The trouble with the CDC is that they talk as though they're pure, disinterested scientists following the evidence, but often it seems they're actually making decisions for political reasons, and then fudging the science so they can claim it supports their decisions.
Their toolbox for fudging the science includes dismissing (or, better, completely ignoring) inconvenient studies; praising weak studies that support their position, and acting like the studies' flaws don't exist; and failing to apply obvious logical reasoning. Some of these could be interpreted as incompetence, which in some cases it probably is; other times it becomes blatant enough that incompetence seems implausible.
Here's one example, when, around the time of Omicron, the CDC changed their post-infection isolation guidelines from 10 days to 5 days. The CDC's announcement literally said "The change is motivated by science demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after". However, as a (CDC-favorable) Washington Post article said, "New CDC guidelines were spurred by worries omicron surge could lead to breakdown in essential services: Health officials worried that mass infections could result in tens of thousands of Americans unable to work"; "The guidance by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “was based on the anticipation of a large number of cases might impact societal function,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in an interview with The Post."
I mean, bullshit. This is most definitely not motivated primarily by science demonstrating a distribution of transmission. If it was, the guidelines would have changed when they learned about this, rather than exactly when the guidelines otherwise needed to change. [...]
So in the interest of making sure people could do [essential services], we’re shortening the period to five days. Understandable? Definitely. I can’t argue with it. I’m all for ‘following the economics.’ [...] But every time you say you are ‘following the science’ when you’re transparently not doing that on any level, you’re burning your credibility and the commons that much more. It needs to stop.
They were worried about the quarantine and isolation requirements taking large numbers out of work, not that the mass infections would be acute or disabling.
Their toolbox for fudging the science includes dismissing (or, better, completely ignoring) inconvenient studies; praising weak studies that support their position, and acting like the studies' flaws don't exist; and failing to apply obvious logical reasoning. Some of these could be interpreted as incompetence, which in some cases it probably is; other times it becomes blatant enough that incompetence seems implausible.
Here's one example, when, around the time of Omicron, the CDC changed their post-infection isolation guidelines from 10 days to 5 days. The CDC's announcement literally said "The change is motivated by science demonstrating that the majority of SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurs early in the course of illness, generally in the 1-2 days prior to onset of symptoms and the 2-3 days after". However, as a (CDC-favorable) Washington Post article said, "New CDC guidelines were spurred by worries omicron surge could lead to breakdown in essential services: Health officials worried that mass infections could result in tens of thousands of Americans unable to work"; "The guidance by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “was based on the anticipation of a large number of cases might impact societal function,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in an interview with The Post."
Detailed discussion here (including discussion of lots of problems with the guidelines themselves): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uGvYtExLobWz2RixS/cdc-change...
I mean, bullshit. This is most definitely not motivated primarily by science demonstrating a distribution of transmission. If it was, the guidelines would have changed when they learned about this, rather than exactly when the guidelines otherwise needed to change. [...]
So in the interest of making sure people could do [essential services], we’re shortening the period to five days. Understandable? Definitely. I can’t argue with it. I’m all for ‘following the economics.’ [...] But every time you say you are ‘following the science’ when you’re transparently not doing that on any level, you’re burning your credibility and the commons that much more. It needs to stop.