Covid-19 Fallout: Ruinous Effects Of Politicization Of Public Health Agencies, Such As The CDC – Forbes

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 19, 2021: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Dr. Rochelle ... [+] Walensky answers a question during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing to examine the FY 2022 budget request for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on May 19, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images)

At a Congressional hearing on Wednesday, March 30th, House Democrats and Republicans criticized each other for political interference in Covid-19 policy. Theyre both right, but for totally different reasons. Public health has been hijacked by politics, and it has occurred throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, during both the Trump and Biden Administrations. At times, the Trump Administration blatantly disregarded science, even going so far as to undermine public health officials. The Biden Administration hasnt sabotaged public health measures. Yet, it has allowed politics to trump public health in pernicious ways.

In order to renew the publics trust in public health, its vital that agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) be as independent and apolitical as possible.

Coinciding with the drop in Omicron cases, the White House announced last month that the CDC would ease federal mask-wearing guidelines. Furthermore, virtually all states (including ones run by Democratic governors) lifted mask mandates. Are these instances of following the science? Or, are public health officials and political leaders simply putting the pandemic in the rear-view mirror, a potential Omicron BA.2 wave, notwithstanding?

Whats clear is that theres enormous political pressure to return to normality, after two years of Covid-19 rules. Moving on - the Democratic Partys talking point suggests easing pandemic exhaustion - is an understandable human urge. But, that doesnt mean its science-based. And, this isnt the first instance of political behavior masquerading as science-based guidance.

When delivering statements on masking and vaccine efficacy against transmission of the coronavirus, the CDC has repeatedly used the phrase follow the science. Yet, the agency has changed course repeatedly on masks and moved the goalposts on vaccine efficacy. The end-result has been muddled messaging thats not necessarily rooted in science. As a consequence, this has contributed to public mistrust.

Experts have said that part of the resistance to masks, social distancing measures, and vaccines stems from confusing public messaging disseminated by public health officials throughout the pandemic.

The problem is exacerbated when multiple government agencies are involved in messaging and they contradict each other. An illustrative example of miscommunication, lack of coordination, and politicization was the first booster rollout in the autumn of 2021. In August 2021, President Biden said the Administration would begin offering boosters en masse on September 20th, pending Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and CDC authorization. A couple of weeks later, the FDA and CDC tried reining in the White House, saying that there wasnt enough data yet to make a blanket recommendation on boosters. And then, at the end of September 2021, the two government agencies themselves issued contradictory recommendations on boosters, which led to confusion. First, a panel of advisers to the FDA recommended booster shots for those over 65, at high risk of Covid-19 complications, or employed in sectors that put that at risk of severe Covid-19 teachers. Subsequently, about a week later, a different panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) - which is part of and advises CDC - stated that people employed in professions that may expose them to more risk of severe Covid-19, ought not to get boosters. A day later, the CDC director Walensky overruled ACIP.

This is merely one instance in which the FDA, CDC (and ACIP within CDC), and the White House clearly didnt communicate or coordinate optimally, and seemingly had different interpretations of follow the science.

To be fair, the CDC has been up against a vocal and influential anti-science movement, which makes messaging all that much more difficult. Bizarrely, for instance, in right-wing political circles, ivermectin became increasingly popular as an antidote to Covid-19. The drug has been embroiled in a Covid-19 culture war that pits unproven treatments, such as ivermectin, against proven measures, such as vaccines.

Also, many have called into question efforts to mitigate Covid-19 spread as well as vaccine mandates, asserting such public health measures intrude on individual rights. This has been a driving force behind the curbing of public health powers by state and local authorities. And, in the extreme, an anti-science mob has accused the worldwide public health movement of being fascist, likening vaccine mandates to the wearing of yellow stars of David, for instance.

But, its clear the problems of communication and messaging didnt help matters, and they began almost as soon as the pandemic struck.

Early in the pandemic, public health officials said masks were not necessary for anyone who was not showing symptoms. They in fact discouraged people from buying them.

The CDC then changed course in early April 2020, saying that new research showed asymptomatic carriers were common spreaders of the virus, though some experts say the evidence for proper mask usage had already been demonstrated.

One year later, CDC Director Walensky stated that vaccinated people do not carry the virus. On May 13th 2021, people were told they no longer needed to wear masks indoors or outdoors if they had been vaccinated. At the time, many scientists criticized the comments, saying it was too soon to know for certain what effect the vaccines may have on transmission. And, it turns out that vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta variant were found to be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated.

Walensky soon announced a reversal in guidance on masking among people who are vaccinated. The new guidance reflected a strategic retreat. Walensky stated that even people who are vaccinated should wear masks indoors in communities with substantial viral spread.

But, this wasnt the only mask blunder made by the CDC Director. Last month, Walensky called the mask the scarlet letter of this pandemic. This was a bizarre reference for something that doesnt evoke shame. Moreover, it was an exceedingly poor analogy. In Hawthornes famous book, at first, the scarlet letter that Hester Prynne wore was a punitive emblem; a symbol of shame for a sin committed. Surely, masks arent that. Then, the letter evolved over time to become a source of rejuvenation for Prynne. Masks arent that, either.

Besides poor messaging and unfortunately chosen metaphors, the CDC has also been hiding key data the agency has collected on hospitalizations stratified by age, sex, race and vaccination status. Similarly, the CDC has not released comprehensive efficacy data on boosters. To illustrate, two months ago, when the CDC published the data on the effectiveness of boosters in adults younger than 65, it left out the numbers for the 18 to 49 year old group. This kind of information could help state and local health officials better target their efforts to bring the virus under control. Nonetheless, the CDC has been reluctant to release this data for fear it may be misinterpreted.

Candor, based on nuanced and detailed analyses, builds trust. For example, it would be better to openly acknowledge vaccines limitations - theyre much better at preventing hospitalization than decreasing transmission - than to gloss over the issue. Whats worse, concealing or selectively cherry-picking data leads to a breach of trust, which the anti-science crowd seizes upon as it rails against the medical establishment.

CDC could do its part by being as neutral an arbiter as possible while improving messaging. In turn, this would lessen the mistrust that exists.

Its important to not allow questions of science to become captives of partisan politics on either side of the aisle, as this will have negative implications for future public health policies. Public health authorities should be consistent, truthful, and transparent, and not change mid-course due to political pressure. Otherwise, the publics confidence in government decision-makers erodes over time.

Full coverage and live updates on the Coronavirus

See the rest here:

Covid-19 Fallout: Ruinous Effects Of Politicization Of Public Health Agencies, Such As The CDC - Forbes