In the past, the MMWR has been the least political publication put out by the US government. Most political appointees probably were only vaguely aware of it and ignored it if they were. The fact that the career people writing it are being censored is a complete scandal.
RE: Trust - teejers1 - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 11:58 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-12-2020, 10:52 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I have read that our allies are basically willing to give the U.S. a pass for the last four years if it makes a change in November.Those who wrote that are mistaken. Many of our allies have various problems with the US to begin with. The last four years provide a great excuse to act upon those problems. The thing that slows such actions down is the extent to which these allies benefit from the alliance. However it is now credible to argue that the US is not reliable and those benefits can't be relied upon. What if there is another Trump? That damage isn't EVER going to go away. Previously, it could be dismissed as impossible. Not any more.
OMG, people get a hold of yourselves. Trump is so far in your heads you all are like deer in headlights.
The institutions are far stronger than any one individual (and if not, how valuable were those institutions in the first place?). A little faith. This (like the virus) shall pass.
P.S. Somebody just needs to set Joe's alarm clock for Election Night - no need to see him before that. The downside is too great.
RE: Trust - Goose - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 03:40 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-12-2020, 11:58 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-12-2020, 10:52 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I have read that our allies are basically willing to give the U.S. a pass for the last four years if it makes a change in November.Those who wrote that are mistaken. Many of our allies have various problems with the US to begin with. The last four years provide a great excuse to act upon those problems. The thing that slows such actions down is the extent to which these allies benefit from the alliance. However it is now credible to argue that the US is not reliable and those benefits can't be relied upon. What if there is another Trump? That damage isn't EVER going to go away. Previously, it could be dismissed as impossible. Not any more.
OMG, people get a hold of yourselves. Trump is so far in your heads you all are like deer in headlights.
The institutions are far stronger than any one individual (and if not, how valuable were those institutions in the first place?). A little faith. This (like the virus) shall pass.
P.S. Somebody just needs to set Joe's alarm clock for Election Night - no need to see him before that. The downside is too great.
Teejers1, I talk with employees of NATO organizations pretty much weekly. I can assure you that they value the US participation greatly, but that their confidence in the USA is shaken to the core. Most of these people are fully cynical about the limitations of their own governments. However, they believed that somehow we were "different", that we could be trusted to be the "adult in the room" when maybe the rest of Europe couldn't be. They also trusted that, after many years of effort on our part to convince them, that we wouldn't abandon them when things got tough and it might be convenient for us to do so. Obviously, the reasons we wouldn't abandon them are rooted in our own self-interest, but we advertise that it goes beyond that. Previously, our NATO partners pretty much drank the kool-aid and believed us. After the current POTUS, they don't. They see NATO now as no different than the alliances that were made between European nations in the early 20th century, to be discarded if they aren't popular at the moment. That is a big difference and a big problem. That isn't "deer in the headlights". That is a fact.
(09-12-2020, 02:27 PM)akiddoc Wrote: In the past, the MMWR has been the least political publication put out by the US government. Most political appointees probably were only vaguely aware of it and ignored it if they were. The fact that the career people writing it are being censored is a complete scandal.Censorship is a complete scandal, I agree. The fact that political appointees are now aware the MMWR exists is a "good thing" IMHO if said political appointees bring an appropriate level of thought and reason to their involvement (if any) in it. That could be a useful, constructive force, could it not?
RE: Trust - oldalum - 09-12-2020
(09-12-2020, 05:34 PM)Goose Wrote: The fact that political appointees are now aware the MMWR exists is a "good thing" IMHO if said political appointees bring an appropriate level of thought and reason to their involvement (if any) in it. That could be a useful, constructive force, could it not?I don't see how. MMWR is a purely factual, scientific/medical publication. It simply reports data and statistical analyses. It's like a medical journal but without editorials, letters to the editor and all the other fluff. I (used to) regard it as a completely reliable, valid source of new information. It provides early warnings of developing health problems; for example, the first case report of a cluster of a new disease later termed AIDS. Here are the articles in the most recent report. The hydroxychloroquine article, for example, simply describes the increase in prescribing earlier this year. It doesn't mention Trump, politics, etc. Even if political appointees don't try to influence the content of specific articles, if they simply exercise some editorial control over which articles and types of articles are published, that would be undesirable IMO.
- Timing of State and Territorial COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Changes in Population Movement — United States, March 1–May 31, 2020
- Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine Prescribing Patterns by Provider Specialty Following Initial Reports of Potential Benefit for COVID-19 Treatment — United States, January–June 2020
- Preventing and Mitigating SARS-CoV-2 Transmission — Four Overnight Camps, Maine, June–August 2020
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Among Frontline Health Care Personnel in a Multistate Hospital Network — 13 Academic Medical Centers, April–June 2020
RE: Trust - Mick - 09-13-2020
(09-12-2020, 07:58 AM)Hurlburt88 Wrote: Public servants. Serve . . . with professionalism and integrity.
Big sigh
I have two siblings who are public servants (one is a Stanford PhD). One of them definitely serves with professionalism and integrity.
(09-12-2020, 08:53 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: The CDC will be fine if Biden is sworn in on January 20th. Yes, lots of damage has been done to our institutions by hiding truth and pushing propaganda for political purposes, but things can get back on track fast. Don't lose faith in the institutions. Take actions to remove those who are weakening their ability to tell us the truth.
Strongly recommend Michael Lewis' "The Fifth Risk" which covers Trump's assault on the established government and effects thereof. it didn't address the CDC directly, but the sections on the census and weather should be enough to make anyone nervous.
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/02/652563904/the-fifth-risk-paints-a-portrait-of-a-government-led-by-the-uninterested
RE: Trust - BostonCard - 09-14-2020
Agree with Mick. Public servants are just like you and me. Many are hard-working and diligent and went into public service out of a noble principle; but others are petty and vindictive, look out for their own career ambitions, and can be corrupt and unprofessional.
By the way, I mentioned Caputo at the start of this trhead. He's in the news again.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/14/michael-caputo-coronavirus-cdc/
Again, Caputo, Redfield, and Azar should resign... but since they won't, we can vote the administration out in November and replace them.
BC
RE: Trust - Leftcoast - 09-15-2020
50 years ago our national reputation survived Vietnam, massive civil unrest, blackouts and race riots, Nixon's presidency, Watergate and assassinations of internationally known leaders. We will be fine if we choose to pick up the reins again in November. Sometimes a reality check followed by a recommitment to common principles is good for everyone.
126 days to go.
RE: Trust - CardinalSagehen - 09-15-2020
(09-15-2020, 01:39 AM)Leftcoast Wrote: 50 years ago our national reputation survived Vietnam, massive civil unrest, blackouts and race riots, Nixon's presidency, Watergate and assassinations of internationally known leaders. We will be fine if we choose to pick up the reins again in November. Sometimes a reality check followed by a recommitment to common principles is good for everyone.
126 days to go.
Good sentiment. I would say 49 days to go, though.