There has to be some sort of message discipline to stop confusing the public. I'm not talking about the other instances you bring into the discussion. I'm saying what I think THIS specific case was.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:37 amFirst, my quote is the second not the first.old salt wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:12 amWhat evidence do you have that Trump had anything to do with it ? Adm Giror told the Senate "it was widely misinterpreted, it was widely misrepresented." He told FNC, " ...there was no a reversal in guidelines. It was misinterpreted, it was misrepresented. We saw all kinds of ill activity stemming from that. Dr Redfeld clarified it the next day. As it kept getting misrepresented & it started propagating, he decided to update the guidance & clarify it even more. There's nothing more than that. "wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:33 pmnope, just more credibility lost as the Trump political folks have their hands into it. Again and again...which actually does matter.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:29 pm ...erroneously posted guidance is what's going to ding the cdc's credibility. or maybe ruin it! you couldn't make this stuff up.
Second, we have a series of instances when what was produced by the scientists was altered by the HHS communications group, post Caputo's coming in on behalf of Trump..
This one is just one....{snip}
Stories have been rolling out about the scientists being very PO'd about what was happening. And Caputo then had his meltdown and resigned, or whatever one wants to call his leaving that role.
The Smithfield case last spring, now known to be exactly as I describe, is particularly obvious. This is NOT the scientists, this is those dealing with the political pressures from the White House trying to tiptoe for them.
And now we have the President saying that the White House has to approve the FDA's requirements for approval of an EO, thinks that having the standard two months of data for side effects to emerge "sounds like politics'...
They're saying it out loud, salty.
It was a hastily written statement, not sufficiently reviewed by several sets of eyes looking for how it could be misinterpreted.
That's why you have experienced technical editors when issuing technical guidance.
Look at how hard it is reach consensus among all the tv experts, do you imagine it's any easier within the CDC FDA, NHS & the Task Force.
Wasn't Caputo already out of the loop by the time of this one ?