The personnel were mostly still there, but they weren't organized into the task force (and it's not clear they would have been listened to if they had) but yeah.
But putting Anthony Fauci in front of a microphone to answer the question "What should we all be doing right now?" was the wrong move. I don't blame him for that, I blame the people whose job it became to manage the crisis, and that should never have been him.
What would have a crisis manager/management team done differently from what was done and how it would have resulted in better outcomes?
Most importantly: do their homework ahead of time. Track threats as they emerge, not after. When someone has a question you can't answer don't be afraid to say "Let me get back to you on that."
Have expertise on hand beyond esoteric research—clinicians, people who understand sanitation, people who understand the protocols of patient isolation, experienced nurses. Practitioners who don't have PhDs but know how to deal with sick people.
I'm sure there was some of that in the White House, but not near enough—and they should be chosen for that expertise, not political loyalty.
Focus the advice being given out to local governments and individuals on practical measures they can take. Open channels of communication to state health departments, and do it before there's a crisis.
Why? They were 100% clear (if sometimes slow) to say "this is what we advise currently; the situation is changing so we will keep you apprised of the latest advisories."
So in the face of a pandemic, you want your government to do... what, exactly?
NB I'm aware that the Trump administration threw out false advice and the WHO especially comes off as bumbling but when we talk about waffling I assume we're talking about Fauci.
We were asking the wrong people to save the day.
What the CDC and Fauci's group (and for that matter, the WHO) do is long-term projects. Lots of science, big, intractable problems that take years to wrestle with. They aren't built for crises.
What we needed was a crisis manager, a task force made of people well-suited for handling dynamic situations. A...pandemic response team! Which we had, and which John Bolton disbanded.
No, this wasn't as bad as the breathless news articles about it claimed, but what the Trump administration did in its absence was to take on that role within the White House, an office full of scientifically illiterate people with lots of other things to do. And they summoned their experts and delivered a combination of idiotic grandstanding and direct feeds from those experts.
They made some good calls. Operation Warp Speed was one of them, and the impact of that effort should not be understated—the single most important thing to do...they did. And did pretty well. The rest of it they bungled.
Not all the bungling was bad. When they intervened in medical equipment markets they generally got it wrong, but they didn't bugger that up as badly as, say, the Biden administration would have. Here I'm imagining the task force seizing control of raw materials to manage which companies got access and when, and throwing endless meetings to ensure LGBTQ inclusion and representation of all the minorities they could think of and distributing/rationing masks thru the Post Office and gumming up the works of an industry that generally performed spectacularly well without all that, to say nothing of the thousands of volunteers who sewed masks that absolutely did not meet any federal standards whatsoever, yet nonetheless saved countless lives.
But putting Anthony Fauci in front of a microphone to answer the question "What should we all be doing right now?" was the wrong move. I don't blame him for that, I blame the people whose job it became to manage the crisis, and that should never have been him.
This is sort of hilarious. Have you ever known a reporter or even a Concerned Citizen to accept a "you do you" sort of answer from a Top Expert? Would you? You would dismiss that person out of hand. It was a minefield no matter how he played it, but I 100% dismiss the idea that he was waffling or misleading. What you heard with your unique filters active is not what I heard.
The real howler here is "Don't buy the good ones" as if that wouldn't cause an even worse shortage than what happened.
Holy shit, this is a clusterfuck of a conversation. I guess you are holding me to my literal response. But no, i wasnt actually proposing the CDC provide guidance, "do what thou whilst." In fact, I really don't what you are arguing for...as you seem to be saying the cdc/who were 100% right, or didnt know any better at the time, when they proposed a no mask policy? Or did they lie to protect PPE? OK.
What would i recommend? "We don't think its airborne, but still too early to tell so a mask might be a good idea...it's up to you...but dont buy the PPE ones that drs. use as supply is short."
This is sort of hilarious. Have you ever known a reporter or even a Concerned Citizen to accept a "you do you" sort of answer from a Top Expert? Would you? You would dismiss that person out of hand. It was a minefield no matter how he played it, but I 100% dismiss the idea that he was waffling or misleading. What you heard with your unique filters active is not what I heard.
The real howler here is "Don't buy the good ones" as if that wouldn't cause an even worse shortage than what happened.
Facui has been very careful to couch all his analysis and recommendations in probabilistic terms. His constant implicit and sometimes explicit references to raw uncertainty must be very unsettling for large numbers of people who prefer and expect certainty. The kind of certainty that some religious leaders or a secular "Man of the people" leader can deliver. Or pretend to deliver.
That's likely part of the story. The other is scientific canon that (finally) got upended. Entrenched outdated attitudes.
Again, what would you have them do? "There's a pandemic coming! What can Good Citizens⢠do?"
WHO: *shrug* CDC: "we'll study it and get back to you" Fauci: "I have some hunches but need to do a year or two of research before I share anything with you."
I never heard Fauci say anything that wasn't couched in terms of "currently..." He made it abundantly clear to me that anything he advised might change tomorrow, so when tomorrow came, I was, "oh, okay," but apparently you all got the first advice tattooed on your arm so it was really hard to just change.
Appears you are trying to paint me in as someone who can't deal with a change in "advice." No, I'm great with that. But again, where they erred was being too certain with their "current" advice. We currently advise not to wear a mask for a novel coronavirus we don't know much about (and are still debating behind scenes) doesn't sound like good advice. What would i recommend? "We don't think its airborne, but still too early to tell so a mask might be a good idea...it's up to you...but dont buy the PPE ones that drs. use as supply is short." For one, only communicate the facts. Get fauci off these weekly news shows, especially since he's now such a political target, and stick to mostly scripted briefings. And the CDC has a history of these types of one sided recommendations for treatments, when the facts are still inconclusive.
But its ok, this back and forth, circular arguing is making me dizzy.
I never heard Fauci say anything that wasn't couched in terms of "currently..." He made it abundantly clear to me that anything he advised might change tomorrow, so when tomorrow came, I was, "oh, okay," but apparently you all got the first advice tattooed on your arm so it was really hard to just change.
When he said "don't wear a mask"... Every single Republican wrote it down in their bible.
Of course, he was talking about drugstore quality masks before anyone really knew anything about the virus, it's spread, vaccines, political posturing, operation warp speed, shutdowns, and an underappreciation for the millions unwilling to accept the vaccines because health choices are personal...but he said...don't wear a mask!
I never heard Fauci say anything that wasn't couched in terms of "currently..." He made it abundantly clear to me that anything he advised might change tomorrow, so when tomorrow came, I was, "oh, okay," but apparently you all got the first advice tattooed on your arm so it was really hard to just change.
Facui has been very careful to couch all his analysis and recommendations in probabilistic terms. His constant implicit and sometimes explicit references to raw uncertainty must be very unsettling for large numbers of people who prefer and expect certainty. The kind of certainty that some religious leaders or a secular "Man of the people" leader can deliver. Or pretend to deliver.
It is hard to not read, watch or listen to the news these days without stumbling upon Fauci. For the life of me, I cannot remember one time where his statements had me disagreeing with him or worst yet, rolling my eyes. He may be a glorifed snivel snervant but the delivered value is solid.
I will bet there that there are a few dozen countries around the world where some wish they had a figure like Fauci to spearhead the struggle against the SARS2 pandemic.
No, too often from CDC, WHO, and Fauci they did not simply provide "advice" but were more definitive and certain in their position (don't wear a mask), despite the uncertainty that existed as the article points to.
Again, what would you have them do? "There's a pandemic coming! What can Good Citizens™ do?"
WHO: *shrug* CDC: "we'll study it and get back to you" Fauci: "I have some hunches but need to do a year or two of research before I share anything with you."
I never heard Fauci say anything that wasn't couched in terms of "currently..." He made it abundantly clear to me that anything he advised might change tomorrow, so when tomorrow came, I was, "oh, okay," but apparently you all got the first advice tattooed on your arm so it was really hard to just change.
No, too often from CDC, WHO, and Fauci they did not simply provide "advice" but were more definitive and certain in their position (don't wear a mask), despite the uncertainty that existed as the article points to.
Again, what would you have them do? "There's a pandemic coming! What can Good Citizens⢠do?"
WHO: *shrug* CDC: "we'll study it and get back to you" Fauci: "I have some hunches but need to do a year or two of research before I share anything with you."
I never heard Fauci say anything that wasn't couched in terms of "currently..." He made it abundantly clear to me that anything he advised might change tomorrow, so when tomorrow came, I was, "oh, okay," but apparently you all got the first advice tattooed on your arm so it was really hard to just change.
Why? They were 100% clear (if sometimes slow) to say "this is what we advise currently; the situation is changing so we will keep you apprised of the latest advisories."
So in the face of a pandemic, you want your government to do... what, exactly?
NB I'm aware that the Trump administration threw out false advice and the WHO especially comes off as bumbling but when we talk about waffling I assume we're talking about Fauci.
No, too often from CDC, WHO, and Fauci they did not simply provide "advice" but were more definitive and certain in their position (don't wear a mask), despite the uncertainty that existed as the article points to.
as that wired article shows, the problem is also when gov takes a strong position of certainty, without suitable evidence to back it up. I don't see the point of arguing with certainty something like airborne or contact, when you don't have all the proof or data to make the conclusion. this creates mistrust when the position has to be rolled back.
Why? They were 100% clear (if sometimes slow) to say "this is what we advise currently; the situation is changing so we will keep you apprised of the latest advisories."
So in the face of a pandemic, you want your government to do... what, exactly?
NB I'm aware that the Trump administration threw out false advice and the WHO especially comes off as bumbling but when we talk about waffling I assume we're talking about Fauci.
as that wired article shows, the problem is also when gov takes a strong position of certainty, without suitable evidence to back it up. I don't see the point of arguing with certainty something like airborne or contact, when you don't have all the proof or data to make the conclusion. this creates mistrust when the position has to be rolled back.
To my points regarding the border in my original post. In Mission, Texas. No masks, no social distancing, no vaccinations, no nothing except a virus incubator under a bridge. And then these people are turned loose to run freely about in the US as they please.
So you are upset because the government which you hate (partly because it is slow and bureaucratic), responded with bypassing it's normal slow/bureaucratic process to respond quickly to a looming threat that was killing hundreds of thousands of people. Further, you are upset because people that did not take advantage of the output of this rapid response program continue to be at risk from the virus even though they are unwilling to take a vaccine that, regardless of approval state, demonstrably reduces both risk and impact of the virus.
The takeaway, I thought, was that people who have chosen not to get vaccinated because they do not trust the government, especially not the FDA and CDC, are waiting on a FDA approval. There is a disconnect there. I am sure there is a segment of those unvaccinated who could/would be persuaded by FDA approval — as opposed to the emergency use authorization — but I suspect that segment is dwarfed by those whose refusal to get vaccinated is rooted in their distrust of the government.
We will not know the answer to that until if and when a vaccine gets final approval. Until then, speculate and divide. Carry on.
I will repeat a point I brought up months ago about the approval status of the vaccines. In the military, members are allowed to refuse CV vaccinations based upon them only having emergency approval. As most know, if you are in the military, you cannot refuse an FDA approved vaccination. Take it or get locked up or thrown out. Those are the only choices.
And with the DOJ now saying that workplace vaccine mandates are legal, I guess that would open up employers to lawsuits regarding loss or damages including death that a vaccine may cause. While the vaccine makers themselves are immune by law regarding any harm their vaccines may cause, employers are not.
