[OutsiderFan]

Story: https://apnews.com/7a00d5fba3249e573d2ead4bd323a4d4

Muzzled CDC Scientists: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...Plans.html

[OutsiderFan]

Story: https://apnews.com/7a00d5fba3249e573d2ead4bd323a4d4

Muzzled CDC Scientists: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/...Plans.html

[fullmetal]

Wow.  The administration is going for a maximum level of non-leadership :(  There is no reasonable justification for the CDC to not give public health guidance on what would constitute standards of public health in a childcare environment during a pandemic.

To be honest, this muzzling and political stifling at the CDC has been going on since at least January if not earlier (all those budget cuts, firings, and reassignments might come your way if you speak up!).  The dangers of the entire executive branch serving "at the pleasure" of one executive have never been clearer.

[fullmetal]

Wow.  The administration is going for a maximum level of non-leadership :(  There is no reasonable justification for the CDC to not give public health guidance on what would constitute standards of public health in a childcare environment during a pandemic.

To be honest, this muzzling and political stifling at the CDC has been going on since at least January if not earlier (all those budget cuts, firings, and reassignments might come your way if you speak up!).  The dangers of the entire executive branch serving "at the pleasure" of one executive have never been clearer.

[OutsiderFan]

Rather then edit my previous post, I wanted to start with a clean slate, so deleted it.  Why does it show deleted?  What exactly is the point?

Anyway...

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

There's a lot more than guidelines for Childcare facilities in that 17-page document.  

As someone who lives where insurance companies (The Hartford, Aetna, Travelers) are dominant, this bullshit playing with CDC guidelines has real impact on liability issues. The insurance companies will only underwrite customers they feel are properly mitigating risks.  They would say "as long as you follow CDC guidelines we will pay your claim." But if the CDC has no guidelines, or they are lax, the insurance companies won't underwrite the businesses. Most of them can't operate without insurance. So what happens if there are no guidelines to follow or the ones in place leave too much risk? Businesses can't operate.

The insurance companies aren't scientists prepared to figure out what precautions mitigate enough risk to insure a business with a highly contagious, deadly virus running rampant through the country and world. State and local governments also rely on the CDC for guidance. They can't all be coming up with their own standards. Insurance companies might say they will insure businesses that follow California standards, but if you are in Iowa and your government has given you guidelines that aren't as thorough as CA's, and then find out you can't be insured, because you haven't put enough safety measures in place, you're screwed.

So messing around with CDC protocols doesn't help businesses open because insurance companies are going to pull coverage if they aren't taking enough steps to mitigate risk.  The unintended consequences of being dumb AF, like those in the Executive Branch clearly are.

[OutsiderFan]

Rather then edit my previous post, I wanted to start with a clean slate, so deleted it.  Why does it show deleted?  What exactly is the point?

Anyway...

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

There's a lot more than guidelines for Childcare facilities in that 17-page document.  

As someone who lives where insurance companies (The Hartford, Aetna, Travelers) are dominant, this bullshit playing with CDC guidelines has real impact on liability issues. The insurance companies will only underwrite customers they feel are properly mitigating risks.  They would say "as long as you follow CDC guidelines we will pay your claim." But if the CDC has no guidelines, or they are lax, the insurance companies won't underwrite the businesses. Most of them can't operate without insurance. So what happens if there are no guidelines to follow or the ones in place leave too much risk? Businesses can't operate.

The insurance companies aren't scientists prepared to figure out what precautions mitigate enough risk to insure a business with a highly contagious, deadly virus running rampant through the country and world. State and local governments also rely on the CDC for guidance. They can't all be coming up with their own standards. Insurance companies might say they will insure businesses that follow California standards, but if you are in Iowa and your government has given you guidelines that aren't as thorough as CA's, and then find out you can't be insured, because you haven't put enough safety measures in place, you're screwed.

So messing around with CDC protocols doesn't help businesses open because insurance companies are going to pull coverage if they aren't taking enough steps to mitigate risk.  The unintended consequences of being dumb AF, like those in the Executive Branch clearly are.

[Genuine Realist]

Rather then edit my previous post, I wanted to start with a clean slate, so deleted it.  Why does it show deleted?  What exactly is the point?

Anyway...

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

There's a lot more than guidelines for Childcare facilities in that 17-page document.  

As someone who lives where insurance companies (The Hartford, Aetna, Travelers) are dominant, this bullshit playing with CDC guidelines has real impact on liability issues. The insurance companies will only underwrite customers they feel are properly mitigating risks.  They would say "as long as you follow CDC guidelines we will pay your claim." But if the CDC has no guidelines, or they are lax, the insurance companies won't underwrite the businesses. Most of them can't operate without insurance. So what happens if there are no guidelines to follow or the ones in place leave too much risk? Businesses can't operate.

The insurance companies aren't scientists prepared to figure out what precautions mitigate enough risk to insure a business with a highly contagious, deadly virus running rampant through the country and world. State and local governments also rely on the CDC for guidance. They can't all be coming up with their own standards. Insurance companies might say they will insure businesses that follow California standards, but if you are in Iowa and your government has given you guidelines that aren't as thorough as CA's, and then find out you can't be insured, because you haven't put enough safety measures in place, you're screwed.

So messing around with CDC protocols doesn't help businesses open because insurance companies are going to pull coverage if they aren't taking enough steps to mitigate risk.  The unintended consequences of being dumb AF, like those in the Executive Branch clearly are.

The usually anonymous sourced stuff. Worthless.

[Genuine Realist]

Rather then edit my previous post, I wanted to start with a clean slate, so deleted it.  Why does it show deleted?  What exactly is the point?

Anyway...

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

There's a lot more than guidelines for Childcare facilities in that 17-page document.  

As someone who lives where insurance companies (The Hartford, Aetna, Travelers) are dominant, this bullshit playing with CDC guidelines has real impact on liability issues. The insurance companies will only underwrite customers they feel are properly mitigating risks.  They would say "as long as you follow CDC guidelines we will pay your claim." But if the CDC has no guidelines, or they are lax, the insurance companies won't underwrite the businesses. Most of them can't operate without insurance. So what happens if there are no guidelines to follow or the ones in place leave too much risk? Businesses can't operate.

The insurance companies aren't scientists prepared to figure out what precautions mitigate enough risk to insure a business with a highly contagious, deadly virus running rampant through the country and world. State and local governments also rely on the CDC for guidance. They can't all be coming up with their own standards. Insurance companies might say they will insure businesses that follow California standards, but if you are in Iowa and your government has given you guidelines that aren't as thorough as CA's, and then find out you can't be insured, because you haven't put enough safety measures in place, you're screwed.

So messing around with CDC protocols doesn't help businesses open because insurance companies are going to pull coverage if they aren't taking enough steps to mitigate risk.  The unintended consequences of being dumb AF, like those in the Executive Branch clearly are.

The usually anonymous sourced stuff. Worthless.

[Goose]

I can certainly understand somebody in the executive branch taking issue with some wording somewhere in a CDC document and wanting to make changes. Normally, in a "sane" organization, there would be a meeting, things would get worked out, and the document would be issued. It may be that the changes didn't totally please the CDC but they wouldn't substantially alter the content of the statement. Suppressing the statement is the worst of both worlds, because there is no "compromise" statement and the original then leaks out. Dumb and dumber.

---

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I really doubt you are correct. Whichever party is in the White House won't want that. They want to use that power to "get things done". Congress  itself really doesn't want the responsibility of actually making real decisions. Then they could be forced into having no choice but to do something that would be politically unpopular, and they simply won't do that.

Experience has shown that there is no substitute for competent leadership. You cannot ensure good governance by substituting process for competence. Many nations have repeatedly tried to pass laws that prevent bad governance. Generally these attempts have simply made things more difficult without actually preventing bad leadership from doing great damage. The founding fathers actually had it right. Rely on the government as little as humanly possible, because government is hard. In the modern world, we expect a lot more from our government than they did in 1789. Unfortunately, we have not radically improved our governments ability to meet those expectations. That is a big issue.

[Goose]

I can certainly understand somebody in the executive branch taking issue with some wording somewhere in a CDC document and wanting to make changes. Normally, in a "sane" organization, there would be a meeting, things would get worked out, and the document would be issued. It may be that the changes didn't totally please the CDC but they wouldn't substantially alter the content of the statement. Suppressing the statement is the worst of both worlds, because there is no "compromise" statement and the original then leaks out. Dumb and dumber.

---

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I really doubt you are correct. Whichever party is in the White House won't want that. They want to use that power to "get things done". Congress  itself really doesn't want the responsibility of actually making real decisions. Then they could be forced into having no choice but to do something that would be politically unpopular, and they simply won't do that.

Experience has shown that there is no substitute for competent leadership. You cannot ensure good governance by substituting process for competence. Many nations have repeatedly tried to pass laws that prevent bad governance. Generally these attempts have simply made things more difficult without actually preventing bad leadership from doing great damage. The founding fathers actually had it right. Rely on the government as little as humanly possible, because government is hard. In the modern world, we expect a lot more from our government than they did in 1789. Unfortunately, we have not radically improved our governments ability to meet those expectations. That is a big issue.

[Genuine Realist]

I can certainly understand somebody in the executive branch taking issue with some wording somewhere in a CDC document and wanting to make changes. Normally, in a "sane" organization, there would be a meeting, things would get worked out, and the document would be issued. It may be that the changes didn't totally please the CDC but they wouldn't substantially alter the content of the statement. Suppressing the statement is the worst of both worlds, because there is no "compromise" statement and the original then leaks out. Dumb and dumber.

I am certain the CDC has more than one task force working on these issues, and likely independently to review all alternatives. So you may be reading the disgruntled complaint of the losers in a bureaucratic turf war.

Or maybe not.

You can't tell because you don't know who the source is. 

You didn't read news, you read the perspective the reporter wanted to give you. Not good.

[Genuine Realist]

I can certainly understand somebody in the executive branch taking issue with some wording somewhere in a CDC document and wanting to make changes. Normally, in a "sane" organization, there would be a meeting, things would get worked out, and the document would be issued. It may be that the changes didn't totally please the CDC but they wouldn't substantially alter the content of the statement. Suppressing the statement is the worst of both worlds, because there is no "compromise" statement and the original then leaks out. Dumb and dumber.

I am certain the CDC has more than one task force working on these issues, and likely independently to review all alternatives. So you may be reading the disgruntled complaint of the losers in a bureaucratic turf war.

Or maybe not.

You can't tell because you don't know who the source is. 

You didn't read news, you read the perspective the reporter wanted to give you. Not good.

[Snorlax94]

...
So messing around with CDC protocols doesn't help businesses open because insurance companies are going to pull coverage if they aren't taking enough steps to mitigate risk.  The unintended consequences of being dumb AF, like those in the Executive Branch clearly are.

The usually anonymous sourced stuff. Worthless.

Outsiderfan, welcome to my world. Lol.

The criticism of the CDC is valid because first, weighing news sources is not as simplistic as considering whether or not it’s anonymously sourced, especially in cases where you are dealing with a vindictive and corrupt government. If a Russian doctor provided evidence of Moscow’s hospitals being overrun, would you require that doctor to be publicly identified by name? I would say Nyet, Comrade.  

Second, there is corroborating evidence, namely, the nixed documents.

Third, the government said it’d produce the documents last Friday, and then it did not, lending to questions of, why not?

Finally, you will notice the odd absence of guidance from the CDC. Regardless of whether the CDC ever releases any such documents, its delivery of guidance is late and a failure.

[Snorlax94]

...
So messing around with CDC protocols doesn't help businesses open because insurance companies are going to pull coverage if they aren't taking enough steps to mitigate risk.  The unintended consequences of being dumb AF, like those in the Executive Branch clearly are.

The usually anonymous sourced stuff. Worthless.

Outsiderfan, welcome to my world. Lol.

The criticism of the CDC is valid because first, weighing news sources is not as simplistic as considering whether or not it’s anonymously sourced, especially in cases where you are dealing with a vindictive and corrupt government. If a Russian doctor provided evidence of Moscow’s hospitals being overrun, would you require that doctor to be publicly identified by name? I would say Nyet, Comrade.  

Second, there is corroborating evidence, namely, the nixed documents.

Third, the government said it’d produce the documents last Friday, and then it did not, lending to questions of, why not?

Finally, you will notice the odd absence of guidance from the CDC. Regardless of whether the CDC ever releases any such documents, its delivery of guidance is late and a failure.

[OutsiderFan]

My SO in event business has been participating in a daily conference call with the head of a major hotel company she really respects. Today he referenced the leaked CDC guidance and said according to a CDC spokesman, the leaked guidelines were preliminary and still going through approval, so he wasn't ready to conclude there is anything scandalous. I said, "c'mon, I get not wanting to jump to conclusions, but there is no way in hell anyone is leaking that document to the AP without authorization unless there is some very questionable stuff going on in the CDC."

If you can't figure out that scientists and infectious disease experts are being muzzled, I suggest paying attention to a lot more Executive Branch behavior beyond the CDC. Maybe start with the EPA and how hundreds of regulations are being undone that protect health and environmental resources. Or maybe you can check out how the government is now trying to weaken infection control standards in nursing homes.  Or maybe you can look at the fact meat plants have been ordered to stay open and allow sick people to go to work and infect others.

You can say you don't have a problem with this behavior putting people's heath at risk, but don't deny it is happening. Or, to put another way, don't insult the intelligence of others by claiming there is nothing to see here because the person who "blew the whistle" didn't identify themself.  Dr. Bright could do it because he obviously has enough standing to fight and the resources to hire an attorney. Some lower level person at the CDC can't afford legal representation and can't afford to be retaliated against, but they still took a risk to protect the public and should get a lot more deference than "I don't trust people who don't name themselves."

[OutsiderFan]

My SO in event business has been participating in a daily conference call with the head of a major hotel company she really respects. Today he referenced the leaked CDC guidance and said according to a CDC spokesman, the leaked guidelines were preliminary and still going through approval, so he wasn't ready to conclude there is anything scandalous. I said, "c'mon, I get not wanting to jump to conclusions, but there is no way in hell anyone is leaking that document to the AP without authorization unless there is some very questionable stuff going on in the CDC."

If you can't figure out that scientists and infectious disease experts are being muzzled, I suggest paying attention to a lot more Executive Branch behavior beyond the CDC. Maybe start with the EPA and how hundreds of regulations are being undone that protect health and environmental resources. Or maybe you can check out how the government is now trying to weaken infection control standards in nursing homes.  Or maybe you can look at the fact meat plants have been ordered to stay open and allow sick people to go to work and infect others.

You can say you don't have a problem with this behavior putting people's heath at risk, but don't deny it is happening. Or, to put another way, don't insult the intelligence of others by claiming there is nothing to see here because the person who "blew the whistle" didn't identify themself.  Dr. Bright could do it because he obviously has enough standing to fight and the resources to hire an attorney. Some lower level person at the CDC can't afford legal representation and can't afford to be retaliated against, but they still took a risk to protect the public and should get a lot more deference than "I don't trust people who don't name themselves."

[2006alum]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1258439604249735169?s=20[/tweet]

[2006alum]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1258439604249735169?s=20[/tweet]

[Genuine Realist]

My SO in event business has been participating in a daily conference call with the head of a major hotel company she really respects. Today he referenced the leaked CDC guidance and said according to a CDC spokesman, the leaked guidelines were preliminary and still going through approval, so he wasn't ready to conclude there is anything scandalous. I said, "c'mon, I get not wanting to jump to conclusions, but there is no way in hell anyone is leaking that document to the AP without authorization unless there is some very questionable stuff going on in the CDC."

If you can't figure out that scientists and infectious disease experts are being muzzled, I suggest paying attention to a lot more Executive Branch behavior beyond the CDC. Maybe start with the EPA and how hundreds of regulations are being undone that protect health and environmental resources. Or maybe you can check out how the government is now trying to weaken infection control standards in nursing homes.  Or maybe you can look at the fact meat plants have been ordered to stay open and allow sick people to go to work and infect others.

You can say you don't have a problem with this behavior putting people's heath at risk, but don't deny it is happening. Or, to put another way, don't insult the intelligence of others by claiming there is nothing to see here because the person who "blew the whistle" didn't identify themself.  Dr. Bright could do it because he obviously has enough standing to fight and the resources to hire an attorney. Some lower level person at the CDC can't afford legal representation and can't afford to be retaliated against, but they still took a risk to protect the public and should get a lot more deference than "I don't trust people who don't name themselves."

The Washington Post in its five minute summary of news today mentioned that the document hasn't been shelved, but is being revised, because (to paraphrase) it has a 'one-size-fits-all-quality' (my words). I don't know where you get the idea that anyone is being muzzled in the expanding cyberverse, because no one is. Every one speaks, and non one knows who is who, thanks to the universal use of anonymous sources. I think I'll ppst one of my older signatures, that BC will remember: 

In this scherherzerade of one’s thousand one nightinesses, that

sword of certainty which would
indentifide the individuone. . . . . . never falls.

Written back in the 30's, but describes Internet communication to a tee. In any case, silence is not the issue these days. More like cacophony. In any case, the bureaucratic faction got its jabs in. Here's the WP link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...-document/

[Genuine Realist]

My SO in event business has been participating in a daily conference call with the head of a major hotel company she really respects. Today he referenced the leaked CDC guidance and said according to a CDC spokesman, the leaked guidelines were preliminary and still going through approval, so he wasn't ready to conclude there is anything scandalous. I said, "c'mon, I get not wanting to jump to conclusions, but there is no way in hell anyone is leaking that document to the AP without authorization unless there is some very questionable stuff going on in the CDC."

If you can't figure out that scientists and infectious disease experts are being muzzled, I suggest paying attention to a lot more Executive Branch behavior beyond the CDC. Maybe start with the EPA and how hundreds of regulations are being undone that protect health and environmental resources. Or maybe you can check out how the government is now trying to weaken infection control standards in nursing homes.  Or maybe you can look at the fact meat plants have been ordered to stay open and allow sick people to go to work and infect others.

You can say you don't have a problem with this behavior putting people's heath at risk, but don't deny it is happening. Or, to put another way, don't insult the intelligence of others by claiming there is nothing to see here because the person who "blew the whistle" didn't identify themself.  Dr. Bright could do it because he obviously has enough standing to fight and the resources to hire an attorney. Some lower level person at the CDC can't afford legal representation and can't afford to be retaliated against, but they still took a risk to protect the public and should get a lot more deference than "I don't trust people who don't name themselves."

The Washington Post in its five minute summary of news today mentioned that the document hasn't been shelved, but is being revised, because (to paraphrase) it has a 'one-size-fits-all-quality' (my words). I don't know where you get the idea that anyone is being muzzled in the expanding cyberverse, because no one is. Every one speaks, and non one knows who is who, thanks to the universal use of anonymous sources. I think I'll ppst one of my older signatures, that BC will remember: 

In this scherherzerade of one’s thousand one nightinesses, that

sword of certainty which would
indentifide the individuone. . . . . . never falls.

Written back in the 30's, but describes Internet communication to a tee. In any case, silence is not the issue these days. More like cacophony. In any case, the bureaucratic faction got its jabs in. Here's the WP link.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...-document/

[Mick]

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I wonder about that.  When has a President or a Congress in power with the same party ever voluntarily supported limits on their power?

[Mick]

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I wonder about that.  When has a President or a Congress in power with the same party ever voluntarily supported limits on their power?

[pefloresjr]

GR, 

I think you have previously written that you are not a fan of Trump and are simply trying to make sure that people's feelings of hostility toward President Trump don't color their views of actions by his administration.  I don't personally disagree with that point of view and try to check myself and my views for those kinds of biases.  it's a good practice.  

Along those lines, referring to the several sources within CDC who spoke about the guidelines not being released as "the bureaucratic faction getting its jabs in" seems pretty hostile toward those science and health professionals working at CDC.  Is it possible you are not recognizing an overreaction on your part based on your worry about hostility toward President Trump or some other anti-government bias?  Are all government employees "bureaucrats" who are part of a faction?  My experience with the many scientists who work at (and previously worked at) CDC and FDA is that they are conscientious professionals who are dedicated to advancing healthcare and protecting the public.  I guess, I am wondering if your guarding against "overreactions" to Trump takes precedence over a concern that the best work of the scientists be relayed to the public in the face of a global health crisis.  I assume that you don't think it is best for executive political considerations to overrule scientific guidelines that might not align with political marketing and goals.  

Thinking this out as I write and finish enjoying a good bottle of wine, if you are truly coming at this from a neutral viewpoint that so many others are unable to obtain, perhaps you should review your posts to ensure that they don't instinctively take President Trump's side and assume the other viewpoint is biased and incorrect.  

Cheers,
Pete F.  

Ps.  The wine is a Peachy Canyon Grenache, Syrah, and Mourvedre blend and is excellent.  I recommend it.

---

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I wonder about that.  When has a President or a Congress in power with the same party ever voluntarily supported limits on their power?

I completely agree.  It would be a very rare action for any party to limit executive power when they are in power.  Not that it couldn't happen in particular circumstances (Pete Buttigieg ran on the policy that he would first seek and return to Congress every three years for war powers) but it is not very likely in most circumstances.  I expect that the expansion of executive power is likely to continue to distort the historical political balance of power.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

GR, 

I think you have previously written that you are not a fan of Trump and are simply trying to make sure that people's feelings of hostility toward President Trump don't color their views of actions by his administration.  I don't personally disagree with that point of view and try to check myself and my views for those kinds of biases.  it's a good practice.  

Along those lines, referring to the several sources within CDC who spoke about the guidelines not being released as "the bureaucratic faction getting its jabs in" seems pretty hostile toward those science and health professionals working at CDC.  Is it possible you are not recognizing an overreaction on your part based on your worry about hostility toward President Trump or some other anti-government bias?  Are all government employees "bureaucrats" who are part of a faction?  My experience with the many scientists who work at (and previously worked at) CDC and FDA is that they are conscientious professionals who are dedicated to advancing healthcare and protecting the public.  I guess, I am wondering if your guarding against "overreactions" to Trump takes precedence over a concern that the best work of the scientists be relayed to the public in the face of a global health crisis.  I assume that you don't think it is best for executive political considerations to overrule scientific guidelines that might not align with political marketing and goals.  

Thinking this out as I write and finish enjoying a good bottle of wine, if you are truly coming at this from a neutral viewpoint that so many others are unable to obtain, perhaps you should review your posts to ensure that they don't instinctively take President Trump's side and assume the other viewpoint is biased and incorrect.  

Cheers,
Pete F.  

Ps.  The wine is a Peachy Canyon Grenache, Syrah, and Mourvedre blend and is excellent.  I recommend it.

---

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I wonder about that.  When has a President or a Congress in power with the same party ever voluntarily supported limits on their power?

I completely agree.  It would be a very rare action for any party to limit executive power when they are in power.  Not that it couldn't happen in particular circumstances (Pete Buttigieg ran on the policy that he would first seek and return to Congress every three years for war powers) but it is not very likely in most circumstances.  I expect that the expansion of executive power is likely to continue to distort the historical political balance of power.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[Genuine Realist]

GR, 

I think you have previously written that you are not a fan of Trump and are simply trying to make sure that people's feelings of hostility toward President Trump don't color their views of actions by his administration.  I don't personally disagree with that point of view and try to check myself and my views for those kinds of biases.  it's a good practice.  

Along those lines, referring to the several sources within CDC who spoke about the guidelines not being released as "the bureaucratic faction getting its jabs in" seems pretty hostile toward those science and health professionals working at CDC.  Is it possible you are not recognizing an overreaction on your part based on your worry about hostility toward President Trump or some other anti-government bias?  Are all government employees "bureaucrats" who are part of a faction?  My experience with the many scientists who work at (and previously worked at) CDC and FDA is that they are conscientious professionals who are dedicated to advancing healthcare and protecting the public.  I guess, I am wondering if your guarding against "overreactions" to Trump takes precedence over a concern that the best work of the scientists be relayed to the public in the face of a global health crisis.  I assume that you don't think it is best for executive political considerations to overrule scientific guidelines that might not align with political marketing and goals.  

Thinking this out as I write and finish enjoying a good bottle of wine, if you are truly coming at this from a neutral viewpoint that so many others are unable to obtain, perhaps you should review your posts to ensure that they don't instinctively take President Trump's side and assume the other viewpoint is biased and incorrect.  

Cheers,
Pete F.  

Ps.  The wine is a Peachy Canyon Grenache, Syrah, and Mourvedre blend and is excellent.  I recommend it.

---

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I wonder about that.  When has a President or a Congress in power with the same party ever voluntarily supported limits on their power?

I completely agree.  It would be a very rare action for any party to limit executive power when they are in power.  Not that it couldn't happen in particular circumstances (Pete Buttigieg ran on the policy that he would first seek and return to Congress every three years for war powers) but it is not very likely in most circumstances.  I expect that the expansion of executive power is likely to continue to distort the historical political balance of power.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

Thanks for the wisdom, but mostly I am reacting to an unsourced article  about a position paper that is in the usual process of comment, amendment, redrafting, etc. My negative attitude toward the sources is based on (a) the anonymity, and (b) the fact that the proposal hasn't been shelved at all. It may not come out in the form they like. That's not a scandal.

[Genuine Realist]

GR, 

I think you have previously written that you are not a fan of Trump and are simply trying to make sure that people's feelings of hostility toward President Trump don't color their views of actions by his administration.  I don't personally disagree with that point of view and try to check myself and my views for those kinds of biases.  it's a good practice.  

Along those lines, referring to the several sources within CDC who spoke about the guidelines not being released as "the bureaucratic faction getting its jabs in" seems pretty hostile toward those science and health professionals working at CDC.  Is it possible you are not recognizing an overreaction on your part based on your worry about hostility toward President Trump or some other anti-government bias?  Are all government employees "bureaucrats" who are part of a faction?  My experience with the many scientists who work at (and previously worked at) CDC and FDA is that they are conscientious professionals who are dedicated to advancing healthcare and protecting the public.  I guess, I am wondering if your guarding against "overreactions" to Trump takes precedence over a concern that the best work of the scientists be relayed to the public in the face of a global health crisis.  I assume that you don't think it is best for executive political considerations to overrule scientific guidelines that might not align with political marketing and goals.  

Thinking this out as I write and finish enjoying a good bottle of wine, if you are truly coming at this from a neutral viewpoint that so many others are unable to obtain, perhaps you should review your posts to ensure that they don't instinctively take President Trump's side and assume the other viewpoint is biased and incorrect.  

Cheers,
Pete F.  

Ps.  The wine is a Peachy Canyon Grenache, Syrah, and Mourvedre blend and is excellent.  I recommend it.

---

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I wonder about that.  When has a President or a Congress in power with the same party ever voluntarily supported limits on their power?

I completely agree.  It would be a very rare action for any party to limit executive power when they are in power.  Not that it couldn't happen in particular circumstances (Pete Buttigieg ran on the policy that he would first seek and return to Congress every three years for war powers) but it is not very likely in most circumstances.  I expect that the expansion of executive power is likely to continue to distort the historical political balance of power.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

Thanks for the wisdom, but mostly I am reacting to an unsourced article  about a position paper that is in the usual process of comment, amendment, redrafting, etc. My negative attitude toward the sources is based on (a) the anonymity, and (b) the fact that the proposal hasn't been shelved at all. It may not come out in the form they like. That's not a scandal.

[Griffins78]

... The insurance companies aren't scientists prepared to figure out what precautions mitigate enough risk to insure a business with a highly contagious, deadly virus running rampant through the country and world. State and local governments also rely on the CDC for guidance. They can't all be coming up with their own standards. Insurance companies might say they will insure businesses that follow California standards, but if you are in Iowa and your government has given you guidelines that aren't as thorough as CA's, and then find out you can't be insured, because you haven't put enough safety measures in place, you're screwed.

So messing around with CDC protocols doesn't help businesses open because insurance companies are going to pull coverage if they aren't taking enough steps to mitigate risk.  The unintended consequences of being dumb AF, like those in the Executive Branch clearly are.

I think they are keenly aware that we need CDC guidelines for businesses to be opened up and covered for liability. I think that’s why the executive order to keep meat packing plants open - it allowed them to break CDC or any other guidelines without liability thus forcing workers into risky, possibly deadly working conditions.

I might be wrong but I think they will soon release CDC Guidelines, after they’ve been watered down and loosened to allow more businesses to open up with minimal cost or disruption and be able to cover themselves by claiming, “we’re following CDC Guidelines.” That’s what they’ve done to many other oversight and safety regulations. And if the original guidelines, vetted by the CDC scientists and experts had not been leaked, the world would not know the published guidelines had been altered by “who knows?”

[Griffins78]

... The insurance companies aren't scientists prepared to figure out what precautions mitigate enough risk to insure a business with a highly contagious, deadly virus running rampant through the country and world. State and local governments also rely on the CDC for guidance. They can't all be coming up with their own standards. Insurance companies might say they will insure businesses that follow California standards, but if you are in Iowa and your government has given you guidelines that aren't as thorough as CA's, and then find out you can't be insured, because you haven't put enough safety measures in place, you're screwed.

So messing around with CDC protocols doesn't help businesses open because insurance companies are going to pull coverage if they aren't taking enough steps to mitigate risk.  The unintended consequences of being dumb AF, like those in the Executive Branch clearly are.

I think they are keenly aware that we need CDC guidelines for businesses to be opened up and covered for liability. I think that’s why the executive order to keep meat packing plants open - it allowed them to break CDC or any other guidelines without liability thus forcing workers into risky, possibly deadly working conditions.

I might be wrong but I think they will soon release CDC Guidelines, after they’ve been watered down and loosened to allow more businesses to open up with minimal cost or disruption and be able to cover themselves by claiming, “we’re following CDC Guidelines.” That’s what they’ve done to many other oversight and safety regulations. And if the original guidelines, vetted by the CDC scientists and experts had not been leaked, the world would not know the published guidelines had been altered by “who knows?”

[OutsiderFan]

The CDC experts - and that's what they are - are not going to offer guidance just to make things difficult. Their job is to recommend what will do the job to stop disease spread or mitigate it so it is manageable.

Stopping this pandemic virus isn't grenades and horse shoes. Getting close to stopping it isn't stopping it.  We have two choices:

1. Stay in lockdown longer 
2. Lift lockdown with adequate disease prevention measures in place everywhere

We've chosen the easy part of option 2, but not the hard part. If we don't follow the CDC recommendations that were shelved, we aren't stopping virus spread.

Look at this website Laurie Garrett just shared. https://www.endcoronavirus.org/countries

The U.S. "has more work to do" but we're A) going to lift NPIs, and B) not going to take enough precautionary measures.  The odds of U.S. virus growth from the current 25k new confirmed case and 2k+ per day deaths, to higher levels seems to be quite high if not following the most strict CDC guidance. It seems to me when we're at 80,000 deaths, 33 million unemployed, and added $4 Trillion to the debt just two months in, we probably don't want to be rolling the dice that it will just all magically go away, when if we're wrong, things get even worse.


Edit: Fixed your broken link -Stupac

[OutsiderFan]

The CDC experts - and that's what they are - are not going to offer guidance just to make things difficult. Their job is to recommend what will do the job to stop disease spread or mitigate it so it is manageable.

Stopping this pandemic virus isn't grenades and horse shoes. Getting close to stopping it isn't stopping it.  We have two choices:

1. Stay in lockdown longer 
2. Lift lockdown with adequate disease prevention measures in place everywhere

We've chosen the easy part of option 2, but not the hard part. If we don't follow the CDC recommendations that were shelved, we aren't stopping virus spread.

Look at this website Laurie Garrett just shared. https://www.endcoronavirus.org/countries

The U.S. "has more work to do" but we're A) going to lift NPIs, and B) not going to take enough precautionary measures.  The odds of U.S. virus growth from the current 25k new confirmed case and 2k+ per day deaths, to higher levels seems to be quite high if not following the most strict CDC guidance. It seems to me when we're at 80,000 deaths, 33 million unemployed, and added $4 Trillion to the debt just two months in, we probably don't want to be rolling the dice that it will just all magically go away, when if we're wrong, things get even worse.


Edit: Fixed your broken link -Stupac

[BostonCard]

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I wonder about that.  When has a President or a Congress in power with the same party ever voluntarily supported limits on their power?

A little before my time, but after Nixon resigned and Carter was elected, I think there was an effort to strengthen restrictions on the executive branch.  I'm not sure if they were passed under Ford or Carter, but in the aftermath we saw the National Emergencies Act reign in Emergency declarations, campaign finance reform, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Ethics in Government Act.

Regardless of who is elected, both parties should like to see the President's power reigned in.

BC

[BostonCard]

If Biden wins the POTUS election in November, the number of laws passed to limit Executive Branch power will make our heads spin. Some significant new restrictions and requirements are going to be implemented. 

I wonder about that.  When has a President or a Congress in power with the same party ever voluntarily supported limits on their power?

A little before my time, but after Nixon resigned and Carter was elected, I think there was an effort to strengthen restrictions on the executive branch.  I'm not sure if they were passed under Ford or Carter, but in the aftermath we saw the National Emergencies Act reign in Emergency declarations, campaign finance reform, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Ethics in Government Act.

Regardless of who is elected, both parties should like to see the President's power reigned in.

BC

[akiddoc]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

[akiddoc]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

[2006alum]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

It's almost as if anyone who has expertise and a desire to put science above politics must be quashed at all costs...  Eager for the genuine apologist's explanation as to why this is all Fake News too.

[2006alum]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

It's almost as if anyone who has expertise and a desire to put science above politics must be quashed at all costs...  Eager for the genuine apologist's explanation as to why this is all Fake News too.

[akiddoc]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

It's almost as if anyone who has expertise and a desire to put science above politics must be quashed at all costs...  Eager for the genuine apologist's explanation as to why this is all Fake News too.

I doubt GR believes half of what he posts. Trying to be a contrarian. Once in a great while he turns out to be correct.

[akiddoc]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

It's almost as if anyone who has expertise and a desire to put science above politics must be quashed at all costs...  Eager for the genuine apologist's explanation as to why this is all Fake News too.

I doubt GR believes half of what he posts. Trying to be a contrarian. Once in a great while he turns out to be correct.

[magnus]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

Interesting parallel. 

Arizona and their university scientist thinktank.   And US and the CDC.  Both governments stopped listening to scientists just as businesses are reopening.

[magnus]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavir...story.html

Ends up that Redfield approved the document. Quashed at the White House.

Interesting parallel. 

Arizona and their university scientist thinktank.   And US and the CDC.  Both governments stopped listening to scientists just as businesses are reopening.