Facing criticism, CDC updates Covid-19 isolation recommendations with guidance on testing

[ThatRobGuy]

CDC updates Covid-19 isolation recommendations with guidance on testing - CNN


This is one of those stories that doesn't bode well for trying to get people who aren't taking guidance seriously, to actually start doing so. (as it'll just give them ammo to use an excuse for not following other types of guidelines)

I think the messaging has been particularly poor on this aspect.

If the CDC wants people (who are currently rejecting most of the other recommendations) to take them more seriously, altering guidance based on 'criticism' isn't a good way to do it.

I think a better approach would've just been a little more of an honest approach on this one.

Rather than suggesting that there was some miraculous breakthrough in the science that suggested that people are safe on day-6, I think they should've just said right from the get go "Hey, this variant is super-infectious... we can't have this many asymptomatic people not working for that long of a period of time, especially in essential jobs, Omicron is milder, so we're going to have to consider countervailing interests and balance some risks here"

Seems like they issued statements similar to that after the fact, but I think this one kind of reflects poorly on them.

Each time they do the "issue the guidance, then retract it soon thereafter" routine (not saying they've done it a lot, but there have been notable examples), it starts to appear less credible, and more like a game of "spin the wheel of science"...which basically plays into the hand of folks who are either anti-vaccine, or who want to use unproven or untested drugs.

 

[zippy2006]

I think they should've just said right from the get go "Hey, this variant is super-infectious... we can't have this many asymptomatic people not working for that long of a period of time, especially in essential jobs, Omicron is milder, so we're going to have to consider countervailing interests and balance some risks here"

The admission that Covid risk reduction is but one interest among many has been absent from the very start. We live in an age where prudence is lacking, and this seems to apply to policy makers as much as to ordinary citizens.

 

[Rachel20]

Each time they do the "issue the guidance, then retract it soon thereafter" routine (not saying they've done it a lot, but there have been notable examples), it starts to appear less credible

You are right about that. Whenever something takes on a politicized feel to me, I trust it much less, if at all.

 

[Tanj]

CDC updates Covid-19 isolation recommendations with guidance on testing - CNN


This is one of those stories that doesn't bode well for trying to get people who aren't taking guidance seriously, to actually start doing so. (as it'll just give them ammo to use an excuse for not following other types of guidelines)

I think the messaging has been particularly poor on this aspect.

If the CDC wants people (who are currently rejecting most of the other recommendations) to take them more seriously, altering guidance based on 'criticism' isn't a good way to do it.

I think a better approach would've just been a little more of an honest approach on this one.

Rather than suggesting that there was some miraculous breakthrough in the science that suggested that people are safe on day-6, I think they should've just said right from the get go "Hey, this variant is super-infectious... we can't have this many asymptomatic people not working for that long of a period of time, especially in essential jobs, Omicron is milder, so we're going to have to consider countervailing interests and balance some risks here"

Seems like they issued statements similar to that after the fact, but I think this one kind of reflects poorly on them.

Each time they do the "issue the guidance, then retract it soon thereafter" routine (not saying they've done it a lot, but there have been notable examples), it starts to appear less credible, and more like a game of "spin the wheel of science"...which basically plays into the hand of folks who are either anti-vaccine, or who want to use unproven or untested drugs.

Your government and its agencies are not alone in this perpetual stuff up. We have in some areas a 9 hour wait for a PCR test because some states but not others require a negative test for entry.

 

[FireDragon76]

The admission that Covid risk reduction is but one interest among many has been absent from the very start. We live in an age where prudence is lacking, and this seems to apply to policy makers as much as to ordinary citizens.

Balancing interests is the duty of politicians, not public health officials.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Balancing interests is the duty of politicians, not public health officials.

I would agree with that statement...however, many of our politicians didn't balance interests. Many immediately jumped on the "one death is one too many", and the ones who did try to balance countervailing interests got basically accused of "trying to kill Grandma".

Early on, when several nations were taking the "sledgehammer" approach, there were people here in the US suggesting something along the lines of "we should just approach it like Sweden...in the end, that's the model we'll all be implementing anyway since the sledgehammer approach isn't sustainable long-term"

People were criticized for saying that, but in the end, that is basically what happened for most countries.

It's my understanding that Sweden has a bit of a caveat with regards to being able to even implement such measures...IE: their constitution prevents any emergency order restricting the movement of people during peacetime...so maybe Sweden wanted to be a little stricter, but couldn't? (much like how many members of congress here want to impose some additional restrictions on firearms, but can't)

 

[zippy2006]

I would agree with that statement...however, many of our politicians didn't balance interests. Many immediately jumped on the "one death is one too many", and the ones who did try to balance countervailing interests got basically accused of "trying to kill Grandma".

True, and many more politicians abdicated their political responsibility by allowing medical scientists to take the lead. The politician defers to the scientist, the scientist defers to "the science," and all of the sudden it becomes impossible for anyone to take any real blame.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would agree with that statement...however, many of our politicians didn't balance interests. Many immediately jumped on the "one death is one too many", and the ones who did try to balance countervailing interests got basically accused of "trying to kill Grandma".

For a party that claims to be pro-life, putting a low monetary value on human life was incongruous with their stated values.

Early on, when several nations were taking the "sledgehammer" approach, there were people here in the US suggesting something along the lines of "we should just approach it like Sweden...in the end, that's the model we'll all be implementing anyway since the sledgehammer approach isn't sustainable long-term"

Other countries were able to largely contain the virus until widespread vaccination became available, or until the virus mutated into a less virulent form.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans died senselessly, in comparison.

True, and many more politicians abdicated their political responsibility by allowing medical scientists to take the lead. The politician defers to the scientist, the scientist defers to "the science," and all of the sudden it becomes impossible for anyone to take any real blame.

So? That's really not that bad of a thing. Part of the development of the modern western nation state has been reliance upon procedure and process. Responsibility is shared by different segments of the government and its advisors.

My objection has more to do with science being value-neutral, and politics being inherently value-laden (Hume's is-ought fallacy)

 

[trunks2k]

Your government and its agencies are not alone in this perpetual stuff up. We have in some areas a 9 hour wait for a PCR test because some states but not others require a negative test for entry.

*looks for available PCR testing in the area or even a rapid test in stock*

Awww... only 9 hours. that's cute.

 

[zippy2006]

My objection has more to do with science being value-neutral, and politics being inherently value-laden (Hume's is-ought fallacy)

The problem is that politics and policy decisions are always value-laden. Our government has recently tried to avoid that unavoidable fact.

("The Revolt Against Prudential Truth," by Charles de Koninck)